Marissa Oudt

Lyons

English 102

11 March 2016

Food Stamps: Worth Repairing or a Lost Cause?

In a time of economic hardship, a little over 45 million Americans turned food stamps at

the tail end of 2015. This government-funded program has been a topic of discussion for quite

some time now. There is no denying SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

commonly referred to as food stamps, has its fair share of issues concerning policies and

funding, however many believe the United States would be better off cutting funding for the

program all together. Because millions of individuals rely on government aid to feed themselves

and their families, the final decision will affect a large portion of our country, placing a heavy

weight on the shoulders of the lower class. While some advocate for the improvement of SNAP

because they feel it is our responsibility as Americans to lend a helping hand to those

experiencing economic hardships, others feel that pouring more money into a highly flawed

system is an unintelligent use of our funds.

Some may argue that the current aid being offered through SNAP is not nearly enough to

feed an individual living in todays economy. On average, the monthly food stamp benefit per

person is only $133.85, or less than $1.50 per person, per meal (The Truth About Food Stamps).

People need more than $1.50 to purchase a meal, let alone one with any nutritional value. The

common American [reports] spending $151 on food per week, roughly $7.20 per meal

(Mendes). These two numbers are far from equal. While SNAP is an assistance program,

meaning the recipient should not be fully reliant on these funds to purchase goods, the
 Oudt 2

government needs to gain more compassion and understand that receiving funding for a fourth of

a meal is not sufficient for many people. Because the government is providing such little support,

food stamp recipients are forced to purchase cheap and unhealthy goods, if anything. The richest

country in the world should not allow their people to go hungry or become obese simply because

they cannot afford more suitable options.

Prevention versus treatment is a major argument in favor of expanding the SNAP

program. Obesity is a growing issue in the United States with even larger repercussions. It is a

main cause of several preventable chronic diseases and healthcare costs in the United States.

Currently, estimates for these costs range from $147 billion to nearly $210 billion per year (The

Healthcare Cost of Obesity). This is an enormous sum of money being spent on treatment for

illnesses that could have been avoided. A logical solution would be to lower the likelihood of

obesity from the start, ultimately lowering the amount spent on healthcare in the long run. A

myriad of studies clearly show a correlation between obesity and socioeconomic status,

specifically among women; one report conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention reveled that 29.0% of women who live in households with income at or above 350%

of the poverty level are obese and 42.0% of those with income below 130% of the poverty level

are obese (Obesity and Socioeconomic Status). These are the same high-risk parties driving up

the cost of healthcare; if they cannot afford a healthy meal, they are not going to be able to pay

higher health care rates; resulting in a larger burden on our government. Advocates for this

solution suggest that making healthy food options more affordable and accessible through the

food stamp program will allow low-income citizens to improve their diet, leading to healthier

lives. Initially it would require additional funding, however in the long run healthcare expenses
 Oudt 3

would be lowered substantially, saving government money. Prevention is less expensive than

medical bills.

One issue working against the continuation of SNAP is that belief that recipients are

taking advantage of the system. Food stamps do not require effective work requirements for

beneficiaries. In 2009, the Stimulus plan suspended the SNAPs work requirements for able-

bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs), a temporary suspension that has continually

been renewed (Montgomery, Andrew). This reform discourages recipients that fall under this

category from going out into the workforce and looking for a job and/or keeping the one they

already have. Employment threatens applicants eligibility; therefore, lowering motivation to

find work. SNAP was created as a way to help those going through a tough financial period get

back on their feet. Unfortunately, the current food stamp platform [encourages] the relatively

well off to freeload off the system and those in need to remain in poverty (Montgomery,

Andrew). While this is a harsh opinion, many Americans feel as if the government is handing out

funds to many who are not deserving of the help. The Unites States was built on the fundamental

principals of hard work, independence, and self-reliance. The conservative stance looks down

upon welfare, claiming the food stamp program is rife with cheats, and a shadowy horde of

Americans are loafing about, gobbling up hard-earned taxpayer dollars (Best). Unsympathetic

word choice paints a very clear picture enforcing the message that those who cannot provide for

themselves are an encumbrance on the rest of society. Opposing parties do not approve of their

money being used to subsidize groceries for lazy Americans incapable of taking responsibility

for themselves.

Those lobbying against SNAP believe it is vulnerable to fraud; something our country

cannot afford to finance. Each year more than $3 billion is lost in trafficking, making
 Oudt 4

Americans wonder what the government is doing to stop the problem (Severson). Not only are

there issues concerning counterfeiting, legitimate funds are also being exploited to purchase

unauthorized goods. The New York Times reports that in certain areas, food stamps can be

turned into cash to keep the lights on, buy alcohol or otherwise soothe the bumps that come with

poverty (Severson). In underprivileged neighborhoods there are many people willing to trade

food stamps for money in an effort to get by. When faced with difficult circumstances, people do

what they need to in order to make it day by day. While these individuals may be looking out for

their best interest, the system is being cheated and manipulated. The complications do not end

there; not only can you trade in food stamps for money, you can also purchase them off of

Craigslist and other social media platforms. In one case a reporter caught wind of an add for a

shopping trip with a man in the Atlanta area who was willing to pay $100 to use $200 worth of

food stamps (Severson). Improving the system can be expensive, and our nation is already in

extreme debt. As of March 24, 2016, the US National Debt stands at $18,152,809,942,589

(US Total National Debt). We simply do not have the funds to support a growing food stamp

program. The money we do have should be carefully delegated and used in part to pay off our

debt. Reports of misuse and fraud make it clear the government should not run programs whose

policies are faulty and disorderly. Increasing spending on SNAP and continuing the program is

debatably a foolish decision.

While SNAP has its benefits and its downfalls, both sides present strong arguments.

Advocates of the program fight for the ethical side, reasoning it is our moral obligation to take

care of our fellow Americans in times of need; our great country will not let our own citizens go

hungry. The improvement of SNAP also presented a logical justification, explaining the positive

byproduct of lower healthcare rates. However no government system is perfect; SNAPS may be
 Oudt 5

too difficult to repair considering the many loopholes already found. Opposing parties also make

note of the ideals America was founded upon, claiming welfare does not align with them. I was

personally more convinced by the emotional appeals of those advocating for the program. This

paired with the logical arguments presented a side that could not be refuted. I believe with the

right modifications, SNAP will benefit many Americans.

 Oudt 6

Works Cited

Best, Jason. Conservatives Want to Take Peoples Food Stamps Away-Again. TakePart. Take

Part. Web. 28 Mar. 2016.

Mendes, Elizabeth. Americans Spend $151 a Week on Food. Gallup. Gallup, 2 Aug. 2012.

Web. 27 Mar. 2016.

Montgomery, Andrew. Top 10 Reasons Food Stamps Need to be Reformed. Freedom Works.

Freedom Works, 13 June 2013. Web. 12 Mar. 2016.

Obesity and Socioeconomic Status in Adults: United States, 2005-2008. Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Prevention, 14 Dec. 2012. Web. 12 Mar.

2016.

Severson, Kim. Food Stamp Fraud, Rare but Troubling. The New York Times. The New York

Times, 18 Dec. 2013. Web. 28 Mar. 2016.

The Healthcare Cost of Obesity. The State of Obesity. The State of Obesity. Web. 11 Mar.

2016.

The Truth About Food Stamps. Just Harvest. Just Harvest. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.

US Total National Debt. US Total National Debt. The Concord Coalition. Web. 24 Mar. 2016.