About 1 in 5 Kids Are at Risk of Losing SNAP. Centralized Control Keeps Failing Low-Income Families.
The best way to ensure healthy outcomes and protect children from the partisan crossfire of D.C. politicking is to break the federal grip on nutrition programs.
The federal government shutdown is disrupting major federal programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Now one in five children nationwide risks losing benefits because Congress has failed to pass a budget. On October 30, a federal judge ordered the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to draw from SNAP's contingency fund to cover payments, but that fund holds roughly $5–6 billion—barely enough to cover three weeks of payments for a program that spends more than $8 billion each month.
The ongoing deadlock highlights SNAP's fragility due to its near-total reliance on federal funding. More importantly, its chronic dependency on Washington's one-size-fits-all solutions has left it failing the very children it's supposed to help. The best way to ensure healthy outcomes for kids and protect them from the partisan crossfire of D.C. politicking is to break the federal grip on nutrition programs.
Washington has become a permanent fixture of childhood in low-income America. The N in SNAP stands for "nutrition," but federal food aid has routinely failed to deliver healthy diets for low-income families despite nearly $2 trillion in spending since 2000. Almost one-quarter of food purchases by SNAP households are for junk food, which undermines the efforts of doctors and other federal agencies to promote healthy diets. SNAP participants also have higher rates of obesity and poorer nutrition than nonparticipants, regularly failing to meet dietary guidelines while performing poorly on key health indicators. All of this has helped drive child obesity to nearly one in five children and adolescents as of 2020.
SNAP may provide assistance to families, but a program that consistently fails to deliver positive outcomes for the children it aims to serve falls far short of its purpose.
We've seen this problem before—and its solution. Like SNAP, Congress designed Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to assist low-income households, but its structure created perverse incentives that encouraged single motherhood, punished work, and trapped families in dependency for years. The 1996 welfare reforms replaced AFDC with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), a fixed block grant program that provided states with much-needed flexibility to innovate and tailor their programs to fit the needs of their residents.
States leveraged TANF's block grant flexibility by shifting funds from pure cash assistance to targeted supports such as childcare subsidies, job training, and education programs. These reforms helped parents—especially single mothers—overcome employment barriers and increase their income. The results surpassed everyone's predictions. Within a decade, more than 1.6 million children were lifted out of poverty. Additionally, poverty in single-mother families fell to record lows, and overall poverty and child hunger declined substantially. All of this occurred while welfare caseloads declined by more than half.
By converting SNAP into a block grant and gradually decoupling it from federal dollars, states would be able to take on decision-making and responsibility for their programs, controlling funding and tailoring solutions to the needs of their low-income families. Just as TANF prioritized economic independence and employment, state SNAP reforms could prioritize better health and self-sufficiency.
The current shutdown should serve as a catalyst for Congress to reassess the federal role in welfare. Children shouldn't go hungry because Congress can't govern—nor should they be dependent on the D.C. bureaucracy for their food. SNAP's centralization and reliance on federal dollars have caused it to fail at meeting the nutritional needs of children, and now, millions of families face the prospect of sudden benefit disruptions.
Congress should stop treating Americans as collateral damage in their fight over extending Obamacare subsidies and end the shutdown immediately. While restoring federal funding will avoid immediate disruptions to benefits, Congress should also reform welfare to ensure it helps rather than hinders the families who rely on it.
SNAP is outdated. Congress should devolve funding and administration to the states, allowing them to pursue more effective nutrition policies for low-income families.
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
If you really want to let these kids down ask them who their father is
Who's yer Daddy, Reverend Artsy-Fartsy Knucklehead?
There, there, now, do YOU feel PervFectly HELPED?
Hey, wow, WAIT a minute! When Welfare Momma has a boyfiend who has LIED to her, about his OTHER 122 pregnant girlfiends, then MAYBE, just MAYBE, we could allow her to get an abortion! Maybe THAT would help cut down on poverty! Or maybe Reverend Artsy-Fartsy Knucklehead could volunteer to VOLUNTARILY help out with the 122 other pregnant girlfiends, in odor to protect the every sperm, which is sacred?
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⣠⣦⡄⣿⣿⡇⢠⣶⡄⢀⣤⡀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⣀⣀
⢀⣠⡄⣿⣿⣧⣿⣿⣧⣿⣿⣧⣼⣿⣿⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣾⣿⡇⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣧⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿
⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿
⠈⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠁⠀⠀⠸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣶⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇
⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠻⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠟⠁⠀
Why stop at abortion? Why don't we ki!! every poor kid under the age of ten?
Why Uncle Sam is. That is who is paying for much of their lifestyle, except maybe mom’s smokes, booze, scratch off tickets, and drugs.
I bet all those Obama phones are in the trash, er, recycling bin.
Deys weaves an deys nails.....
Now one in five children nationwide risks losing benefits because
Congress hasDemocrats have failed to pass a budget.FTFY.
And don't forget why. Those 1 in 5 kids are leverage.
Straight from the donkey's mouth.
SNAP may provide assistance to families, but a program that consistently fails to deliver positive outcomes for the children it aims to serve falls far short of its purpose.
You are mistaken when you say its purpose is "positive outcomes for children."
It's a vote pump. Always has been, always will be.
Also, this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zIcK8SKWn8#t=4m42s
And this: https://x.com/EBTofTikTok
This is how democrats create multi generational constituencies. Just lie, how Lyndon Johnson got his civil rights agenda passed.
“These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference... I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years"
-Lyndon Johnson, Democrat President
Hey SCOTUS-SCROTUS, Your PervFected source-cite fell off! Ya gonna FIX shit?
And don't forget which political movement declared an actual goal to eliminate the family entity, and which US party has been supporting that goal (and that movement).
Republicans, the party of personal responsibility, blaming the minority party for them not passing a budget. LOL
https://psychcentral.com/disorders/treating-pedophilia#ssr-is
It takes 60 Senators to pass a budget, asshole. The GOP only has 53.
The House passed a clean CR, and senate republicans have voted yes 14 fucking times.
Go fuck yourself.
Shrike isnt the smartest is he. Doesn't understand how the senate works at all. Just repeats dnc talking points no matter how retarded they are.
“It's a vote pump. Always has been, always will be.”
That’s the definition of the federal income tax code.
Now one in five children nationwide risks losing benefits because
Congress has Democrats have failed to pass a budget.their parents can't be bothered to do what it takes to put food on the table.FTFY
Sorry, misplaced post got moved...
Perhaps instead of sending 90 percent of my income tax to the feds I could send 90 percent to the state directly?
...
Consider the grip broken: There are privately-funded food pantries all over the place.
If this goes on, I am upping my donations.
Not according to Reason. Usually Cato is better than this, but maybe Reason edited away the libertarian angle.
The reason SNAP is not block grants to the states is that the red states would divert those funds to projects that have nothing to do with helping people get food.
What is your 'fair share' of what someone else has worked for?
MG is a gray box to me. I decide what my fair share is in some cases. I am fine with that. I do not tell others what they should do and they do not need to worry about my motivations.
"A shutdown shouldn't starve America"
I wonder if Molly, pictured above, has ever asked why one might ever have anything to do with the other. Let alone why one could, would, or should.
By the looks of many of those baby mommas, a few weeks without stuffing themselves with empty calories might do them some good.
Videos of them with two shopping carts filled with junk food.
That's what we, the taxpayers are funding.
Fuck off and die, Nazi shit.
Just kill yourself.
Cite, Dr. Retard?
My state is funding our food support program during this Schumer shutdown.
Why can't rich blue states do that?
There aren't any "rich blue states"; they're all in hock up to their eyeballs.
"...red states would divert those funds to projects that have nothing to do with helping people get food."
Like paying cops, fixing roads and other things governments should do, asswipe?
Fuck off and die.
End ALL govt forms of welfare.
- Chumby, little L libertarian
Also, I hope this shutdown never ends.
Gotta get my base jumping in.
That is awesome.
What cyclists do when they aren’t fucking up traffic.
Cyclists don’t go to heaven.
'The N in SNAP stands for "nutrition," but federal food aid has routinely failed to deliver healthy diets for low-income families despite nearly $2 trillion in spending since 2000. Almost one-quarter of food purchases by SNAP households are for junk food, which undermines the efforts of doctors and other federal agencies to promote healthy diets.'
This is your libertarian complaint?
Oh, Cato. Sorry, retard, carry on.
You can search and find videos of those women with two shopping carts filled to the top with every sort of junk food in the store.
You and I paid for it.
Not the Jews, asshole?
'ROMINA BOCCIA is the director of budget and entitlement policy at the Cato Institute. Follow her writing on Substack at The Debt Dispatch.
TYLER TURMAN is a research associate in budget and entitlement policy at the Cato Institute.'
Entitlement Policy? What the actual fuck.
CATO divorced itself from libertarianism a while ago.
There's divorce and there's burning down the house and joining a cult.
"Now one in five children nationwide risks losing benefits."
I don't believe this number.
If you follow the link(s) for the claim it goes: Reason (no data) > Time Magazine (no data) > NPR (no data) > USDA.
Now the USDA has numbers but it looks to me like it supports that 1 in 5 people who are on SNAP are children. Not 1 in 5 kids in America, and certainly not 1 in 5 kids in America are at risk of losing SNAP.
If that's the case, then we are looking at between 8 and 9 million children who will lose aid.
There are roughly 65 million children in the USA.
So that would be a bit less than 15% America's children. Pretty close to the ratio of SNAP to the population. I admit I'm a bit surprised. I expected children to be overrepresented.
And remember, the number of recipients and their children is NOT the total number of people eating the food. Most "single mothers" on public assistance actually have a loser boyfriend living with them.
I don't believe so. Most are baby mommas with a number of kids by different baby daddies, none of them stick around or are in jail or dead.
Tell us how you feel about the Jews, SS Stormtrooper.
You're just wrong on the math there. Following the chain of links, the USDA page at the end shows 38.8% of SNAP participants are children, not 1 in 5 (that's almost 2 in 5.) It also shows that 12.3% of the country was on SNAP. If you consider the percentage of children in the total US population and run the math, you'll see that 1 in 5 children in America being on SNAP is supported by the numbers.
On the other hand, this USDA page says at the top: "Due to the Radical Left Democrat shutdown, this government website will not be updated during the funding lapse." So I'll understand if you don't want to trust what it says. It's obviously biased.
Your number
38% of 65M is 25,220,000
38% of 300M is 116,400,000
But here's the thing minors only make up 22% of the US Population.
22% of 65M is 14,300,000
22% of 300M is 66,000,000
This article seems willfully blind to the problem. When you're raising animals (pets or livestock), you can control their nutrition. You can't do that with human beings, they eat what they want. Yet this article implies there'd be a way of doing it, if only the US government got out of the way. Who do the authors think they're fooling?
SNAP benefits do the same thing to food prices that college loans do to the cost of education. Don't care.
They interviewed one local grocery store manager this morning on the news, and asked him if this might affect prices. He said, 'Yeah! they might go down for a bit.' 'Not UP?!' 'Oh, not likely. We're looking at reduced demand and therefore increased supply. That's a downward market pressure, not up.'
The reporter looked utterly confused.
"The reporter..."
Writes for Reason?
How about do the libertarian thing and the Christian thing. Volunteer to give food aid at your local church.
https://psychcentral.com/disorders/treating-pedophilia#ssr-is
No no, the modern libertarian position is to advocate to abolish the welfare state, and then do nothing but shame poor people. They're not going to help poor people, that would be awful!
Yeah no, that’s not what anybody here has said.
Some sad the opposite. Make Demjeff sound extra retarded today.
How much money have YOU chosen to give, jeff?
His deceased mother's Social Security checks don't provide him with enough money to be very generous.
Kill yourself.
People who make babies with no ability or intention to support them need to be shamed. Being ashamed of irresponsible behavior is a good thing.
^+1. Similarly, weighing 300# needs to be laughed at.
Das rayciss!
No, you are, bigot. Fuck off and die.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4580337/
SNAP recipients are 2.6 times as likely to be obese as non-recipients.
Seems like this is why they have been storing all those pounds; time to shed a few now.
That might not even work. Morbid obesity from an early age can ruin your metabolism to the point where even a very low-calorie diet won't take much weight off.
Just do a search for the shopping habits of baby mommas.
Shopping carts filled with junk food.
Do a search for Nazi shits; you'll get JohnZ
So, as the state fails to provide welfare for the needy, private charity is going to fill the gap, right? Right? And that includes all of you, who is going to donate your money to compensate for the state failing to provide charity to needy people, right?
Oh of course not. You want to abolish the welfare state, AND you don't want to lift a finger to help genuinely needy people. All you want to do is scold and shame people.
You know who is actually helping needy people? It's the left-wingers that you all hate.
"you don't want to lift a finger to help genuinely needy people. All you want to do is scold and shame people."
There is data on how much people donate to charity across the political spectrum. You'll have to find it yourself, but I do know that your scolding is misplaced.
As for my part, I already donate to my pet charities, and have for decades. So you kind of sound like a real dick here buddy.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34429211/#:~:text=Our%20meta%2Danalysis%20results%20suggest,giving%20varies%20under%20different%20scenarios.
Hmmm
Some said the opposite. Makes Demjeff sound extra retarded today.
Oh yeah he is not a lefty so he doesn't donate himself. Right? If Dimjeff understood logic, he would see that he really disses himself here. Makes him a special dumbass.
It’s a daily occurrence.
LOLWUT?
"So, as the state fails to provide welfare for the needy, private charity is going to fill the gap, right? Right? And that includes all of you, who is going to donate your money to compensate for the state failing to provide charity to needy people, right?"
It certainly appears so. Google says there is 48,000 food pantries nationwide. Local news where I live has stated that the food pantries have received record donations in the last month. The local news spends a segment every day pointing out the locations of the food pantries.
Did you have a stroke?
The best way to ensure healthy outcomes and protect children from the partisan crossfire of D.C. politicking is to prohibit government coercion. Government welfare programs shouldn't exist. The function of government is to defend liberty, period.
Civil government, insofar as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, and for the defence of those who have property against those who have none." Adam Smith
If that observation is true, then the paths that follow - Randian plutocracy, Bismarckian social welfare, or Marxist revolution - are all based on the same first step.
One problem , in one segment of the population more than other parts , is having single mothers with no father in the picture. Some with multiple children.
Or, what is often worse--a father who IS in the home but is a worthless piece of shit living on the woman's benefits.
The outcome of which can be seen in every city run by Democrats, like Chicago, Baltimore and Memphis.
As someone wrote...a generation of predators.
Got your storm-trooper uniform handy, Nazi shit?
Stop subsidizing the reproduction of indigent unmarried women.
"It's the taxpayer's job to pay for my kids to eat". https://slaynews.com/news/snap-beneficiaries-threaten-loot-stores-democrat-shutdown-taxpayers-job-pay-my-kids-eat/
This is how insane these people have become:
Two hundred pound baby mommas with five kids by five different baby daddies be demand'n deys taxpayers be feed'n deys chilluns an sheeit.
^ Fuck off and die, Nazi shit.
'The best way to ensure healthy outcomes and protect children from the partisan crossfire of D.C. politicking is *to tell people they are responsible for their children*'
Fixed.
Again this is something that should be addressed via an interstate compact.
It doesn't surprise me that states themselves find good reason to want to find a way to deal with poverty of their residents (who are also US citizens). Esp kids and such. Ignore the libertarian crap by commenters here that starvation on the streets is a good option.
The mere act of putting primary responsibility on the states changes the approach.
Is there ANY level of agreement/cooperation among states, on this issue, that constitutionally REQUIRES congressional structuring via an interstate compact? IMO it's really limited compared to other issues. But maybe interstate mobility burdens or stuff related to the value/quantity of money supply.
At any rate far more limited than an existing national approach -and far more useful than libertarian philosophizing crap.
Nothing JFucked has ever 'philosophized' about has been worth shit.
20% of the country's kids are on SNAP? That's insane. Shut it down permanently. Make the kids' parents grow a pair and take responsibility.