The GOP Wants to Slash Food Stamps. Here’s Why That’s a Stupid Idea.

Pennies pinched today will result in big healthcare costs down the road.

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

President Donald Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress have publicly flaunted their desire to slash food aid for the poor. The deficit-swelling tax cut package they passed in late 2017 will embolden their efforts later this year, when the twice-a-decade farm bill—which funds the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program  (formerly known as food stamps)—comes up for debate. 

Meanwhile, a new paper from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities demonstrates just how short-sighted this miserly agenda is.

The paper shows that people who struggle with food access are more likely to have chronic health conditions including hypertension, coronary heart disease, and diabetes; incur higher healthcare costs, including from publicly funded programs like Medicaid; and are more likely to require emergency-room visits, running up bills they can’t afford to pay. 

All told, the CBPP researchers found, “people in food-insecure households spend roughly 45 percent more on medical costs in a year ($6,100) than people in food-secure households ($4,200),” including both out-of-pocket and government spending. 

The SNAP program is a crucial bulwark for keeping America’s low-income population from facing the health-destroying effects of chronic food insecurity. Adults in households that receive SNAP benefits spend $1,400 less per person than households with similar incomes but no SNAP benefits. As for children, the program delivers benefits that reverberate throughout their lifetimes. Note that 70 percent of SNAP-receiving households include kids, and that the program helps keep one in four US kids fed

In short, cutting the budget for SNAP is a classic example of a false economy: a short-term saving that results in large, unaccounted-for costs down the road.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest