Since the 2016 election, people on SNAP have had to adjust to the new problems that they have had to face due to the new proposals to reform the program. SNAP provides low- income people and or their families with access to healthy and nutritious meals while also helping the economy of many communities, and it is the largest government-funded nutrition assistance program. This controversy is best understood as an ongoing debate about whether it is needed to reform SNAP due to people becoming too dependent on food stamps, decrease or lower the budget because the recipients are provided with too much money, or keep the program the way it currently is. Some people debate that the budget cuts will only hurt the needy even more or that just because the people use food stamps doesn’t mean they should be restricted to what they buy and when they buy it. Others debate about the work requirements not being strict enough. They wonder why people who receive these benefits are not working more, and why people are taking their taxes for granted by buying junk and unhealthy foods. However, I believe that the program provides people who can’t work or ones in poverty with food security and that the people who can’t afford to feed themselves and their families are already working but since their wages are so low they are still below the poverty line. Food security is defined as when people have complete access to healthy and nutritious foods that meet their dietary needs for a healthy and vital life. The main reason why this controversy is so popular today is because the President has proposed moving SNAP from the Department of Agriculture into a reinvented Department of Health and Human Services, cutting the budget by more than twenty percent within the next ten years, and replacing the food stamp EBT card with canned foods that would be shipped to people’s homes.

Within these two years, there have been many new plans and ideas to change and or reform SNAP. Many people have come out to either challenge these new changes to the program or support them. For instance in this New York Times article, “Poverty Is the Issue, Not Food Stamps”, the Editorial Board announced that instead of cutting funds from SNAP the government should be analyzing why people are in need of this assistance. To explain that many Americans who use SNAP are working or not able to do so the board presents statistics; according to the Editorial Board, “43 million poor and low-income Americans” (“Poverty Is the Issue”, par. 1) who receive food stamps each month are mainly families with children and working parents. Therefore, not only is SNAP helping many people but, the same people still need extra help whether they work or not. As a result, this helps to convey that the people on SNAP are people in physical need of healthy and nutritious meals for themselves and their families. The article also refers to the budget cuts that would devastate the food stamp program on the falsehood that this program prepares people to not have to or want to work. Therefore, the food stamp program would be devastated after these budget cuts due to the fabrication(s) that the program encourages people to not work and only helps the lazy but not the genuinely needy. If the government ever considers raising the minimum wage instead of lowering the SNAP budget, the program would surely have a decreasing percentage in their recipients. Consequently, because of the low wages and what it costs to live in today’s society these underprivileged people cannot be blamed for something they have no control over. The evidence proves that we Americans need to figure out an effective plan(s) to make sure that we are putting the needy first instead of judging them in their time of need.

Likewise, in the article “After Feds cut Food Stamps, City Pantries went Empty”, Theresa Agovino states that the cuts the government put on the SNAP budget caused a decline in resources at the soup kitchens and food pantries (par. 2). Agovino began by providing information about the New York City’s food pantries and soup kitchens having complaints about running out of food after the budget cuts to SNAP beneficiaries’ food stamps (par. 2). It’s immoral when people have to come up with creative ideas to try to feed their families since they did not receive enough funds from the one program that was supposed to help. Then, Agovino backs up her information by providing this fact: “That influx caused 48% of the 188 food banks and soup kitchens surveyed to run out of food at some point in November, according to a study conducted by the Food Bank for New York City” (Agovino, par. 2). I do not understand how it’s acceptable for the heads of food banks, pantries, and soup kitchens to be forced to stretch food into smaller portions so they can make sure everyone is feed. Especially, when many of those people are SNAP beneficiaries who should have been provided with assistance. Then to continue outlining the awful treatment that these people were experiencing Agovino quoted the head of a food bank which states,“even before it was cut, more than 40% of SNAP recipients were using food pantries and soup kitchens” (Agovino, par. 3). This shows that even with the funds the people using SNAP were getting was not enough to effectively supply them with enough food. The data that we are presented with confirms that the real reason these people are using this program is because that they are truly in need and simply getting a job isn’t the answer. Even soup kitchens had to ration out their food because the funds were just simply not enough.

In contrast, Kristina Rasmussen, claims that work requirements will lower the dependency rate and help the people who actually need help in her USA Today article. Rasmussen begins with stating that there are six million jobs available and this is the best time for a person to be in need of a job (par. 1). Then Rasmussen says that “Reinstating work as the bedrock of the welfare system” (Rasmussen, par. 2) is necessary because putting the needy first, boosting the economy, and decreasing the number of people that are dependent in America. Rasmussen continues with saying that “Federal loopholes and bureaucratic gimmicks have allowed states to waive work requirements for able-bodied adults, despite clear data showing what happens when able-bodied adults are required to work, train or volunteer at least part-time to remain eligible for food stamps” (Rasmussen, par. 4). Then Rasmussen follows up with a study about work requirements in Main and Kansas which says that “when work requirements were implemented in Kansas, able-bodied adults leaving welfare found work in over 600 industries” (Rasmussen, par. 5).

I disagree with Rasmussen’s statements about work requirements because she states that there are six million jobs that are available but doesn’t say which jobs there are, meaning someone could get a job but because the pay is so low they could/would still be below the poverty line because they have to take care of themselves and or their kids such as stated in the “Poverty Is the Issue, Not Food Stamps” article. Also, Rasmussen assumes that the majority of people on SNAP are not the needy but in the same article that I stated above the facts prove that the people who used SNAP also needed extra help from food banks. Then Rasmussen continued with saying how the evidence proves that people on SNAP will get a job if they are required to but since the jobs were not listed that could also mean that these people can’t afford to lose their food stamps, so they may have to take a low paying job to satisfy the rules and or regulations. In fact using my own personal experiences I can provide another perspective because when I was a younger my parents both had jobs but after the bills they barely had enough left to feed my brother and I but after they were approved for SNAP I started to be able to eat more than once a day and actually be able to take a lunch to school from time to time.

Overall, the issue with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program isn’t the people who use the program and or the beneficiaries. The people on this program are not lazy and they are not only using this program because they don’t want to work. There are real predicaments regarding wages and the price of food and or bills. Not saying these things can’t be fixed or helped but blaming the people most in need isn’t solving anything either.