Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - Term Paper Example

Welfare and Food Stamps Introduction Food Stamps, a food assistance program, currently known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), is America’s fastest growing social welfare program. Currently, food insecurity exists, and more people continue to join the program. It is indistinct whether the Food Stamp Program is beneficial to Americans. Federal and state government policies determine eligibility standards into the welfare program. Surprisingly, government strategies and policy decisions encourage participation of more people into the program. The main aim of food stamps is to perk up levels of nutrition and improve the agricultural economy. The program has tried to reduce hunger and improve food security among low-income Americans. This paper will discuss the high administration costs, alleged fraud cases in the program, and the negative effect on the labor market make it a failure. There is a need for urgent reforms in the food program to reduce enrolment and government spending, and localize it to the state level. Body The history of food stamps dates back to the 1930s. The Food Stamp program was both a farm price support program as an anti-poverty one. This has been the case since the early days of the program in the 1930s. The depletion of food surpluses and mismanagement saw the phase out of the program. It took several years to re-establish the program and congress passed legislation to provide food stamps to low-income Americans. However, only pilot programs took shape. It was only after President Lyndon Johnson directed congress to pass the Food Stamp Act of 1964 that saw the initiation of the modern food stamp program. The main aim of the program was to boost the agricultural economy and improve nutritional levels of Americans. Presently, it faces several challenges, especially after the 2002 farm bill, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, and Energy Act of 2008 under the Obama administration, allowed noncitizens to register. This, coupled with easier claiming of benefits, increased the trend of registration to the program. After the change of name from ‘food stamps’ to the ‘Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program’, President Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill further stretched the program by increasing benefits by 13.6 percent (Tanner 2). Consequently, roughly 48 million Americans receive SNAP benefits today, and in so doing, this gives taxpayers a yearly cost of more than $78 billion (Tanner 2). Because of this surge, critics suggest that food stamps and the farm bill should be two separate entities for better management in an aim to reassess the program, and encourage cuts in spending. There is a need to scrutinize the recent growth in SNAP because of its strain on government funding, and reassess its benefits in addressing food security. Food insecurity is a real threat in several American households, and this has seen the number registered in the welfare program rise from 17 million in 2000, to approximately 48 million in the contemporary society (Tanner 1). This saw an increase from $18 billion to the current $78 billion in taxpayers’ money. The government ranks the program second to Medicaid, which uses a significant portion of the government’s resources. Dean Jolliffe, Craig Gundersen, Laura Tiehen, and Joshua Winicki (2005) affirm that the Food Stamp Program has a role in poverty alleviation, specifically child poverty (569). Their research indicates that the program has helped reduce child poverty in several households. To say the least, the effects are minimal (Jolliffe, Gundersen, Tiehen, and Winicki, 2005), compared to the gravity of the food security problem in American households. The government currently plans to decrease food stamp spending to pre-recession levels in order to stabilize the economy through reduced spending in the sector. This may negatively affect the upward trend that their benefits currently show, and affect food security. In addition, it has triggered debates on disallowing food stamp payments to illegal immigrant families because it affects other Americans (Rector and Bradley 1). Both the federal and state governments regulate SNAP. Compared to other welfare programs, administration at the state level provides the chance to set eligibility rules, which result in different outcomes across states. The recent recession and unemployment trends across states seem to play a minimal influence on the increase in numbers. Even so, it is an “automatic stabilizer,” because its beneficiaries and government spending often increase during hard-hitting economic times (Congressional Budget Office 1). States have the ability to transform the policy option set by federal laws and regulations. This means that rules concerning eligibility into the program vary across different states. Although the federal government at present pays direct benefits, California’s costs to manage benefits however are higher than other states. If the government allows California to handle the benefits directly, they can boost participation in the program and lower administrative costs significantly (Danielson and Klerman 6). Administration at the state level also helps in monitoring and reduction of fraud. The food stamp program/SNAP is only one of 12 federal programs that offer food aid to the underprivileged. One cannot examine food stamps in isolation because most people who collect food stamps also take part in other government aid programs (Rector and Bradley 1). This makes administration difficult at the federal level because of the several programs. In addition, it increases the instances of fraud because of the difficulty and need of abundant resources to monitor all the welfare programs. examples of fraud include officials in the New York City's Human Resources Administration were caught fabricating 1,500 fake food-stamp cases from which they made $8 million, and a Louisiana state public servant took part in a fraud that snared more than $50,000 in fake food-stamp benefits (Bovard 1). There is a need for more staff to ensure accurate and timely information about recipients’ earnings, and other necessary factors of eligibility. Close supervision at the state level also closes loopholes that allow food stamp recipients to find a way around income and asset examinations and unnaturally increase caseloads and costs to unmanageable levels. The Food Stamp Program has an effect on labor supply and work incentives. Recent studies indicate that the introduction or expansion of the social welfare program has affected work effort in a negative manner (Hoynes and Schanzenbach 151). There is a reduction in employment and hours worked after the introduction of food stamps. In America, Food stamp benefits are the primary safety net because they serve all members of a family, unlike other welfare programs that concentrate on a particular section of the population. Even so, this serves as a detriment because some people see food stamps as an easy way to get food without working. To ease this problem, there are suggestions to convert food stamps into a work activation program in such a way that one must be employed as a factor of receiving aid. Able-bodied food stamp recipients do not require competing with disabled people for food stamps, as long as there are employment opportunities. Despite the criticism, food stamps have benefitted the lives of low-income and even middle-income Americans in several ways. Benefit recipients often increase their spending on food and this enhances food security. In addition, money that they would otherwise have spent on food is spent on other resources that can improve their welfare. Americans now have adequate food and can concentrate in ensuring that their diet is nutritious and promote healthy living. In addition, surplus from agricultural farms has some use and this boosts the sector. It has helped reduce health complications among Americans because of non-nutritious diet and food insufficiency (Heflin and Ziliak 706). Conclusion In conclusion, Food Stamps present both advantages and disadvantages. Urgent reforms are necessary to improve services and ensure the success of the Food Stamps Program. Relaxed eligibility and increased benefits result in the increase in numbers of people under SNAP. This has proven detrimental for the United States economy and has minimal significance in improving the welfare of Americans. Food stamps play their role in the economy, but owing to increased government spending, and reduction in the availability of labor, they have hampered the normal functioning of the economy. Although food stamps have not miraculously alleviated the economic status and food security for families, it has improved the lives of many underprivileged Americans who would have otherwise been worse off. Works Cited Bovard, James. The Food-Stamp Crime Wave. The Wall Street Journal. June 23, 2011. Congressional Budget Office. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. APRIL 2012. Danielson, Caroline and Jacob Klerman. Carlifonia’s Food Stamp Program. Participation and Cost Challenges for the State. Public Policy Institute of California. Heflin, Colleen and James Ziliak. Food Insufficiency, Food Stamp Participation, and Mental Health. Social Science Quarterly, Volume 89, Number 3, September 2008. Hoynes, Hillary and Diane Schanzenbach. Work incentives and the Food Stamp Program. Elsevier. Journal of Public Economics 96 (2012) 151–162. Jolliffe, Dean, Craig Gundersen, Laura Tiehen, and Joshua Winicki. Food Stamp Benefits and Child Poverty. American Agricultural Economics Association. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 87(3) (August 2005): 569–581 Rector, Robert and Katherine Bradley. Reforming the Food Stamp Program. The Heritage Foundation. July 25, 2012. Tanner, Michael. SNAP Failure the Food Stamp Program Needs Reform. Policy Analysis, No. 738. 2013. Read More