State of the Union: What about SNAP?

It’s unsurprising that the program formerly known as food stamps, currently the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, didn’t receive a mention at last night’s State of the Union address. The policies the President discussed outlined an aspirational portrait of where the country should be and the changes he believes are necessary to achieving that vision. At a time when over 46 million people are on SNAP to meet their most basic of needs, putting food on the table, it could be an uncomfortable reminder of the distance between where we are and where he’d have us be. Of course, not providing fodder for the “food stamp President” moniker assigned by one of the Republican contenders for his job might have also crossed his mind.

While unsurprising, it’s also an unfortunate missed opportunity to recast this program, which has played such a critical role serving our countries most vulnerable families in the recession and its aftermath, as a key player in achieving other items in his “built to last” agenda. Kids, for instance, make up almost half of SNAP recipients. There is extensive research showing that hungry kids have a harder time learning in school and that the absence of adequate nutrition early in life can also impair cognitive development. Maintaining a SNAP benefit that is accessible and sufficient to support the nutritional needs of growing, learning children should also be seen as part of the President’s strategy to produce an educated and competitive workforce. Similarly, adults who go without enough to eat are much more susceptible to illness that prevents them from working. Both of these situations undermine the productive capacity of the economy, and SNAP deserves credit for mitigating both the hardship faces by families and the impact that experience has on the broader economy.

Ultimately, the success of programs like SNAP that are intended to improve the well-being of low-income families should be measured against both their ability to help people advance economically and provide traction to safeguard their progress. Savings uniquely work to achieve these objectives in tandem by helping families develop a stock of resources to buffer against financial shocks and to make productive investments for the future. Currently, however, SNAP and other means tested programs explicitly restrict the amount of savings a family can have to receive these services. Given the number of families who are relying on these programs, it is more important than ever that they serve as platform for building long term financial stability as well as meeting immediate needs. Removing these asset limits is a clear way of communicating that self-sufficiency is a goal of public assistance programs, and families who invest in their future will be supported, not penalized. And it’s a policy that models the value extolled in the State of the Union where “hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.” In his budget two years ago, the President included a proposal that would establish a universal $10,000 floor for asset limits across most programs, but it hasn’t made an appearance since then. Now would be a good time to dust it off.