Running Head: SNAP DEBATE – EXAM TWO 1

SNAP Debate Arguments

Kayla Porter

HON 295

Dr. Treme

November 12, 2019

Running Head: SNAP DEBATE – EXAM TWO 2

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) program outlines several very
specific rules and regulations on how to qualify for benefits. Given the opportunity to change or
add to these rules, my group and I came up with a few ideas. During the class debate about
SNAP regulations and requirements, the team I was on came up with several ideas on how these
things should be approached. We would make changes like payment days, geographic
purchasing power, adding a reduced price for closely expired or less visually appealing items, as
well as some changes to the eligibility and work requirements. In working out new guidelines for
the SNAP program, we found that there were some issues we could encounter in trying to get
these passed. These things included funding, idealism, as well as opposing ideas to come to a
consensus about what should change. The following will discuss these introductions in more
depth.

The first argument my group came up with was the idea of changing when payments
were received for SNAP recipients. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics found that 36.5 percent
of private businesses pay their employees on a biweekly rate. Almost as popularly, 32.4 percent
of private businesses pay their employees on a weekly basis (Burgess, 2014; 10). Because of
these statistics, we felt encouraged to implement this as a new change with the SNAP
regulations. Not only this, but it can also be a tactic to prevent overspending and encourage
budgeting within recipients. Oftentimes, it can be hard to tell how money should be spread
through a month’s time when buying groceries. It can help to stop overspending as recipients are
left with a set amount every two weeks. However, this wouldn’t be required of SNAP recipients.
It would merely be an option to choose when beginning the receiving process. There would be a
weekly, biweekly, or monthly option. Participants in the program would be free to choose
whichever option may suit them best. This ended up being an agreed upon change with the
SNAP program between the two groups. However, getting that agreeance from a bigger audience
and elected officials could pose a challenge. With the current system working relatively well,
there may be some reluctance to actually change. With these things in mind, it still would be
important to discuss for recipients who may not budget as well as others. For example, SNAP
participants in Louisiana are disqualified from the program for overspending and an
implementation like this could prevent that (Deslatte, 2014; 1).
Running Head: SNAP DEBATE – EXAM TWO 3

Another change our group thought of making was an adjustment in geographic

purchasing power. Currently, the way SNAP is distributed does not take geographic prices into
account when giving money to states (Hoynes and Ziliak; 2018; 4). A change we would make
would be taking these variations into account, especially because the cost of groceries in
different areas can vary by so much; 66 percent above the national average or 25 percent below.
This was another option both groups could agree on; distributing the funds in a way that accounts
for cost of living. However, a potential downfall we encountered was again, idealism politically
may not come easily. The idea of the system working now may weigh heavily with the idea of
changing something that already works. However, the system wouldn’t be increasing the amount
of money going to funding, it would merely distribute it according to states and their cost of
living. This would be something we would need to make clear in order for the idea to be
considered.

Next, our group wanted to implement lower prices for items close to expiration or those
items that are not presentable enough to be on the store shelves. This would include dry foods
and fruits and vegetables. Every year in the U.S., 72 billion pounds of food is lost each year
(America; 4). This is partially due to the fact that stores will remove them from their shelves
when they’re no longer as presentable as they were. There are several stores that already
implement this discounting practice. However, there would be an additional discount for SNAP
participants. Much like a military I.D., with valid identification or the correct card use, SNAP
recipients would receive a higher discount on the already discounted foods. This would also
allow SNAP recipients to stretch their money a bit more to purchase healthy items at a much
lower price if they choose. However, an issue we ran into is why this should be considered a
SNAP issue. The group we debated with mentioned why this should be something SNAP should
be concerned about, especially if the discounts within the stores are going to be open to the
public as a whole. However, we wanted more consideration to go into the additional discount,
tying back to the payment methods and allowing recipients to extend their money a bit more
based on how they use their money. More so, it’s an incentive to encourage better spending
habits, especially in those states that are disqualified from SNAP for overspending.

Lastly, our group wanted to address the issue of eligibility and work requirements. The
proposed changes by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) could cause the termination of
Running Head: SNAP DEBATE – EXAM TWO 4

benefits for more than three million people who qualify under Broad-Based Categorical
Eligibility (BBCE) requirements (Schanzenbach et. al., 2019; 1). It would eliminate waivers or
make them harder to get if received. Free school meals would be reduced and it would prevent
people from being able to save without losing supplemental assets for food. Our group proposed
that waivers should be allowed in states with high unemployment rates. However, the issue we
ran into would be the problem with costs. Under the new requirements, spending over the next
five years will be reduced by $5.1 billion on SNAP and school meals (Schanzenbach et. al.,
2019; 1). Still, this issue should be considered under the facts of how many people would be
losing their benefits, how hard it would be to receive waivers, as well as the inability to save and
not lose their benefits. In some ways, the costs wouldn’t be worth implementing this kind of
program.

The second group involved with the debate came up with some similar and some very
different regulation and requirement changes. Their first proposed change was under the SNAP
work requirements. Their change would be allowing working, single parents no minimum
working hours per week if they have a child under the age of eight. Children 9-14 would give
them a minimum requirement of fifteen hours a week. The current minimum is twenty hours a
week, something our group thought was a better idea for the issue of encouraging work. That,
and fifteen hours a work on the minimum wage wouldn’t be enough for survival. Having the
twenty-hour limit would encourage better work ethic. However, it’s still good to consider fifteen
hours to give a safety net for parents who may run into money issues or even transportation
issues. It provides a sort of fail-safe measure for unexpected occurrences. While fifteen hours is a
bit low for our agreeance, our group is willing to compromise to meet in the middle on changes.
Another thing to consider would be the fact that children by the age of five or six should be in
school. In this case, it would be more suitable if single, working parents with children under the
age of six have no work requirements.

Another change the group wanted to implement was the change of when payments would
be given to SNAP recipients. The group proposed twice a month rather than monthly payments.
This is definitely something our group was able to agree upon based on critical spending
techniques and the attempt to benefit those who may not be able to budget as well or the chance
of overspending. However, our group mentioned giving recipients an option on when they
Running Head: SNAP DEBATE – EXAM TWO 5

wanted to receive payments while the other group option was twice a month. Despite this, it’s
definitely a common-ground we can agree on to implement the change in the SNAP program. A
USDA report from 2011 found that most SNAP expenses were exhausted within just the first
two weeks of receiving them (Tobin, 2018, 4). Giving the twice a month option could force
recipients to budget better without struggling at the end of the month.

The next change the group proposed was that if an individual stops using Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), they can still continue to be on SNAP as long as the
guidelines are followed. They stated it wouldn’t be necessary to reapply for SNAP. However,
our group could not agree to this change. In order to keep track of changes within SNAP, as well
as recipient benefits, we feel as though it’s necessary for the applicant to reapply with SNAP. It’s
important to keep thorough records of these things, especially under the situation that they come
off of TANF due to an increase in income. However, we would still be willing to come to a
compromise within the guidelines of SNAP and TANF both.

The last proposed change the other group had was for non-citizens. They stated that if the
person was under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA), they hold a visa and pay
taxes, they hold a green card, or they’ve been hired by the U.S. government, then they should
qualify for SNAP benefits. However, giving this kind of access to non-citizens can change how
money goes to recipients. With budget changes already occurring to reduce spending, it would be
difficult to include such a large group of people to add to those expenses, especially with the
concern of where exactly the money would come from. If there was a budget-friendly option to
include non-citizens, our group may consider finding an alternative to this idea. However, it does
not seem economically friendly. Not only this, certain administration tactics may not succeed in
including foreign groups while so many citizens of the U.S. are still being denied.

In order to come to a middle-ground about the proposed changes for SNAP requirements
and eligibility, the following outlines ideas from each plan:

 Monthly or twice-a-month payments, giving SNAP recipients the option.

 Base purchasing power based on geographic location and cost of living (remaining fair to
each state as it is).
Running Head: SNAP DEBATE – EXAM TWO 6

 Offer an additional discount on already-discounted price on certain expired or less

presentable food items for SNAP recipients.
 Allow more waiver in states where the unemployment rate is significantly high.
 Single, working parents with children 0-6 do not have a minimum working requirement.
 Single, working parents with children 9-14 required to work at least fifteen hours a week.
 After an individual stops using TANF, he/she can still use SNAP under the requirements.
However, they will still need to reapply to the program for tracking measures.
 Non-citizens can be covered under SNAP by a case-to-case basis and if funding can be
found to do so.
Running Head: SNAP DEBATE – EXAM TWO 7

References

America, F. (n.d.). Fighting Food Waste With Food Rescue. Retrieved from
https://www.feedingamerica.org/our-work/our-approach/reduce-food-waste.

Burgess, M. (2014, May). How frequently do private businesses pay workers? : Beyond the
Numbers. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-3/how-frequently-do-
private-businesses-pay-workers.htm.

Deslatte, M. (2014, February 24). La. disqualifies food stamp recipients for overspending.
Retrieved from https://www.theadvocate.com/nation_world/article_115feebc-38ba-58c9-
b90d-9218f47b0f3b.html.

Hoynes, H. W., & Ziliak, J. P. (2018, July 24). Increasing SNAP purchasing power reduces food
insecurity and improves child outcomes. Retrieved from
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2018/07/24/increasing-snap-purchasing-power-
reduces-food-insecurity-and-improves-child-outcomes/.

Schanzenbach, D., Schanzenbach, D., Broz, J. L., Broz, J. L., Frieden, J., & Weymouth, S.
(2019, August 1). Who Would Be Affected by Proposed Changes to SNAP? Retrieved
from https://econofact.org/who-would-be-affected-by-proposed-changes-to-snap.

Tobin, T. (2018, April 23). Semi-Monthly Benefit Transfers Are A Simple Way To Improve
Food Stamps. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommytobin/2018/04/23/fixing-food-stamps-for-families/
#1495d51b38d7.