Washington, D.C. — Congress’ intent to cut food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) became clear months ago and was further solidified after both the House of Representatives and the Senate passed a budget resolution directing cuts from the committees with jurisdiction over the U.S. Department of Agriculture. As both chambers work to draft legislation that adheres to their budget targets, an idea continues to be floated: cut SNAP by making states cover a portion of the federal program’s food benefit costs.
A new Center for American Progress analysis shows that state revenues were unable to keep up with the rising SNAP costs during the prior three economic downturns and that a policy that shifts costs to states could cut food assistance for nearly 43 million Americans. This new analysis also examines how costs associated with SNAP soared in response to the past three recessions, why benefit costs rose for reasons outside of more people participating in the program, and why protecting and strengthening SNAP is vital for minimizing harm during recessions.
“Congress cannot cut billions of dollars from SNAP without severely reducing benefits or limiting access to food assistance. Passing costs on to the states would result in cuts and restrict the flexibility of the program to respond to changes in economic conditions, like recessions,” said Kyle Ross, policy analyst for Inclusive Economy at CAP and author of the analysis. “At a time of several economic uncertainties, implementing a state match would immediately put more than 40 million Americans receiving food assistance at risk of going hungry. Americans across the country cannot afford for Congress to try and pull the rug out from under them and make it even more difficult to put food on the table.”
Read the column: “Shifting SNAP Cost to States Would Make Future Recessions Worse” by Kyle Ross
For more information or to speak with an expert, please contact Sarah Nadeau at [email protected].