House and Senate Democrats are ready to play hardball to protect Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits in this year’s farm bill as the food program becomes caught up in broader GOP efforts to cut government spending.
Democrats argue that the ending of pandemic-era SNAP increases this month is already too much of a cut for the average program recipient to handle, and that any additional cuts would be inhumane.
“If they screw around with SNAP, there will be no farm bill,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass) told The Hill. McGovern is a member of the House Agriculture Committee, responsible for the farm bill, and a co-chairman of the House Hunger Caucus.
Food assistance programs make up about three-quarters of the must-pass farm bill’s expenditures, which must be reconsidered and approved every five years, along with subsidies for farmers and conservation programs.
This year’s debate over SNAP benefits is setting the stage for a fight much like the one that accompanied the 2018 farm bill, when Republicans insisted on increasing work requirements to receive SNAP benefits. Democrats resisted, and the bill was ultimately passed without the requirements.
The current farm bill expires at the end of September.
The average SNAP recipient saw their benefits reduced by $83 per month after expanded benefits ended nationally in March. That sharp reduction has advocates worried about a “hunger cliff,” a large group of people who are suddenly unable to afford basic nutrition.
“The reality is that we have a hunger problem in this country. And the SNAP benefit to begin with is not adequate,” McGovern said. “The idea that somehow this is this overly generous benefit and that we need to shrink it even more, is it just a wrong thing to do to people who are struggling.”
Benefits went up by 22.5 percent in 2021 due to an update of the Thrifty Food Plan, the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) formula for how much food costs, largely due to inflation. Current SNAP benefits provide recipients with about $6 per day per person to help pay for groceries and other food expenses.
“For those who work, there’s a strong labor market, but a lot of the people who are working have children and a lot of out of pocket expenses,” said Ellen Vollinger, director of the Food Research and Action Center. “Even though they might receive a somewhat higher SNAP allotment, the benefit is still not enough to get through the entire month.”
And that can put parents in the painful position of scaling back on portions and variety, or even skipping meals, she added.
“The really biggest hardship is when there’s a chance that the child is missing a meal. I think the adult caregivers of the household really do whatever they can to protect against a child going hungry, but there are a lot of children that are in food insecure households that they’re missing meals,” Vollinger said.
The Thrifty Food Plan is the lowest level of the four food plans that the USDA publishes, with each level of the plan approximating the cost of a more complete diet: Thrifty, Low-cost, Moderate-cost and Liberal.
The Food Research and Action Center and some Democrats have advocated for using the more expensive low-cost plan to calculate SNAP benefits, instead of the thrifty level. Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) introduced a bill in the 117th Congress to do just that.
While many Democrats are advocating for expanding SNAP benefits, either by extending pandemic-era increases permanently — which McGovern said he supports — or changing the food plan benefits are tied to, that seems unlikely given GOP control of the House and a narrowly divided Senate.
Some Republicans are even pushing in the opposite direction.
In a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing last month, ranking member Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) said SNAP funding levels are “unsustainable,” and criticized the recent increase in benefits. The total SNAP program’s cost is now nearly double what it was five years ago.
He said the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) “used a sloppy process with an accelerated schedule. USDA knew the outcome it wanted and then backed into it. … Because of these actions, FNS’s political appointees have made passage of the 2023 farm bill much more difficult.”
Last month, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) published a letter with five other members of the far-right House Freedom Caucus advocating for increasing work requirements for SNAP recipients. None of the letter’s signatories are members of the House Agriculture Committee, and Chairman Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Ga.) has largely dismissed their demands, saying current rules are enough.
Despite that, Thompson said House Republicans will still reevaluate SNAP benefits as part of the farm bill process.
“I recognize the nutrition title both occupies a significant portion of the Farm Bill baseline and invokes strong emotions on both sides of the aisle,” he said in a statement. “Regardless, the policies and programs, including SNAP, should not be considered untouchable nor on autopilot.”
But even if SNAP cuts or additional requirements passed through the House, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) said they won’t make it through her chamber.
“The Chairwoman has been very clear. We are not going to cut SNAP benefits in the 2023 Farm Bill,” a staffer said in a statement. “Imposing new, harsh, bureaucratic work requirements ignores the rigorous requirements that are already in place, and it would only strip benefits away from those who need them.”
Members on both sides of the aisle said they intend to pass a farm bill this fall in a bipartisan manner. But McGovern isn’t expecting a smooth process.
“We’re prepared for a fight,” he said.