Federal Government Intervention Paper

The changing face of families including the increase in number of single mothers who are often poor create a growth in participation of SNAP for single parent households since the 1980s (Ziliack, 2013). This group can significantly attribute to steady growth of SNAP recipients. Further, the growing Hispanic population has increased the caseload and those families on stamp since 2000 (Ziliack, 2013). The aging population is a growing population that put a downward trajectory for participation rates because they have one of the lowest rates of SNAP uptake. Additionally, the uptake among the aging population drastically varies by state impacting the overall participation rate among the subgroup and as America greys the overall SNAP participation by those eligible (Cunnyngham, 2010; Gundersen & Ziliak, 2008; Ziliak,

SNAP is the foundation of nutrition assistance programs. This program provides over 47 million individuals in nearly 23 million low-income households. The eligibility is not restricted to certain groups of individuals, and because of this, SNAP serves a vast amount of families with children, elderly people, and individuals with disabilities. Others eligible for SNAP include families with adults who work in low-wage jobs, unemployed workers, and those with a fixed income. The SNAP Program assists about 72 percent of people who live in households with children. Nearly 25 percent of households with seniors and individuals with disabilities, are also assisted (Rosenbaum, 2013).

In this budget activity I was given several areas to look over and make adjustments to help cut the debt that has been created. However, under only for of these categories, I made several changes in the area of defense, domestic, social security, and health care. I selected these changes solely on the fact that there are current changes in these areas and the revenue that these changes could benefit the budget. Nevertheless, help American regain some stability with its spending. Moreover, most of the changes have already been mention in the budget repair.

The federal budget is in crisis and the national debt is growing by the second. In an effort to stabilize the budget, I propose to cut spending in the areas of reducing troops in Afghanistan, healthcare, tax expenditures, and social security amongst others. While the premise behind helping others in our nation and abroad is an honorable idea, we need to find ways to do this while incentivizing people who work hard, rather than penalizing them.

Congress members ' websites compare and contrast in many ways. Each and every one of their websites are very formal, yet can be politically different depending on whose you view. For instance, when viewing a democratic congressman 's website its further on the left side of the political spectrum. Whereas a republican 's website would be on the far right of the spectrum. After viewing the websites of Congressmen Mark Kirk, John Boozman, and Danny K. Davis, it is clear that they disagree on important issues and have different ways of interpreting information to the public.

With $30 you can buy the following: 2 pies of Frozen Freschetta 12” Pizza, 1 box of Kellogg’s cereal of your choice, 3 boxes of Barilla Pasta, 2 jars of Barilla Pasta Sauce, 1 pound of turkey breast cold cuts, 1 package of salad blend, 1 and a ½ crown of broccoli, 5 tomatoes on the vine and 8 slices of store-made angel food cake (“ShopRite of Poughkeepsie Weekly Ad Week of April 20 through April 26”). Can you survive on that for a week? The average single able bodied, unemployed Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipient in New York receives around $30 a week to purchase food (“Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program”). The food stamp program was made national by the Food Stamp Act of 1964 by President Lyndon. B. Johnson (“Food Stamps in the U.S”). Today, over 47.6 million Americans rely on the government to buy groceries (“Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program”). The food stamp program is a staple part of our society. However, there was a time when the program was so unpopular that it shut down for almost two decades. In the recent years, food stamp benefits have been on a trend of expanding not only the amount of recipients, but also the amount each recipient receives in benefits. Why has the food stamp program become so popular and supported over the years? And what is the fate of SNAP? The analysis of trends of the policy changes and public moods shows that the size of the food stamp program has changed with the shift in America’s attitude towards

In the United States of America, there is enough food in this country that the total amount of agricultural exports is enough to feed everyone twice over (Dorsch, 2013). The problem is that even though there is so much food in this country millions of people require assistance to purchase the food and feed their families. Dating back almost 100 years, the now called Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) has evolved to keep up with the changing needs of the Country. In 1933 SNAP was built into Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA). The AAA was put into law during the great depression. The purpose of the law was to help farmers deal with the excess supply of crops by having the government subsidize the cost. The government would also distribute these crops to relief agencies and local communities (The History of SNAP). In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Food Stamp Act. With this legislation enacted it was now required to purchase stamps. These stamps also had bonus amounts that were determined by income level. In the 90’s and early 2000s major changes were done to SNAP. The electronic benefit transfer (EBT) card was

The federal food stamp program (SNAP), makes up the largest portion of the budget for the US Department of Agriculture.1 In New York alone 15.3% of residents receive benefits from the SNAP program.2 The purpose of SNAP is to provide nutrition to low-income citizens, however SNAP beneficiaries experience higher rates of obesity compared non-reciepiants.3 According to a report published by the USDA, Americans use food stamps to buy more than $600 million worth of “sweetened beverages,” and bought hundreds of millions more of junk food and sugary snacks.4 Lack of regulation and reform to the SNAP program is causing harm to the public.

The United States does not spend too much on the food stamp (SNAP program) and no one deserves to go hungry. Every year during budget talks the welfare program is a featured topic as the government explores ways to cut the budget. There appears to be a lot of unnecessary spending due to abuse of the system and program administration complexity. There are many areas in which reforms could be instituted and the program could be expanded without misappropriation of funds.

Recent budget controversy in Congress and the media has once again brought to the fore the pressing desire for fiscal responsibility in the United States Government. Although Congress came to a compromise in the proverbial eleventh hour, the extra attention afforded to the budget issue reignited a lingering controversy: is the current system of transfer payment, or “welfare,” programs a financially viable one, or should these programs be recognized as an economic burden? To answer that, it is necessary to identify which programs demand the largest portion of funding; this distinction is awarded to the Social Security program, the funding for which is considered “mandatory” and constituted about 56% of the budget for 2011 (Office of

Eligibility cuts, are cuts that eliminate eligibility for certain categories of households. States will have to cut an average of 10 million people from the program each year from 2021-2026. States also have the choice by lowering the income by providing less money to the programs every month. To achieve a 29 percent overall the House will have to lower the SNAP income limit to a solid 68 percent of the poverty level. The current federal limit is 130 percent of the poverty level. The benefit cuts are cuts that come across the board, states would have to cut an average of more than $40 person per month in 2021-2026. This would require to set the maximum amount to 77 percent of the cost plan for the Thrifty Food Plan, the Agriculture Department, to estimate the cost of nutritional food. With this being such a change families of four will have a significant cut in their families budget. The benefit cuts will cost a family of four nearly $165 per month or close to $2,000 per year

The supplemental nutrition assistance program –SNAP helps families in domestic hunger safety. Most might refer to them as Food stamps. SNAP is helpful for people who need assistance facing poverty. The Hamilton Project says, “This makes it the country’s most critical tool in battling poverty. The program kept 4.9 million out of poverty in 2012.” Many may argue, why are people still being unassisted in receiving SNAP benefits? As Michael Tanner writes in his policy analysis, “Snap is a deeply troubled program that has high administrative costs and significant levels of fraud and abuse” (1). Which leads me to say, it is time for the state to

It has been reported across media that the number of food stamp recipients has increased tremendously, reaching an all time high of 5 million people (Matt, 2013). The amount forgone is approximately $175 million (Matt, 2013). Of this amount, $75 million has been distributed to individuals who do not meet the eligibility criteria (Matt, 2013). In his research study, Matt (2013) indicated that for every $60 in benefits, Texas doled out close to $6.11 to people or recipients who are not eligible (Matt, 2013). The national average stands at $3.05, which shows that Food Stamp fraud in Texas is alarmingly high (Matt, 2013). This shows clearly that Food Stamp fraud is indeed destroying the economic potential of Texas. The amount used in order to provide benefits to fraudsters is supposed to be used in other areas of economic worth. However, believing that the needy citizens are being assisted, Texas has continued to use its revenues for unwarranted courses of action. Furthermore, the food stamp fraud is costing the tax payers immensely. As such, the cost of benefits provided under this program is met by the tax payers. As such, they must pay some income tax, some of which is channeled into the food stamp course. With an increase in the number of recipients, it means that the tax payers have to forgo more. This, as a result, ensures that those who are economically active continue to suffer at the expense of

As of 2013, one sixth of the entire country was enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Through this program, 47 million Americans are given federal financial aid to purchase fresh groceries (Plumer). One of the highly debated provisions of the SNAP program is what participants should be allowed to use their food stamps for. As of right now, food stamps can only be used to purchase food that can be cooked or eaten at home, preventing families from spending the federal aid at restaurants (USDA). Recently, the fast food corporation YUM!, which owns Taco Bell, KFC, and Pizza Hut, has lobbied to change this restriction (USA Today). Should people benefitting from the SNAP program have the right to spend their money on

There has been much controversy over the years with the more pressing issue of immigration reform. Over the last couple of decades the Imigration reform situation has become a greater issue with the country and both major parties of the United States compromised on what should occur. The way the United States government has handle illegal immigrants has been a touchy subject that has much controversy around it. Today, we will be talking about ways the U.S. government can address the issue with an appropriate plan of action.