It seems like every few months, there are new myths popping up about food stamps. Here are some newer ones, and why they are myths.

1. Surge in food stamp usage and funding is a direct result of the whims and desires of the executive branch. Historical data shows that food stamp use rises and falls with unemployment and poverty levels. It responds to the economic realities of the time.

Other than American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 (also known as the stimulus) which increased the monthly benefit by about 15% through 2013 and relaxed work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents, there have not been additional expenditures on food stamps. This legislation required passage by Congress and approval by the president.

2. Food stamp use encourages laziness and entitlement mentality. There is no evidence that points to food stamp usage’s impact on an individual’s work ethic – positive or negative. An individual’s financial status and social mobility is the result of cumulative decisions by many people over time and includes everything from inheritance, public investments, structural and social advantages to societal disadvantages and barriers due to prejudice.

The fact is most Americans are falling behind financially regardless of the amount of work they do, and the United States still must make significant strides to be an “equal opportunity society” that rewards effort equitably. Food stamps continue to be a lifeline for Americans trapped by poverty, reflecting our nation’s morals and values about our right to nourish our families with dignity.

3. It’s too easy to get food stamps. The food stamp program is an entitlement program administered at the state level, which means that the money has already been allocated for qualified individuals and the states determine the eligibility criteria. It’s up to the individual to decide to access those benefits. For entitlement programs to work as they were designed to, i.e. respond to economic circumstances and provide short-term food support, they should be easily accessible. Similar entitlement programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) enjoy very high participation rates in Texas due to State-mandated outreach, a simple one-page application process, and perception that de-stigmatizes the assistance.

4. Most federal low-income spending goes to “overhead” and “bureaucrats”. Federal and state administrative costs for these programs vary from state-to-state, and the percentage costs associated with administrative duties depends on the program. In Texas, food stamp administrative spending is split 50/50 between the state and the federal government. Data shows that 91-99 percent of total federal spending on these programs reaches beneficiaries in the form of benefits or services.

5. Food stamps make people fat. A study entitled the Paradox of Hunger and Obesity in America explains how households at risk of hunger are susceptible to habits that could result in weight gain. This includes:

• The need to maximize caloric intake with few dollars.
• Managing food quantity and quality
• Overeating when food is available.
• Physiological changes in how the body compensates for periodic food shortages.

The study further states that “…food allotments should be reduced, on the grounds that nutrition programs contribute to obesity among the poor because they provide too much food, is without scientific merit.” Improved access to food stamps means families have a predictable source of food, which can support better meal planning and healthier choices at home. The result: a healthier society, lower absenteeism at work and school due to illness, and lowered health costs.

6. Voters aren’t in favor federal nutrition programs. Polling data conducted for FRAC by Hart Research Associates released today shows broad bi-partisan support for the food stamp program and the federal government’s role in addressing hunger. In fact, the majority of voters support a major role for the federal government in addressing hunger. Seven in 10 (69%) voters say the federal government should have a major role to ensure that low-income families and children have the food and nutrition they need, including a majority (51%) who express this view strongly. Only a quarter (26%) of voters say the federal government should not have a major role.

The pervasive hunger crisis in America is not because we don’t have enough food. It is a political problem and a socioeconomic problem that can be overcome. Our political leaders have it in their power to end hunger but they must be willing to enact policies that make food security a priority. A well-nourished community is the key to a healthy, prosperous community.

 Related Blog Posts:

Do you know SNAP?

Top 10 Myths about SNAP (Food Stamps)

Infographic: Central Texas Leaves Millions of SNAP Benefits on the Table, Billions Lost in Economic Activity

SHARE

Tagged Food Stamps, snap