Opinion
Join The Times' book club. This month's selection: "Cadillac Desert"
Opinion Opinion L.A.

Food stamps: Congress glimpses into the meaning of $4.50 a day

Beginning today, nearly 30 members of Congress will get a small taste of what it’s like to rely on food stamps. Those calling for deeper cuts can rest assured though; this will come at no cost to the federal government.

The group of House Democrats will voluntarily live off a budget of $4.50 per day, the average Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefit (somewhere between the price of a Starbucks latte and a Cronut). Their pledge is part of the SNAP Challenge, which is protesting a farm bill poised to make significant cuts to the program.

The Senate’s version of the bill, which cleared the chamber on Monday, calls for $4.1 billion in cuts over a 10-year period, but that’s nothing compared with the $20 billion in cuts awaiting in the House bill.

Some will be taking the challenge for a week and some will be taking it for just a few days. Regardless, the actions of this group are laudable.

The Wall Street Journal reported in March that 47 million people are on food stamps (15%) with even higher shares in many states (Mississippi, Oregon, Louisiana and Tennessee all have rates above 20%, as does the District of Columbia).

The House cuts to food stamps would be significant. Some effects include slashing no less than 2 million low-income people from the food stamp program and placing in jeopardy 210,000 school meals for children in low-income families, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

One might argue that the SNAP Challenge is the type of meaningless protest that renders no direct results except to serve as a public relations boost for those participating. In this case, though, legislators ought to seek media attention in any form they can. And hopefully their colleagues (especially those not participating) will take note.

Perhaps there are ways to trim SNAP and make it more efficient. But cutting $20 billion seems awfully counterproductive for a program that simply provides a fundamental necessity to millions of Americans. After all, the House only proposed cutting a still absurd $16.5 billion last year.

It’s important for legislators to understand where their money goes and, accordingly, what it means when a program is cut. And, in this instance, they need not look farther than their local grocery store.

ALSO:

Is Pope Francis a homophobe?

McManus: Head-in-the-sand Congress

NSA leaker Edward Snowden: He's no Daniel Ellsberg

twitter.com/danielrothberg

daniel.rothberg@latimes.com

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • Putting a price tag on the risk posed by ride-sharing drivers

    Putting a price tag on the risk posed by ride-sharing drivers

    Simply turning on a smartphone ride-sharing application, such as Uber or Lyft, makes a driver about 8% riskier on average.

  • A chance to clarify 'one person, one vote'

    A chance to clarify 'one person, one vote'

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a case that could re-do how political districts are drawn. Currently, districts in Texas are supposed to be roughly equal in total population, but a group there wants only citizens who can vote to be considered. The following piece on the case by...

  • Iran's trial of Washington Post writer: Secrecy, not justice

    Iran's trial of Washington Post writer: Secrecy, not justice

    A Revolutionary Court judge in Tehran held a two-hour hearing Tuesday in the espionage trial of Washington Post correspondent Jason Rezaian, who was born and raised in the Bay Area and holds dual U.S. and Iranian citizenship. Because the court proceedings are secret and the indictment remains under...

  • In 2016's presidential race, the winner will be ...

    In 2016's presidential race, the winner will be ...

    We treat political campaigns like slow-moving athletic competitions and like to pretend that every last gaffe could determine the next president of the United States. But most of us also know, at some level, that forces beyond strategy and personality decide national elections.

  • Bernie Sanders: Why the guy who won't win matters

    Bernie Sanders: Why the guy who won't win matters

    Sen. Bernie Sanders, the self-described socialist who kicked off his presidential campaign on Tuesday with a characteristically fiery speech, isn't going to win the 2016 Democratic nomination unless lightning strikes. To be really effective, in any case, the lightning would have to strike Hillary...

  • Trading grass for cash: MWD has a winner on its hands

    Trading grass for cash: MWD has a winner on its hands

    The drought warnings have sunk in. So many Southern Californians want to rip out their water-hogging lawns that the Metropolitan Water District nearly ran out of money for turf removal rebates. In the last year, residents, businesses and public agencies filed more than 45,000 applications seeking...

Comments
Loading