Our Representative in Congress has gone out of his way to try to convince us that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, referred to as SNAP or simply “food stamps,” is a source of grave concern due to fraud and abuse. In fact, I suspect that his recent guest commentary (KCN Jan 30, 2014) on this subject was just to distract us from the fact that he voted NO on the Farm Bill which passed the House just last week with bipartisan support. Once again, we see Dr. Harris is out of touch with his constituents.
Rather than telling the whole truth, he presents some facts in misleading ways. He wants us to believe that because more people are out of work and thus in need of food assistance that food stamp “spending is out of control.” He wants us to believe that because there are some cases where fraud has occurred that this is a rampant problem. He asserts that “10.5 percent of authorized SNAP stores” have engaged in fraud, but he does not tell us that independent research to measure the amount of fraud and abuse in the food stamp program indicates that 98.3% of money spent actually goes to the needy – fraud and abuse actually account for less than 2% of the money spent on this program. We must not punish food stamp recipients, the majority of whom are indeed needy, often vulnerable children and elderly.
A couple of months ago, I took the “Food Stamp Challenge” and for one week I ate only as much food as I could purchase with the amount the average person receives in our area. I went to the grocery store and bought all the food I could purchase for just under $30. For that week, I was often hungry and grumpy. There simply wasn’t enough to eat. I actually lost four pounds. My one week experience is the reality that many of our friends and neighbors struggle with every day. In fact, I would recommend the Food Stamp Challenge to Rep. Andy Harris, or anyone else who wants to see what it is like for thousands of families.
All this hyped-up concern about fraud and abuse in SNAP is simply a smokescreen to avoid talking about other serious issues in the Farm Bill which Harris doesn’t mention at all. This bill represents a large piece of ongoing legislation that needs to be reviewed and revised every 5 years, the last of which was in 2008.
The current review has been especially contentious, and required compromises on many fronts, since it includes parts that are critically important for all of us. Milk prices, for example, would have reverted to the 1949 standards if the bill was not passed.
A dramatic change in the current bill for farmers is the ending of direct subsidies (in which payments can go to farmers NOT to produce crops) and instead shifting emphasis on supports for crop insurance. Other new or contentious areas were provisions regarding catfish farming and a labelling program for poultry and meat that requires retailers to list the country of origin. There are also new provisions regarding soil and water conservation. All of these deserve explanation and public scrutiny.
The Farm Bill passed by the House last week with bipartisan votes (251 to 166) does in fact include some cuts to food stamps (beyond the cut that already took effect at the end of November last year). As in many bills, this represents a compromise. The compromise bill is expected to save $16.6 Billion over the next 10 years.
So the budget for food stamps has already been cut last year, and cut once again with this bill. But that’s still not enough for Andy Harris, who continues to vote NO on the Farm Bill. We need to hold our representatives accountable; we expect Dr. Harris to tell the whole truth and to focus on real issues. We should not let him distract us with half-truths and misleading information. We deserve better.
John LaFerla
Chestertown, February 3, 2014
Candidate for US Congress
Vincent De Sanctis says
John LaFerla has done an excellent job of unmasking Andy Harris’s disingenuous rationale for opposing the Farm Bill. Another aspect of the Congressman’s argument is that able-bodied recipients of SNAP must participate in a training program. On the surface this suggestion appears sensible but it needs a closer look. What training and for what jobs? Having devoted a career to serving, developing, and administering dozens of training programs I would suggest that Congressman Harris address some of the following questions: What vacancies exist in his district that require specific training? What training programs already exist to provide the necessary skills for these jobs? Do these programs have enrollment limitations? Assuming that programs exist that match these employment needs do all those completing obtain positions? Who pays for the support services-daycare, early childhood education, home care for the elderly or disabled, transportation, – frequently needed while the care givers are enrolled? If I recall the House under the thrall of Harris and his cohorts has repeatedly opposed any federal support for the very programs that would enable SNAP recipients to participate.
These are not inconsequential questions. Space does not permit a litany of the many examples that could be cited to demonstrate that the promise of training far exceeds employment capacity and the financial ability of many participants. I regularly experienced employers asking that we provide training programs so that they could hire the best of the graduates. They candidly admitted that we were their initial employment screening step. Should food be denied those not obtaining jobs? The number of participants who had to drop out because of care giver responsibilities or lacking transportation is extensive.
Support training Congressman Harris but actually demonstrate that you have knowledge of what it entails.
Vincent De Sanctis
Chip Heartfield says
Editor,
I think a little balance is on order. First, it is interesting to note that two of the most liberal of Maryland’s Congressional delegation, Chris Van Hollen and Elijah Cummings, opposed this bill as well. Van Hollen’s objection: there were too many “huge subsidies to large agribusinesses.” So this bill was by no means a slam-dunk for lawmakers, from a wide range of perspectives. Second, why not let us hear from Rep. Harris himself, instead of the partisan version put out above by one of his opponents: “Congressman Harris released the following statement on his vote: I support efforts to help our farmers, and I support safety-net nutrition programs for the hungry in America.
Sadly, the combined farm and food stamp bill voted on today failed on both these measures. The farm component of the bill will harm the poultry industry so important to the economy on the Eastern Shore—an economy that is barely treading water in this ongoing recession. The food stamp program, which has grown 240 percent in only a dozen years, needed reforms that included work or work-training requirements for able-bodied adult recipients—but the final bill stripped out those requirements from the earlier House version. That’s why I couldn’t support today’s bill, even though I voted for both the separate farm bill and the separate food stamp bill when they came to the House last summer and fall.” So again, it seems there is agreement on all sides as to the importance of this safety-net program, but legitimate disagreement over how to effectively achieve support for those in need without abusing the taxpayers or making it easier to cheat the system.
And Rep. Harris listened to Eastern Shore poultry farmers as well, and made a decision as to how to address their concerns. Mr. LaFerla takes the easy way out by mentioning these issues but not telling us how he would have addressed the concerns of these Eastern Shore farmers and business owners. Finally, as to the “SNAP challenge” that Mr. LaFerla said made him “grumpy,” here is what the Washington Post’s Fact Checker says about those who took it and how they portrayed it (short version: they got two Pinocchios!): https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-snap-challenge-the-claim-that-food-stamp-recipients-get-by-on-450-a-day/2013/06/19/110f6b14-d925-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_blog.html. It should also be noted that most of the savings in this bill come from closing a loophole that a number of states were using to improperly ratchet up their citizens’ share of the food stamp budget; so the “cuts” are hardly draconian and do not reflect an across the board reduction of any kind.