News

Food Stamps Cut By $5 Billion. 5 Reasons That's a Bad Idea

Today, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — aka SNAP, aka food stamps — will be cut by thirteen percent, or $5 billion, due to the expiration of a temporary boost in the program’s spending from the 2009 stimulus package. These cuts, the vast majority of which will affect families with children, are unrelated to House Republicans’ unrelenting efforts to slash the program as much as possible, although the GOP is surely writhing in delight over these latest cuts.

But they shouldn’t be. The benefits of food stamps reach beyond just the people who receive them, and if Congress had any sense, they’d vote to sustain the increased funding for the program, at least until the recession wanes a bit more. Here are five reasons why.

by Seth Millstein

Food Stamps Are Good For The Economy

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the principle of the government redistributing income to feed poor people, numerous studies have shown food stamps to be one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus there is, if not the most effective outright. A 2008 research paper by Moody’s found that every $5 in food stamps spending results in $9 of total economic activity, an almost doubling of the money. This was a bigger bang-per-buck than tax rebates, unemployment benefits, or tax incentives for businesses. If Congress truly wants to lift the economy out of the doldrums, food stamps are the way to go.

Food Stamps Create Jobs

Another example of the macroeconomic benefits of SNAP can be seen in farming sector. Every $1 billion worth of food purchased with food stamps creates an estimated 3,300 farm jobs, according to the Department of Agriculture, which means the November 1st cuts will preliminarily kill roughly 16,500 jobs before they’re created. “But 16,500 jobs isn’t all that much,” you say. Well, it is to those 16,500 people.

Stephen Pond/Getty Images Sport/Getty Images

Food Stamps Largely Benefit Children

Michael Tomasky wrote last week that cutting food stamps is “quite literally taking food out of the mouths of children,” and he is right. Most food stamps — 83 percent, to be exact — go to homes with kids. Around 45 percent of food stamp recipients in 2011 were children, and when the stimulus funds expire Friday, a family of four will receive $46 less per month for food. In addition to the obvious fact that kids are the last people who deserve punishment during a recession, there’s also evidence that hunger seriously hinders academic performance. Hungry children have poorer math scores and are more likely to be held back a grade or drop out of school entirely, and these sorts of setbacks have serious economic effects down the line — not just for the children, but for everyone.

A $5 Billion Cut Is Utterly Insignificant To The Deficit

What’s most aggravating about this is that while the effects of the food stamps cut will be felt very hard by the 48 million Americans who benefit from SNAP, a $5 billion reduction in federal spending is peanuts when compared with how much money the government spends on a daily basis. In 2011, the Department of Defense spent $5 billion every three days. In other words, American would achieve the same amount of savings from a $5 billion yearly cut in food stamps as it would from a one percent reduction in military spending. The costs of the SNAP cut will be extremely harsh, but the benefits will be nearly non-existent.

It’s Almost Thanksgiving

I mean, really? If you’re going to diminish 48 million low-income Americans’ already limited capacity to buy food, November 1st is possibly the worst time to do it. Thanksgiving is a time to, among other things, try and forget about one’s problems, reconnect with loved ones, and eat. The timing of the SNAP cuts makes even this more difficult.

15