Right to Opine

The newly-elected Republican majority headed to the House of Representatives in January has one general mandate: reduce the size of government. This sounds good to voters, who are understandably upset by the massive expansion of the federal government during the last two years—and with the unaffordable price tag which accompanies it. When it comes to actual spending cuts, however, many Americans start to squirm. If you talk about cutting the defense budget you’re unpatriotic. Education? You’re racist or don’t care about the future of our country. Entitlements? You’re unsympathetic toward the poor.

The truth is that in order to get federal spending under control, we will likely have to make cuts in every area of spending, but the one area that is going to need the biggest overhaul—because it by far accounts for the largest portion of federal spending—is entitlements. Most thinking people agree that Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are unsustainable in their current forms, but changing them is going to be a years-long process that may not have a visible impact for more than a decade. There is, however, one entitlement that should be cut significantly: food programs.

The Wall Street Journal headline was dire: “Hunger Afflicts More U.S. Households.”

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, around 15% of American households “struggled with low food security in 2009.”

The USDA defines food-insecure households as those that have difficulty at some time in the year providing adequate food for all of their members.

And

Roughly a fifth of the U.S. population participated in at least one federal food-assistance program

But are federal food programs really the solution? Obesity rates among the poor are significantly higher than in the middle and upper classes. While there are numerous reasons for this, as federal food programs have increased so has the rate of obesity in the lower classes.

One major problem is the way in which these programs are administered. The SNAP/EBT program gives out a card which is used like a credit card. Abuses of this system have been highly publicized, including purchasing such non-food items as alcohol, cigarettes, lottery tickets, and even cash withdrawals. (There are many such accounts from a variety of states.) The first step toward cutting waste in the program, then, should be to either distribute staple foods directly, or return to the food stamp system whereby stamps can only be exchanged for specific food items.

Another, larger, question is whether this program is necessary in its current scope. According to the Cellular Telephone Industries Association 91% of Americans have cell phones. And the Television Bureau of Advertising notes that 90% of American homes have satellite or cable TV. These are not necessities, but luxury items. In effect, food programs are a federal subsidy for the cable and cellular industries. Many recipients have money they could spend on food, but choose to spend it on other things because the government is feeding them. This level of technology penetration indicates that we could cut food programs by roughly one third—and require more Americans to take responsibility for their own needs.

No one wants the poor to go hungry, but federal food programs are not ensuring the health of the poor, are wide open to abuse, and are simply not necessary to the extent to which they are provided. Not only can we cut them back—we should.