SNAP program flawed; SC politicians miss point
Waves were made in South Carolina late February when state legislator Bakari Sellers (D-Bamberg) responded to Gov. Nikki Haley’s call to remove unhealthy foods from food stamp purchases. Sellers urged Haley to eat only healthy foods with food stamp purchases for one week. While Sellers’ challenge was well-meaning and Haley has good intentions regarding the health of South Carolina’s poorer population, both are slightly missing the point.
First of all, Sellers, like many Americans, misconstrued what food stamps (or Electronic Benefit Transfer) are designed to be. “Food stamps” is the informal term for the acronym SNAP, which stands for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The key word here is “supplemental.” Food stamps were never intended to exclusively provide an individual’s dietary needs; they were designed to aid individuals of low income to supplement those nutritional requirements. SNAP was not created to encourage people to live on the dole but rather to make life less difficult for those in precarious situations, with the intent of them eventually finding better employment and no longer needing the benefits.
According to the Department of Agriculture, the average South Carolinian on SNAP receives just over $131 a month. A family of three then would receive around $400 per month. While this may not be enough money to purchase organic arugula every day, if coupled with even a meager food allowance from wages it is easy enough to buy canned vegetables, brown rice, milk and other healthy foods.
Next, while Haley is correct to want South Carolina’s low-income population to make healthier choices with their food stamps, she misses the fact that the point of the program is to get people off food stamps. It is true that abuses occur with EBT, and steps should be taken to mitigate them. Right now in Florida examples of people using EBT cards at strip clubs, liquor stores, casinos, etc., are rampant.
It is not illogical to suggest that people, especially in a warm state like South Carolina, could achieve a degree of self-sufficiency. It is quite feasible to grow supplemental food in even a tiny yard. Books about self-sufficiency on a quarter acre of land and related publications are on the market. Plants like cucumbers and tomatoes can grow on lattice work leaned on one’s house, and to buy a tomato plant producing many pounds of fruit costs only $2.50 at Lowe’s.
While both Sellers and Haley bring attention to the significant health and SNAP problems in South Carolina, the real goal is to help bring the poor out of poverty, not just subsidize their less-than-ideal situation. Self-sufficiency should be a focal point of any sort of low-income outreach, and it might even produce some agricultural entrepreneurs in the process.