Republicans are gearing up for a new round of attacks on food assistance, part of their nonstop search for ways to stigmatize poor people. Rep. Dusty Johnson has introduced a bill that would expand the age range of the able bodied adults without dependents who are already subject to work requirements to receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. That’s just the beginning of the planned efforts to kick people off of food stamps—but it’s bad enough.
“We know that work is the only path out of poverty,” Johnson, a member of the party that has steadfastly refused to raise the minimum wage to be a path out of poverty, told Politico recently. Currently, full-time, year-round work at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour puts a person just a few hundred dollars above the poverty threshold for a single adult. That full-time, year-round work at the minimum wage is more than $4,000 below the poverty threshold for a single parent with one child.
So Republicans need to shut their mouths about work as a path out of poverty until they plan to do something about it. But, of course, they will not do that. The message trumps the reality, because in reality, this is not about encouraging work or building paths out of poverty. It will increase hunger and instability, though.
RELATED STORY: Iowa Republicans want to block SNAP recipients from getting fresh meat or refried beans
There’s lots of evidence right now about how work requirements function in the SNAP program because of the existing work requirements. It’s not a mystery, and here’s the result:
Independent studies have repeatedly shown that SNAP’s work-or-lose-benefits time limit does not increase employment or earnings. It just cuts people off from the food assistance they need to buy groceries.[8] A recent study found that the time limit cut SNAP participation among those subject to it by more than half (53 percent), with no effects on employment and earnings overall.[9] Another recent study found SNAP participation was cut between 7 and 32 percentage points a year after the reinstatement of the time limit, again with no evidence of improved earnings or employment.
So work isn’t always a path out of poverty, thanks largely to Republicans. Work requirements don't increase earnings or employment. In short, expanding complicated work requirements to large new groups of people does as much to put out a Republican message about SNAP recipients (lazy, moochers, blah blah blah, you know the line) as it does to cut the rolls. But Johnson’s bill will do a lot to strip people of the SNAP benefits that keep them from hunger, threatening food assistance for up to 1 in 4 SNAP recipients, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Here’s how: Currently, if someone can’t document that they work or participate in a qualifying employment and training program for at least 20 hours a week over a three-month period, they lose their SNAP eligibility and don’t regain it for three years. But that only applies to people without kids and people up to 50 years old. The Republican bill would apply those work requirements to people aged 50 to 64, meaning many people who can no longer work at physically demanding jobs they may once have held. It would also apply the work requirements to people in households with kids over the age of seven. The kids would still be eligible for SNAP, but if the adults in their household weren’t, the kids would be worse off, too.
Here’s who’s at risk if this Republican bill becomes law:
- 3 million adults up to age 65 who live in households with kids
- 4 million children
- 2 million adults aged 50 to 64 in households without children
Understand that, “Before the pandemic, nearly three-quarters of adults participating in SNAP in a typical month worked either that month or within a year of that month of participation. At almost 90 percent of households, the rate was even higher among households with children and at least one working-age adult.” Republicans sure don't understand it. Or they don’t care. Or it excites them to think about ignoring that fact and harming large numbers of those people.
Campaign Action
Additionally, Johnson’s bill would make it more difficult for states to get waivers on SNAP benefit limits for adults without children in case of high local unemployment rates. An estimate on a less restrictive plan to limit state waivers still found that it would have led to 700,000 people losing SNAP eligibility—and that was the Trump administration’s estimate of the effects of its own plan. Which was, again, less harsh than the current Republican plan.
Some number of people who do fulfill the work requirements would also stand to lose benefits because they couldn’t navigate a complicated verification system.
Working people on SNAP are often in unstable jobs, the CBPP has noted. They don’t get paid sick leave or vacation, their schedules shift in ways that can make it difficult to hold a job or meet required work hours, and because of all these factors, they are likely to have periods when they are between jobs. That can threaten eligibility or create serious barriers to proving you have worked enough.
There are also people who do not qualify for disability benefits yet still have health conditions that should exempt them from work requirements. SNAP has a system for screening such people—but it’s one more barrier for people who are already struggling, and throwing up more barriers would mean more of those people losing benefits.
The Republican plan to cut SNAP would create suffering, much of it in children and older adults and people caring for children and people with disabilities. This would lead to long-term damage: SNAP improves health outcomes for its recipients, lowering health care costs.
The reasons this is a disastrous plan go on and on. With Democratic control of the Senate and White House, it’s unlikely that anything quite this devastating will go into effect. But House Republicans have leverage, as do Senate Republicans given the filibuster. The chances that they can successfully demand some cuts are not nearly small enough.
The Republican Party’s leadership and its presidential candidates have leaned further and further into doom-and-gloom “woke apocalypse” rhetoric. Kerry and Markos analyze what has so far been a losing strategy to make Americans feel frightened of demanding actual policy ideas from Republicans.