Congress to choose how to encourage work

I was really impressed by the op-ed in the Public Opinion earlier this Summer written by an esteemed senior economist on the President’s Council of Economic Advisers.  How does a reader in the Valley presume to challenge a great mind, when you think he's wrong?

The good news for me is that he's now an accomplice for the billionaire class. I retired at a reasonable age (Class of '67 like him, from a different college) and chose to write to protect the interests of those less fortunate than myself.  He would say the same thing, although semi-retired.  However, Richard V. Burkhauser thinks what is good for low-income workers between jobs is to cause them more pain - temporary, but necessary.  And, it's really for their longer-term good.  Current pain these folks already know.  What they don't know yet is that our leaders are set to ramp it up, using the Farm Bill. 

That's why we are hearing repeated calls for “work requirements” to qualify for any kind of assistance.  These leaders say they don't want to increase suffering.  Instead they want to use food, medical help, and housing assistance to pressure work more hours.  Once these disincentives to work are eliminated, their reasoning seems to be, people will flourish and poverty will be ended forever.  It's “Arbeit Macht Frei” for the 21st Century.

For example, take the $1.40 per meal able bodied adults who don't meet the current 20 hours per week work requirement, without children in their household, may get from SNAP for 3 months out of every 36 months.  They say this keeps willing workers out of the job market by “paying them for doing nothing.”  Dr. Burkhauser is a noted economist honored by President Trump.  It looks to me as if this is already a serious incentive to work.  Sen. Toomey has a suggestion: make it one month out of every 36. The House version of the Farm Bill will force workers as old as 64 to meet the 20-hour requirement.  It also sets up much more burdensome standards for proof of hours worked – burdensome both for workers and all the states, which administer SNAP.

Estimates are that the new “work requirements” for SNAP in the House bill will result in 1-2 million people losing all or part of their food assistance because they will not be able to satisfy the new rules.  Mission Accomplished.

Surely there must be some evidence that better nutrition reduces work, or that worse nutrition increases work. Looking for cause and effect before ordering SNAP cuts sounds reasonable.  In fact, it's ironic for Dr. Burkhauser to be enlisted to provide cover for cutting food assistance to “incentivize” work, because there is no evidence that it will work. In fact, Congress funded 10 state-level experiments for using SNAP to encourage work in the 2013 Farm Bill.  

No one knows if you could actually boost work by manipulating SNAP – some way or other.  Those pilot programs are being evaluated now, but no results are yet available.  I say ironic, because Mr. Burkhauser has been a persuasive advocate for an employment strategy that he knows works: the Earned Income Tax Credit. 

We are faced by opposite policy choices: punish for not working, or reward work by making it pay better.  I believe we should improve on the Earned Income Tax Credit by extending it to the segment of the population with the lowest employment rate – those 18 to 24, who are currently excluded.  

If you want to encourage work, use the EITC.  If you want to kick people off SNAP, add a bunch of conditions until you hit your target number. 

So, why push for SNAP cuts now?  It's all about the Farm Bill, which farmers are very eager to see written into law.  Farmers are not much focused on SNAP cuts, but Congressional leaders and President Trump's men are.  Their stuff either gets in the Farm Bill now, or they wait another five years for the next one.  In this short congressional session before the election, Members will be weighing what their constituents want or need.

I have been showing my support for the dairy farmers around here by requesting Congress to pass a Farm Bill with no SNAP cuts.  Those who insist on the cuts will probably make it impossible to get a final bill, because the Senate firmly rejected the cuts in their version.  No final bill, and farmers are the losers.  They should add their voices sending this message to Sen. Toomey and Rep. Shuster.

Bruce Kessler lives in Chambersburg and is a volunteer in RESULTS.