There always
seems too little money and too many people who need it. This is easily seen
when examining the US Congress, especially as they are finalizing (or
attempting to finalize) budgets for the upcoming year. Federal aid is vital for
many families and people living in the United States who depend on the extra
assistance to make ends meet. This is especially true of SNAP benefits.
The Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides food-purchasing assistance for
low- and no- income people living in the United States. It was formerly called
(and still often referred to as) the Food Stamp program. It is a federal aid
program that is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, under the
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) Administration (i.e. it is a federally funded
program). However, each U.S. state's Division of Social Services or Children
and Family Services distributes these benefits. Such benefits can be used to
purchase any prepackaged edible foods, regardless of nutritional value (i.e.
granola bars and soft drinks). However, hot foods (i.e. foods from a
supermarket deli or fast food restaurant) are ineligible.
The amount of
federal aid diverted to SNAP (Food Stamps) has increased since it began in
1969, except for a severe decrease in funding between 1997 and 2003. In the
2012 fiscal year, $74.6 billion in food assistance was distributed to eligible
recipients. As of September 2012, 47.7 million Americans (more than 15% of the
US population) were receiving on average $134.29 per month in assistance.
Based on this
data, it is evident that SNAP benefits impact a large percentage of the
population and cuts could have dramatic implications. Currently, Congress is
involved in a debate over the degree to which the SNAP program must be cut. Democrats
and Republicans are attempting to negotiate the bill, however, negotiation
seems difficult to drastic differences in how much each party wants cut. The
House of Representatives (controlled by Republicans) wants to cut SNAP benefits
by $40 billion over 10 years. The Senate (controlled by Democrats) wants to cut
them by $4 billion over the same period. These cuts would be made possible by
closing several loopholes. Those who want to leave the loopholes left opened
argue that they offer the most efficient way to get benefits to people who need
them most.
I will focus on
a “categorical eligibility” loophole. This loophole involves those who qualify
for one means-tested program (i.e. welfare), who automatically qualify for
other programs (i.e. SNAP benefits). Those in favor of allowing categorical
eligibility argue that it saves states time and money because they do not have
to sign people up for programs twice. They address specific eligibility of the
programs by explaining that being in a means-tested program allows you to
become eligible for benefits, not necessarily receive them. Those opposed to
this loophole say that this categorical eligibility has allowed states to waive
$2,000 asset limit for SNAP recipients, so someone could have $20,000 in the
bank and still get the aid, meaning someone who doesn’t need benefits receives
them. However, those who administer SNAP benefits argue that it would cost millions
of dollars and lots of time to investigate additional assets when only a tiny
fraction of people may actually have them.
Pam Fessler, a
correspondent on NPR's National Desk, where she covers poverty and philanthropy,
boiled the argument down to this: “So
the debate really comes down to a difference in philosophy between those trying
to get benefits to the needy as quickly as possible, and those trying to reign
in government spending.” Both issues are incredibly
important in US politics at the moment and are causing a harsh divide between
political parties and the branches of Congress.
Those who advocate for the
loophole to remain open demonstrate their support of SNAP benefits and, in
general, government expenditure of social services. Deborah Carroll, who
administers food stamps for 130,000 residents in the District of Columbia, states,
"It may be a loophole, but I think it's
one that benefits families.” [Although a topic for another post, this calls the
morality of loopholes into question. In the case of loopholes, do the ends
justify the means?]
The gusto with
which some fight for cuts to federal aid program shows the influence of
neoliberalism in American society. Neoliberalism increased its popularity in the
US during the Reagan administration and continues to impose its power. It is a modern politico-economic theory that favors free
trade, privatization, minimal government intervention in business, and reduced
public expenditure on social services. In Righteous
Dopefiend, Bourgois and Schonberg address the effects of neoliberalism on
the Homeless living in the Edgewater community of San Francisco and critique
the ways it has negatively impacted the welfare, health, and wellbeing of the
homeless. This critique can also be applied (at least to some extent) to those
relying on SNAP benefits. The neoliberal mindset that promotes the reduction of
public expenditures on social services is as apparent in the SNAP debate as it
is in the Edgewater homeless community. Although the effects of such changes
may manifest themselves in different ways, cuts to social services are
demoralizing and reinforce cycles of both homelessness and poverty (as later
explained).
When listening
to both sides of debate, it is obvious that most in Congress see the individuals
that SNAP budget cuts affect as a massive conglomerate of those who all happen
fall within the same range of income eligibility. Little time is spent
discussing the effects of proposed massive budget cuts on those who may lose
eligibility or receive decreased aid on a group-by-group basis, let alone a
family-by family basis. Without a complete understanding of the situations of
those who need the benefits, the root cause of the problem cannot be
identified, let alone solved.
In order to
develop a greater understanding of the massive conglomerate of those who fall
in the same range of income eligibility, it is important to see how structural
violence and symbolic violence can be understood within the context of SNAP
benefits and identify ways in which these types of violence can be abated.
Bourgois and
Schonberg introduce the concept of structural violence in Righteous Dopefiend. As defined by Farmer, structural violence
refers to how the political-economic organization of society wreaks havoc on
vulnerable categories of society. Structural violence is occurring against
those who need SNAP benefits and may have them cut. Those who qualify for SNAP
benefits find themselves in one of the most vulnerable populations. To a
certain extent, these people are marginalized and, in many cases, do not have
strong representation. Therefore, it is easy for the political and economic
forces of America to cut their benefits first. No one group is responsible for
having the idea to cut the funding of these populations first because it has
already been affected by neoliberalism and because the precedent to cut
spending on social programs first was set long ago.
Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic
violence explains the feelings of social domination brought on by drug use and
homelessness in the Edgewater community. Cuts to SNAP could be categorized as
symbolic violence because they expose "...mechanisms that lead those who
are subordinated to "misrecognize" inequality as the natural order of
things and to blame themselves for their location in their society's
hierarchies." The media, sensationalist politicians, and disillusioned
public blatantly accuse the poor for their own distress and trouble. When those
who are blamed shoulder the responsibility and accept it as the natural order
of their community and their ultimate fate, symbolic violence, demoralization,
and potentially self-fulfilling prophecies abound. In combination with a
resulting decrease in financial assets, cuts to SNAP could manifest themselves
in interpersonal violence, mental health issues, and physical health issues, as
they did in the Edgewater homeless population.
As Righteous Dopefiend reveals, some
current policy does not even effectively offer a “fix.” For example, in Righteous Dopefiend, when the homeless
are tested for hepatitis C. they only receive information and a test result,
thus creating a narrative of self-blame without really fixing the problem. On a
different scale by similar note, SNAP benefits can be used to purchase any
prepackaged edible foods, regardless of nutritional value (i.e. granola bars
and soft drinks). Because these processed, unhealthy foods are often the
cheapest, they are more likely bought by those using the benefits. If SNAP
benefits provide a way for someone to buy their groceries, then they will
likely load up on cheaper, unhealthier foods. This diet can lead to obesity,
causing subsequent healthcare problems. This shows how current policy continues
to reinforce the need for social assistance. In addition, the self-disciplinary
Foucauldian model of biopower suggests that individuals are morally responsible
for what they impose on their bodies and psyches. When those who are becoming
obese due to the limits of their SNAP benefits accept this model of biopower,
further symbolic violence can occur.
Looking deeply
at the causes of healthcare issues such as obesity (caused by unhealthy foods)
and the circumstances that create them (SNAP benefits being used to buy cheap,
processed foods), could identify adaptations to policy reform that may aid in
more partial alleviation of significant problems. As shown by Righteous Dopefiend, studies looking
into cycles of poverty are essential to understanding how to treat and deal
with poverty. A drawback of this important process is that learned information
cannot be applied to all groups due to incredible specificity of situations. In
addition, many subsequent studies would be required in order to propose the
best and most tangible shifts in public policy that would allow for positive
change that attempts to reverse structural and symbolic violence.
Congress’ failure
to look at the underlying forces causing the need for SNAP and other social
services shows a massive flaw in the structure of the US government. Congress
never truly examines these factors, especially in the age of neoliberalism,
because parties are so divided by social issues that no tangible solution would
be able to come from a general debate. Although programs such as SNAP and
recommendations made by Bourgois and Schonberg provide short-term “fixes” to
alleviate the suffering caused by some of these problems, no end is in sight in
the current political climate.
Further reading and listening:
Wow! I am glad this is out here in the public space. Thoughtful and sensitive, with a great integration of thorough public policy information with relevant theory.
ReplyDelete