Senate needs to step up for SNAP

 I hope that West Virginia’s congressional delegation brings some sanity and humanity into policy decisions being debated in Congress. 

A case in point is the reconciliation bill that passed the US House Agriculture Committee that would blow up Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) food assistance for millions of Americans—and thousands of West Virginians-- to pay for more tax cuts aimed at the very wealthy.

Let’s start with where we are now. In West Virginia, around 124,000 households with around 279,000 people receive SNAP food assistance, including over 90,000 kids and almost 11,000 veterans. That’s around 15 percent of state residents. The program brings close to $50 million per month to the state’s economy.

That money goes directly to local businesses and farmers markets, keeps 2,170 retailers, including endangered rural grocery stores, open, and creates a lot of jobs. In fact, the annual amount of SNAP benefits in our economy is enough to support around 19,000 jobs at $30,000 a year.

According to the Food Research and Action Council, in recent years 69 percent of SNAP households here had at least one member working outside the home; 38 percent had at least one older adult; 43 percent had children; and 54 percent had at least one member with a disability.

All that would change and lots of people would be hurt if the House plan goes through. It would cut SNAP funding nationally by around $300 billion, resulting in a loss of food assistance to 11 million people.

Among other things, the plan would blow up already strained state budgets. It would require states to pay between 5 and 25 percent of the costs of benefits, while doubling state administrative costs. Given the ongoing budget woes facing our state, in part due to recently enacted tax cuts benefiting the wealthiest individuals and businesses, it’s highly unlikely that our state legislature would be willing or able to make up the difference.

It would erode the value of benefits as the price of food increases.

And it would double down on bureaucratic paperwork and work reporting requirements that do nothing to promote work and do everything to provide excuses to kick people off. It lifts the age of these requirements from 54 to 64 for older adults. It makes it harder for states to get requirement waivers.

It would completely eliminate SNAP-Ed, an evidence-based program that helps low-income families access fresh and healthier food.

It will eliminate food assistance for refugees and asylum seekers, many of whom are children and seniors.

One especially mean feature is that it would end exemptions from work reporting requirements for parents of children aged 7 to 17 without any allowances even for the months when school is not in session. It’s a mystery how they expect parents of young children to afford to pay for child care, which can cost more than college tuition, if their income is low enough to qualify for SNAP. And it totally disrespects the value of caregiving and raising children. SNAP eligibility changes may also make it harder for children to qualify for free school meals.

This will have negative social ripple effects that will be felt coast to coast and hit especially hard here. It will have negative effects on the economy, education, public health, and the quality of life.

And the purpose of creating all this unnecessary suffering (not even counting the even larger amount of proposed Medicaid cuts) is to pay for a tax cut bill that would overwhelmingly benefit the richest one percent at the expense of children, seniors, and working families.

I’d like to think that Representatives Miller and Moore would reconsider their support for this, but if not, it’s going to be up to the US Senate to stop this trainwreck. And a lot will depend on the voices and votes of Senators Capito and Justice.

(This ran as an op-ed in the Charleston Gazette-Mail. Text written before last night's house vote.)

Want to help reduce child hunger? Here's one way

Everybody's got to eat 

It’s no secret that hunger affects kids’ health and makes it harder for them to learn and thrive in school. In recent years, there has been growing awareness that millions of children in the U.S. rely on school breakfasts and lunches—and increasingly after-school snacks and meals—for a significant part of their nutrition. 

This has led many to ask about what happens to those children when school is not in session. This is an especially crucial question in a time of pandemics, extreme weather events, and other disasters. 

Even a polarized Congress has recognized the importance of this issue. Recently, Congress enacted a permanent program to help low-income kids get the food they need when schools are out for summer. The Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) program, which will take effect this year, is modeled on the Pandemic EBT cards issued during the COVID public health emergency.  

The new program will provide pre-loaded cards worth $120 in grocery-buying benefits to low-income families with school-age children. As many as 30 million children could benefit, according to the Food Research and Action Council (FRAC). With the help of other programs—such as SNAP Stretch, which doubles or even triples the purchasing power of EBT cards at farmers’ markets—Summer EBT can dramatically improve child nutrition. That means more kids will have access to the food they need year-round, which will pay off in the long term for their health and well-being.   

There are economic benefits to the program, as well. Summer EBT could provide a boost to local businesses, farmers, and economies worth at least $3.6 billion from the EBT cards alone. In addition, the USDA estimates that every dollar of EBT benefits spent generates a multiplier effect of 1.54.  

How you can help  

The Summer EBT program is based on a federal-state partnership, with states having to share administrative costs. Recognizing the value of this program, most states—whether led by Democratic or Republican administrations—have chosen to implement it.  

Unfortunately, as of this writing, 14 states have chosen not to participate in 2024. That leaves more than 10 million children without this critical benefit. Those states are: 

Alabama 

Alaska 

Florida 

Georgia 

Idaho 

Iowa 

Louisiana 

Mississippi 

Oklahoma 

South Carolina 

South Dakota 

Vermont (they plan to next year, but a nice nudge woudn't hurt)

Wyoming 

Do you live in one of these states--or know people who do? You can help by joining AFSC’s campaign to persuade leaders in your state to implement Summer EBT.  

AFSC, with our over 100 years of experience in working for food security, is partnering with national and state allies to ensure that all eligible children can benefit from this program. We will share ideas, talking points, media toolkits, data, materials, and other tools to support you in working to achieve this goal. 

Together, we can ensure more kids have the food they need while school is out.

If you’re interested in working toward a No Hunger Summer, please contact us at nohungersummer@afsc.org. 

Some shameless punning on the Farm Bill

 

(You've goat to read this)

As someone who has dabbled in farming, I find it difficult to write about an important topic like the federal Farm Bill without indulging in at least a few agricultural puns—even though punning has a baad reputation.

The 17^th century English poet John Dryden, for example, referred to punning as “the lowest and most groveling kind of wit.”

Oliver Wendell Holmes Senior, 19^th century American physician and poet, said “A pun does not commonly justify a blow in return. But if a blow were given for such cause, and death ensued, the jury would be judges both of the facts and of the pun, and might, if the latter were of an aggravated character, return a verdict of justifiable homicide.”

Mark Twain, whose pen name was itself a pun (the pen pun was unintentional by the way), wrote that “no circumstances, however dismal, will ever be considered a sufficient excuse for the admission of that last and saddest evidence of intellectual poverty, the Pun.”

 I have no beef with such writers or their sage advice, but at the risk of being corny it’s still chard not to.

The Farm Bill is a huge piece of legislation that comes up every hive years and Congress has goat to pass this year. It’s an omnibus bill, meaning that it combines several distinct acts that clover everything from hunger to flood control. But it helps to take it one bite at a time.

Here are some things that ordinary people all over the US and especially in West Virginia need to bee in the bill and that we need to count on Senators Capito and Manchin and Congresswoman Miller to support:

*Food assistance. Let’s face it. Millions of Americans barley get enough to eat--as in 33 million nationwide and over 200,000 here. That situation has gotten worse with the ex-pear-ation of COVID-era safety net provisions and recently passed federal legislation. Last time around, in 2018, our senators carroted enough to support a clean Farm Bill without more restrictions for food insecure people even though they were going against the grain. Let’s hope they do that again.

*Flood control. Irrigation is berry important to farming, but I think most of us would prefer that it not happen to our roads, homes, businesses, and towns. And that it should water our fields without washing them away. A good Farm Bill would help farmers recover from disasters, pre-pear for future ones, and support conservation practices that can reduce flooding.

*Support small farms and farmers. Millions of taxpayer dollars go to subsidize large scale corporate and industrial operations that are inhumane to animals, farmworkers and unsustainable for the environment. You don’t need a fertile imagination to realize that the money would be beet-er spent supporting smaller family farms and local food systems.

*Address climate change. You don’t have to be a farmer to realize that the weather is getting weirder and weirder, but you cane’t help but notice it if you are. A good Farm Bill should provide encourage-mint for regenerative agricultural measures that would conserve soil, prevent erosion, regrow forests, encourage cover crops, store carbon, and reduce emissions.

*Support creative approaches. It wood be win all around if the Farm Bill put more resources into school and community garden projects, urban agriculture, and small scale local projects that fight hunger and keep resources in the local economy. Also, it would be good to take steps to open farming opportunities to people who have been discriminated against in the past.

*Be kinder to our four-legged and feathered friends. Industrial livestock production crowds cattle, hogs, chickens, and other critters into Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations known as CAFOs. Aside from causing unnecessary misery, these create a-maize-ing amounts of animal waste and pollution and encourage the overuse of antibiotics that weaken their effect. They’re nothing to crow about and taxpayers shouldn’t relish the chance to subsidize them.

*Local processing. If the Strengthening Local Processing Act was part of the package, this would be an alternative to CAFOs by supporting local processing of animal products. Surely a meating of the minds is possible here.

*A missing piece. One thing that’s been lacking from previous Farm Bills is protections for the people who dew the work. Lettuce not forget that farm work is difficult and hazardous and much of it is done by children. Nothing against emergency responders, but risks are even higher in this field. Farming is routinely considered to be among the most dangerous occupations. Also, some farmworkers experience wage theft but are too intimidated to pursue redress, which drives down wages for everyone.

*Child care. And how can we forget the kids? Senator Brown from Ohio has rounded up bipartisan support for including the Expanding Childcare in Rural America Act, which would provide more child care in rural communities. Farm work can eat up some long hours in places where there often aren’t good child care providers. It would be great if every child barn in a farming community could enjoy good care when the adults are fending off possums and such.

I realize that this is quite a grocery list, but this is a REALLY big bill and there’s no time for stalling. If we want a decent bill for everyone, we need to turnip the noise and kale our representatives this summer. It’s time to broc and roll.

(This ran as an op-ed in the Charleston Gazette-Mail.)

Why work requirements don't work

The recent proposal to increase work reporting requirements for people receiving SNAP food assistance under the Limit, Save, and Grow Act is redundant and harmful for several reasons:

*work requirements already exist for SNAP. According to the USDA, these “include registering for work, participating in SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) or workfare if assigned by your state SNAP agency, taking a suitable job if offered, and not voluntarily quitting a job or reducing your work hours below 30 a week without a good reason.” States also have the option to impose additional requirements on able-bodies adults without dependents aged 18-49, although evidence suggests that these have failed to increase workforce participation.

*the term “work requirements” in the context of changing eligibility programs such as SNAP and Medicaid is misleading. A more accurate term would be reporting requirements which involve more layers of paperwork, bureaucracy, and surveillance in exchange for often meager benefits. These reporting requirements impose burdens people receiving food assistance and the businesses, organizations, and/or agencies for which they work and simply result in few people receiving needed assistance.

*work reporting requirements don’t promote work. For example, the New York Times reported that when West Virginia piloted the program in counties with the most favorable labor market conditions, the state Department of Health and Human Resources found that “Our best data does not indicate that the program has had a significant impact on employment figures.” Rather, people lost food aid and local businesses lost out. Similarly, when Arkansas added similar reporting requirements for Medicaid, workforce participation didn’t increase—but the number of uninsured people did.

*work reporting requirements for food assistance hit the most vulnerable people hardest, including homeless people or those with unstable housing—a population that includes many veterans, domestic violence survivors, rural residents, people with disabilities, noncustodial adults supporting children, people in recovery from Substance Use Disorder, and others.

*the “Limit, Save, and Grow Act” would double down on vulnerable populations by imposing reporting requirements on older adults up to age 55. According to AARP, over 9.5 million Americans over age 50 rely on SNAP, a group that faces age discrimination in hiring and employment practices.

*SNAP benefits help local businesses and economies—and loss of benefits costs both. The Food Research and Action Council reports that each dollar in federal SNAP benefits generates $1.79 in economic activity.

*reducing SNAP benefits for millions of Americans would only place greater demands on already stretched food pantries, soup kitchens, and charities which are often staffed by volunteers and seniors.

All of which is to say this is not cool.

Short window to speak up for child nutrition

 Most of us probably have a specific memory from childhood of nervously walking into the school cafeteria for lunch. The experience can be a nerve-wracking gauntlet of social pressures and self-consciousness.

On top of navigating those familiar anxieties, a lot of kids today also are dealing with food insecurity at home, literally coming to school hungry, or leaving school unsure of when they’re going to eat again.

Earlier this year, when COVID-era relief ended, thousands of families in West Virginia stopped receiving emergency allotments of $100-or-so a month in food money through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. At the same time, the cost of nutritional staples, like eggs, has doubled.

To put it simply, skyrocketing food prices, alongside cuts to food assistance, have put families teetering on what is being called a “hunger cliff.”

There are many policy solutions on the table, so to speak, but one solution that would increase access to free and reduced school meals is up for public comment. And all of us have a chance to speak up for feeding millions of kids in our state and around the country.

Here’s how: The U.S. Department of Agriculture is accepting comments until Monday on a proposed rule that would increase the ability of schools to participate in Community Eligibility Program, or CEP (read: free meals), by lowering the minimum percentage threshold of identified student participation from 40% to 25%.

Anyone can go to the USDA’s website and make a comment in support of this rule change. If adopted, schools would have more flexibility to invest nonfederal funds to offer no-cost meals to all enrolled students. As a result, more students would have an opportunity to access meals at no cost and with no stigma (reducing the aforementioned anxiety in the cafeteria), families would have school meal debt eliminated and school staff would have less-burdensome paperwork.

Many anti-poverty groups in the state began advocacy for CEP in 2013, the year West Virginia became eligible to participate under the 2010 Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act.

The Legislature at that time passed the Feed to Achieve Act, which sought to offer free school meals to all students in the state. One component of the legislation required that schools provide nontraditional ways of serving breakfast by 2015, a move that spurred more participation in the CEP program.

Ten years later, most of the counties that implemented CEP in schools where enough kids met eligibility requirements chose to expand CEP countywide. What was heard, at least anecdotally, was that schools that opted in saw benefits like improved nutrition, reduced discipline problems and improved focus among the students.

Imagine having to navigate the social anxieties and pressures of school on an empty stomach. Now, imagine that you can take an easy action to help the millions of kids who navigate this reality every day. All you have to do is go to regulations.gov, where you can make a unique comment, and, if enough of us do so, we will create a chorus speaking up for feeding kids.

A little anxiety in the cafeteria is an inevitable part of growing up, but hunger should never be.

(This op-ed by Lida Shepherd, director of the AFSC WV Economic Justice Project, appeared in the Charleston Gazette-Mail.)

Punching down

 Things are about to get rough for West Virginia families facing food insecurity, defined by the USDA as “the limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways.”

Some hits are coming from federal changes in COVID programs and some from state legislation. But the unkindest cut of all could come from a mean-spirited bill recently introduced in the legislature if it crosses the finish line.

All of these involve the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps, which provides basic food aid to around 167,000 households here.

As of March 1, pandemic-related emergency allotment increases for SNAP will cease. The average household here will receive a monthly reduction of $195 in benefits. The individual will see a reduction of $102, a net loss of $33 million in income to state businesses.

Then there’s this: when the federal Public Health Emergency ends in May, the suspension of work reporting requirements will end for able-bodied adults without dependents will end.

This means that a law passed in 2018 will go back into effect on July 1, imposing reporting requirements and hurdles for non-custodial low-income adults. As many as 24,000 could be pushed off if they can’t satisfy reporting requirements for work activities.

The 2018 bill was touted to promote workforce participation. In fact, it doubled down on a failed 2016 policy piloted in nine counties. A later DHHR report found that “Our best data does not indicate that [limiting benefits] has had a significant impact on employment figures.” People were just cut off and local businesses lost out.

Those are bad enough, but potentially much worse is House Bill 3484. It would add so many reporting, documenting and other bureaucratic restrictions for so many people as to make it unworkable both for people receiving help with food and for the beleaguered state agency that would have to administer the bill if it passes.

At a recent legislative committee meeting, a state agency representative testified that implementing the proposed legislation would actually cost state taxpayers millions of dollars while the additional requirements would reduce number of low-income people receiving food assistance. And that research has indicated that additional requirements reduce food assistance without increasing employment.

A representative of retail businesses testified that the loss of federal SNAP dollars would hurt local business and jobs, especially in rural counties.

Caitlin Cook, director of advocacy and public policy at Mountaineer Food Bank, which serves 48 of 55 counties, pointed out that the state food charity system is already overstretched and couldn’t make up for the loss of federal food aid. According to Cook, “For every one meal the food bank provides, SNAP provides nine, while simultaneously putting additional money into our local communities.”

Despite all the expert testimony, the bill passed out of committee and was reported to the floor of the House. At this writing its fate is unclear.

Aside from hungry people and local businesses, HB 3484 would also mean a loss for West Virginia farmers and farmers’ markets, which now offer SNAP Stretch, a program that allows people to double their purchasing power for fresh and locally grown food.

The bill goes against the grain of actions taken by political leaders in recent times. In 2021, for example, House Speaker Roger Hanshaw, R-Clay, announced the creation of a Food Insecurity Workgroup “dedicated to utilizing every tool at West Virginia’s disposal to help reduce hunger throughout the state.”

The group met regularly to hear from experts in the field and made positive recommendations about increasing CARES Act funding to combat hunger. In December 2021, Governor Justice agreed, providing $7.25 million for food insecurity partners across the state. Reportedly, Speaker Hanshaw may reactivate the group.

Meanwhile, Gov. Jim Justice in his 2023 state of the state speech said that “We need to try with all in us to say, by God we’re not going to have hungry people in West Virginia today.”

The governor released a proclamation declaring Jan. 26 to be Hunger Free West Virginia Day, acknowledging that 217,690 people here, including 63,070 children are food insecure; one in six children experiences hunger regularly; and that many seniors have to chose between lifesaving medications and a healthy diet.

It had strong language, such as “it is essential to provide appropriate, healthy nutrition to all residents of West Virginia suffering from food insecurity;” “Charitable programs are unable to fully support those facing hunger. A combination of charity and government assistance programs is necessary to help bridge the meal gap;” and “food is a human right.”

The senate also weighed in last month with a resolution that stated “The West Virginia Senate recognizes food insecurity is prevalent in our communities, with 1-in-7 West Virginians not knowing where their next meal will come from…”

Things are challenging enough in West Virginia already, whether we’re talking low-income adults, kids, and seniors or people in local businesses, farmers, agencies, and charities. We don’t need a bad law to make a tough situation worse.

It’s sad but some people seem to derive gratification from harming people with less power than themselves, especially if they don’t think their targets can retaliate. Poor people are a convenient target for those who enjoy this kind of thing.

That’s what this is. That’s all this is.

(This ran as an op-ed in the Charleston Gazette-Mail.)

More not all bad

 I've been making it a practice lately to notice good things that happen, especially in a year when there have been so many disappointments, when truly historic opportunities to make big  and positive changes slip away.

So here's my latest:

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced an easing of income eligibility requirements for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children program (WIC) food assistance. The program can assist women who are pregnant, postpartum and breastfeeding and cover kids up to five years of age. This means more and better nutrition in a period critical to the health of mothers, infants and young children.

Under the new policy, states have the option of raising WIC eligibility to to 185 percent of the federal policy level. While all bets are off about most things West Virginian these days, I was glad to learn that WV decided to go for the more generous level of benefits. 

The WIC announcement is just one example of many federal efforts, often related to the pandemic, to promote food security. These range from increased SNAP benefits to expanded school meals to pandemic electronic benefits cards to kids when they are out of school. Read more on that here. Unfortunately, some of these are temporary unless further action is taken, which means staying on the case.

Some really good news for kids and families

 I’m a big fan of getting quick results ... the good kind, anyway. It doesn’t happen very often and is even rarer when it comes to solving big social problems.

But it’s happening right now for millions of American families, in terms of increasing food security and reducing economic hardships.

Here’s the background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Census Bureau developed the Household Pulse Survey, which is designed to quickly and accurately collect information on how American households are doing and distribute it in as close to real time as possible “to inform federal and state response and recovery planning.”

One very recent survey measured the impact of the newly expanded and refundable child tax credit, which went into effect July 15 and reached about 35 million families with a monthly credit of up to $300 for kids age 5 and under and $250 for those age 6-17. The tax credit has the potential to dramatically reduce child poverty and the long-lasting damage that causes for as long as the program lasts.

The results after just one installment have been startling. The census survey found that food insecurity, defined as “sometimes or often not having enough to eat,” in households with children dropped by nearly 24%. Specifically, before tax credit benefits went out, about 11% of households with kids experienced food insecurity. After the first round, that number dropped to 8.4%, a reduction of almost one-fourth.

Households without children didn’t see any improvement in this area, so we can safely attribute the change to the child tax credit.

(As a math-challenged person, I sometimes find the difference between percentages and percentage points to be confusing, and I’ve stumbled over it more than once, but a percentage point is just the number for arithmetic difference between two percentages, while a percentage expresses that difference as a fraction of 100.)

The survey also asked families how hard it was to meet basic household expenses. Not surprisingly, households with children were more likely than those without them to report that making ends meet was “somewhat difficult” to “very difficult” before and after the child tax credit went into effect. But after just one round, the number of families with children experiencing hardships declined by 8% while it increased for adult-only households by nearly 5%, an effect not as large as that for food security but still statistically significant.

Where was the money spent? Pretty much where you’d expect: About 57% of households spent at least part of the money on educational expenses, including books, supplies, tutoring, tuition, transportation and after-school activities; 47% spent some on food; 28% spent it on internet, telephones and utilities; 25% bought clothes; and 17% of households with a child under age 5 spent the money on child care.

Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, director of the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University, had this to say about the early results: “It looks like families are using this to pay for basic needs that their kids have. These are things we know many families are struggling with. This extra payment is going to reduce the number of families at risk.”

Not all the money was spent right away, however. Nearly a third of parents saved most of it — and that’s a good thing, too. Many financial experts stress the importance of personal savings for many purposes, including a cushion for emergencies, major purchases such as homes or vehicles, financial security and higher education.

About 40% spent most of the credit paying down household debt, which has nearly doubled to about $15 trillion over the past 20 years. Home mortgages make up the lion’s share of debt, but there’s also plenty from student loans, car payments, credit cards and such. Paying debt down or off is a huge stress reliever and has been called the key to financial success.

That’s a pretty impressive record for a 1-month-old program. If it’s extended beyond 2021, a measure now under consideration in the U.S. Senate, this could be a life changer and lifesaver for millions of Americans.

And our two senators will have a lot to say about that.

(This ran as an op-ed in the Charleston Gazette-Mail.)

Calling the point

In another lifetime, I used to referee karate tournaments. Although they could get kind of rough, especially for higher-ranking adults, they weren’t like today’s full-contact mixed martial arts or submission matches. The idea was to give regular people of all ages and levels a chance to safely compete with peers.

A full point — or “ippon” in Japanese — was awarded for a controlled legitimate technique correctly applied to a legal target area.

Grappling wasn’t permitted, although some foot sweeps or takedowns were allowed, with points awarded if they were followed up immediately with a strike or kick to the downed opponent. (I guess you could say “don’t kick ’em when they’re down” didn’t apply here. It was more like don’t take ’em down unless you’re going to kick ’em — in a controlled way of course.)

Although, after visiting karate’s birthplace in Okinawa, I came to doubt whether it should ever have become a sport, I took something valuable from that experience. No matter what I thought of a competitor, their teacher, fighting style or uniform, I tried to set aside stylistic rivalry, which was rampant, watch every match as closely as possible and call the point if I saw it.

In these days of polarization and political tribalism, I think we’d be better off as a state and nation if people made a habit of “calling the point” or recognizing positive ideas and actions of people across our divides when we see them, even if we must struggle over others.

Not that I expect anyone to care, but, in that spirit, I’d have to award two points to actions recently taken by the West Virginia Legislature. Really.

The first was passage of Senate Concurrent Resolution 202, a resolution calling on the federal government to release $8 billion to the state for job-creating mine reclamation projects. In addition, the resolution calls on Congress to pass the RECLAIM Act, which also would make funds available to deal with mine-related damage and to reauthorize the Abandoned Mine Lands program, which is to expire in September.

Although it passed with the support of Republican supermajorities, it also was supported by Democrats, community organizations and environmental groups. The United Mine Workers union has supported similar measures for years.

This realistic, solutions-oriented approach is a major step forward from the theatrical hissy fits of previous years. And it could actually happen, bringing huge benefits to coalfield communities and the state’s economy and environment.

Ippon.

The second point goes to House Speaker Roger Hanshaw, R-Clay, who recently announced the creation of a bipartisan Food Insecurity Work Group consisting of six Republican and six Democrat delegates. It’s dedicated to “utilizing every tool at West Virginia’s disposal to help reduce hunger throughout the state.”

The group is chaired by Delegates Larry Pack, R-Kanawha, and Chad Lovejoy, D-Cabell, both of whom take the group’s mission seriously.

In a House news release, Pack was quoted as saying, “We have plenty of evidence that shows us how deeply connected hunger is to other issues, such as overall health, mental health, academic achievement and economic prosperity. ... We are committed to putting in the time and energy to truly understand not only what specific roadblocks are out there hurting our West Virginia families, but also what solutions we can implement in the near future.”

For that matter, the Senate passed a bipartisan resolution in the 2021 regular session requesting a study on summer and nonschool-day food programs by county boards of education, something hunger advocates have been calling for since 2019.

This could be another big deal for West Virginia, where it’s been estimated that one in seven residents and one in five children are facing food insecurity, a problem that was highlighted by the school closings and economic hardships caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. I’m hopeful that the work group and community partners can come up with some real solutions.

It’s good to remember in times like these that people can sometimes set aside differences to confront real problems in a practical way.

6 ways to fight hunger in WV

Note: in an earlier post I mentioned the creation of a legislative hunger working group, which was a really positive step. This article by Amelia Ferrell Knisely of Mountain State Spotlight, a statewide nonprofit  news service, highlights some ideas for addressing the problem.

Hunger in West Virginia — a complex problem tied to shuttered grocery stores, infrastructure issues and generational poverty — has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. The problem is one that advocates say requires state-level policy and funding to supplement the nonprofits and faith-based organizations that are trying to reach those in need. 

“There are some people who are suffering out here,” said Richard Brett, who runs a food pantry in Princeton. His faith-based charity Tender Mercies Ministries, which relies on a steady stream of volunteers to feed its community members, registers at least one to two individuals or families every day for food giveaways and he saw even more during the pandemic. The lack of jobs in the area and emergency food assistance programs that fall short often push people to reach out for help, Brett said. 

Yet, lawmakers devoted little attention to hunger during this year’s regular legislative session. Last week, House Speaker Roger Hanshaw, R-Clay, announced a bipartisan legislative workgroup will start studying the issue to outline anti-hunger priorities ahead of bill drafting this winter. 

The workgroup will be led by Delegate Larry Pack, R-Kanawha, and Delegate Chad Lovejoy, D-Cabell. Lovejoy in particular has been a vocal advocate for anti-hunger legislation since he was elected in 2016; he says the bipartisan buy-in to the anti-hunger workgroup “sends a message that it’s a priority.” 

But he notes it’s a complicated issue, which will require lawmakers to create practical yet effective policies. Here are six initiatives the new workgroup could take on to reduce hunger and support food charities, according to West Virginia researchers, policy analysts, charitable food network employees and anti-hunger advocates: 

1. Creating a state-level office to address hunger — The Legislature needs to immediately create a state-level office focused on coordinating county feeding efforts, according to Josh Lohnes, food policy research director at West Virginia University. Hunger needs and feeding programs vary from county to county, and a state office would coordinate between state agencies addressing hunger (like the Department of Health and Human Resources and the West Virginia Department of Agriculture) and private organizations (food banks, local charities, local school nutrition offices, etc.) “This office would employ local community food security coordinators in each county to create some connective tissue around responses at the local level that are frankly often uncoordinated,” said Lohnes, who has spent years researching and writing about the state’s charitable food system and hunger. The coordinators would be focused on improving outcomes of state-backed nutrition programs, he said. Lohnes estimated the program could cost the state around $3.5 million per year, which includes salaries for community food security coordinators and state-level oversight staff.

2. Listening to West Virginians before spending federal relief funds — West Virginia has already received half of the $1.36 billion it’s getting through the American Rescue Plan passed by Congress in March. The federal dollars — the state will get the remaining $677 million later this year — can be used to support COVID-19 response efforts, public health improvements (including hunger) and more. Lawmakers will have input on how Gov. Jim Justice spends the federal money after they passed HB 2014, which requires the Legislature to approve the governor’s use of any federal emergency money that is more than $150 million. Seth DiStefano, policy outreach director at the West Virginia Center for Budget and Policy, said it is imperative that lawmakers use this time to gather information from West Virginians about what they’ve experienced with food insecurity during the pandemic. He’d like to see the workgroup hold town halls around the state to hear feedback, then lawmakers should “turn that feedback into tangible policy results,” he said.

3. Transporting food to students in need — Feeding America estimates that 19% of West Virginia kids might experience hunger this year because of the pandemic, and hunger experts in the state agree lawmakers need to address feeding gaps for students during the summer and other unexpected breaks from school. Mountain State Spotlight reported on the ongoing gaps in summer feeding and for remote learners during the pandemic due to families’ lack of transportation and schools’ inability to deliver food. While many feeding programs have resumed due to reduced COVID-19 restrictions, student feeding gaps persist. Additionally, transporting food to students could help cut down on school food waste by putting food in the hands of students or other local feeding programs who need food. “If the school and county would stop to study the root of the problem, which we know is transportation, and figure out strategies to make those deliveries happen, they most likely would cut the waste down drastically,” said Jenny Anderson, director of Families Leading Change, a statewide advocacy group focused on improving schools. One plan from anti-hunger advocates that could be resurrected is one to pay bus drivers to deliver summer food; groups had asked Justice to use CARES Act money during the summer of 2020 to address student hunger in this way.

4. Increasing state-backed funding for food charities — More than 300,000 West Virginians relied on the state’s 333 food pantries for food back in 2016, according to research from the Food Justice Lab at West Virginia. Those pantries, on average, operated on a budget of less than $1,300 a month to pay for food, deliveries and more. Justice has for the last two years included $1 million for the state’s two food banks in his budget. But more state funding is needed as the problem has grown. “In the last month, I’ve applied for a million dollars in grants,” said Cyndi Kirkhart, who runs Facing Hunger Food Bank out of Cabell County. The food bank feeds more than 116,000 people each year. Kirkhart said her biggest need is funding as she is working on expanding the food bank’s options to include “medically indicated food boxes” with lean and no-salt added options for people with diabetes — West Virginians die from diabetes at the highest rate in the country — and cancer patients. 

5. Examining barriers to food assistance programs — Anti-hunger advocates want the workgroup to evaluate any barriers that keep West Virginians from applying for or receiving emergency food assistance programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). One of those barriers: a bill lawmakers signed off on this past session that continues a program that requires TANF applicants be screened for drugs. DHHR has drug-screened TANF applicants since 2017, when the department launched the pilot project after the Legislature mandated it; from October 2019 to September 2020, DHHR reported that out of 2,067 completed drug use screening questionnaires, only seven people tested positive for drugs. Child welfare advocates opposed the bill, saying that the program was likely to cut off West Virginia children, who make up the majority of the state’s TANF recipients, from necessary food.

6. Guaranteeing free food for students — Last month, California became the first state to offer free food to students without questions asked or required forms.The state set aside $650 million for its universal school meal program starting in 2022, according to NBC Los Angeles. In West Virginia, 47 of the state’s 55 counties are already qualified and elected to serve free meals for all students, pandemic relief aside, according to the West Virginia Department of Education. Rick Wilson, program director for the American Friends Service Committee and long-time West Virginia child nutrition advocate, said lawmakers should prioritize implementing a universal free meal program in West Virginia that would continue beyond the pandemic. 

Whatever policy decisions lawmakers make, the problem is large and growing: Feeding America estimates hunger now affects one in seven West Virginians, as well as one in five of the state’s children. State support is needed to supplement other anti-hunger efforts, said Caitlin Cook, director of advocacy and public policy for Mountaineer Food Bank. The food bank, based in Gassaway, provides food to 450 feeding programs across 48 counties.

“Nonprofits are not a sole solution to hunger, nor any social issue. Non-profits, for-profits and the government sectors all play a role in building food security,” Cook said. “Without commonality and those sectors working together, there’s pushing and pulling in opposite directions without concrete solutions.”

House Speaker Roger Hanshaw, R-Clay, announced the formation of the workgroup June 30. Other members of the workgroup are: Delegates Brent Boggs, D-Braxton; Ed Evans, D-McDowell; Joshua Higginbotham, R-Putnam; John Paul Hott, R-Grant; Riley Keaton, R-Roane; Kayla Kessinger, R-Fayette; Danielle Walker, D-Monongalia; Evan Worrell, R-Cabell; Kayla Young, D-Kanawha; and Lisa Zukoff, D-Marshall.

If you’re a West Virginia resident in need of food, please contact West Virginia 211 by dialing 211 or visiting www.WV211.org for assistance.

Going big on hunger?

 This is really weird, but for the second time in a week or so, the WV legislature, which one of my favorite delegates refers to as "the bad idea factory," did something good. I mean real good.

First a little background: at least since 2013, with the passage of the WV Feed to Achieve Act, a lot of my friends and comrades, now known as the WV Food for All Coalition, have worked on hunger and  food security issues, from school meals to SNAP benefits to responding to food needs during the pandemic.

For the last several years, some of us have urged the passage of what has been know as the Summer Feeding for All Act, which would have required school boards to come up with food plans when school is not is session, whether for summer vacations or other disasters.

It was particularly ironic in 2020 to watch the bill die in the waning days of the legislative session just as the first wave of a global pandemic hit that would result in the end of in-person classes for months...and then to watch as schools scrambled to do what they could to make sure kids didn't miss out on food while at home. 

Maybe our theory was correct.

Anyhow, a lot of us who work on these issues were pleasantly surprised to learn that House Speaker Roger Hanshaw announced the formation of a bipartisan working group "dedicated to utilizing every tool at West Virginia’s disposal to help reduce hunger throughout the state."

Here's the rest of the news release:

Delegate Larry Pack, R-Kanawha, and Delegate Chad Lovejoy, D-Cabell, will lead the bipartisan workgroup, which will focus on improving food insecurity, which Feeding America estimates affects one in seven West Virginians as well as one in five West Virginia children.

“We have plenty of evidence that shows us how deeply connected hunger is to other issues, such as overall health, mental health, academic achievement and economic prosperity,” Pack said. “We are committed to putting in the time and energy to truly understand not only what specific roadblocks are out there hurting our West Virginia families, but also what solutions we can implement in the near future.”

Pack and Lovejoy both pushed this year to establish the Summer Feeding for All initiative, and while that did not happen during the regular legislative session, Lovejoy said this new workgroup is a big step forward.

“This is an exciting announcement recognizing that food insecurity is a priority in West Virginia policymaking,” Lovejoy said. “I’m grateful to our Speaker, who has actively participated in the bipartisan House Hunger Caucus since its inception, and now organizes a formal group of committed representatives to tackle this problem head-on.”

Other members of the workgroup are Delegates:

Brent Boggs, D-Braxton      

Ed Evans, D-McDowell

Joshua Higginbotham, R-Putnam

John Paul Hott, R-Grant

Riley Keaton, R-Roane

Kayla Kessinger, R-Fayette

Danielle Walker, D-Monongalia

Evan Worrell, R-Cabell

Kayla Young, D-Kanawha

Lisa Zukoff, D-Marshall

 This is a big advance and a major victory for WV's food fighters. You can bet that some of us have some ideas we can't wait to share. Meanwhile, thanks to the legislative champions, advocates and impacted people who have worked for years to raise this issue.

A little good news

 This isn't earthshaking, but I'll take what I can get these days. The USDA just announced that it will withdraw a proposed rule issued during the bad old days of the Trump administration. The dead rule would have changed eligibility requirements for SNAP and other food assistance programs in ways that were estimated to have cut food aid to three million or more Americans and also affected the eligibility for free school meals for around one million kids.

Unsportsmanlike, in other words. I blogged about it here and here back in 2019 during the public comment period. As I wrote at the time, 

Here's why it's bad: the proposed change eliminates "broad based categorical eligibility" (BBCE), which allows people who are eligible for other assistance programs (such as TANF or welfare, SSI or other programs) to be automatically eligible for SNAP.

Eliminating the BBCE creates a cliff effect in which people could experience drastic cuts in benefits when their living conditions modestly improve.

I take my food fights seriously. It's nice to have one less thing to worry about.

Need a karmic boost? Help fight hunger

In an earlier post, I wrote about the Trump administration's proposal to mess with the SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). These changes, if enacted, would cut off food assistance from over 3 million Americans and 25,000 West Virginians.

The deadline to submit public comments on why this is a bad idea is this coming Monday, Sept. 23.

Here's a link to the USDA comment page.

Here's a link to tons of information about why this is a bad idea.

And here's a great story from today's Charleston Gazette-Mail about what this means for West Virginia.

I've been given to understand that making a public comment against these measures will guarantee a fortunate rebirth in the Pure Land of Amida Buddha, where the commentor can work towards Supreme Enlightenment under the most favorable conditions.

Please don't call it a "no-brainer"!

I'm not a superstitious person, aside from taking a few prudent precautions. Like throwing spilled salt over my left shoulder. And crossing myself when a black cat crosses my path. And not rocking an empty chair. Then there's the one about sitting down before you leave if you go back into the house because you forgot something. And knocking on wood. And the thing about pennies found on the ground being good luck if they're heads up.

But that's it.

But, as I've observed here more than once, I will admit to one sure bringer of bad luck: using the term "no-brainer" to describe a desirable public policy option for West Virginia. In my experience, those are the hardest things to get done.

That's why I felt like engaging in any number of rituals to undo the potential damage when an otherwise right on editorial in the Gazette-Mail used that dreaded expression to talk about a common sense child nutrition bill.

The bill in question is House Bill 162, one of the more (or only?) rational things to come out of the special session of the legislature this summer on "education betterment." It would basically require counties to assess summer and out of school food programs for children and report this to the Office of Child Nutrition.

This simple bill would make it easier for people to find needed assistance and also possibly nudge some counties into doing more to take up the slack.

It passed the house unanimously, but didn't make it through the senate. Under the weird rules of this stage of  the special session, which is dormant at the moment, the senate could reconvene to take up bills that have passed the house but no new items.

Reconvening to pass this little bill would be...perhaps something that does not require an undue amount of cerebral agitation.

Just don't use the fatal words!

An inspiring moment

When it comes to watching the WV legislature, I'm generally pretty jaded. Maybe even cynical, especially for the last few years. But last week, I was honestly moved emotionally by debates in the House Judiciary Committee.

The topic was a bill that would restore eligibility for SNAP (formerly food stamp) assistance to people convicted of drug felonies. It's one of our top priorities this year in a state struggling with the opioid epidemic and in need of supporting recovery efforts.

As a result of ill-thought-out policies enacted in the 1996 federal welfare "reform" bill, people with such felonies are denied SNAP benefits for life...unless states opt out. As of now, all but three states, including...you guessed it...West Virginia, have done so.

(I don't want to give anyone ideas, but this is the only class of felony convictions to which the lifetime ban applies. I've sometimes joked, darkly, that if the fictional cannibalistic villain Hannibal Lector would have gotten out of prison, he would have been eligible for SNAP...although he probably wouldn't have needed it).

To state the obvious, people who have committed drug felonies, like anyone else, still need to eat. And they have major obstacles to employment. And they are in danger of relapsing, especially in the first few years. And if they live in families eligible for SNAP, the benefit level is lower than it otherwise would have been due to this policy

And the policy is flawed on its own terms. Many crimes may be drug related, from theft to assault and beyond. But unless they were specifically prosecuted as drug felonies, the ban would not apply.

Anyhow, late last week, the House Judiciary Committee took up a bill eliminating the lifetime ban. It faced surprisingly little resistance aside from a proposed amendment, eventually withdrawn, to delay eligibility.

I was inspired by the statements of several delegates, including especially Chairman John Shott, who spoke out for basic human mercy and decency.

The bill passed the committee with no amendments and with only one "nay" vote.

It's nice to know that mercy, however occasionally, still has a home in West Virginia.

Ending the SNAP ban

When Congress passed welfare reform legislation in 1996, one little-discussed provision had far reaching and negative consequences. It imposed a lifetime ban on SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly food stamp) assistance for people with drug felonies.

For whatever reason, people with other felony convictions, including armed robbery, sexual offenses or murder, were not subject to the ban.

People who have had drug convictions have many obstacles to re-entry and recovery. Felony convictions and a record of incarceration have been shown to have negative effects on employment, earnings, assets and other life chances.

Having access to basic food assistance should not be one of them. In fact, such stressors can contribute to relapse and recidivism.

There is a solution. States have the option to opt out of the lifetime ban. In fact, the vast majority—including some of the most conservative states—have modified or eliminated the ban. Only three states—West Virginia, South Carolina, and Mississippi—have kept the original ban intact.

It’s no secret that West Virginia is ground zero for opioid addiction. Many people impacted by this have felony drug convictions.

It’s difficult to calculate the number of West Virginians in this situation, but records from the WV Department of Health and Human Resources indicate that in 2016 alone, over 2,100 applied for and were denied SNAP benefits for this reason.

This number does not reflect those who applied in other years or those who knew they weren’t eligible to start with. It’s likely that tens of thousands of West Virginians, including parents and caregivers, would benefit by changing the policy.

People who have recently been released from incarceration are particularly vulnerable not only to relapse but to overdose fatalities. In 2016, an analysis of opioid fatalities found that 56 percent of those who died from overdoses had been incarcerated. Further, “Of male decedents that were incarcerated within 12 months of death, 28% died within a month after release, compared to 21% of females. Nearly half, (46%) of individuals with only some high school education died within 30 days of their release.”

To state the obvious, when people have served their time for drug convictions, they often have little or no assets. Jobs are hard to find. Family and community connections may have eroded over time. Relapse is a possibility, especially if there seems to be no hope. And they still need to eat.

It’s pretty simple, as things now stand, every loses, including those directly impacted, family and community members, local charities and local business. Everyone wins when those who need it most can receive basic food assistance.

(This ran as an op-ed in the Huntington WV Herald-Dispatch.)

So feeding kids is bad?

If you want to sample just a little of the meanness in the air today, check out this letter that appeared in the Parkersburg WV newspaper opposing providing breakfast and lunch to all students in Wood County: 

Well, how many times have you heard the cliche that there is no such thing as a free lunch? It certainly applies here. So someone is going to give the Wood County School system all the food to feed Wood County students breakfast and lunch? It would be nice for this newspaper to acknowledge who this kind person or company is.

On second thought, I’ll go out on a limb and say that the taxpayers of the state and nation are footing this program (CEP). Just a minor detail that is probably not important.
The CEP (Community Eligibility Provision) is a program for free and reduced priced meals in high poverty areas. If at least 40 percent of a school’s students are directly certified for free meal benefits, the entire school qualifies for the option.

The article also quotes the new superintendent William Hosaflook as follows. “I am proud that Wood County Schools will be participating in the CEP program to help meet a critical need for many students in our county.”

Mr. Hosaflook, I am extremely disappointed and somewhat embarrassed that Wood County qualifies for such a program. At what point do we say enough is enough that the nanny state has to feed our children. Once an “entitlement” has started, it is very, very difficult to take it away.

 Where do you even start with this? God forbid we improve child nutrition, reduce stigma and discipline problems, and enhance school performance with good nutrition.

Whenever I hear someone like that suggest that feeding kids is socialistic, I'm tempted to point out that the whole public education thing kind of is too. But I don't want to give them any ideas.

A friend of mine replied to the letter on social media with the following snark/irony:

You guys think the free meal thing is bad? It turns out, those kids are getting an education for free too! I say "free" but I think we all know who pays for that. Us hard working tax payers, that's who. Why don't these dead beat parents just send their kids to private school? And we even cover the cost of the roads to take these entitled crumb-snatchers to their gilded "free" schools, and their parents to jobs and stores and such!

Look in to it! It goes so much deeper. Libraries, health departments (why can't people research the sanitation of their local restaurants or stop communicable diseases on a community level on their own?), fire departments and even police services all funded by tax dollars and provided to everyone. I mean, what kind of society do we want to live in, people?

I really like the "crumb-snatchers" part. And the fact that the opposition lost.

It took a while, but all public school kids in Wood County can eat for free.

Hungry days ahead

Gov. Justice declared in his State of the State back in January, "We don't need to quit until every single person is not standing on the side of the bridge saying, 'Mister, you have no idea how bad I'm hurting.'"

Actions speak louder than words. A case in point is that despite our governor's noble pronouncement, he recently signed House Bill 4001, a law that once enacted will do more to increase hunger than increase full-time employment.

HB 4001 mandates that the state no longer apply for a waiver from the federal government to exempt able-bodied adults without dependents from a 20-hour-a-week work requirement to receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (known as SNAP or food stamps, but more importantly should be understood as food).

The law will add at least eight additional counties to the nine-county pilot that began in early 2016 when our Department of Health and Human Resources removed roughly 5,417 so-called "able-bodied adults without dependents" from the SNAP rolls.

Work requirements sound good, and they especially sound good when applied to "able-bodied adults without dependents," but be careful not to generalize who these thousands of individuals might be.

Perhaps it is a person on the difficult journey toward recovery from opioid addiction, and the food security that SNAP provides is the linchpin.

Perhaps it is one of the thousands of grandparents raising grandkids due to the ongoing opioid crisis. Make no mistake then, more children will go hungry, too.

Is taking food away from a person the answer to helping them find a job that offers enough hours to satisfy the work requirement, and (gasp) a job that offers a decent wage and health benefits?

Because in reality a lot of these individuals are working but they are in extremely low-paying, part-time jobs that are volatile and do not always provide enough hours to meet the 20-hour-a-week minimum.

While people often say that any good policy should be evidence-based, too often we instead hear anecdotes and sweeping charges of "laziness" used to justify policy.

Sociologist Herbert Gans said of this trend in his essay "The War Against the Poor" that "judgments are based on imagined knowledge, which may come from stories and preconceived ideas."

When looking at the evidence of the nine-county pilot where stricter work requirements were enacted and 5,417 individuals lost their food stamps, "imagined knowledge" is about all we have.

Did we succeed in the professed goal of getting people into more full-time employment, paying taxes and therefore no longer needing $118 a month to help pay for the bare necessity of food?

According to the Department of Health and Human Resources' own report, the answer is no. Of the 13,984 referrals to the SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) program, 259 gained employment - a less than 2 per cent success rate.

By contrast to HB 4001, the bill number alone indicating it was their top priority, the same legislative body could not find the political will to pass a bill that would have had a real impact on workforce participation.

HB 2727 sought to address the fact that people leave prison every day without any form of state-issued identification card, which means they face difficulty obtaining a job, much less keeping one if they don't have a driver's license. This bill, which would have helped thousands of West Virginians become gainfully employed taxpayers, died in House Finance.

Illustrating how HB 2727 would have boosted employment, a 2015 study conducted in Franklin County, Ohio, of "able-bodied adults without dependents" found that a whopping 60 percent of the 5,000 individuals surveyed said that not having a driver's license was a significant barrier to employment. Other major barriers cited were felony convictions, lack of transportation and being non-custodial parents.

HB 4001 becoming law will not create a single good-paying job. But it will for certain take food away from people, and federal dollars away from local economies.

The people who support legislation like this believe that food is a privilege, not a basic human right. It is probably safe to say then that our billionaire governor, and both the Republicans and Democrats who voted for this bill, are not worried about how they will pay for their next meal.

I am left to conclude that the governor's avowal in his State of the State was not true aspiration, but that really he has no idea how bad people are hurting.

(This op-ed by Lida Shepherd of the American Friends Service Committee appeared in the Huntington WV Herald-Dispatch this week.)

Rounding out the week

Hannah Arendt, 1906-1975.

I just came across this quote by Hannah Arendt. Somehow it doesn't give me a good feeling:

"The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction... and the distinction between true and false... no longer exist.”

SPEAKING OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN FACT AND FICTION, check out AFSC's weekly update on the WV legislature. We call it Wonk's World, as in Wayne's World for policy wonks. Our goal is to be silly but mostly truthful and snarky but not mean.  Here's this week's and here's the first one.  

 WHILE WE'RE AT IT, here's a great op-ed by my friend Dan Kurland on WV's version of the hunger games.

A kick in the assets

There are a lot of bad bills making their way through the WV legislature, but one that particularly gets under my skin is aimed at making life harder for people who need to rely on SNAP (formerly food stamps) for food assistance.

Senate Bill 60, linked above, isn't as bad as it used to be, thanks to amendments by rational legislators. But it's still pretty bad.

Let's start with the math. At a committee meeting last week, it came out that the proposed legislation would cost around a million per year in state tax dollars to pay private corporations to profit at public expense in "verifying" eligibility for benefits--in order to remove $5 million in federal dollars from the WV economy. That's money spent at local stores and farmers markets supporting local jobs.

One more time: we'd be paying corporations to take away money from WV. Really.

In chess, this would be like sacrificing a rook to take a pawn.

Even worse is a mean spirited asset limit which would knock people off the rolls and make it harder for low income families to get back on their feet. Most states, 34 in all, including not just West Virginia but some of the most politically conservative southern states, have eliminated the asset limit because it's expensive to implement, useless and just plain mean.

As the folks at the WV Center on Budget and Policy note,

The reason most states have removed their asset test from SNAP is that they recognized that it was counter-productive and punishes families for saving money for emergencies or for their children’s future while they are temporarily enrolled in SNAP.  By removing the asset test or limit, it simplifies the application process, reduces errors associated with assets and vehicle information.

Asset limits would hit older adults particularly hard, potentially wiping out retirement savings. But it could also eat away family savings for emergency or for college education...so that people could get the equivalent of $4 a day for food.

Like unemployment insurance, SNAP benefits are counter-cyclical, which means they kick in more when times are bad, helping to keep families and communities going. Most people receiving SNAP only do so for a limited time. Here's more from my policy wonk friends:

Because SNAP works as a temporary stopgap – with 58 percent of new receipts leaving the program within a year – it is vital for them to retain their savings as they get back on their feet. Studies have also shown that asset limits (and more stringent vehicles asset tests) have no impact on the length of stay in SNAP.

A study by the Urban Institute found that states with relaxed asset limits make it easier for low income people to bounce back and participate in the mainstream economy (such as having bank accounts):

Taken together, relaxed asset limits increase households’ financial security and stability by increasing savings and reducing benefit fluctuations, and they can decrease administrative program costs when fewer people cycle on and off the program. The findings suggest that states with SNAP asset limits can improve family financial well-being by relaxing them and that reinstating federal SNAP asset limits will harm family financial stability.

Finally, I hope that decision makers take a minute to check out this great letter to the editor in today's Gazette-Mail by the Rev. Kay Albright, outreach coordinator at Manna Meal, which serves two hot meals a day to anyone who shows up at St. John's Episcopal Church in Charleston.

Here are some of my favorite parts:

I have sat in committee meetings, met with various legislators, and called even more of them regarding SNAP benefits. I believe it is easy to sit in the capitol complex and make decisions about issues that do not affect you. Poverty is something our legislators may not have experienced.... 

Come and eat. Talk to those most affected by your decisions regarding SNAP before you make them. Come and see it is about food, a basic human need. We do not need to create more bureaucracy for those in West Virginia who are in the grip of poverty.

SB 60 is on second reading in the senate and is likely to be up for amendments tomorrow (Monday).

If you haven't already, please consider contacting your legislator. You can find out who and how here.