Compensation Not Cruelty

Republicans are attempting to make a $30 billion cut to the SNAP program within the current Farm Bill. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has been a continual target of Republicans over the last several years, although the current approach is more subtle than usual in response to the strong pushback against past efforts.

The new measure would make SNAP benefits rise or fall in line with changes to overall food inflation. This is an issue because it doesn’t account for changes in costs specifically related to nutritional food, a problem that had been plaguing the assistance program until recent changes corrected the outdated methodologies.

A review back in 2021 found that benefits were assuming an average family of four (2 adults and 2 children) bought only raw ingredients and would spend two hours every day preparing food from scratch. The assumption was completely out of line with modern times, and that review led to a large increase in SNAP benefits to better align with expenses. If the benefits were simply tied to food inflation, they could easily fall out of line with nutrition costs once again.

The 2021 review resulted from a mandate added to the program in 2018. This mandate requires the USDA to review the benefits every five years to ensure their adequacy in meeting the needs of individuals and families. With this review process in place, there is no need for automatic benefit adjustments.

An individual/household has to earn less than 130% of the poverty level to qualify for SNAP, meaning that only the most in-need Americans can benefit from the program. And even then, the average payment per SNAP recipient is just $129 a month. The overall annual cost to the federal government is ~$120 billion.

Finding ways to cut back on SNAP benefits won’t solve our federal deficit of $1.7 trillion. It would hardly even dent it, but it would put the over 40 million Americans who rely on the program at serious risk of hunger. 

So why do Republicans keep trying to make cuts to a desperately needed program instead of addressing the underlying issues that have created a nation where over 12% of the US population requires food assistance?

Republicans previously argued that there weren’t strict enough work requirements. They claimed recipients were happy to take handouts while doing nothing. The amount given by SNAP doesn't allow people to live off of that assistance alone, and the benefits are given on prepaid cards that can only be used at authorized retailers to ensure that the money is going towards its intended use. 

The data shows that people don’t want to try to live off of this assistance. A large portion of recipients are transitory, relying on the program only when life events happen, which puts them out of work and leaves them without enough savings to get by. 2/3rds of recipients receive benefits for less than two years. That highlights a fundamental flaw in strict work requirements for assistance programs. These programs are often needed precisely because someone has lost their job and is out of work.

Even still, over half of SNAP recipients work during the month they receive the benefits, and 75% work within the past year or the month after receiving benefits. The fact that so many SNAP recipients are working while receiving the benefits but still have an income low enough to qualify for the program shows that a work requirement will never solve the need for assistance. 

Meanwhile, the federal minimum wage hasn’t been increased since 2009, staying stuck at just $7.25 an hour. In 2023, the national average living wage for a family of four was $25 an hour. This means that if both parents worked full-time minimum-wage jobs, they wouldn’t be able to pay their bills. Even working the equivalent of three full-time minimum wage jobs still wouldn’t cover the bills, which don’t account for child care when both parents are working.

While a few states still use the federal minimum wage, most have set a higher minimum wage. However, not a single state in the US has reached a level where the minimum wage is high enough to be a living wage, even for a single adult without a family. 

Combine that low pay with the fact that minimum wage jobs typically don't offer advancement opportunities while requiring long commutes and variable hours, and workers stuck in these positions don’t have the ability to put time or money aside to learn new skills and achieve better-paying jobs.

There is a poverty cycle in America that is underappreciated and often completely ignored. Instead of taking action to break that cycle, Republicans are trying to take away the assistance, allowing those in need to get enough food for themselves and their families.

Why does Congress continually refuse to raise the federal minimum wage? We’ve seen much higher minimum wages, such as when they peaked in 1968. The result was a thriving middle class and a higher average GDP for our nation. The fear-mongering about problems arising from raising the minimum wage doesn’t hold water.

Since Congress is looking to tie something to inflation, why not change the federal minimum wage to be equal to the peak in 1968, adjusted for today’s inflation, and then have it automatically increase each year based on current inflation rates? 

That would bring the federal minimum wage to $17 an hour today, over double the current amount. Looking back on the average living wage for a family of four of $25, two working adults would no longer need federal assistance to feed their children.

But Congress has always refused to tie the federal minimum wage to inflation. This has caused the minimum wage to decline continuously, eroded the middle class, and led to the 40 million Americans who are stuck relying on food assistance today.

While Republicans find it unacceptable to raise the minimum wage, they had no issue lowering corporate tax rates from 35% to 21%. Nor did they see anything wrong with giving large tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. Both of these skyrocketed the national debt—the same debt that the GOP now tries to use as an excuse to cut assistance programs, such as SNAP.

It is cruel to continue to create more tax cuts and loopholes for those who are raking in billions of dollars every year, only to turn around and say that we can’t afford to raise the minimum wage or give a hungry person a mere $129 a month to buy food.

Our priorities have become warped, and our narrative immoral. We can easily solve poverty and hunger, but we are choosing not to.