Fight Over Food Stamps Has Many Complexities

Torri Christian is an anti-hunger advocate in Oklahoma. This photo was taken by Jerry Hagstrom in September 2013.  
National Journal
Jerry Hagstrom
Sept. 22, 2013, 5:47 a.m.

OK­LAHOMA CITY — Why did all but 15 Re­pub­lic­ans de­cide last week that they could vote for a $39 bil­lion cut to food stamps over the next 10 years even though par­ti­cip­a­tion in the pro­gram has gone up dur­ing the re­ces­sion?

The ex­per­i­ence of Torri Chris­ti­an, dir­ect­or of ad­vocacy and policy for the Re­gion­al Food Bank of Ok­lahoma and the Com­munity Food Bank for East­ern Ok­lahoma, goes a long way in ex­plain­ing why sup­port for food stamps in low-in­come South­ern states is so low among their Re­pub­lic­an politi­cians.

On Thursday the House passed a bill that would cut $39 bil­lion from the food stamp pro­gram, of­fi­cially known as the Sup­ple­ment­al Nu­tri­tion As­sist­ance Pro­gram, or SNAP. This week that bill is ex­pec­ted to be mar­ried to the farm-pro­gram bill the House passed in June and sent to the Sen­ate to be­gin a con­fer­ence on a com­pre­hens­ive farm bill.

The vote was 217-210. All House Demo­crats voted against it, but only 15 Re­pub­lic­ans joined them in op­pos­i­tion. They in­cluded four from New York, two each from Cali­for­nia, New Jer­sey, and Pennsylvania, and one each from Alaska, Neb­raska, North Car­o­lina, Vir­gin­ia, and West Vir­gin­ia.

The five-mem­ber Ok­lahoma del­eg­a­tion, all Re­pub­lic­ans, voted for the bill, in­clud­ing House Ag­ri­cul­ture Com­mit­tee Chair­man Frank Lu­cas, who last year pro­posed only a $16.5 bil­lion cut and this year a $20.5 bil­lion cut in SNAP.

Ok­lahoma was one of the 40-some states that re­ques­ted waivers from the Ag­ri­cul­ture De­part­ment to make it easi­er for people to qual­i­fy for food stamps, but this year the Le­gis­lature passed and the gov­ernor signed a law for­bid­ding the state gov­ern­ment from ask­ing for an­oth­er waiver to al­low a cat­egory of be­ne­fi­ciar­ies known as “able-bod­ied adults without de­pend­ents” (ABAWDs) to get be­ne­fits for more than the fed­er­ally al­lowed three months out of every three years.

“Ok­lahoma has this un­der­ly­ing cul­ture of self-suf­fi­ciency that is prob­ably the main thing that Ok­laho­mans pride them­selves in,” Chris­ti­an said in an in­ter­view earli­er this month. “Loudly ad­voc­at­ing for the safety net is not the easi­est thing to do in Ok­lahoma.”

Chris­ti­an said that she and her col­leagues spent much of the early part of the year try­ing to tone down the ef­fort in the state Le­gis­lature to stop the ABAWDs from get­ting more be­ne­fits. Ok­lahoma le­gis­lat­ors ini­tially wanted to re­quire that the be­ne­fi­ciar­ies work more hours than the fed­er­al law re­quires and had to be in­formed that they could not go bey­ond fed­er­al law, Chris­ti­an said. The ban on ABAWD waivers passed, but Chris­ti­an said an­ti­hun­ger ad­voc­ates man­aged to stop oth­er pro­pos­als, in­clud­ing one on as­set tests that would have made it par­tic­u­larly hard for seni­or cit­izens to get food stamps.

With these state-level battles a high pri­or­ity, the de­bate in Wash­ing­ton over food stamps seemed far away, but Chris­ti­an said she does travel to Wash­ing­ton about once a quarter and had made it clear to Lu­cas that there are still many needy people in Ok­lahoma. (Per­haps that’s why Lu­cas in an in­ter­view said he heard more about food stamps from ad­voc­ates in Wash­ing­ton than at home.) Lu­cas, she said, vis­ited food banks in 2011 and has been sup­port­ive of SNAP. “He is aware that its be­ne­fits are im­port­ant for fam­il­ies stay­ing to­geth­er,” Chris­ti­an said. “He is not one to buy in­to any rhet­or­ic.”

But she said it has been harder to get Lu­cas’s staff to agree to meet­ings since he has been un­der so much pres­sure to cut make a big cut to food stamps. Chris­ti­an said she does not blame Lu­cas for agree­ing to the cuts, par­tic­u­larly since it is part of a path to­ward a new farm bill.

Last year, when Lu­cas pro­posed a $16.5 bil­lion cut to food stamps over 10 years, the Ok­lahoma food banks re­mained si­lent while na­tion­al an­ti­hun­ger groups such as the Food Re­search and Ac­tion Cen­ter called for no cuts to food stamps. “We did not say a thing,” Chris­ti­an said. “We knew that no cuts was un­real­ist­ic.” Na­tion­al hun­ger groups “are try­ing to keep their mes­sage con­sist­ent,” she ad­ded, “but it is not pro­duct­ive when they are not work­ing with the real­ity.”

Chris­ti­an and her col­leagues have also tried ap­proach­ing more re­cently elec­ted Ok­lahoma Re­pub­lic­ans. Rep. Jim Briden­stine, who rep­res­ents Tulsa, has vis­ited food banks, she said, but when it comes to dis­cuss­ing hun­ger he “gets in­to very the­or­et­ic­al con­ver­sa­tions. He is very liber­tari­an.”

The ad­voc­ates have also talked to Rep. Mark­wayne Mul­lin, who rep­res­ents the poorest part of the state, but with him the con­ver­sa­tion must start with “why need ex­ists in the com­munity,” not with the need to main­tain SNAP be­ne­fit and eli­gib­il­ity levels, she said.

Lob­by­ing to main­tain SNAP presents spe­cial chal­lenges for food-bank lead­ers, she said. They real­ize that low-in­come people get most of their food through SNAP and use the food banks as a backup, and that if SNAP be­ne­fits are cut people will have to come to food banks earli­er in the month.

“We do pub­licly sup­port SNAP not just be­cause we can’t do more, but if we want to end hun­ger we have to ad­voc­ate for safety nets,” she said.

But the first pri­or­ity for the Ok­lahoma food banks, which are part of the Feed­ing Amer­ica net­work, has to be ac­quir­ing and dis­trib­ut­ing food. “This is food in, food out,” she said.

The Ok­lahoma food banks get between 10 and 20 per­cent of their dona­tions from the Emer­gency Food As­sist­ance Pro­gram, or TE­FAP, which is run by the Ag­ri­cul­ture De­part­ment. Com­mod­ity-dis­tri­bu­tion pro­grams are more pop­u­lar with Re­pub­lic­ans than SNAP, and the House bill that cut food stamps con­tains a big­ger in­crease for TE­FAP than the Sen­ate-passed farm bill.

But Chris­ti­an noted that her food banks have to get the oth­er 80 to 90 per­cent from dona­tions of food or money. That means spend­ing a lot of time on food drives and fun­drais­ing, but also deal­ing with the fact that some donors are very con­ser­vat­ive and might not like a com­bat­ive cam­paign against SNAP cuts.

One of the oddest things about the cur­rent battle over food stamps is that, while farm groups op­posed split­ting the farm bill in two, food com­pan­ies and re­tail­ers that take in the SNAP money through elec­tron­ic be­ne­fit-trans­fer cards have been si­lent ex­cept for their sup­port of the Food Re­search and Ac­tion Cen­ter and oth­er an­ti­hun­ger groups. Chris­ti­an said the Ok­lahoma an­ti­hun­ger lead­ers have ex­plored the idea of loc­al re­tail­ers writ­ing an op-ed art­icle point­ing out that SNAP is im­port­ant to their bot­tom line, but “the eco­nom­ic stim­u­lus ar­gu­ment back­fires in a way” and there are fears people may ask, “Are you try­ing to help the needy, or what are you try­ing to pull here?”

The Ok­lahoma ex­per­i­ence seems to sig­nal that cam­paign­ing to main­tain SNAP be­ne­fits is more com­plic­ated and dif­fi­cult than it might ap­pear.

When Lu­cas held town-hall meet­ings in Ponca City and Black­well on Sept. 5, there were no SNAP be­ne­fi­ciar­ies or an­ti­hun­ger ad­voc­ates to urge him not to cut food for the needy.

“People work­ing three jobs are not go­ing to make it to a town-hall meet­ing on a Thursday,” Chris­ti­an said. “People strug­gling just day to day to get by don’t have the time and the agen­cies serving them don’t have the time. They are tapped out emo­tion­ally. That is why there is such a frac­tured net­work for safety nets.”

The Ok­lahoma food banks pub­licly op­posed the $39 bil­lion cut and said af­ter­ward that they “look for­ward to col­lab­or­at­ing fur­ther with our law­makers in the con­fer­ence com­mit­tee pro­cess to min­im­ize neg­at­ive im­pacts for the fam­il­ies we serve.”

The Sen­ate bill con­tains only a $4 bil­lion cut, and an­ti­hun­ger ad­voc­ates ex­pect the Sen­ate and Pres­id­ent Obama to op­pose a deep cut. But the $39 bil­lion House cut is now on the table, and the pres­sure is on to fi­nal­ize a farm bill that can be passed in the House.

Na­tion­al an­ti­hun­ger groups and Demo­crats ar­gue that there has long been bi­par­tis­an sup­port for SNAP and the feed­ing pro­grams. But when Demo­crats ar­gued on the House floor against the cuts they used the ex­amples of an op-ed writ­ten by former Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­ers Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and Bob Dole, R-Kan., and Sen­ate Ag­ri­cul­ture Com­mit­tee rank­ing mem­ber Thad Co­chran, R-Miss. But Daschle and Dole have been re­tired for a long time and there are ques­tions about wheth­er Co­chran will run again.

An­ti­hun­ger groups in the more lib­er­al states have no prob­lem put­ting pres­sure on Demo­crats to de­fend food stamps. But that’s preach­ing to the choir. Per­haps what has happened in Ok­lahoma will be a wake-up call to the na­tion­al an­ti­hun­ger groups to provide some kind of as­sist­ance to an­ti­hun­ger groups in states that have elec­ted a new gen­er­a­tion of Re­pub­lic­an politi­cians. If something doesn’t hap­pen to con­vince them they need to sup­port SNAP, con­ser­vat­ives may suc­ceed in their cam­paign to gut both it and the farm pro­gram.

In a fol­low-up email, Chris­ti­an noted that she had met with Lu­cas in 2012 and with Lu­cas’s staff in 2013 and said the food banks “have con­tin­ued a strong, part­ner­ship-minded re­la­tion­ship with his loc­al and na­tion­al staffers.” She also said that even though Ok­lahoma food banks re­mained si­lent on the pro­posed $16.5 bil­lion cut to food stamps that Lu­cas pro­posed in 2012, “Ok­lahoma’s food banks agree with Feed­ing Amer­ica that any cuts to SNAP in the U.S. farm bill will be harm­ful for mil­lions of hungry Amer­ic­ans.” Chris­ti­an also said that Ok­lahoma’s food banks “ap­pre­ci­ate the time Con­gress­man Briden­stine has spent thus far tour­ing our fa­cil­it­ies and learn­ing about our work. We look for­ward to build­ing our re­la­tion­ship with his of­fice in the fu­ture for the bet­ter­ment of fam­il­ies we serve.”

Con­trib­ut­ing Ed­it­or Jerry Hag­strom is the founder and ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of The Hag­strom Re­port, which may be found at www.Hag­strom­Re­port.com.
What We're Following See More »
“CLINTON MUST BECOME THE NEXT PRESIDENT”
Bernie Sanders Seeks to Unite the Party
3 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Instead of his usual stump speech, Bernie Sanders tonight threw his support behind Hillary Clinton, providing a clear contrast between Clinton and GOP nominee Donald Trump on the many issues he used to discuss in his campaign stump speeches. Sanders spoke glowingly about the presumptive Democratic nominee, lauding her work as first lady and as a strong advocate for women and the poor. “We need leadership in this country which will improve the lives of working families, the children, the elderly, the sick and the poor,” he said. “Hillary Clinton will make a great president, and I am proud to stand with her tonight."

“MUST NEVER BE PRESIDENT”
Elizabeth Warren Goes After Donald Trump
3 hours ago
THE DETAILS

In a stark contrast from Michelle Obama's uplifting speech, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren spoke about the rigged system plaguing Americans before launching into a full-throated rebuke of GOP nominee Donald Trump. Trump is "a man who has never sacrificed anything for anyone," she claimed, before saying he "must never be president of the United States." She called him divisive and selfish, and said the American people won't accept his "hate-filled America." In addition to Trump, Warren went after the Republican Party as a whole. "To Republicans in Congress who said no, this November the American people are coming for you," she said.

FLOTUS OFFERS STRONG ENDORSEMENT OF CLINTON
Michelle Obama: “I Trust” Hillary Clinton
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"In this election, and every election, it's about who will have the power to shape our children for the next four or eight years of their lives," Michelle Obama said. "There is only one person who I trust with that responsibility … and that is our friend Hillary Clinton." In a personal and emotional speech, Michelle Obama spoke about the effect that angry oppositional rhetoric had on her children and how she chose to raise them. "When they go low, we go high," Obama said she told her children about dealing with bullies. Obama stayed mostly positive, but still offered a firm rebuke of Donald Trump, despite never once uttering his name. "The issues a president faces cannot be boiled down to 140 characters," she said.

SANDERS BACKER CONFRONTS STUBBORN SANDERS SUPPORTERS
Sarah Silverman to Bernie or Bust: “You’re Being Ridiculous”
5 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Many Bernie Sanders delegates have spent much of the first day of the Democratic National Convention resisting unity, booing at mentions of Hillary Clinton and often chanting "Bernie! Bernie!" Well, one of the most outspoken Bernie Sanders supporters just told them to take a seat. "To the Bernie-or-bust people: You're being ridiculous," said comedian Sarah Silverman in a brief appearance at the Convention, minutes after saying that she would proudly support Hillary Clinton for president.

‘INEXCUSABLE REMARKS’
DNC Formally Apologizes to Bernie Sanders
9 hours ago
THE LATEST

The Democratic National Committee issued a formal apology to Bernie Sanders today, after leaked emails showed staffers trying to sabotage his presidential bid. "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email," DNC officials said in the statement. "These comments do not reflect the values of the DNC or our steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process. The DNC does not—and will not—tolerate disrespectful language exhibited toward our candidates."

Source:
×