Closing a food stamp loophole
“Heat and eat” sounds like the instructions on a package of microwaveable noodles. Recently, however, the phrase has taken on new significance as the nickname for a loophole in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, that costs taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars each year — and gives an otherwise vital component of the social safety net a black eye.
SNAP benefits vary according to a recipient’s monthly income and expenses. If you can document costs for utilities such as heating, your benefits go up accordingly. However, some recipients have no utility bills, since the cost is included in their rent. In such cases, the rules allow states to factor in a payment from the federal Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program in lieu of a utility bill. And a LIHEAP payment of as little as $1 per year can leverage significant extra food stamp payments. So more than a dozen states and the District of Columbia have adopted the practice of issuing token LIHEAP payments to food stamp applicants — heat and eat.
While technically legal and undoubtedly well-intended, this maneuver results in many people receiving money based on utility expenses they did not actually incur. To be sure, SNAP benefits hardly pay for a luxury diet, and current law calls for the total cost of the benefits to decline from $76 billion in fiscal 2013 to $65 billion in 2023. Yet at a time when the Republican-controlled House is already calling for nearly $40 billion in cuts to SNAP over the next decade, heat and eat looks less like a clever way to help the poor and more like a political gift to SNAP’s perennial opponents.
A proposal under discussion by House and Senate farm-bill negotiators would curtail this misuse of SNAP at a savings of $8 billion over the next decade.
Basically, the plan would establish a minimum LIHEAP payment — $20 a year — to qualify for enhanced benefits, which is more than the states that currently play the heat-and-eat game would be willing to pay. Only 4 percent of all SNAP families would see a benefit reduction; crucially, none would lose basic eligibility.
It is, indeed, galling that the savings would effectively fund subsidies for farmers elsewhere in the bill rather than for other low-income programs, as we’d prefer. That’s a reason to pursue a long-term alternative to the legislative linkage of SNAP and agriculture programs. For now, though, this reform to SNAP is the best hope for staving off more damaging cuts.
— From the Washington Post
Rules for posting comments
Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Oahu Publishing Inc. or this newspaper. This is a public forum.
Comments may be monitored for inappropriate content but the newspaper is under no obligation to do so. Comment posters are solely responsible under the Communications Decency Act for comments posted on this Web site. Oahu Publishing Inc. is not liable for messages from third parties.
IP and email addresses of persons who post are not treated as confidential records and will be disclosed in response to valid legal process.
Do not post:
- Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
- Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
- Copyrighted materials of any sort without the express permission of the copyright holder.
- Personal attacks, insults or threats.
- The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
- Comments unrelated to the story.
If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon below the comment.