Food Stamps Put Poor Kids on Path to Success

[GMDino]

**Opinion Piece**

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-04/verdict-is-in-food-stamps-put-poor-kids-on-path-to-success

Quote:Congress is expected to vote this week on a new farm bill, which includes changes to the food stamp program. Lawmakers should take the time to read up on recent research about the program’s effects. Innovative research has demonstrated convincingly that young children whose families receive food stamps benefit later in life.



Food stamps, technically known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, is the nation’s most important anti-hunger program. Last year, more than 40 million low-income working families, people with disabilities and poor seniors received assistance, averaging about $125 a month. Roughly 70 percent of the participants live in families with children.

The classic problem in teasing out the impact of something like food assistance to poor working families with children is the old adage about correlation versus causation. Because we don’t randomly assign families to the program, it can be hard to tell what impact the program itself had. But the researchers – led in particular by Hilary Hoynes of the University of California at Berkeley and Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach of Northwestern University – have a clever way of getting around that problem.

The food stamp program was established on a pilot basis in eight poor counties by President John F. Kennedy in 1961; the pilot was expanded to more than 40 counties in the early 1960s. The Food Stamp Act of 1964 then authorized the creation of a program in every county in the nation, at the county’s option. More and more counties adopted the program, and legislation in 1973 then mandated that every county participate by 1975. So between 1962 and 1975, the program became available in an increasing number of counties.

It’s this gradual rollout that allows the researchers to study the effects of the program, because children living in otherwise similar families either did or didn’t receive benefits depending on whether their county voluntarily participated at the time. (The researchers show that county choice seems to be unrelated to other factors that may have substantially affected children living there.)

The economists focus on people born between 1956 and 1981, who were young children when the program was expanding, and who grew up in families with a parent with less than a high school education. They find that access to the program as a young child significantly improved economic outcomes and health status as an adult.

In particular, food stamp access as a child was associated with much lower risk of metabolic syndrome as an adult and, especially for women, higher levels of educational attainment and income along with lower participation on means-tested benefit programs. For example, food stamp access during childhood is linked to a 5 percentage point reduction in heart disease and an 18 percentage point increase in high school completion rates, compared to those who lacked access.

This evidence contradicts some critiques of food stamps, which misleadingly argue that it’s an inefficient and ineffective program.

The authors also highlight that access seems to matter most in utero and up until age 5. Gaining access to food stamps after age 5, by contrast, didn’t improve health outcomes as an adult, perhaps because the person had already been put on a particular health trajectory by that age.

The research demonstrates a few key points.

First, finding ways of getting past the “correlation versus causation” challenge is crucial to producing convincing evidence.

Second, the returns to investing in young kids must be examined over long periods. A broader array of evidence suggests that investments during early childhood in other means-tested benefit programs such as Medicaid pay large dividends later, and that’s exactly what the food stamps research shows. If you do the analysis only during the year the benefit is received, you miss this dynamic effect.

As policy makers debate changes to the program this week, they should take into account the evidence that food stamps are a wise investment in the futures of low-income young children.

Doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand that less stress about where (of there will even be) a next meal is coming from leads to better students and better people.

But they need save some pennies to spend on the military cut the deficit. 

[*michaelsean*]

(12-06-2018, 11:17 AM)GMDino Wrote: **Opinion Piece**

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-04/verdict-is-in-food-stamps-put-poor-kids-on-path-to-success



Doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand that less stress about where (of there will even be) a next meal is coming from leads to better students and better people.

But they need save some pennies to spend on the military cut the deficit. 

Who is cutting food stamps? According to your link the only thing they wanted to do was to raise the work requirement age and that didn't even pass.  

[GMDino]

(12-06-2018, 12:49 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Who is cutting food stamps?  Last I saw the only thing they wanted to do was to raise the work requirement age and that didn't even pass.  

Trying to cut the number of people on it.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/food-stamp-work-requirements_us_5c004486e4b027f1097bdc87

Quote:Over the summer, the Senate passed a bipartisan farm bill that included modest anti-fraud provisions, while the House passed a Republican-only bill with new rules that would have reduced program enrollment by more than 1 million over 10 years.

More than 38 million Americans receive monthly SNAP benefits that can be used only to buy food in grocery stores. The program already has work requirements for the subset of recipients who are able-bodied adults without minor children. The House bill would have applied the requirements to parents of children older than 6 and unemployed adults in their 50s, who had previously been exempt.

They wisely took it out to get it to pass in the Senate.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-06-2018, 01:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: Trying to cut the number of people on it.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/food-stamp-work-requirements_us_5c004486e4b027f1097bdc87



They wisely took it out to get it to pass in the Senate.

So everything worked out like it should.  Compromise.  What everyone claims to want.  Were they trying to cut the number of people on it, or reduce the number of people who needed it? I mean reducing it by 1 million people out of 40 million people over ten years isn't exactly a giant budget savings relatively speaking.

The results of the study are interesting, I just don't know why it was necessary to add politics.   

[GMDino]

(12-06-2018, 02:06 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So everything worked out like it should.  Compromise.  What everyone claims to want.  Were they trying to cut the number of people on it, or reduce the number of people who needed it?  I mean reducing it by  1 million people out of 40 million people over ten years isn't exactly a giant budget savings relatively speaking.

The results of the study are interesting, I just don't know why it was necessary to add politics.   

The politics of it is, as you said, SNAP is a drop in the bucket but always ran out by the GOP has a place that needs constant reform to save us money.

Meanwhile the military....

Well, ignore that spending.

Any social service gets maligned as riddled with fraud and costing too much by our friends on the right.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-06-2018, 02:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: The politics of it is, as you said, SNAP is a drop in the bucket but always ran out by the GOP has a place that needs constant reform to save us money.

Meanwhile the military....

Well, ignore that spending.

Any social service gets maligned as riddled with fraud and costing too much by our friends on the right.

SNAP isn't   a drop in the bucket exactly, but the savings from having 1 million fewer over ten years would be.  I'm curious though as to what would cause there to be one million less people.  Since the main change would have been work requirement rules it would seem that drop would be from people who don't need it anymore.  

[GMDino]

(12-06-2018, 02:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: SNAP isn't   a drop in the bucket exactly, but the savings from having 1 million fewer over ten years would be.  I'm curious though as to what would cause there to be one million less people.  Since the main change would have been work requirement rules it would seem that drop would be from people who don't need it anymore.  

https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/presidents-budget-would-cut-food-assistance-for-millions-and-radically

Quote:President Trump’s 2019 budget proposes to cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) by more than $213 billion over the next ten years — nearly a 30 percent cut — through radically restructuring how benefits are delivered, cutting eligibility for at least 4 million people, and reducing benefits for many others.  (See Table 1.)[1]  The unemployed, the elderly, and low-income working families with children would bear the brunt of the cuts.  These proposals come on the heels of a tax law the President championed that will mainly benefit the wealthy and corporations and that’s expected to add $1.5 trillion to deficits over ten years.




The largest SNAP savings in the budget would come from cutting household benefits by more than $260 billion over ten years — some 40 percent — and using about half these funds to provide households a government-purchased non-perishable food box in lieu of food that households would otherwise purchase at the grocery store.  In addition to the enormous benefit cut, the proposal would radically restructure how SNAP benefits are provided for the vast majority of recipients, upending SNAP’s successful and efficient public-private partnership with some 260,000 retail stores around the country in favor a new government-driven approach to procuring food for SNAP households.  Such a system would be a significant cost shift to states and nonprofit food distributors, and would be disruptive and costly for current SNAP participants.


The President’s budget would also expand the reach of a stringent three-month time limit under the existing program.  Currently, SNAP participants age 18 to 49 who are not raising minor children cannot receive benefits for more than three months in a 36-month period unless they work 20 hours a week.  States can exempt particularly vulnerable individuals, such as those in high-unemployment areas.  But the President’s budget would make qualifying for those exemptions much harder.  It also would raise the maximum age for those facing the time limit to 62 beginning in 2021, exposing 2 million more individuals to the limits, including older Americans who face additional obstacles to work.



Other harmful effects of the SNAP provisions in the budget include eliminating a state option that supports working families by addressing a benefit cliff that would otherwise cause working families to lose benefits as their earnings rise; cutting benefits for people with disabilities and for the elderly; penalizing large families; and cutting benefits for many households that pay for utilities out of pocket.  

Saving about 2 billion a year.

https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2019/fy2019_Press_Release.pdf

Quote:Today President Donald J. Trump sent Congress a proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 budget request of $716 billion for national security, $686 billion of which is for the Department of Defense. The National Defense Strategy, which aligns with the National Security Strategy, connects strategy to the FY 2019 budget priorities, enabling the Department to compete, deter, and win. This establishes a foundation for rebuilding the U.S. military into a more capable, lethal, and ready Joint Force. The objectives of the Department are “to be prepared to defend the homeland, remain the preeminent military power in the world, ensure the balances of power remain in our favor, and advance an international order that is most conducive to our security and prosperity.” The FY 2019 budget has been developed to meet these specific objectives.

While increasing military spending.

That doesn't even include that the savings wouldn't even cover the 5 billion Trump wants for his wall. (He only got 1.6 for the border)

[*michaelsean*]

(12-06-2018, 02:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/presidents-budget-would-cut-food-assistance-for-millions-and-radically



Saving about 2 billion a year.

https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2019/fy2019_Press_Release.pdf



While increasing military spending.

That doesn't even include that the savings wouldn't even cover the 5 billion Trump wants for his wall. (He only got 1.6 for the border)

I don't care what he babbles about.  He has no say.  I'm talking about what the Republicans put forward and what was ultimately passed.  You may disagree with what they proposed, but it's not like it was some radical out there proposal.

[GMDino]

(12-06-2018, 02:49 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't care what he babbles about.  He has no say.  I'm talking about what the Republicans put forward and what was ultimately passed.  You may disagree with what they proposed, but it's not like it was some radical out there proposal.

Yep.  I disagree with what they proposed AND I think they should be ashamed for proposing it.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-06-2018, 03:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yep.  I disagree with what they proposed AND I think they should be ashamed for proposing it.

You think they should be ashamed that they wanted to change the work requirement rules to go from 49 to 59 and mother's with school age children?  OK then.  

[GMDino]

(12-06-2018, 03:13 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You think they should be ashamed that they wanted to change the work requirement rules to go from 49 to 59 and mother's with school age children?  OK then.  

Indeed.  That they look to change social programs while expanding military ones.

Poor choices and they should be ashamed.

[jj22]

I think we could get further on the Welfare/Food Stamps debate if political parties didn't paint people as "welfare queens" or act like it's only minorities that get them, and act like everyone just takes advantage of it and lives better then millionaires. Politics has muddied the argument so much that it's more of a protection of the purpose versus and overall review of the program and if it does what it's intended to do..

[Belsnickel]

(12-06-2018, 03:13 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You think they should be ashamed that they wanted to change the work requirement rules to go from 49 to 59 and mother's with school age children?  OK then.  

I think that any attempt to reduce the need for the program needs to come from creating/updating social programs that help to put people to work rather than just changing eligibility around and hoping people get the message and get off their asses. That's not an effective strategy, but it is what the Republican policy banks on. It's voodoo economics, as Bush 41 said about Reaganomics.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-06-2018, 05:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think that any attempt to reduce the need for the program needs to come from creating/updating social programs that help to put people to work rather than just changing eligibility around and hoping people get the message and get off their asses. That's not an effective strategy, but it is what the Republican policy banks on. It's voodoo economics, as Bush 41 said about Reaganomics.

Like I said, disagree if you want, but these weren't some draconian proposals.  

[*michaelsean*]

(12-06-2018, 05:08 PM)jj22 Wrote: I think we could get further on the Welfare/Food Stamps debate if political parties didn't paint people as "welfare queens" or act like it's only minorities that get them, and act like everyone just takes advantage of it and lives better then millionaires. Politics has muddied the argument so much that it's more of a protection of the purpose versus and overall review of the program and if it does what it's intended to do..

Or that anybody who wants to change it somehow wants to starve children.  We can't seem to merely disagree anymore, but have to paint others as evil. 

[Belsnickel]

(12-06-2018, 05:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Like I said, disagree if you want, but these weren't some draconian proposals.  

Kicking people off of the program without doing anything to make it so they no longer need it while costs of living are increasing around the country? You may not think it's draconian, but plenty of people would disagree.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-06-2018, 05:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Kicking people off of the program without doing anything to make it so they no longer need it while costs of living are increasing around the country? You may not think it's draconian, but plenty of people would disagree.

There's already a work requirement.  They just discussed expanding it.  Especially the one that changes it from 49 to 59. If  requiring someone to work 20 hours a week if they are healthy and have no minor dependents and are between 50 and 60 is draconian then I guess that's what i am.  We are talking any job, 4 hours a day.  I'm not sure what the objection is.

Edit: And I wouldn't object to having some sort of job training substituting for working.

[Belsnickel]

(12-06-2018, 05:53 PM)michaelsean Wrote: There's already a work requirement.  They just discussed expanding it.  Especially the one that changes it from 49 to 59. If  requiring someone to work 20 hours a week if they are healthy and have no minor dependents and are between 50 and 60 is draconian then I guess that's what i am.  We are talking any job, 4 hours a day.  I'm not sure what the objection is.

Edit: And I wouldn't object to having some sort of job training substituting for working.

It's all subjective. If you have someone who believes in policies like a federal job guarantee or a guaranteed living wage or something like that, then this is absolutely draconian. If you're a neo-liberal, free market type, then it isn't.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-06-2018, 06:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's all subjective. If you have someone who believes in policies like a federal job guarantee or a guaranteed living wage or something like that, then this is absolutely draconian. If you're a neo-liberal, free market type, then it isn't.

This sort of seems like a guaranteed living wage.  You get a job and we will supplement your income.  Free market would say get a job or starve.  I think it's a rather good thing.  People can take a job that doesn't maybe pay great, and still keep their benefits.  I would throw in child care as well.  Which I believe we also do.   I can't comprehend why any of this is considered harsh, but to each his own.

[fredtoast]

(12-06-2018, 05:53 PM)michaelsean Wrote:  If  requiring someone to work 20 hours a week if they are healthy and have no minor dependents and are between 50 and 60 is draconian then I guess that's what i am.  We are talking any job, 4 hours a day.  I'm not sure what the objection is.

People in there 50's may not be physically able to take manual labor jobs, or they may not be able to walk long distances for a job.   There is no mass transit outside of cities and there are not a lot of jobs either.


Plus many of the same people who yell "Get a job" will also refuse to hire a homeless person who does not have clean clothes or the ability to bathe every day.

But I guess it is okay to let these people starve so that we don't "weaken" our military.  I mean we only spend more than the next 7 largest countries (China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, United Kingdom, France) COMBINED.