When it comes to government benefits, there will always be a few people who try to game the system. In order to protect the integrity of welfare programs, which are essentially a taxpayer investment in the well-being of the less fortunate, lawmakers and program administrators are constantly looking for ways to limit abuse. That’s a worthy pursuit, but sometimes the chosen reforms hurt the very people for whom the programs were created.
A bill proposed by state Sen. Kevin Avard, a Nashua Republican, falls under the category of a reform that would do much more harm than good. Not only that, he didn’t even write it – but more on that later.
Avard – along with co-sponsors including Senate President Chuck Morse, Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley and House Speaker Shawn Jasper – wants to prohibit the state from waiving federal work requirements and financial limits for food stamp eligibility.
At first blush, this might sound reasonable. People who have the ability to work should do so, and eligibility guidelines exist for a reason. But here is what this bill is really about: Avard and his co-sponsors want to destroy something called “expanded categorical eligibility.”
To grasp just how that would affect New Hampshire, it’s important to understand how the food stamp program works.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is a crucial safety net for low-income families. The federal government funds the food stamp program at 100 percent and splits administrative costs with the states 50-50. To qualify for food stamps, a family of four cannot make more than $2,633 a month and must also have a net income that’s no more than $2,025. Finally, there is a limit on savings for a family of four of $2,250.
But the federal program also allows for a different review process known as “expanded categorical eligibility,” which more than 40 states, including New Hampshire, have chosen. Under that simplified eligibility process, only the net income limit matters, which is gross income minus certain living expenses.
It just makes sense that working parents who struggle to cover basic child care costs shouldn’t be denied benefits for exceeding the gross income limit when the costs associated with caring for their children place them below the net income limit.
Sarah Mattson Dustin of New Hampshire Legal Assistance testified that Senate Bill 7 “is directed at struggling working poor families with children. They’re working, but they still can’t make ends meet with the high cost of basic needs.” Approximately 17,000 food insecure people in New Hampshire could lose SNAP eligibility if SB 7 becomes law.
Finally, as NHPR reported last week, SB 7 is not Avard’s bill at all. The text was written entirely by the Foundation for Government Accountability, a Florida-based think tank launched six years ago. All Avard did was put his name on it and pass it around to the state’s Republican leaders for their signatures. It’s not a New Hampshire solution; it’s cookie-cutter, Koch-inspired legislation that would put added pressure on local food pantries that already struggle to keep shelves stocked.
If state lawmakers want to make sure programs for those in need run as efficiently as possible, that’s one thing. But it’s something else entirely to try to sell people on a one-size-fits-all “reform” that targets the working poor and their children. We also believe legislators should do more than hit cut and paste when crafting legislation for New Hampshire citizens.