Hunger is a real problem in our country, but the gimmickry of the “food-stamp challenge” recently undertaken by members of Congress adds little to discussions on how best to help the hungry or poor. Nor does any other argument that ignores the many different faces of poverty and the fact that money inevitably can flow to different uses.
The challenge involved trying to live on the food that one can purchase with $21 a week. That is how much the average food-stamp recipient gets. As one might expect, it is nearly impossible to maintain a healthy diet of even minimal variety on that sum.
Senators prowling supermarkets in search of mac and cheese makes good footage for TV news, but it can obscure important issues.
First, food stamps never were intended to pay for all the food that the recipient might eat. When Congress instituted the program in 1964, benefits were to supplement other income, whether earned at a job or received from programs like Social Security or “welfare” in various forms.
Second, the simple average of $21 per week masks great variation. An individual can get as much as $155 a month or as little as $10. A third of households receive the maximum benefit, which totals $499 per month for a family of four. That won’t pay such a family’s entire food bill, but it is not negligible.
Third, the challenge ignores the fungibility of government payments. Even when supplied via an Electronic Benefit Transfer card, a dollar of food-stamp benefits typically increases a family’s food consumption by just 25 cents to 30 cents. This is not due to fraud or misuse. Instead, it reflects the reality that when households get funds earmarked for food, that frees up some of their own money for other things.
Studies show that nearly all of the money that’s freed up when food stamps are used for other necessities, despite prejudiced myths about food stamps being used for liquor or drugs.
Such myths reflect popular views that poor households cannot be trusted to spend money wisely. That is why we have a separate food-stamp program rather than cash grants and why there are other programs for rent, heating assistance and so forth.
I sympathize with the aims of members of Congress trying to eat on $21 a month. I think we should spend more tax dollars helping the poor. But we need to take a broad look at the adequacy and effectiveness of all programs.
Nearly 80 percent of all food-stamp benefits go to households with children. Half of all recipient households are on Social Security or get Supplemental Security Income. About a third have some income from working. A fourth of all recipient households include a disabled person.
Poverty is complex. We need to talk about these broader issues, not just how many cans of tuna or beans you can buy with $21.
© 2007 Edward Lotterman
Chanarambie Consulting, Inc.