Federal Government Intervention Paper

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers food assistance programs that help provide food for low to no income families. It is their goal to increase food security and reduce hunger by increasing access to food, a healthful diet, and nutrition education for low-income Americans (Caswell, 2013, para. 1). Some of the current nutrition assistance programs include “the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)”(Caswell, 2013, para. 1). SNAP will be the primary nutrition assistance program of the paper at hand. No matter how morally good it is to try to help reduce hunger and increase food security within the United States, there are still many questions regarding issues with SNAP. This paper will be discussing why there is such a strong support for the program, how it helps the United States as a whole, problems with the program, and why some people are against SNAP.

Food stamps are an important component of low-income families’ monthly resources, increasing the chances that families are able to meet basic needs (Ratcliffe, McKernan & Finegold, 2008). This form of food relief dates back to the Great Depression when many Americans lost their jobs and did not have money to feed their families. People were starving while farmers produced abundant crop that could not be sold due to a lack of consumers with buying power (Dorsch, 2013). The Federal Surplus Relief Corporation which was a part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, bought basic farm goods at low prices and distributed the among hunger relief agencies in different states and local communities (Congressional Digest, 2013).

SNAP is the foundation of nutrition assistance programs. This program provides over 47 million individuals in nearly 23 million low-income households. The eligibility is not restricted to certain groups of individuals, and because of this, SNAP serves a vast amount of families with children, elderly people, and individuals with disabilities. Others eligible for SNAP include families with adults who work in low-wage jobs, unemployed workers, and those with a fixed income. The SNAP Program assists about 72 percent of people who live in households with children. Nearly 25 percent of households with seniors and individuals with disabilities, are also assisted (Rosenbaum, 2013).

It has been reported across media that the number of food stamp recipients has increased tremendously, reaching an all time high of 5 million people (Matt, 2013). The amount forgone is approximately $175 million (Matt, 2013). Of this amount, $75 million has been distributed to individuals who do not meet the eligibility criteria (Matt, 2013). In his research study, Matt (2013) indicated that for every $60 in benefits, Texas doled out close to $6.11 to people or recipients who are not eligible (Matt, 2013). The national average stands at $3.05, which shows that Food Stamp fraud in Texas is alarmingly high (Matt, 2013). This shows clearly that Food Stamp fraud is indeed destroying the economic potential of Texas. The amount used in order to provide benefits to fraudsters is supposed to be used in other areas of economic worth. However, believing that the needy citizens are being assisted, Texas has continued to use its revenues for unwarranted courses of action. Furthermore, the food stamp fraud is costing the tax payers immensely. As such, the cost of benefits provided under this program is met by the tax payers. As such, they must pay some income tax, some of which is channeled into the food stamp course. With an increase in the number of recipients, it means that the tax payers have to forgo more. This, as a result, ensures that those who are economically active continue to suffer at the expense of

In the United States of America, there is enough food in this country that the total amount of agricultural exports is enough to feed everyone twice over (Dorsch, 2013). The problem is that even though there is so much food in this country millions of people require assistance to purchase the food and feed their families. Dating back almost 100 years, the now called Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) has evolved to keep up with the changing needs of the Country. In 1933 SNAP was built into Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA). The AAA was put into law during the great depression. The purpose of the law was to help farmers deal with the excess supply of crops by having the government subsidize the cost. The government would also distribute these crops to relief agencies and local communities (The History of SNAP). In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Food Stamp Act. With this legislation enacted it was now required to purchase stamps. These stamps also had bonus amounts that were determined by income level. In the 90’s and early 2000s major changes were done to SNAP. The electronic benefit transfer (EBT) card was

As of 2013, one sixth of the entire country was enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Through this program, 47 million Americans are given federal financial aid to purchase fresh groceries (Plumer). One of the highly debated provisions of the SNAP program is what participants should be allowed to use their food stamps for. As of right now, food stamps can only be used to purchase food that can be cooked or eaten at home, preventing families from spending the federal aid at restaurants (USDA). Recently, the fast food corporation YUM!, which owns Taco Bell, KFC, and Pizza Hut, has lobbied to change this restriction (USA Today). Should people benefitting from the SNAP program have the right to spend their money on

Eligibility cuts, are cuts that eliminate eligibility for certain categories of households. States will have to cut an average of 10 million people from the program each year from 2021-2026. States also have the choice by lowering the income by providing less money to the programs every month. To achieve a 29 percent overall the House will have to lower the SNAP income limit to a solid 68 percent of the poverty level. The current federal limit is 130 percent of the poverty level. The benefit cuts are cuts that come across the board, states would have to cut an average of more than $40 person per month in 2021-2026. This would require to set the maximum amount to 77 percent of the cost plan for the Thrifty Food Plan, the Agriculture Department, to estimate the cost of nutritional food. With this being such a change families of four will have a significant cut in their families budget. The benefit cuts will cost a family of four nearly $165 per month or close to $2,000 per year

The changing face of families including the increase in number of single mothers who are often poor create a growth in participation of SNAP for single parent households since the 1980s (Ziliack, 2013). This group can significantly attribute to steady growth of SNAP recipients. Further, the growing Hispanic population has increased the caseload and those families on stamp since 2000 (Ziliack, 2013). The aging population is a growing population that put a downward trajectory for participation rates because they have one of the lowest rates of SNAP uptake. Additionally, the uptake among the aging population drastically varies by state impacting the overall participation rate among the subgroup and as America greys the overall SNAP participation by those eligible (Cunnyngham, 2010; Gundersen & Ziliak, 2008; Ziliak,

There has been much controversy over the years with the more pressing issue of immigration reform. Over the last couple of decades the Imigration reform situation has become a greater issue with the country and both major parties of the United States compromised on what should occur. The way the United States government has handle illegal immigrants has been a touchy subject that has much controversy around it. Today, we will be talking about ways the U.S. government can address the issue with an appropriate plan of action.

The federal budget is in crisis and the national debt is growing by the second. In an effort to stabilize the budget, I propose to cut spending in the areas of reducing troops in Afghanistan, healthcare, tax expenditures, and social security amongst others. While the premise behind helping others in our nation and abroad is an honorable idea, we need to find ways to do this while incentivizing people who work hard, rather than penalizing them.

In this budget activity I was given several areas to look over and make adjustments to help cut the debt that has been created. However, under only for of these categories, I made several changes in the area of defense, domestic, social security, and health care. I selected these changes solely on the fact that there are current changes in these areas and the revenue that these changes could benefit the budget. Nevertheless, help American regain some stability with its spending. Moreover, most of the changes have already been mention in the budget repair.

Recent budget controversy in Congress and the media has once again brought to the fore the pressing desire for fiscal responsibility in the United States Government. Although Congress came to a compromise in the proverbial eleventh hour, the extra attention afforded to the budget issue reignited a lingering controversy: is the current system of transfer payment, or “welfare,” programs a financially viable one, or should these programs be recognized as an economic burden? To answer that, it is necessary to identify which programs demand the largest portion of funding; this distinction is awarded to the Social Security program, the funding for which is considered “mandatory” and constituted about 56% of the budget for 2011 (Office of

The US government will respond to the overwhelming number of families and individuals in need of aid by creating a welfare program that would give assistance to those who had less or no income. The courts hold social security accountable because the federal has the power to spend on general welfare. The president trying to pass a law to move people from welfare to work and slashed the rolls by eighty percent, and Legislators maintain the process by which legislative actions and policy changes at the Federal level impact State and Tribal child welfare systems and service delivery.

The federal government is the system that divides up power between a strong national government and smaller local governments. It consists of three branches, the legislative, executive and judicial branch. Essentially, the federal government is what sets various boundaries and some regulations. State and local governments consist of the systems that are used on a daily basis such as schools, police and fire departments, libraries, and parks.

In the U.S., obesity rates are constantly rising. Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, shows that, in the U.S., “more than 1 in 3 adults are considered to be obese, … and more than 1 in 6 children and adolescents ages 6 to 19 are considered to be obese” (Overweight). In 2008, the Food Stamp Program, renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), had the highest number of beneficiaries since its inception in 1968 (Cancio). “As of late 2009, about 40 million people were enrolled in the program, amounting to about 1 in 8 adults and 1 in 4 children in the United States” (Cancio). 28.1% of people on food stamps are obese, while only 17.5% of nonrecipients of the food stamp are considered obese (Baum). This disparity is likely due, in part, to the accessibility of calorie-dense junk food. One way to increase the accessibility of healthy food to these low-income individuals is by alloacating a certain amount of food stamp money to certain healthy foods, such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. By partially restricting one’s personal freedom to choose what and how much they consume, the health of the American population will become less affected by mental and physical diseases caused by poor diet, and the efficiency of the U.S. economy will improve because less money will be needed to help treat obesity.