Cutting Federal Spending: The Case Of Food Stamps

Down in the swamps of Washington, D.C., our Congress is said to be hard at work hammering out a budget for the coming fiscal year. With a crisis of massive deficits looming, supposedly they are going to come up with some major areas where government spending can be cut.

One of the areas under consideration for significant cuts is the program formally known as the “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” or SNAP, and informally known as “food stamps.” According to the latest data from the Department of Agriculture, as of February 2025 the SNAP program had some 42+ million “participation persons,” with the cost of the program running at just under $8 billion per month, which is close to $100 billion per year.

Is it possible to achieve meaningful savings in this program? That depends on whether you think that the government’s goal should be to maximize the number of people living on handouts and in a state of dependency, or whether instead you think that the government’s goal should be to maximize the number of people living by their own resources and without dependency. The history of the program over the past several decades would suggest that plenty of current program participants are fully capable of making it on their own.

However, needless to say, the left-wing press has risen to the occasion to defend every last penny of current spending on the ground that any cut would constitute a cruel blow to the vulnerable. For one example among many that are available, let me pick on my usual whipping boy, the New York Times. The Times has a piece from Monday (May 12) with the headline and subheadline “Republicans Target Federal Anti-Hunger Program as They Prepare Trump Tax Package; Limiting funding for SNAP could help defray the costs of President Trump’s tax plans, but could result in millions of low-income families losing access to aid.” Excerpt:

House Republicans on Monday proposed a series of sharp restrictions on the federal anti-hunger program known as food stamps, seeking to limit its funding and benefits as part of a sprawling package to advance President Trump’s tax cuts. . . . The moves could result in potentially millions of low-income families losing access to the safety net program.

On cue, the Times rolls out a program advocate to throw around some inflammatory rhetoric:

Proponents of the food stamp program say that it has long served as a critical lifeline for low-income families by ensuring that they do not experience hunger. . . . “Slashing billions from SNAP would deepen hunger, increase poverty, and weaken communities,” said Crystal FitzSimons, interim president of the Food Research & Action Center, an advocacy group.

However, looking at the history of the program, what emerges is that it became bloated during the Covid pandemic, and the Bidenauts were only to happy to keep it that way. The best resource I find for a counter-view on food stamps is something called the Economic Policy Innovation Center, or EPIC. They have a web page called the EPIC Food Stamps Resource, updated to May 1, 2025. Some key data:

- In 2001, when Bill Clinton left office, the number of participants in the food stamp program was 17.3 million.

- During the George W. Bush years, food stamp enrollment went up substantially, reaching 28 million in 2008.

- But then, once Barack Obama took office, enrollment really started to soar. As recounted in this Manhattan Contrarian post from 2013, the Obama administration undertook an aggressive advertising and outreach effort to maximize food stamp enrollment. By 2013, enrollment had reached 47.24 million. Essentially all of that increase took place during times of economic expansion, when the normal expectation would be that enrollment would decline.

- During his first term, Trump and his people made substantial progress in decreasing the food stamp rolls. By Trump’s last year in office, enrollment was down to just over 34 million, almost a 30% decrease.

Covid was the excuse for letting the food stamp rolls begin to explode again. But at this point the pandemic has been over for at least three years. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the rolls are at a high level because the Biden people wanted them to be at a high level.

EPIC gives some insights into how the numbers come to be so high. For example, the food stamp program supposedly has work requirements for any able-bodied adults. But the work requirements “are currently waived completely or in part in 34 states.” As a result, many able-bodied adults enrolled in the program simply do not work. EPIC gives figures for 2017-19: “Before the pandemic and Biden expansions, 13 million able-bodied adults received food stamp benefits on average between 2017 and 2019, yet 62 percent of these work-capable recipients did not work at all.” Since then, the evasion of the supposed work requirements has only gotten worse.

With food stamp program expenditures currently running at an annual rate of around $100 billion or more, there is lots of room for that to be reduced without anyone actually going hungry. If Bill Clinton could have food stamp rolls of well under 20 million people, that should be achievable again.

It is a fascinating question and the answers are several and complex. The reasons it is allowed to go on are just as complex and full of guilty feelings that we must not let anyone go without in our efforts to provide for the needy. I think this includes assuming that a certain percentage of SNPA card benefits are sold illegally, traded for cash or swapped to others for non-eligible items at a 50% discount of the benefit price level. Thus, enrollees swap/sell maybe half their benefits for cash at that discount and then can use that to buy Detroit Tigers baseball game tickets, concert tickets, booze, cigarettes, and non-food household items. Maybe more than half, so much that they cannot feed their kids in the summer time when school is not in session. Thus, the sending home of weekend and summer meals to kids because their guardians are squandering their SNAP benefits on drugs, alcohol, smokes, and necessities that are not covered by SNAP as well. You can give people money but you cannot “live” for them and make better choices in their place, unless they are in jail.

This reasoning that we must pay even as we know some percentage (not an insignificant percentage either) more because we cannot as a society, bear the possibility that some needy kids will go hungry because of poor choices by their guardians is driving our budget crisis. At least part of it. Its true that kids don’t learn well in school if they are hungry. And its easy to vote to pay for unlimited benefits with mostly other peoples money to feed them over and over above what is actually necessary if fraud was not occurring. The logical answer is likely orphanages again to control the feeding environment of kids with irresponsible addicted grifting and thieving parents. Maybe you could find enough Foster parents if you gave them enough of a cut of what was saved for dooing it. I doubt it though.

there is lots of room for that to be reduced without anyone actually going hungry. If Bill Clinton could have food stamp rolls of well under 20 million people, that should be achievable again.

—
Shortly after Clinton left office in 2001, the US population [ on July 1, 2001 ] was 284.97 million. As of May 1, 2025, the US population is 341.70 million, a deference of some 56 million. Not counting illegals and got-a-ways.

So to keep the rolls under 20 million, we will need to get rid of a lot of seniors and illegals. The illegal problem is solvable. What is the suggestion for getting rid of seniors? And at what age should seniors be “terminated”? Moreover, what percent of a 4 trillion budget is 100 billion?

I remember my mom crying for a similar reason. Dad left and paid no child support for years. Left her to raise 5 boys. We were at the grocery store and she pulled out the actual stamps.

She broke down in line out of shame.

I’ve never forgotten that.

I understand your sentiment, but is an absolute indisputable fact that people who buy new model cars, pay the accompanying insurance, have cell phones, Internet plans, even live in houses, can get food assistance that allows them to buy lobster, candy, and steak.

They can do that, while people who work for a living or are otherwise considered ineligible have to watch what they purchase and go without, limiting themselves, while some of these people go in with multiple cards and purchase whatever they like. That sign on the lobster tank, and the reality of people with multiple cards they get from who knows where indicate fully the object unfairness of this type of bloated, wealth redistribution scheme as sadly described in Freeper econojack’s post above.

This program should be overhauled. Reduced significantly with limitations in place for who is eligible. I don’t call that radical extremism. I call it good government.

But even half guilty is not 100% guilty as presumed... Whole lot of folks make it easy to claim it should be eliminated because they have never actually been truly hungry for more than one hour because lunch happened to be late. They have absolutely no concept of what it is like to have nothing to eat for two or three days in a row.

The cure cannot be one size fits all slash and burn like everyone wants.

Nah.

The basics would require people to get off there couch, put their cigarette out and stop watching The Maury Povich Show and work to prepare dinner.

“How many posters on this article are actually on food stamps?”

Very few, or they would understand that it is not at all what they think it is. To begin with it is not one size fit’s all universal across the nation. The states control their own local eligibility requirements and especially the amounts disbursed. And in most red states it is actually pretty slim help already.

My daughter used to work at a convenience store, and she also volunteered at a local food pantry. Many of the “needy” people she saw at the pantry were regular customers at her store where they would use their EBT to buy junk food, and then use cash to buy beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets. Our daughter got a reality check on so-called “food insecurity” in America.

I’d like to see a DHS, DoT, FBI and local authority crackdown on illegals buying cars, trucks, vans, service vehicles, etc. and insurance...and beer, wine & liquor using fake and fraudulently issued drivers licenses as proof-of-age and address state ID. They shouldn’t be served in restaurants and bars and in the clubs. Cut them off all the way around. Make it so that it’s too late to celebrate. Party time is officially over for the strangers in town. Tattooed and stupid is no way to go through life. Take the $1,000 and don’t spend it all in one place...and don’t push your f*cking luck.

Both of you seem to view this issue as if there is nothing wrong with this program as it is, and it is simply hard-hearted conservatives who want to gut it or even eliminate it.

Is that your view? If I am oversimplifying your posts, just say so.

If it is your view, how do you justify the fact that people on these programs can buy luxury foodstuffs like candy, lobster and steak? Do you support that?

I believe the approximate budget numbers I have seen are that we are on track to spend 7 trillion dollars yearly and going up, while taking in only 5 trillion. We must necessarily borrow the extra 2 trillion somehow, or print it out of thin air, and service the ever growing interest on existing national debt, which also grows by that 2 trillion every year. Elon is correct, this is not and never has been sustainable. We must demand change by our elected officials and now it is emergency action only that will help in time.

The problem I have is the assumption that this abuse is universal across the board everywhere. This is a misconception and just not true. Not EVERYONE is guilty. And the states are their own stewards who control eligibility and amounts disbursed. So in some states they abuse it and disburse far too much, like Ca and NY. While in others it is barely any help at all for those who truly need it like Az where a single adult making only $800 a month on SS can only get $40-$60 worth a month. It is just not “one size fits all”.

Does it need to be addressed? Absolutely, but it needs to be a commonsense compromise rather than slash and burn across the board. The innocent who truly need it should not have to pay for the abuse of the guilty. Cut eligibility to illegals, and put a limit on what products can be purchased. This alone would be enough to fix the program without any slashing of whole services universally across the board. The problem is we do not do commonsense “compromise”. We do extremist all or nothing.

Yes. Thus the difficulty in changing in any meaningful way. As I recall, Congress added a chole expensive group of medical recipients to Medicare/Medicaid back in the 60s by covering kidney failure and transplantation/dialysis for all who need it because they could not bear that sick people were dying because they could not pay for their very expensive dialysis and transplants. And most of those added had not paid into Medicare in a meaningful amount yet in their lives to offset it. Hospitals used to have ethics boards just for deciding which patients were important enough in their communities to deserve getting dialysis or not on the one or two machines they had. Only one or two machines because dialysis was a big money loser until the Government forced Medicare to cover it for all. Now all get it including illegals.

In fact the truly homeless living under bridges or in their cars are not even eligible because they have no permanent physical “home” address.

This is not true. I worked in food stamps. We sent them out every single month to a General Delivery address at the post office. And once they receive their card the card is automatically loaded every month. The cards can be sent like this....
John Doe
General Delivery
1730 18th St, Bakersfield, CA 93301-4328

I don’t think most of us have any qualms about helping those who are truly in need. I remember seeing an interview (20 years ago?) by the Times-Picayune (New Orleans) in a welfare recipients 3 bedroom apartment. She was a single mother of 7 with no husband getting subsidy payments for rent, food stamps, Medicaid, and welfare. The interviewer looked at the new 32” flat screen TV (I couldn’t afford one back then) and the lady started shaking her finger at the interviewer and screaming: “Don’t you be looking at my TV. I earned that!” Really? Explain to me how you have never had a job in 57 years, but you earned a new TV that I couldn’t afford as a full time professor.

I was PO’ed...

I disagree with your characterization that conservatives do extremist, non-common sense solutions or nothing at all, which is a provably false blanket statement you yourself have made against conservatism.

If there were any truth to that, we would be in even worse straits than we are now.

I don’t see many voices calling for total elimination (even “here”) do you?

You are applying one size fit’s all and that is not true in many states. Maybe in Ca. In other states you have to prove a physical address. You have to prove a rent receipt, utility bill, long term motel receipt, or a slip from a homeless shelter address to be eligible. And this is my point. It is not a universal situation. It is solely dependent on the state you live in.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.