Bowman 1

Jesica Bowman David Gagon English 1010-005 04 Dec 2013 Food Stamps: Economic Boost or Creating Welfare Queens

Introduction
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) commonly known as food stamps was first introduced in 1939 and lasted till 1943. A second attempt at establishing SNAP came after years of studies and legislative proposals from 1961-1964. Senator Paul Douglas Illinois Senator in 1964 made a statement while a reform was being contemplated. Douglas stated I do not want to include Coca-Cola or Pepsi Cola or any of that family I want to help the poor and hungry and not sacrifice them for Coca-Cola. (Eng) In 1964 a food stamp reform was introduced when President Johnson called for a permanent program. The reform called for those who participated to still spend what they would normally spend on food and give them additional funding towards food items that are necessary. The bill would allow those who were eligible to purchase all items intended for human consumption except alcoholic beverages and imported foods (the original House version would have prohibited the purchase of soft drinks, luxury foods, and luxury frozen foods). However, when the original food stamp program was set, America was going through the great depression and a World War. Is the Food stamp program really necessary in todays society? Or is it just creating welfare queens?

Bowman 2

Economics
When the original food stamps were established, America was not at her best. A great depression had been going on for nine years after an estimated 30 billion dollar stock market crash. Within the next two years of the depression, America entered into World War II after Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. During these times many, Americans were at a disadvantage; unable to find jobs to support their families in hard times. Some may say that current day America is heading towards a new great depression. They back up their statements using the stock market crash that happened September 16 2008 requiring a 700 billion dollar bailout and a loss of 159,000 jobs. As well as the September 11, 2001 (911) terrorist attack of the twin towers and the pentagon, followed by declaring the War on Terror on October 7, 2011. The similarity between the two eras is undeniable. The need for government help is still needed. On the other hand times have changed and the usage of food stamps has become controversial. Why should a program that is supposed to be used to help supply nutrients to those in need, be used for soda and candy? Many republicans believe that a cut is necessary to the help stabilize our current economy. Meanwhile the Democratic Party is completely against the cuts saying it would reduce the safety net of those in need.

The Battle
Two professors, Lisa Levenstein and Jennifer Mittelstadt wrote an article together called Food Stamp Battle. Levenstein is an associate professor of history at the University Of North Carolina and the author of A movement without Marches: African American Women and the Politics Of Poverty In Postwar Philadelphia. Levenstein co-wrote this article with Mittelstadt who is also an associate professor of History at Rutgers University and the author of From Welfare To Work Fare: The Unintended Consequences of Liberal Reform, 1945-1965.

Bowman 3

Both writers are pro food stamps and wish to keep the program alive without any changes to the program. They state that the food stamp program is important for users because they wouldnt be productive at work and school while hungry. They continue on by saying that if all Americans who are eligible for food stamps applied then 20 to 25% of Americans would be on the program. They aim to discredit the republicans who oppose the idea of food stamps in their article by placing a not so well thoughtout quote from senator Newt Gingrich (who dubs those on food stamps as welfare queens): the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps Gingrich does have a point. Not the whole African American racial remark but all Americans (white, yellow, green and purple) should demand a paycheck over handouts. Levenstein and Mittelstadt also make a valid point that was: we are unable to focus on the task at hand while we are thinking about our empty stomachs. Michael D. Tanner is a senior fellow at Cato Institute. Tanner leads studies in multiple domestic policies. Tanner tends to have an emphasis when it comes to his studies in health care reform, social welfare, and Social Security. He is also an author of several books such as The End of Welfare: Fighting Poverty in the Civil society (1996) and The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society (2003). Tanners opinion on the food stamp debate is that they are no longer useful. Tanner is for the dismissal of the food stamp program with the condition the funding for the program would be split between programs for those in need. Tanner states; Poor people arent stupid. If they can get more from the government than they can from a job they arent going to work. Tanners statement makes a light switch click. Why should you work if the government is willing to support you? In a study that Cato Institute conducted to see how much dose h=just on

Bowman 4

welfare make, they found that California and D.C. pay out more than $15.00 an hour job, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont welfare pays more than a $20.00 an hour job.(Tanner) Tanner is correct with his belief that the program needs to ended or revised. When the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services noted that less than 42% of adults on welfare participate in work activities (which was suppose to be mandatory of all who could by the reform in 1996). There was a reason why the requirement was added to the SNAP act. Allowing those who do not work stay on the program can be interoperated that the government is okay with the 42% leeching off of others, who have to work and are still struggling unable to participate in the program due to making too much to be poor but not enough to survive well.

Reform Needed
Tanner, Levenstein, Mittelstadt and Newt Gingrich are all right. The need for the food stamp program is needed, but due to abuse of the program a major reform is needed. Food stamps should only be allowed to purchase nutrient rich foods, not junk food. Monica Eng is on the same page as Tanner; the food stamp program should be kept and revised or trash the whole program. Eng is a watch dog reporter for the Chicago Tribune. She has been nominated for five James Beard awards. Eng focuses on food and consumer issues, which includes how well the food industry and government agencies are serving the public. Eng reports that supporters of a restriction believe that they could drive billions of food stamp dollars from junk food to healthier choices saving billions in obesity-related health care which are predicted to reach $550 billion by 2030.

Bowman 5

If the government combines the food stamp program with another supplement nutrient plan called WIC (Women, Infant, and Children), more constraints would be imposed on the program without losing the purpose of the program. WIC is a program that is for mothers and their children up to the age of five. Every month those who participate receive checks. On these checks it states exactly what they can get with them; produce meats, bread, etc. These checks are only good for the month and cannot be used for anything except what is stated on them. If food stamps were transferred to this format instead of the EBT card, those who do abuse the program by buying cigarettes and junk food will have to use the program for its intended purpose. For those who believe that they should be allowed to get something extra here and there. Thats completely fine, even though in the reform of 1964 those on the program are supposed to still spend what they originally would have spent on food. If the program did switch to the same format as WIC it would be easy for the government to do a monthly treat of ice-cream, package of cookies, or even better put two or three boxes of brownie mix. Well what about special occasion such as birthdays? That would be an easy solution, when you sign up for the food stamps you are required to enter names and date of births of everyone in the house hold who will participate in the program. Since this info is required the government knows when birthdays are and would be able to issue a special voucher to allow those who participate receive a store bough cake and a quart of ice-cream for their birthdays.

Conclusion
While a reform is necessary to restore food stamps to it initial purpose, it would be nearly impossible to make both sides (Republicans and Democrats) happy. Making the program stricter would have Democrats complaining that their safety net for American people would be weakened. While the Republicans would complain that it wasnt strict enough and the program should be completely. A reform

Bowman 6 would be best for those who relied on the program, but due to neither of our political sides willing to compromise. Sadly the food stamps program will keep on being abused and some day may even disappear as social security is predicted to do.

Bowman 7

Works Cited
Levenstein, Lisa and Jennifer Mittelstadt. Food Stamp Fight. Los Angeles Times: A.13. Feb 06 2012.SIRs Issues Researcher. Web. 19 Nov. 2013. Tanner, Michael D. Why Get Off Welfare? Los Angeles Times: p.A.17. Aug 22 2013. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 19 Nov. 2013. Eng. Monica. A Healthier Food Stamp, Or just a Heavy Hand? Chicago Tribune: 1. Jun 2012 SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.