Naturally, the people implementing these changes have tried to dress them up as care for underprivileged individuals who can’t afford the luxury of three meals a day. “Americans are generous people who believe it is their responsibility to help their fellow citizens when they encounter a difficult stretch,” Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue told reporters. “This is about restoring the original intent of food stamps...moving more able-bodied Americans to self-sufficiency.”
Strangely, though, critics aren’t buying it. “It is deeply disappointing that despite overwhelming opposition to this proposal, the White House has finalized a rule that stiffens work requirements for millions of SNAP participants, which will likely lead to hundreds of thousands of people losing their benefits,” Lisa Davis, Share Our Strength’s senior vice president, told the Post. Stacy Dean, vice president of food assistance policy for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said that the new rule makes it much more difficult for states that experience high unemployment to qualify for waivers during national recessions, which, y’know, might be a time that food stamps would come in handy for some people. “That change really weakens SNAP’s ability to assist the unemployed during an economic downturn,” she said.
Even many Republican lawmakers, who typically back the administration and appreciate policies whose underlying message is get a job, you bums!, didn’t support it—47 senators from both parties told the administration it should withdraw the rule, according to Debbie Stabenow, the ranking member on the Senate Agriculture Committee. “This is an unacceptable escalation of the administration’s war on working families, and it comes during a time when too many are forced to stretch already-thin budgets to make ends meet. The USDA is the Grinch that stole Christmas,” said Ohio rep. Marcia Fudge, chair of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Nutrition, Oversight, and Department Operations. “Shame on them.”
