Search the archive.

Worse, wealth taxes can have very bad effects. . There, "A wealth tax imposed on assets over 1.3 million euros led to an exodus of taxpayers from the country. In 2016 alone, 12,000 millionaires left France, the highest outflow in the world." The year before, 10,000 millionaires left.

And it's been going on for years. As Simon Black of the Sovereign Man website noted, "In France, 513 wealthy households left the country every year for 35 years  — taking an estimated $175 billion of assets with them." This, Black adds, has cost France some 400,000 jobs.

A number of features importantly vary from one UBI proposal to the next, in particular the funding source, the level of the payment, and the policy package that comes with it.

Most UBI proposals are funded by appeal to a variety of taxes—an income tax, a wealth tax, a consumption tax, financial transaction taxes, carbon taxes, or a combination of those (Widerquist et al. 2005, Widerquist 2017). The Alaskan Dividend fund epitomizes the alternative of a sovereign wealth fund. Under such a model, every resident becomes a shareholder who receives a yearly grant in cash. Like UBI, the dividend is individual, unconditional, universal, and regular, but it differs from most proposals in that it is funded through a non-redistributive mechanism.

Such extreme economic inequality is being fueled by an epidemic of tax evasion and avoidance that has reached an unprecedented scale. While millions across the world live in poverty, rich individuals and companies, exploiting the secrecy provided by tax havens, are continuing to dodge their taxes, depriving the poorest countries from being able to provide vital services.

The secret industry of tax evasion

States soaking the rich, or considering it, include New Jersey, which passed a “millionaire’s tax” this summer, taking an additional two percent of any earnings that exceed $1 million. California is contemplating a retroactive measure that would take an additional 3.5 percent of earnings above $5 million. New York, both state and city, is considering new measures that would hit the wealthiest of the wealthy to pay for schools, homeless shelters, and frontline medical services. Lawmakers in Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Oklahoma, Vermont, and Wisconsin have also proposed tax hikes on high earners.

In response, the wealthiest of the wealthy have broadcast a message: Pass the tax hikes and we’ll leave. The billionaire hedge-funder Ken Griffin has spent nearly $50 million—yes, you read that right—fighting Governor J. B. Pritzker’s progressive income-tax proposal in Illinois. If passed, it would mean “the continued exodus of families and businesses,” Griffin said in a statement. Any number of Silicon Valley investor types have threatened to flee to Nevada or Texas if California passes a wealth tax. President Donald Trump claimed recently that he relocated from New York to Florida because of high taxes. Some tax analysts are warning that raising taxes would not raise any additional revenue, precisely because the hikes would cause so many wealthy people to leave.

In fact, the results of a recent Associated Press-NORC poll indicated 74 percent of Black Americans now favor reparations payments, while 85 percent of white Americans oppose them. The split is staggering. So how will that fulfill the pledge of President Biden and the Democrats to bring about unity in America? It is time to move forward from this ugly chapter in history and look to our future as Americans, which I believe is bright. Paying cash reparations using taxpayer funds is absurd. The practice would spark substantial blowback from white Americans who had nothing to do with the sins of their forefathers. How can all Americans in the 21st century be held financially responsible for the actions of a subset of Americans hundreds of years ago? The concept makes no sense from start to finish. The first slave ship arrived in Jamestown, Va., approximately 400 years ago. How does that make our white neighbors responsible for the reprehensible actions of greedy slavers centuries ago? Most Blacks today do not even know anyone who is even related to someone who was a slave. An apology for slavery might help the country move on, but adding a price tag to that apology would be sheer folly. How could anyone ever calculate a cost for the long-term effects of slavery? What criteria would be used to figure damage, who would determine the criteria and how would the money be distributed? Would individuals or families receive a one-time payout, or would reparations be distributed over time? Would the money be distributed based on need, or would everyone receive the same amount? How could the involved parties ever agree on a dollar amount for the societal effects of slavery?

When Tatishe Nteta began polling about it several years ago he expected money would be the biggest issue. Or perhaps the workability of such a complex undertaking. It turns out those are the smallest concerns among the two-thirds of Americans who say they're against cash payments to the descendants of slaves. "A plurality of Americans," Nteta says, "don't believe the descendants of slaves deserve reparations." The political science professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, plans more research to get at exactly why people think that. The other most common reasons opponents cite is that it's "impossible to place a monetary value on the impact of slavery" and "African Americans are treated equally in society today." Nteta, and also the Pew Research Center, find about three-quarters or more of white adults oppose reparations, and so do a majority of Latinos and Asian Americans. A large majority of Black Americans support them. There's also more support among younger people and a sharp political divide, with overwhelming opposition from Republicans and conservatives. On a recent sunny day on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., it was not hard to find reparations opponents willing to share their reasoning. "You can't take what we know now and try to superimpose yourself onto 150 years ago," says Jeff Bernauer, visiting from Huntsville, Alabama. He calls racism a sin and says of course slavery was wrong. But to try and make amends at this point makes no sense. "The generation that would be paying for it have nothing to do with what was done in the past," he says. "And then you're paying people that have nothing to do with it in the past." Terry Keuhn of upstate New York agrees, and does not like the idea of a targeted program that would only help some people. "We're all immigrants at some point, whether it was voluntary or forced," she says. "And nobody needs a handout anymore. Everybody, you know, pulls themselves up by their own bootstraps and works for a living and makes their way in this world."

The moral case for reparations may be strong, but the political and cultural consequences of enacting the policy are likely to be extremely high. Far from serving as a moment of moral reckoning and healing for the country, as its advocates contend, it would inspire a severe backlash that would inflame tensions on both sides of the color line — and set the stage for future calls from other groups for acts of public restitution for past injustices. It's a recipe for greatly intensified civic anger and resentment. As I argued when he first published his essay, Coates' case for reparations was important and compelling — but also wrong-headed. Coates asserted that American patriotism is a fraud. In his words, a form of American national pride that "proudly claim[s] the veteran and disown[s] the slaveholder," and that celebrates "freedom and democracy while forgetting America's origins in a slavery economy," is "patriotism à la carte." As he put it in one of the essay's most unforgettable lines, "To ignore the fact that one of the oldest republics in the world was erected on a foundation of white supremacy ... is to cover the sin of national plunder with the sin of national lying." In Coates' view — one endorsed by Brooks in his recent column — the only way for the United States to purify its patriotism and truly expiate its racial sins is for it to fully own, accept, and atone for them by enacting a policy of reparations. That might sound good in theory, but it isn't at all the way it's likely to work in practice. White Americans love to think well of themselves and the country — loving the United States not just because it is ours but even more so because they believe the country is good in itself, intrinsically worthy or deserving of love. Debating and attempting to enact a policy of reparations would force white Americans to confront their country's longstanding and persistent racism and place that reckoning at the core of how they view the country's history and themselves. That is quite likely to spark a defensive political, social, and cultural reaction.

From the first perspective, I have been arguing for the importance of recognizing that some of the harms caused by racism and white supremacy are, in fact, irreparable; that some of the privileges we hold as white people are “built on crime” in an indelible way; and that the guilt, and even the moments of hopelessness, that this reality can evoke for liberal white people is something we need to learn to sit with, and bear, without looking for the relief of reparation to make it go away. This stance is captured evocatively in an exchange from Claudia Rankine’s play The White Card (2019). In it, a liberal, white male art collector, deeply invested in being perceived as a “good” white person on the side of racial justice, but hesitant to look at the ways in which he is also implicated in racial oppression, is speaking with a Black female artist whose work he wants to acquire. As she urges him to recognize his own participation in the white supremacist system he critiques without rushing to cast himself as a white savior, he laments: “That is so hopeless.” “Go further into that hopelessness,” she replies, “and then we can begin to really see each other” (p. 87). Sometimes trying to move immediately to reparation, in other words, can cause us to avoid the kind of internal reckoning and interpersonal understanding that we need in order to engage, deeply, with the realities of racial injustice and our role in it. The second perspective, which I see as complementary, is that some of the harms of racism may seem irreparable not because they are, but because of how we relate, as white people, to what reparation is and should be, which in turn deeply affects how we relate to racial guilt. As liberal white people, we may imagine reparation not in the sense Klein intended, which involves an acknowledgment of loss and of our own limits; but instead as a fantasy of omnipotence and erasure known in Kleinian theory as “manic reparation” (Klein, 1935, 1940; Mitchell, 2000; Sodre, 2015). In other words, a desire “to repair the object in such a way that guilt and loss are never experienced” (Segal, 1973, p. 95). This manic approach to racial reparation – described by philosopher Shannon Sullivan (2014) as a “desire to pay off and thus sever (our) connections with white history” (p. 70), and by Suchet (2017) as a wish to be “a different kind of white … expunged of some of the guilt and shame of whiteness” (p. 50) – is ultimately more about establishing our own exceptionalism than about meaningful repair. The problem, however, isn’t only that thinking about reparation in this way – as something cathartic that will erase what we owe and restore ourselves to an idealized state of “goodness,” debtless and clean – is essentially a narcissistic goal, though I believe it is. The problem is also that it is an impossible goal.

On June 21, the House passed the Agriculture Committee’s (the Committee) farm bill,[1] which includes nutrition provisions that would increase food insecurity and hardship. By adopting harmful amendments during floor debate in May, the House made the bill that ultimately passed even worse than the version the Committee originally introduced (see Appendix I). The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) would end or cut benefits for a substantial number of low-income people. SNAP is the country’s most effective anti-hunger program, helping 1 in 8 Americans afford a basic diet, with most SNAP participants being children, seniors, or people with disabilities. Despite providing modest benefits — averaging about $1.40 per person per meal — the program combats food insecurity, alleviates poverty, and has long-term positive impacts on health as well as on children’s educational attainment. The bill would reduce SNAP’s effectiveness and put large numbers of families and individuals at increased risk of hardship. The bill contains changes that would cause more than 1 million low-income households with more than 2 million people — particularly low-income working families with children — to lose their benefits altogether or have them reduced. The House would use these benefit cuts, in part, to pay for a few modest benefit enhancements. But the net effect of all these provisions on SNAP benefits would still be a significant cut overall, and a substantial number of people would lose their SNAP benefits altogether. The remaining savings from the eligibility and benefit cuts would go to expanding state and federal bureaucracies and financing various grant programs outside of SNAP, at the expense of low-income families and individuals whose basic food assistance would end or shrink. In particular, the plan includes sweeping, aggressive new work requirements that would likely prove unworkable and do substantially more harm than good, fueling increases in hunger and poverty. These provisions would force states to develop large new bureaucracies, but research suggests that these requirements would do little to increase employment. This expensive and risky approach runs counter to evidence-based policy making, particularly since the results from work pilots for SNAP recipients that the 2014 farm bill established, which are well underway, aren’t yet available. Moreover, experience suggests that the bill’s proposed work requirements would leave substantial numbers of low-income people who have various barriers to employment — such as very limited skills or mental health issues like depression — with neither earnings nor food assistance. The plan would also impose significant new state mandates and roll back numerous areas of state flexibility that were designed on a bipartisan basis in prior farm bills to streamline and modernize program operations and make the program easier for states to administer and for eligible households, particularly working families, to navigate. [2] The American Public Human Services Administration has raised significant concerns with multiple provisions of the bill, including those that would reinstate a benefit cliff, limit state flexibility, and introduce significant administrative burden. The organization states, “[E]stimates [that] up to two million current individual SNAP recipients, many of them children, in one million mostly working SNAP households could either lose benefits or eligibility altogether under this bill because of often unwise policy proposals [are] disturbing to us.”[3]

While it is too early to tell if Congressman Yarmuth is overly optimistic, there has been some progress made on the “hard” infrastructure programs, with many Republicans breaking ranks and supporting a significant amount of spending. There has been, however, pushback on the pay-fors, with Republicans refusing to even close the loopholes that wealthy individuals and corporations use to avoid taxes.

Pet theory: Not today, and not tomorrow, but somewhere down the line, Donald Trump might set out on a radical economic reform. In short, it wouldn’t be surprising to see him try and give Americans, whether they’re employed or not, a monthly infusion of free money in the form of a universal basic income (UBI). A UBI is an idea that the left loves and conservatives, predictably enough, have mixed feelings about. The central (and very simplified) gist of the idea involves giving people taxpayer dollars, either in lieu of, or more usually in addition to, whatever benefits they might already receive from the federal government. And they can do what they please with that money: save it, spend it, waste it, whatever. There are various UBI proposals that have been kicked around by wonks, and there are many disagreements about how such a policy should be implemented. The UBI has been getting more attention recently, however, due to a Finnish pilot program that’s giving money to a select group of Finns in order to see how it would work in practice. The merits of a UBI program can be debated, and indeed have already been debated, at great length. Some on the left see it as a great way to severely reduce poverty. Critics on the right, meanwhile, worry that it would remove more people from the work force, which they argue would produce negative social effects. Putting all that aside, there’s something about a UBI that seems rather Trumpian. The president is not exactly a policy wonk, but the idea of just giving Americans cash, with little bureaucratic oversight or interference, would mesh well with his populist message. Looking ahead to 2020, it also would allow Trump to visit the downwardly-mobile Americans who voted for him and remind them that he literally put cash in their bank accounts. Or at least will have tried to. There is probably a way to get congressional Republicans to sign onto a UBI proposal assuming a) the White House was all for it and b) it was coupled with a slash in benefits. Then again, those cuts to programs they’d demand in exchange might be unpopular enough to doom the whole effort from getting off the ground. But let’s take a step back and remember that Trump’s top strategic advisor, Steve Bannon, has made it abundantly clear that he’s a big-government guy. Last week, Mike Flynn described his ideas as “more left than right.” Bannon himself doesn’t make much effort to hide this: “The conservatives are going to go crazy. I’m the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan,” he told Michael Wolff just after the election. The UBI would seem to fit snugly in a worldview like that, particularly as we start to see more and more jobs losses due to automation in the coming years. And there’s an easy social conservative argument for UBI, which is that it would allow parents, particularly mothers, to spend more time raising their children. It has the potential to reduce the great atomizing of society, increasingly a fixation of conservative intellectuals.

WASHINGTON, Nov 18, (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden's pledges to slash emissions from farming and to end American hunger by 2030 may be harder to realize now that Republicans flipped the House of Representatives with a thin majority. Biden's Democrats, who retain control of the Senate, will start negotiating in the coming months with Republican House leaders over a massive farm spending bill passed every five years that funds U.S. public food benefits and farm commodity programs. The current $428 billion bill expires on Sept. 30, 2023. “We know the Republicans will be less excited about innovation and will probably want to protect the status quo,” said Vanessa García Polanco, policy campaigns co-director of the National Young Farmers Coalition, a nonprofit group. The House and Senate agriculture committees draft the bill, and both parties typically make concessions in negotiations. Biden's With Republicans about to control the House, policy advocates said anti-hunger and environment groups may have to scale back policy proposals they had hoped to get included in the bill such as rewarding farmers for climate-friendly practices and expanding food benefits. The House agriculture committee will likely be led starting in January by Glenn "GT" Thompson of Pennsylvania. A staffer for Thompson said his main goal is to get the bill passed and he does not yet have clear policy priorities. In past remarks, he has criticized U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) spending on climate programs, and supported restrictions on hunger benefits. The farm bill has a historical reputation of bipartisanship, so some advocates told Reuters they are warily optimistic. Still, growing polarization in Congress could hinder strong hunger and climate goals. Passage of the 2014 farm bill was held up more than a year as conservative House Republicans tried unsuccessfully to strip the bill of nutrition programs. About 80% of Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee are members of the conservative Republican Study Committee, whose 2023 budget recommendations similarly proposed dramatic changes such as separating nutrition and farm programs. Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow, chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said she planned to lead a bipartisan negotiation process and that the bill would ultimately align with Biden’s priorities. “Make no mistake: we cannot, and will not, go backwards,” she told Reuters in an email. “The climate crisis is real. Millions of Americans, including millions of children, are food insecure.” ‘HUNGER CLIFF’ About 75% of farm bill funds go toward anti-hunger programs including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also called food stamps. USDA data shows about 41 million people have received SNAP benefits this year. In previous farm bills, Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee have sought tighter nutrition spending. The issue could be particularly contentious this time because emergency pandemic-era boosts to SNAP could expire as soon as January, said Ellen Vollinger of the Food Research & Action Center, an anti-hunger group. “Whenever it does end, most SNAP recipients are going to lose about $82 a person a month,” she said, calling the looming expiration a “hunger cliff.” Surging food price inflation also has strained household budgets. At an April agriculture committee hearing on the SNAP program, Thompson expressed support for tightening work requirements for benefit recipients. But Jim McGovern, a Democrat on the House farm committee, told Reuters any cuts to SNAP or changes to work requirements "will result in a farm bill not getting done, period." In September, at the first hunger conference of its kind in half a century, Biden pledged to end hunger by 2030. Many of the strategies he laid out would require Congressional action, but there was little Republican participation in the conference, which Thompson called a "political stunt". NOT A 'CLIMATE BILL' Republicans have also protested efforts by U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to reduce farming’s 10% contribution to U.S. emissions of climate-warming gases. In September, USDA announced a $3 billion investment for “climate-smart” farm projects like planting cover crops and using sustainable grazing practices. Every Republican member of the House agriculture committee signed a letter calling the funding “abusive and troublesome." Thompson's aide said he took issue with spending that money without Congressional input. At an August farm conference in Iowa, Thompson said if he led the agriculture committee, he would "ensure that the farm bill doesn't become a climate bill." Vilsack told Reuters in an email that the agency was committed to its climate goals. “At the request of farmers, ranchers and producers, we will find ways to increase their production and profits though climate-smart agriculture,” he said. Hearings discussing the farm bill are underway, but negotiations are behind where they typically would be at this point in the farm bill cycle, in part because of Congressional priorities on other legislation, said Mike Lavender, interim policy director at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, a farm policy group. “It’s going to be a crunch,” he said.

President Joe Biden is wading into the high-stakes negotiations over the farm bill, amid growing concerns the debt limit stand-off could knock that must-pass piece of legislation off track. Biden has invited a small, bipartisan group of lawmakers to the White House Thursday to discuss the upcoming farm bill reauthorization, according to four people familiar with the plans who were granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations. Congress is aiming to write and pass what is expected to be a $1 trillion-plus bill, which will authorize U.S. food and agriculture spending for the next decade, by this fall. But even senior Senate Republicans are increasingly wary that the mounting debt crisis could derail the traditionally bipartisan farm bill. The group of invitees include House Agriculture Committee Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.) and John Boozman (Ark.), the top Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senate Agriculture Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who is a member of Democratic leadership, and Rep. David Scott (Ga.), the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is also expected to attend, according to the people. Stabenow confirmed she was planning to attend the meeting with Biden, which she described as a “general overview” of the farm bill process. “The President’s very interested in getting a bipartisan farm bill and just wants to have an opportunity to touch base,” Stabenow said. The Thursday afternoon meeting, which the president is expected to attend, could be somewhat tense given Democrats’ strong objections to the House GOP’s push to restrict federal food aid and slash other spending as part of their proposal to raise the debt limit. Specifically, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s plan would expand work requirements for beneficiaries of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the country’s leading anti-hunger program, which is part of the farm bill. A spokesperson for Thompson, the only invitee who has voted for the House GOP debt limit bill, said he plans to attend the White House meeting

Congress is taking so long to start writing a new farm bill that the legislation won't be enacted until well into 2024, or even later, if the timelines for the four most recent farm bills are any guide.  If President Joe Biden were to sign a farm bill by the end of this September — when authorization for many of the programs in the 2018 farm bill is set to expire — Congress would have achieved in less than 80 days what has previously taken an average of about 18 months. How Congress ultimately approaches the reauthorization of the 2018 farm bill is yet to be determined, but it's certainly not going to happen in 2023, based on how long the process has taken in the past.  “I don't know if I can compare [the current process] to anything else because I can't remember any of the farm bills that I've been involved with that we haven't done a markup in full committee — in either committee — before Labor Day,” Randy Russell, who has worked on farm bills as a congressional staffer, USDA official, and lobbyist over his four-decade-long tenure in farm policy, told Agri-Pulse. The last time a farm bill was enacted into law in an odd-numbered year — the first year of a new Congress — was 1985. The last time the farm bill passed without an extension — or following the expiration of many of its authorized programs, as was the case with the 2018 law — was in 2002. The reauthorization process for the last four farm bills has averaged just over 550 days from start to finish; the shortest of those timelines was the 252-day process for the 2018 bill.

Food Security Impacts There is strong evidence of SNAP’s effectiveness in alleviating food insecurity. Two studies included in the recent “Long-Term Benefits of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program” White House Report demonstrate this point. Mabli and Ohls (2015) compared households’ state of food security before and after receiving SNAP benefits and found that “SNAP participation reduced the overall fraction of households that were food insecure and the fraction that were very low food secure by around 17 percent and 19 percent, respectively. Mabli and Worthington (2014) find even larger impacts on children’s food security in low-income households with children, showing that food insecurity among children fell by roughly 33 percent after their families had been receiving benefits for about six months.” Furthermore, the ARRA SNAP benefit boost was terminated effective November 2013 with negative impacts on families. In the wake of that cut, new research from Children’s HealthWatch finds that low monthly SNAP benefit levels and the November 2013 rollback in SNAP benefits have had “a measurable, negative effect on household and child food insecurity.”

Will the Farm Bill’s Hunger Provisions Meet the Growing Need?

For the past month, food pantries in many parts of the country have been rushing to prepare for what they anticipate will be a surge in demand. After a dip in 2021, the number of families who reported “sometimes” or “often” not having enough to eat rose gradually throughout 2022. Now, pandemic-related bumps in SNAP benefits have officially ended, with food prices still much higher than normal.

SNAP benefits are one of the fastest, most effective forms of economic stimulus because they quickly inject money into the economy — and a SNAP benefit increase can be implemented virtually immediately. Low-income individuals generally spend all of their income to meet daily needs such as shelter, food, and transportation; every SNAP dollar that a low-income family receives enables the family to spend an additional dollar on food or other items. Some 80 percent of SNAP benefits are redeemed within two weeks of receipt; 97 percent are spent within a month. That’s why the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Moody’s Analytics rate SNAP expenditures as one of the most effective and efficient supports for the economy during downturns, measured on a “bang-for-the-buck” basis. Every dollar in new SNAP benefits increases Gross Domestic Product by about $1.50 during a weak economy, according to a recent Department of Agriculture (USDA) study.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) empowers millions of older Americans to eat healthier—which in turn helps them feel better, prevent chronic disease, and stay independent for longer. Beyond these good-health perks, SNAP makes financial—check out these four surprising beneifts.

1. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) helps you save money and stretch your budget.

SNAP Stimulates Economic Activity During an Economic Downturn SNAP is one of the Nation's primary counter-cyclical government assistance programs. It provides assistance to more low-income households during an economic downturn or recession and to fewer households during an economic expansion, serving as an automatic stabilizer to the economy. The rise in SNAP participation during an economic downturn results in greater SNAP expenditures which, in turn, stimulate the economy. During a recession, some households that lose part or all of their incomes become eligible and participate in SNAP. Moreover, for households that were already participating before the recession, SNAP benefits increase if their income falls. Not only do SNAP benefits support a household’s food purchasing needs, benefits also augment the incomes and spending of others (such as farmers, retailers, food processors, and food distributors, as well as their employees); this, in turn, has ripple effects for other parties. Thus, SNAP benefits start a multiplier process that supports macroeconomic spending and production. SNAP participation and benefits can automatically expand when the economy weakens and contract when it strengthens. ERS research has estimated a multiplier of SNAP benefits on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 1.54; that is, an increase of $1 billion in SNAP benefits in a slowing economy increases GDP by $1.54 billion and supports 13,560 additional jobs, including nearly 500 agricultural jobs (farming, forestry, fishing, and hunting). See: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Economy: New Estimates of the SNAP Multiplier

Economic Benefit SNAP participation correlates with economic cycles. SNAP benefits are considered one of the fastest and most effective forms of economic stimulus. An additional $5 of SNAP benefits generates $9 in total economic activity According to the USDA’s Economic Research Service, each $1 billion of retail generated by SNAP creates $340 million in farm production, $110 million in farm value-added, and 3,300 farm jobs Every $1 billion of SNAP benefits also creates 8,900-17,900 full-time jobs For every $1 billion in cuts to SNAP funding, 11,437 jobs would be destroyed. 83% of SNAP benefits, equal to $53.4 billion, were spent at 36,500 supermarkets around the U.S.; the remaining 17% was spent at 180,000 small retail stores (including grocery stores, farmers’ markets, wholesalers, and meal services), for a total of $11 billion SNAP beneficiaries spend more dollars on food in local stores than eligible non-participants An increase in SNAP participation by 5% would result in 2.2 million low-income Americans receiving $859 million in SNAP benefits, generating $1.5 billion in nationwide economic activity Measured as a share of the economy (gross domestic product or GDP), SNAP spending fell by 7 percent in 2016 and another 8 percent in 2017, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that it will return to the 1995 level in the next few years. As it is now, SNAP is not contributing to long-term budgetary pressures SNAP and the Recession SNAP is considered the most effective and responsive federal program to provide assistance during economic downturns Participation in the SNAP program correlates with periods of economic expansion and retraction; so when the economy suffers, SNAP can provide an immediate and temporary safety net for individuals who lose their jobs (and sustain consumer spending at the same time) SNAP provided $4.3 billion in additional economic stimulus in 2009. Every $1 increase in SNAP benefits during 2009 generated an estimated $1.79-$1.84 in economic activity SNAP delivered more than $40 billion in economic stimulus through the Recovery Act benefit increases