As the run up for the 2012 presidential race began to shape up last spring Gingrich in his usual style stirred the water with his conservative oar and said something that could be construed as racist.  I decided to confront some of the conservative dogma about the food stamp or more correctly the SNAP program. I can remember being an eleven year old when my mother left her abusive husband and she, Anton and I lived in a subsidized apartment building in Bellevue's Overlake district.  I remember that the food stamps were really food stamps back then and there was a stigma to us using them even then.  Without the food stamps my mother may not have been able to live on her own and make sure we ate healthily.  During my research for this article I posted some comments about SNAP on Facebook to see what kind of response I would get.  I found that conservatives AND liberals both had negatives images of this program.  One such image was burned into a large base by an "expose" of the SNAP program by a local TV station.  They showed how you could by drinks at Starbucks with an Oregon Trail card, (the EBT card Oregon uses instead of stamps.)  When I checked on this I found that this was only at Safeway Starbucks franchises.  This was brought about because Safeway changed the coding of cold drinks and pastries at their Starbucks franchises to "grocery." This enables someone to buy these expensive beverages and pastries with an EBT card.  Why did Safeway make this change?  Is it because they don't think people with SNAP cards should be denied Frappucinos.  I doubt it.  I can imagine a group deciding how to raise revenue in a management meeting and someone coming up with this as a revenue stream. 

This article is slightly dated as it is now over six months old. 


The Conservative Agenda; Methods of Argument On the Subject of SNAP (formerly Food Stamps);  Ideology vs. Sensibility.

“President Obama is the most successful food stamp president in American history,” (Rucker)

    With that statement Newt Gingrich brought SNAP into the forefront of the current political debate as the Republicans fight for the right to challenge President Obama for the Presidency in 2012.   This is not a new issue; the Republicans have been trying to dismantle this as well as other social programs since the Reagan Presidency over thirty years ago. The arguments aren’t new either, and examining these arguments may give us a view into what is needed to counter them.  By reviewing some key concepts and phrases we can gain a greater understanding of what it is that makes these arguments so palatable to their audience.  We also gain a greater understanding into what kind of defense is needed for those who feel that SNAP is an important, vital, and necessary social service for our Country.
    First we need to know a little about SNAP.  The food stamp program began in 1939 as a solution to both undernourishment and starvation brought on by high unemployment and food surpluses which were driving farmers out of business right here in our own country.  Milo Perkins then secretary of the new program said “We got a picture of a gorge; farm surpluses on one cliff and under-nourished city folks with outstretched hands on the other. We set out to find a practical bridge across that chasm.” (United) Over the next four years the program reached about half the counties in the United States and helped over twenty million hitting a peak of four million people.  The next phase in the food stamp story came at President Kennedy’s hands.  He oversaw a program that still required the purchase of food stamps but eliminated the surplus requirement of the program.  In 1964 Johnson requested that Congress make the food stamp program permanent and with the passage of HR 10222 food stamps became a permanent part of the fabric of the social programs of the Unites States.
    During the early 1980s the Food Stamp Program came under fire from the largely conservative White House of Ronald Reagan and the congress.  Several changes were made largely to eligibility requirements.  A gross income requirement was added and retirement income became countable in the income computation.  States were allowed to require applicants as well as recipients to be searching for a job and voluntary quitters were subject to likely cutbacks or cutoffs.  The late 1980s saw more changes but instead of cutbacks these changes were intended to help eliminate the domestic hunger problems and the program was amended to increase benefits, add an education credit, and eliminate the earned income tax credit as income.  
    Now as we come into a contentious race in 2012 with a government that is seen by many as overspending all social programs are under fire.  Social programs such as Medicare, and Medicaid, SNAP or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly food stamps) are seen as “entitlements” and are easy targets for pundits gearing up for the summer and fall election season.  Since these programs are used primarily by the poorest and least voiced members of our society the answer to the attacks is decidedly a quiet, almost meek one.  
    In his article “Four Absurd, Damaging Right Wing Lies About Food Stamps”   Jake Blumgart looks at four of the most common statements critics of SNAP use when talking about SNAP (Blumgart).  Instead of addressing these four statements as inherently wrong minded we are going to start by examining the thought process and the reasons the critics of SNAP use each of these statements.  
    Blumgart’s first example is the argument “The program is rife with fraud and abuse.” Fraud and abuse are two very negative words used equally by representatives and pundits from both sides of the aisle.  By implying that the program is rife with abuse and fraud anyone who uses a SNAP card is by association guilty of perpetuating fraud.  This argument appeals to the law and order type of person who usually votes with the idea of making their town, city or rural area safer.  It also separates SNAP recipients from those who don’t participate in the program by associating even those that are legitimate with the people who do commit fraud and abuse.  
    The next argument he takes on is the comment that “There are too many “hipsters” and college students on food stamps.”  This argument appeals to an older voter class that distrust the eternally trendy and the young.  It also appeals to a group of people who cheer when New Gingrich says ““Students take fewer classes per semester. They take more years to get through. Why? Because they have free money. I would tell students: ‘Get through as quick as you can. Borrow as little as you can. Have a part-time job.’ But that’s very different from the culture that has grown up in the last 20 years.” (Tumulty)  College is taking longer and costing more for most students these days.  By indicating that the college students are in it for a free ride makes programs designed to help college students such as Oregon’s SNAP assistance for college students much more vulnerable to attack and attrition.  Ironically the SNAP program for college students does require that they carry a part time job with at least 20 hours a week worked.
    Blumgart then goes on the attack the argument that “Recipients “waste” their benefits on unhealthy food.”  This argument is a no brainer for the right because it is one that is perpetuated by the media.  Fox 12 news in Portland, Oregon did a feature in which a news reporter went with a SNAP recipient and with the woman’s SNAP card they were able to purchase at a Starbucks franchise stand inside a Safeway a piece of pumpkin bread and a caramel frappucino for $5.25.  While the article goes on to say that Safeway has changed their policy to allow people to buy cold drinks and pastries with their SNAP cards by simply categorizing them as  groceries the damage is already done because what people have taken away is that people use their SNAP cards to purchase expensive wasteful beverages.  (4)  This argument redirects anger about companies that are abusing their access to state money by allowing people to focus on the recipients of the benefit.  It is always easier to blame a nameless, faceless person rather than a company that may be an employer or the only convenient grocery store.

    The final argument that Blumgart takes on is “The program is too generous, and food stamps are a significant contributor to national debt.”  This concept appeals to the social conservative that sees the social programs as basically redistribution of wealth.  It also appeals to the fiscal conservative who is nervous about the debt our country has gotten into over the last twelve years.  This argument also appeals to the idea that there is no free lunch and fails to show how large a slice of the national debt pie SNAP is.  By making this statement the right appeals to an emotional anger that many in the blue collar conservative crowd feel towards those they feel are taking advantage of the system.   

    In the recent article “I Got Food Stamps, So Can You.”  Sydney Phillips discusses her recent foray into the SNAP program.  The premise of her article was that it was too easy to get SNAP benefits.  She then goes on to describe the line and the approximately two months’ time it took before she was qualified for her SNAP card.  This argument again appeals to the thought that people receiving food benefits don’t necessarily need it or are taking advantage of the system.  It also subtly implies that people that receive these benefits may be inherently lazy as well (Phillips.)  
    The arguments we just used are the cannon fire for the battle coming up this summer.  As the water cooler political battles begin and the Facebook arguments continue it is good to take a close look at the arguments people use to belittle the programs and social safety net that this country truly needs.  Gingrich, in calling Obama the “Food Stamp President,” isn’t acknowledging the reason for the increases in SNAP program participants.  By using wording that is not necessarily the most appropriate he is trying to capitalize on the Reagan era image of the welfare queen collecting welfare while driving a Cadillac.  It worked in 1980 in Reagan’s election and later work to limit the food stamp program. He is just parsing the facts to make a point and redirect the public’s anger at a person he sees as his final opponent in 2012.  Whether it’s Gingrich or Romney this fall is sure to see a battle of sound bites and one offers and there will be some tense conversations in the bar after work, or even in the break room at work.

Blumgart, Jake.  4 Absurd, Damaging Right-Wing Lies About Food Stamps.  Alternet. 21 November, 2011.  WEB.  8 February, 2012
Brand, Natalie.  FOX 12 Investigators: Food Stamps Used for Frappuccinos. Fox 12 Oregon.  30 November, 2011. WEB.  2 February, 2012.
Phillips, Sydney.  I Got Food Stamps and So Can You.  The College Conservative.  16 January, 2012.  WEB.  8 February, 2012.
Rucker, Philip. Gingrich Promises to Slash Taxes, Calls Obama ‘Food stamp president.’ Washington Post.  13, May, 2011.  WEB.  2, February, 2012.
Tumulty, Karen.  Gingrich: No role model for students?  Washington Post.  28, January,2012.  WEB.  2, February, 2012
United States Food and Nutrition Service.  A Short History of Snap.  16, December, 2011. WEB. 2, February, 2012.

.