Washington, D.C. — This week, House Republicans passed their tax and budget bill that would enact the largest cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in history. This bill would gut about $286 billion from the program, roughly a 30 percent cut. A new analysis from the Center for American Progress finds that in the months during and after the past three recessions of the 21st century, no more than 42.1 percent of counties would have been eligible for a waiver from SNAP’s burdensome paperwork requirement under the House Republican proposal, weakening the flexibility states have to respond to economic downturns.
If the House Republicans’ bill is signed into law, hungry families that recently lost a job or cannot find enough work to meet the 80-hour-per month minimum threshold would be kicked off of SNAP. At the same time, states would have to pay tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in additional administrative funds per year just to keep their programs functioning, which could lead to cuts in times of tight budgets such as during recessions.
Estimates suggest that 5.4 million people in 2.7 million households would lose more than $3,000 per year in SNAP benefits on average under the House Republican plan through expansions to SNAP’s paperwork requirement that imposes a three-month time limit on benefits in a three-year period unless recipients demonstrate compliance. Some of the key takeaways from this new analysis include:
- The bill’s proposed cuts to SNAP would drastically reduce state flexibility to respond to rising unemployment or decreasing job availability. For instance, only 42.1 percent of counties would have been eligible for a waiver following the Great Recession under the proposal, as opposed to the roughly 90 percent of counties that were eligible under existing flexibilities.
- Drastic cuts to SNAP, especially in times of crisis, are not going to increase employment. Access to SNAP is what helps states recover more quickly from recessions by injecting money into the economy and supporting jobs.
- If the House Republicans’ bill is signed into law, states collectively would have to come up with an additional $2.5 billion combined just for one year, disproportionately affecting states with higher administrative costs.
“SNAP is an excellent tool to combat recessions, but the House Republican plan weakens the program’s ability to respond to economic downturns and limits states’ flexibility to provide food assistance to those in need,” said Kyle Ross, policy analyst for Inclusive Economy at CAP and co-author of the analysis.
Read the analysis: “House Republican Proposal Would Kick More People Off SNAP During Recessions While Pushing Additional Costs to States” by Kyle Ross, Kennedy Andara, Amina Khalique, and Sophie Cohen
For more information or to speak with an expert, please contact Sarah Nadeau at [email protected].