Upset for the Wrong Reason

To the Editor: 
The column offered by Art Hall last week distorts the story concerning participants on the rolls of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). To simply suggest rampant abuse and laziness by SNAP recipients through the example of Jason Greenslate misrepresents reality. The numbers provided by a study from the conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, provide a misconstrued portrait concerning participants of SNAP. Moreover, it’s not unemployed, single adults who threaten the fabric of this country, but rather the transition from the War on Poverty, once waged by Lyndon B. Johnson, to a War on the Poor, focused on demonizing the country’s most vulnerable population.
Contrary to the report by the Heritage Foundation, which insinuates an increase in SNAP expenditures, I have found several studies and reports that suggest spending will continue to fall, which it already has since SNAP’s peak in 2013. The reason for spending increases towards SNAP is due to the rise of eligible individuals following the Great Recession in 2007. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) the number of eligible individuals soared from 37 million in 2007 to 45 million in 2009 and finally 51 million in 2013. Furthermore, the participation of SNAP-eligible individuals receiving benefits rose from 69 percent to 85 percent, which helps prove individuals who received SNAP were in need of government assistance. More importantly, to put spending into perspective, in 2013 SNAP only accounted for .5 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP). Today, it has decreased to around .4 percent, and it is projected to decrease further.
It is also important to note that SNAP participation is falling following its peak in 2013. CBPP has reported that more than 40 states across the country have seen a decline in SNAP caseloads. In addition, states have also begun to re-impose the three-month benefits limit for unemployed adults aged 18-49 who aren’t disabled or raising children. These individuals are limited to three months every three years unless they are working at least part-time or participating in a work training program for 20 hours per week. As the CBPP reports, SNAP benefits for this group of individuals average around $150-$170 per person per month. The re-imposition of this austere provision will increase economic hardship among these individuals, as the average income of this group of unemployed, single adults is around less than 20 percent of the poverty line. The poverty line income threshold for a household of one is $11,770, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Twenty percent of this poverty threshold is estimated at $2,354. The CBPP further projects that this re-imposition will force 500,000 to 1 million individuals off SNAP rolls throughout 2016, some of them will not have a job to fall back on and that is not due to their own volition. So, it is wrong to both suggest that a majority of these individuals are defrauding the U.S. government, and insist they are disqualified from SNAP benefits altogether.
Finally, I believe it is high time we stop attacking the country’s most vulnerable, and begin to focus on the millionaires and billionaires who have evaded paying income taxes. Yet, Republicans and conservatives look to demonize poor individuals and families for receiving government assistance, while continuing to advocate decreasing taxes for millionaire and billionaire families, who can often incur the same tax rate as a family earning $100,000 a year. How is that fair? Instead of getting upset towards a valuable lifeline for low-income Americans, begin focusing on the policies that have decimated the middle class, because it’s not Mr. Greenslate.