Food stamps working
Published: Thursday, Sept. 5, 2013, 8:55 p.m.
We would like to address misinformation concerning food stamps, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), in the editorial “Food stamps: Chew on this” (Aug. 21 and TribLIVE.com).
SNAP works exactly as it is supposed to work, responding quickly and efficiently to increased poverty and unemployment. Enrollment in SNAP increased in 2008, 2009 and 2010 in response to the Great Recession, not because of fraud and/or abuse, as insinuated in the editorial. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates participation will decrease to pre-recession levels as the economy recovers.
SNAP fraud rates are at an all-time low despite all-time-high participation. SNAP trafficking, the illegal exchange of SNAP benefits for cash, has dropped from about 4 cents on the dollar to 1 cent. SNAP's error rate remains at a record low of 3.8 percent. According to the Government Accountability Office, the majority of SNAP errors are a result of administrative errors, not intentional fraud. In addition, SNAP already has work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents — they are limited to three months of SNAP benefits in a three-year period.
Federal nutrition programs target the neediest in our country. The vast majority of participants are not trying to cheat the system, but to honestly put food on the table while regaining their economic foothold. As Christians, called upon to protect and serve the most vulnerable among us, we must work to get our facts straight and to protect programs that help struggling families.
& Joyce Rothermel
The writers, residents of Edgewood and Wilkins, respectively, are co-chairs of the Southwestern Pennsylvania Bread for the World Team.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Fearful homogenization
- Nukes, not hoops
- Forcing their beliefs
- Valid comparison?
- Zubik is right
- Us & them
- Promotion questionable
- Democratic Party’s union wing
- Fuel tax increase
- Legacy: All lose
- ‘Knockout’ evil