There has been quite lot of talk recently about what SNAP
beneficiaries choose to buy with their benefits. The conversation has
particularly focused on condemning the purchase of items like soda and
sweetened drinks. There is no question that the article - which reignited this
debate over whether or not SNAP beneficiaries should be able to buy what they
want - manipulated and misrepresented data in order to perpetuate an
unfavorable narrative. As a result, many organizations fired back in an attempt to
set the record straight, arguing that the findings of the USDA report actually
conclude that “SNAP recipients and other households generally make the same
purchases.”
It is important that we are aware of these attempts to
delegitimize a program that helps keep millions of Americans from going hungry.
The debates over SNAP purchases represent the paternalistic nature of our
safety net system, and it shifts the public discussion from open access to
strict oversight. We cannot support those aiming to escape poverty by dictating
what they can and cannot do, and in a society that values free choice that
includes allowing people to choose what they want to buy.
SNAP is often one of the most vilified public programs in the
country, and this misrepresentation of data is becoming more common with regard
to this program. In January of 2017, a report began circulating that claimed $70 million of SNAP money has been
fraudulently spent. Even if we accept this premise - which many observers
refuse to do, as the article cited a USDA report that apparently does not exist
- opponents of SNAP fail to acknowledge that this is a $71 billion program, and with a
fraudulent spending rate of 0.09% SNAP would actually be one of the most
effective federal programs in existence today. But the numbers resonate, and
that is what SNAP critics want. Opponents depend on these misrepresentations to
further reinforce the stigmas that haunt people who apply to receive
assistance; it legitimizes the “us and them” narrative that opponents rely on
to justify draconian cuts to safety net programs.
The problem is that this is not a situation where we should be
emphasizing “us and them.” Even if the claims of the article were true why is
the first thought that this is an example of SNAP beneficiaries gaming the
system? Why is this proof that individuals and families receiving SNAP cannot
be trusted to make decisions for themselves? The question we should be asking is
why aren’t we subsidizing healthy food options on top of providing SNAP
benefits? Why are we okay with the fact that a bag of chips costs half as much
as a bag of vegetables? And why are we criticizing people who are making the
economical decision to budget their spending based solely on costs? Policy and
political rhetoric revolve around the economics of decision-making - that smart
individuals will take advantage of the market as it currently exists.
Successful business people are often seen as those who cut the deal to get the
most at the cheapest cost to themselves. How is that any different than what
SNAP users have to do when purchasing food? Why do we judge SNAP beneficiaries
on a different scale than we do businessmen?
Part of the mission of the Hub is providing food in a dignified
manner; being told what you can and cannot eat is a demoralizing and
undignified experience, and it contributes to the persistence of cycles of
poverty and food insecurity. We want people to care about the quality of the
food they eat, but that should not be done by telling people what to buy - it
should be done by making quality foods the economical choice. In a perfect
America, we would subsidize healthier options instead of dictating what SNAP
beneficiaries can buy, but it is clear that our current environment will make
this a difficult goal to achieve. We must be wary of attempts to isolate or
differentiate those who find themselves in need of public assistance. The
ramifications of legislating our idea of what it means to live in poverty and
what people living in poverty should look like would spread well beyond a
further entrenchment of the preconceived notions that plague SNAP
beneficiaries. If we perpetuate the mentality that there is a specific mold
that people living in poverty need to fit, that there is some other way that we
can differentiate them from us to make them feel like less than a person, then
we have failed as a society.