Cutting Food Stamps — Again

Terry H. Schwadron

Oct. 13, 2019

Just how many times can the Trump administration cut food stamps?

The Agriculture Department moved last week to eliminate $4.5 billion in spending over five years by changing the rules over paying for heat in colder, northern states. It was the third such reduction in a year.

The effects will vary, but will cut between $30 and $75 a month worth of benefits per household for about a fifth of food stamp recipients, affecting millions. About 8,000 households would lose benefits entirely.

These are budget cuts that aim at older, disabled people, children and working families trying to stay above the poverty line. Of course, they are overshadowed in this debate by Republican leaders who have long campaigned against increased federal spending to keep households intact.

In this case, the Trump administration is acting without Congressional involvement, to change the way the Agriculture Department determines housing and utility costs. Under the rules, the department would set a fixed price for heating and cooling costs based on average costs.

Clearly, however, some areas, some states, are colder or hotter than others across the year. By paying a fixed fee, households will be caught short trying to heat apartments during the winter in particular locations.

The Agriculture Department said some areas will actually gain in benefits. But the gains would average $13 a month in southern states, and the cuts to northern states would be between $31 and $75.

The department had studied the issue and learned that on average, some households were getting too much and some too little. These changes would modernize the benefits system and improve program integrity, the department said.

Since the 1970s, states have provided estimates on household spending for heating and cooling, electricity, trash collection and other utilities that vary over the year — all in an effort to reduce administrative costs of matching bills and benefits.

Previously, the department had placed more stringent work requirements on food stamp recipients — the vast majority of whom already do work — and had another rule affecting eligibility that stripped benefits from three million people.

It does seem strange that we can afford bailouts to Big Agriculture to deflect the costs of trade wars, we can support huge increases in military spending and corporate tax cuts, but we cannot have an intelligent assessment for the costs of poverty.

##

www.terryschwadron.wordpress.com