Feeding needy Americans requires a sprawling bureaucracy and millions of tons of food costing an estimated $350 billion annually. That staggering amount represents government and charitable dollars. No country, and certainly not one as wealthy as the U.S., spends this much money feeding its citizens.
American taxpayers will shell out $142.2 billion to help feed 42.7 million people this year. That figure does not include spending by non-governmental groups, such as the Food Bank, Catholic Charities and Saint Vincent de Paul, which invest an estimated $200 billion annually to feed low income households.
Most Americans are familiar with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP) food program. It is the government's largest, but only one of 12 federal food programs. Others include the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, Emergency Food Assistance Program, Women, Infants and Children program and the Farmers Market Nutrition Program, to name a few. The plethora of programs carry the $142.2 billion price tag.
Food assistance traces its history to the Great Depression. The federal government introduced the first Food Stamp Program in 1939. The pilot program lasted four years, assisting 20 million people at a cost of $262 million. As so often happens in Washington, the effort morphed into a welfare entitlement.
In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson championed the Food Stamp Act permanently establishing an entitlement to improve levels of nutrition among low income households. After Congress approved the act, states were required to implement food programs funded by the federal government.
Legislative changes in 1970's set national eligibility standards, expanded the outreach and mandated the Agriculture Department to pay 50% of the states' costs for administration of the welfare program. In 2008, the Food Stamp Program was renamed The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
The name change was a political stunt. Congress wanted to polish the image of the program, scrubbing the stigma of welfare by changing the name to reflect a focus on nutrition. In reality, the Food Stamp program was riddled with fraud, abuse and waste, making it politically unpopular.
That same year states switched from paper food stamps to electronic benefits transfer (EBT) cards.
Even with a shiny new label, SNAP suffers from many of the same image problems, while the costs are soaring. The federal government--a euphemism for taxpayers--spent $74 billion in 2019 on SNAP. Costs soared 78.8% in 2023, reaching $132.2 billion. The costs dipped 24.1% to $100.3 billion in 2024.
Expanding benefits and lowering eligibility rules opened the floodgates. In 2000, there were 17.2 million households receiving the benefits. That was significantly less than 1981, when beneficiaries totaled 22.4 million. In 25 years, the number of beneficiaries has more than doubled (42.7 million).
States have little incentive to run an efficient operation since federal taxpayers foot the bill. At least 40 states have expanded beneficiaries by using a broad-based category of eligibility. For instance, individuals who receive another welfare service are automatically eligible for SNAP.
This has created a loophole for states to eliminate household asset tests and hike the gross income limit to as high as 200% of the poverty level. In Minnesota, the cost of SNAP assistance skyrocketed 174% in a single year, growing from $725 million to $2 billion from 2020 to 2021,
Illegal immigrants have also helped swell SNAP rolls. Undocumented immigrants are ineligible under the law. However, benefits are extended to households headed by illegal immigrants if there are eligible family members in the domicile. It can be a spouse, a relative or a child born in the U.S. The benefit is provided to the household not an individual.
A 2023 analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies found that 17% of households headed by an illegal immigrant received SNAP benefits. Fact-checking websites continue to stick to the eligibility language to claim that illegal immigrants cannot receive food benefits by law. It's a lie built on a technicality.
The cost for administering the SNAP program also contributes to the inflated price tag. States and the federal government spent a combined $12 billion a year to administer the benefits. States manage the day-to-day operations, handling applications, determining eligibility and issuing electronic cards.
The SNAP administrative costs are almost as much as the amount of fraud, waste and abuse. The Department of Agriculture, which oversees SNAP, estimated that 11.7% of benefits worth $10.5 billion were improperly issued, fraudulently acquired or stolen. That figure is for the fiscal year 2023.
There is no data from 2024, but this year the USDA reviewed reports from 29 states and found 186,000 people who are deceased are receiving SNAP benefits. More than 500,000 people are receiving double benefits. Twenty-one states, mostly run by Democrats, have refused to provide the data to the USDA.
Trafficking in stolen SNAP cards is a booming business. Thieves range from organized crime groups to individuals. In its study, the Agriculture Department found $1.3 billion worth of SNAP cards were sold on the black market. There is an added cost to states because they replace the stolen cards.
SNAP benefit cards do not have a theft-prevention feature, such as a microchip, that is standard on commercial debit cards. There is an effort underway to improve security, but any changes will have to be compatible with both large and small retailers' payment terminals.
Despite SNAP's use of the word "nutrition" in its name, the program does not deliver nutritious food. SNAP cards may be used in grocery or convenience stores to purchase virtually any food item, except alcohol. A 2016 USDA study found that 23% of purchases with SNAP cards were for surgery drinks, desserts, salty snacks and candy. These items are commonly labeled "junk food."
In summary, SNAP's rolls are bloated, the program's costs are exorbitant and the recipients are getting low nutritional benefits. It's a poster child for everything that's wrong with government welfare programs. SNAP is in dire need of an overhaul.
However, don't expect significant changes. There may be some tinkering with eligibility requirements but Washington lawmakers aren't serious about significant reform. Welfare programs are considered untouchable because revolutionary change always invites ugly partisan blowback.
Especially in an election year, no good idea has a chance to escape death by political fear and neglect.
