Trump has recently suggested that instead of giving SNAP recipients more cash benefits we should instead cut the amount of food stamps they receive in half and give them a box of food each month. This would provide food for the poor and hungry people along with making it cheaper for the government, but it is not a good idea.
First off, as it stands right now SNAP only provides the equivalent of about $1.45 per meal per person, that means that each person receives only $4.32 to eat each day. For many Americans that is not enough to be able to eat three meals a day, let alone three healthy meals. Buying a full meal for $1.45 that is not fast food is nearly impossible in America. This means that those who receive SNAP are more times than not skipping meals every single day, or are having to skip full days because of this problem. This will cause a lot of health problems as well as other problems such as being able to function properly during the day. If a person does not eat much they will not be able to focus in school or work as well as they would with a full stomach. This loss of productivity may cost the adult their job if they have one, and if they don’t, it may make their motivation to look for one go down. If anything, the government should provide these people with more money so they can sustain healthier, more enjoyable lives. Providing them with more money for food could possible keep their medical bills lower later on, which would save the government more money on Medicaid. It is cheaper to prevent a problem than to treat one later on. Also with more food security they are more likely to become better members of community, because they would be happier, healthier, and more motivated since they are more stable in life.
The food box would take away family’s rights to self-determination, their rights to choose what food they want. They may feel more like animals being fed than humans since they would not be allowed to choose their own food which is likely to make them more depressed. Along with that the food they would provide in these boxes would not be healthy food at all. The boxes would contain mostly starches because they last the longest which could make these poor people also become obese and have more medical problems in the future along with lowering their self-worth.
Other problems may be in how they would receive the box. Many poor individuals do not have reliable transportation to go pick up the box every month. If the boxes were delivered what would happen when the poor person moves because they are often moving to stay with different friends and family members of theirs often. If they have their own living space they are at high risk of being evicted since they do not have much money. How would the homeless receive their boxes every month and where would they store all of that food if they are living on the side of the street somewhere?
In conclusion we should be proving poor people with more food security, not less. This can save the government expenses in other areas later on such as through Medicaid. The miserly benefits targeted for cuts are only $1.45 per meal, and that is not enough money for a meal in America, so I believe this amount should be re-determined and the government should provide them with more money for food. With the money they receive now they cannot eat healthy foods, and cutting that money in half and forcing them to eat mostly starchy food will only make matters of health for these people worse. Lastly, the problem of how would the people receive and store their food each month is also something that would need examined.
As this is only a reaction paper, I would not expect you to make a fair and impartial analysis of this policy suggestion. Your strong negative to the proposal gets some sympathy for me. You have criticized the idea of reducing spending on food security by reducing benefit levels and transferring some of those reduced benefits to a program where the government selects and provides food rather than allowing recipients to shop for their food in the normal way. You criticize it on the following grounds:
1) Benefit levels now are insufficient, and ought to be increased, rather than decreased. The cut in spending on food security cannot be entirely gained by new efficiencies, and must result in fewer benefits and corresponding poorer nutrition and health for poor persons.
2) Benefit programs are already stigmatizing, when in fact the right to adequate food and nutrition is a human right, and securing it for everyone is a way to enhance freedom and health in our society; but changes in the program of food and nutrition benefits that remove autonomy and freedom of choice from the beneficiaries will increase stigmatization and remove human dignity. Welfare safety net programs such as SNAP ought to encourage autonomy and human dignity, rather than further alienating and infantilizing persons who are experiencing poverty.
3) The government could not possibly provide the right foods to everyone, and the government-selected non-perishable foods provided in the proposed policy would likely contain foods that were less nutritious or perhaps even harmful to recipients.
There are also many other objections to the policy proposal, but in a reaction essay like this, you are supposed to only allow yourself an hour to write yor paper, so you did not have time to question many other troubling flaws in this policy suggestion.
There are also several reasons to support the policy, or look at aspects of it with sympathy, or fairly present the arguments and then raise doubts about those arguments. Again, given the limitations of this reaction paper, you didn't have time to do that, and perhaps you weren't inclined to do so. But, it's worth thinking through why anyone would suggest such a revolutionary policy change with SNAP. For example, while non-perishable foods might be starchy and unhealthy, current practice by most SNAP recipients may not be very wise or healthy (on average) anyway, and possibly pastas would be better than what people buy now. Certainly canned or dried beans and rice might be staples distributed in food boxes, and at least with beans you might be helping people change to healthier diets compared to what they eat now. Do the meat industries and wheat farmer interests, as well as the grocery interests prefer the current SNAP arrangement, and might bean farmers, rice farmers, and nut growers benefit from the proposed change in SNAP policies?
No comments:
Post a Comment