CBO: Debt Ceiling Deal Means 78,000 More Able-Bodied, Childless Adults Could Get Food Stamps
New work requirements will target those over age 50, but the debt ceiling deal also loosens existing work requirements for those under age 50.

One of the more fascinating sideshows of the debate over raising the federal government's debt ceiling has been the Republican-led effort to impose new work requirements on some food stamp recipients.
On the left, the idea that working-age, able-bodied, childless food stamp beneficiaries should be required to find employment in order to qualify for government benefits has been met with the usual shrill responses claiming that Republicans must hate the poor. On the right, the focus has been on ensuring government welfare systems aren't sending the wrong signals. "Incentives matter. And the incentives today are out of whack," House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R–Calif.) said in an April speech at the New York Stock Exchange. "It's time to get Americans back to work."
In the end, however, the debt ceiling deal struck by McCarthy and President Joe Biden is likely to end up with more Americans qualifying for food stamps—in large part because the deal actually removes work requirements for many individuals currently subject to them.
Under the terms of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, which cleared the House on Wednesday and is awaiting a vote in the Senate, an estimated 78,000 additional people will gain access to food stamps, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Those additional beneficiaries will add an estimated $2.1 billion to the cost of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the official name for food stamps, over the next decade—a minuscule increase to a program that will cost $127 billion this year.
The new enrollees and the additional costs are not all that significant. What is more interesting is that SNAP enrollment will increase at all, given all the political rhetoric on both sides. In short: The left says Republicans want to kick people off welfare, and the right argues that getting people off welfare—by getting them into jobs—is good. So why does this deal put more people on welfare?
Much of the media coverage has been focused on the GOP-backed plan to apply work requirements to able-bodied, childless individuals between the ages of 50 and 54. (Those under age 50 are already subject to work requirements.) Those between the ages of 50 and 52 would face the new work requirements starting in October, with the age limit raised to 54 next year.
But that only tells half the story. The bill would also remove work requirements for many individuals across all age groups. "Several groups would newly be exempt from work requirements: people experiencing homelessness, veterans, and people ages 18 to 24 who were in foster care when they turned 18," the CBO explains.
The expanded work requirements for those over 50 would save about $6.5 billion in SNAP spending over the next decade, the CBO concludes. But the new exclusions written into the law would more than offset those savings by costing an extra $6.8 billion over the same period.
Again, the dollars aren't really the most important part. As a result of the changes made in the debt ceiling bill, some 50-somethings will be required to work to receive food stamps, but some 30-somethings will now be able to access food stamps while remaining jobless. It's unclear how that tradeoff is supposed to correct the "out of whack" incentives that McCarthy and his fellow Republicans were campaigning to change.
Since these changes will add beneficiaries to the SNAP program, they will do nothing to address the worrying growth in the cost of food stamps, which has doubled since 2019. Congress will have another chance to address that when it considers a new farm bill in the coming months.
For now, it's also unclear why these new distinctions have been added to the law. Excluding the homeless might make sense, but why shouldn't able-bodied and childless veterans—who have a plethora of exclusive job opportunities available to them—be expected to find work before getting SNAP benefits? Why should someone's living situation as an 18-year-old affect whether they qualify for an unrelated welfare program two or three decades later?
Each new protected class of individuals who are exempt from the rules undermines the goal of transitioning able-bodied Americans from welfare to work. That's likely to increase both dependence on the welfare system and resentment of the seemingly arbitrary lines that dole out different benefits to people of equal socioeconomic status. If anything, it worsens the already bizarre incentives at play.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Sounds like it’s all on the up and up.
How does "people ages 18 to 24 who were in foster care when they turned 18" turn into "living situation as an 18-year-old affect whether they qualify for an unrelated welfare program two or three decades later"? At best, this says that your living situation as an 18-year-old affects your qualification 6 years later.
I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart ......
SITE. ——>>> salary009.com
See? That's in under a year!
This is even *phrased* almost identically to the question I was going to ask... 😀
I have made $18625 last month by w0rking 0nline from home in my part time only. Everybody can now get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow details here..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> https://www.apprichs.com
THe burden of Federal Debt on a household is now over $66000 , that along with inflation means that many many more than that are underfed because government is taking family money
Thomas Sowell says that government's invisible stealing doesn't bother people and the return of some small part of the money they thieve from you they expect applause for
I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart ......
SITE. ——>>> salary009.com
Why should someone's living situation as an 18-year-old affect whether they qualify for an unrelated welfare program two or three decades later?
People may accidentally end up here looking for the libertarian perspective. Let me offer it: the state has neither the moral nor the constitutional authority to take from the productive to provide welfare to anyone. Full stop.
Carve out libertarianism is just as useless as carve out SNAP benefits.
Anybody can say "Welfare isn't constitutional so there's no point in talking about changes to it since it shouldn't exist in the first place. Hrum hrum. End of conversation."
Shit, with that attitude there really isn't much to talk about, since most of what the federal government does isn't authorized by Article I, Section VIII.
They could always include that caveat so that people knew what the libertarian position was before getting sucked down into the muck of arguing details with the devil.
"In the fantasy land Libertopia where the government was faithful to the Constitution, the following would have happened... "
Do you ever have a a legitimate thought?
Shit, with that attitude there really isn’t much to talk about, since most of what the federal government does isn’t authorized by Article I, Section VIII.
Yes, and?
Why would someone who came of age in a foster home be less likely to find work than one from a single parent home in the hood? Are jobs more plentiful for 50 year olds than 49 year olds? What the fuck is going on here?
Here’s my theory. Fostering isn’t like in the movies where they’re all one happy family. It’s a business. They only care about the kids as long as the government is giving them a check. Once the kid turns 18 the relationship terminates. These new adults have no family. No nothing.
Just a shot in the dark. *shrug*
Edit: So without any support system they flounder and never get to achieve their full potential. Insert more emotive language here.
Not saying I agree with that point of view. But it seems stupid enough for some progressive to latch on to it.
No, the article does actually address the last bit. It's not that you can get away with not working until you turn 50, it's that for the most part, people under 50 already had to be working or at least looking for a job. The phrasing confused me at first too.
First, most kids turn 18 while they are in high school. Kick them out of their home, and _if_ they can find a job that doesn't require a diploma, most can't work enough hours to support themselves while staying in school. Drop out of high school, and most good jobs are out of their reach far past age 24.
So wait. You mean this cheerleading over imposing fiscal restraint is just a bunch of the usual lying bullshit by the usual lying bullshitters? I am shocked!
Republicans have been talking about work requirements for this or that program for years and I have been and will always be skeptical. The problem is that work requirements often apply to so few and there is so many cavoites in the requirements that they little more than a bunch of red tape eating up dollars they were meant to save.
I whole heartly agree that a job and work are best thing for people. I also accept that there are barriers for some of the chronically underemployed. I would like to see more effort put into getting people working and not booking keeping for requirements.
I think you missed the case studies, that show that even when work requirements do push people off welfare rolls, it's mostly because paperwork requirements are too burdensome, and not because people don't qualify.
I.e.: the people most hurt by these policies are not unemployed people, it's people who are already working.
Who needs 40 hours a week to fill out a couple of forms?
Fucking Republicans are useless. After all that this is the best they can do? They should have said "fuck you, cut spending or the debt limit stays where it is."
I'm waiting for the politician that uses "Fuck You Cut Spending" as their campaign slogan. See FYCS bumper stickers on every Ford pickup.
Don't even have to cut spending. Just freeze for a few years and let inflation do the work. Make them do what the rest of us do and set priorities. And when the budget is balanced move on to step two, whatever that is.
^^^
In your (and my) dreams.
Sure, Republicans are the problem, not Democrats.
>>So why does this deal put more people on welfare?
(D)+(R) = fytw
That's the equation Hihn should have been quoting all along.
the swamp really pulled one over on the taxpayer and the media with this whole debt ceiling charade ... mtg talked so tough on 60 minutes
theatre of the absurd.
Massie said they voted for it because if the house and senate to vote for all 12 appropriation bills next year it cuts the spending cap by an extra percent. Basically to stop omnibus budgets.
The media are willing co-conspirators.
the people most hurt by these policies are not unemployed people, it’s people who are already working.
How is someone “hurt” by getting less of something that wasn’t theirs to begin with?
My definition of “hurt” includes using state power to encourage people to be helpless, but I’m a heartless bastard.
Yes dude, if someone is already struggling to put food on the table, and you take action to make that more difficult you are hurting them.
Feel free to justify it if you want, but you shouldn't be in denial about what you've done.
I'm heartless, too. Anyone able-bodied, over the age of 18 and under 65, not caring full-time for child(ren), mentally capable, or otherwise able to work should be working.
With all the jobs available, there is something for everyone. And if they are totally unskilled, I know of an employment service in my city that will teach you to type for free.
Or you can use a computer there for free and learn almost any skill you want, including reading and math, computer coding, foreign languages; I could keep going.
Get your lazy butt into the workforce and do anything to get experience, then go from there. I started at the age of 14 in my high school cafeteria for $1.65 an hour as Daddy wouldn't pay for anything. Was that what I wanted to do? Heck, no! Did it pay much? No! But I did it until I graduated.
Then I worked at McDonald's, which was even worse. Another restaurant, a phone operator, a hotel operator. But I gained work experience, eventually ending up working as a hotel PBX supervisor at the age of 19. And I kept moving forward.
There is no excuse for most of the people I mentioned to not be working. There is something for everyone.
Moving story.
But from a quick google search, I'm guessing this story starts in the 60s or 70s, right? Much later and minimum wage is too high for non-tipped non-farm work for your story to work.
Using 1970, your $1.65/hour wage would be $12.276 today.
For comparison, federal minimum wage today (non-tipped, non-farm) is actually just $7.25/hour.
Other big differences between 1970s and today, is full-time jobs. Those "help wanted" signs you see at every restaurant, retail store, and fast food joint? None of those are going to give you 40 hours a week. If you want 40 hours a week, you're going to need two jobs.
And of course, the more jobs you have, the more scheduling headaches (especially when neither job will publish a schedule more then a week in advance), the more travel/commute time you have, and the more people you have to negotiate with anytime you need time off for something. Night school, for example.
Fact is, it was a lot easier to bootstrap yourself in 1970 then it is today.
Also you skipped over an important point: most able-bodied under 55 child-free people are working. They're working at least one job, and still make little enough money to qualify for food stamps.
Money doesn't matter. What matters is what you can buy. Not only that but for many money only a part of their total compensation which includes time off, insurance, retirement and such.
What matters? What you can buy and how long you have to work in order to get it.
Guess what. Some economist did the math. Ten years ago, but when we're comparing to 1970 it's close enough.
https://cafehayek.com/2013/01/cataloging-our-progress-using-sears-com-selection-on-new-years-day-2013.html
Add an "is" between money and only.
+1
What about more important and frequent purchases:
Like rent.
Rent in 1975 - $215/month or $2580/year - or based on your link above 25.5% of annual income
Rent in 2023 - $1380/month or $16560/year - or based on link above 40% of annual income
The fucking problem with inflation isn't goddamn exercise treadmills. It's the rent that crowds out the treadmill purchase. Its the rent that forces the downshift from steak to hamburger to dog food.
Jeezus H what a bunch of tin eared ignoramii.
everyone in that situation paid full rent – no-one had roommates ?
and i’m sure that 1380 is for the typical dive that someone lived in in the 70’s [basement suites, illegal apt, etc]
i can rent a house for that in my city
I came of age in the seventies and was able to pay my monthly living expenses, rent and utilities, out of one week's pay. Mostly delivering pizzas for cash and other unskilled jobs. Sometimes I lived with roommates sometimes I had my own place.
For comparison, federal minimum wage today (non-tipped, non-farm) is actually just $7.25/hour.
Nobody pays that low.
Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair, double E.
The people who elected these bozos deserve what they're going to get ... and they're going to get it in the derriere. But the rest of us do NOT deserve the looming disaster, but we're gonna get it anyway ...
These sorts of provisions are usually extremely poorly thought out. The desire to eliminate a benefit at a particular income level also creates a huge disincentive to earn an income that just crosses that threshhold. Effectively a confiscatory tax rate where all the increased income does nothing but cover (maybe - sometimes these rates are OVER 100%) the reduced benefit. Plus the taxes that increase because of the increased income. This stuff is well-known - and is a rational cause of poverty traps.
Not that anyone really gives a shit about things like a 98% effective tax rate for single mothers for income from $6 per hour to $9 per hour. Or moving from the poverty line to 2x the poverty line.
Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair, J.
For years this comment section has been a useless bad joke. 50% of it is scam job postings. There’s no way for us to a boat comments to help the better comments. Rise to the top. As it stands now we have to re-through every damn thought somebody has and trust me there’s a lot of dumb people commenting
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM