Trump's New SNAP Affects More Than Food Security
2019 is coming to close, which means it’s time to look back but also prepare to venture toward the new decade. Over the last 300-some days, most conversations had with friends, colleagues, strangers, and family have examined what we can do to preserve human dignity. What does this mean, exactly? In 2020, the United States will struggle to reestablish its place in the world since a nearly impeached president has butchered political ties, wrecked trade agreements, and conspired against the principles of democracy. In addition, the warming planet threatens food security, farmer livelihood, and more natural disasters than we are prepared for; the “Remain in Mexico” asylum policy leaves many families without food, clean water, and shelter as they wait to cross the U.S. border; gun violence, police brutality, an opioid epidemic, and institutional racism shatters the foundations of communities. Is there any dignity left to preserve for 2020?
What is Dignity?
Pondering dignity might evoke images of elite authority figures from the nation’s upper crusts. Over many years, though, perceptions of dignity have shifted. A place to call home; financial stability; access to food and water; adequate healthcare options; unbiased relations between citizens and public servants, as well as an equitable distribution of their institutions’ resources; this is what it means to preserve human dignity in the modern age. Why then, has Trump’s Agriculture Department approved a revised Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that will leave 3 million citizens without access to food? Even more preposterous is that three new SNAP revisions (supposed to go into effect before the 2020 election) give more authority to the federal government, taking major administrative power away from states that could provide relief for disabled, homeless, and marginalized citizens combating food insecurity. If SNAP is supposed to “do right and feed everyone,” it’s not easy to justify the purpose of the program’s revision. Legislation from our president and his lawmakers is perpetuating an undeniably false idea of what a majority of U.S. citizens need to survive and live happy, sustainable, and healthier lives.
What’s Changing?
If you’re not familiar with SNAP, here’s your baseline. SNAP is a state-by-state eligibility program that provides assistance (in the form of food stamps) to families and single adults unable to designate a suitable amount of their income to food. SNAP also provides hunger relief for the homeless and unemployed, but eligibility and amount of aid varies by state, according to its median income and unemployment rate. States with areas in great economic distress may waive a requirement of evidence that would show the SNAP-eligible citizen has worked at least 80 hours per month within three months of their enrollment. Over the past 23 years, almost every state has used this waiver. But effective April 1st, 2020, obtaining a waiver will get much more complicated.
The Trump administration argues that revising SNAP’s labor requirements will save the federal government nearly $5.5 billion. This is backed by their plan to cut spending by $4.5 billion over the next five years. For reference: in 2014, total health, education, and lost productivity costs due to food insecurity were $178 billion. We might forget that holding a steady job needs a sound mind and a strong body. For one to shape and maintain these qualities, balanced and abundant nutrition is utterly necessary. But on April 1st, able-bodied adults without children will not be able to receive SNAP benefits for more than three months during a three-year period unless they are employed or participate in their state’s work program. An exception remains: states can waive the requirement from job insecure areas or counties with a 24-month average unemployment rate that is at least 20 percent above the national average (the current national average is 3.7%, about 12 million people).
What’s different about the new waiver is that states cannot issue exceptions on a case-by-case basis. The revised rule prohibits states from defining an “area” of economic distress. States must instead receive waivers according to areas defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This complicates aid for poorer neighborhoods surrounded by more affluent communities because it skews the socioeconomic landscape. Feeding America’s Map the Meal Gap report revealed that nationally, the average cost of a meal in 2017 was $3.02. Meal costs in the Northeast saw an average of $3.32, while those in the West were $3.27. Households that earn too much (a gross monthly income no more than 130% of state poverty guidelines) to qualify for SNAP then get caught in the hunger gap—the wealth from the rich eclipses the more desperate situations of the poor. Again, for reference: Los Angeles county has a low rate of food insecurity at 11%. But if you look closer, there are about 1.1 million citizens in LA county that are food insecure, including more than 400,000 children at risk of hunger. With the new SNAP, these food insecure citizens are reduced to to nothing more than numbers on a fed’s computer screen.
Dead-End Solutions
It seems the U.S.’s current position on the field of global politics is that of a moody benchwarmer and not an MVP. However, there are glimmers of hope trying to shine through the cracks in our nation’s “wall.” The real question is if these attempts will yield success after April 1st. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service, convenience stores make up about 45% of all retailers accepting SNAP benefits. In east St. Louis and other states, poor corner store conditions—stale and spoiled foods, illegal drug deals, and sometimes violent storefront altercations—present a very real barrier to accessing that 45%. Fortunately, a provision in the 2014 Farm Bill holds a solution. Called the OPP (Online Purchase Pilot), it permits SNAP members to purchase groceries online, eliminating transportation constraints and improving access to nutritious foods. The pilot is currently in eight states but could go nationwide by 2021. Furthermore, the startup All_ebt offers an app that combines Facebook Messenger and virtual visa cards to allow people to purchase SNAP-approved groceries online. But the most pernicious problems remain: food delivery fees are not covered by SNAP, and not all citizens in rural, nonmetropolitan areas can access the internet.
In February 2017, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) found that 39% (23.4 million) of rural Americans lacked access to what the FCC regards as basic fixed broadband service—25 megabits per second. This was compared to only 4% of the nation’s urban population that lacked WiFi. For 2019, The Pew Research Center discovered that 85% of rural citizens and 91% of urban dwellers now have broadband. A 6% difference might not seem like much, but keep in mind that limited web access is a bigger pain in the ass than not being able to scroll Instagram or watch your favorite Netflix shows. In an age of technology, those lacking internet must confront a number of barriers to economic development. The FCC states: “Small businesses tend to subscribe to mass-market broadband service. Thus, the rural-urban disparity in deployment of these broadband services also disproportionately impacts the ability of small businesses operating in rural areas to successfully compete.”
Lack of public transportation in rural America is a similar obstacle. Without proper infrastructure, you have transit deserts. Similar to a food desert, it is an area where people do not own or cannot afford cars. Limited access to bus routes, subway lines, paved roads, bike lanes, and pedestrian sidewalks are also characteristic of transit deserts. The University of Texas-Austin released its findings in a report from the Urban Information Lab, which revealed that 52 U.S. cities—including Denver, San Francisco, New York, and Miami—contain transit deserts, leaving 1 in 8 citizens without reachable and reliable transportation networks to work, school, a grocery store, or a healthcare facility. Two months after his election, President Trump promised to rebuild America’s crumbling infrastructure. Much of America still waits for the administration to uphold their part of the bargain.
What Happens Now?
What I’m trying to say is that Trump’s SNAP does not consider the more contemporary ideas about preserving human dignity. On paper, simply saving $5.5 billion sounds okay. But consider the stakes. What about the healthcare costs that are associated with food insecurity? The science isn’t anything new. Prolonged hunger can lead to anemia, developmental delays, and suicidal thoughts in children and adolescents. For adults, studies have shown that depression, diabetes, and high blood pressure are also symptoms of food insecurity. The new, federally-mandated work requirements outlined in the first revised rule (reminder: a childless, single adult must work 80 hours per month within three months of SNAP enrollment) completely disregard human idiosyncrasies such as physical or mental disabilities, homelessness, or transportation constraints. A second SNAP revision—although still awaiting approval—will only further perpetuate the conditions triggered by the first. The second revision will no longer allow those with incomes up to 200 percent of the poverty level — just $50,000 for a family of four — to be eligible for SNAP. If you think this is incredibly unrealistic, you’re night. In The New York Times, Marcia L. Fudge, chairwoman of the House Agriculture Committee’s nutrition subcommittee, said that instead of “considering hungry individuals and their unique struggles and needs, the department has chosen to paint them with the broadest brush, demonizing them as lazy and undeserving.”
In 2020, I want to think more about those without shelter, clothing, food, and water. I do not want to see hopeless citizens forced to depend on an administration that seeks to neither promote nor sustain their health and development. The holiday season always makes me think of ways I can give more, but I want to give more than just gifts to my friends and loved ones. I want to give my time, attention, and compassion to those who have been disregarded by our government and shunned by society. This is why we must reiterate and enculturate the preservation of human dignity. When I walk by a homeless veteran on Broadway, I do not see someone lazy or undeserving. When I walk past P.S. 234 in Tribeca, I no longer think that each of those children must live a privileged, happy life. Symptoms of poverty, illness, and hunger are more subtle and complicated than we tend to think. I therefore want my 2020 resolution to benefit someone beyond myself. I want to find more ways I can help at-risk communities access the resources needed to break a federally-mandated cycle of disenfranchisement, and I will use any of my privilege (transportational, educational, cultural, or financial) to do what I can to preserve human dignity.
