1/2 cocked
snap
out
of it
With this issue’s halfcocked concept, we turn
our eyes to SNAP, the
Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program.
SNAP, formerly known
as Food Stamps, costs the
American taxpayer some
$80 billion annually.
We take a look at ways
Oregon could rethink
how this financially relief
is allocated, and how
our local economy might
benefit.
Renamed SNAP in 2010, the Food Stamps program remains
the same as it has, mostly, for decades. It is the vast majority
of funding allocated by the Farm Bill, it is a point of great
contention for politicos, and it is constantly under threat of
reduction despite a need by many as not just supplemental
income, but a cornerstone of sustenance for many families.
When we get right down to it, it’s a handout from the
government. Tax money used to support families same as
unemployment, WIC, and welfare. SNAP is financial relief
for one of life’s constant, increasing expenditures, but it’s just
money. I mean, if money is money and relief is relief, could we
just rethink how we use that money?
48% of every dollar
spent locally stays
in our communities
compared to just
14% when spent at a
national chain store.
In October of this year, Oregon
released benefits exceeding $98
million.
That’s
approximately
$225 per household or $126 per
person receiving benefits. SNAP
is essentially handicapped money.
It’s money that can’t do everything
that real money can do. You can buy
candy, but not vitamins. You can
buy fresh lobster, but not diapers. You can buy cake, but not
medicine. With junk food allowed but soap and toothpaste not,
we did away with the “supplemental nutrition” premise as a
limitation in our systems. If you can do your grocery shopping
at a CVS and a Chevron, but can’t buy medication or gasoline,
then I think we can all agree that nutrition is taking a back seat.
We also saw an issue with limiting a buyer’s rights. If this
isn’t about nutrition, then it needs to be about straightforward
financial relief. If the household is receiving $225 in relief, why
shouldn’t they decide what that relief is spent on? Essentially,
we need to think of a better way Oregonians can spend and
profit from their benefits while getting the relief they need. The
ideas we came up with had to meet three criteria: scaleable,
local, and sustainable.
Data isn’t readily available on the buyer’s habits, nor is it easily
released as to which stores and companies are receiving the
majority of the buyer’s attention.
One such piece of taboo information was released in Oklahoma
a few years ago. In 2012, Walmart received approx. 50% of the $1
billion dollars in benefits paid out that year.
Reports show that buying local keeps more dollars in the
community: 48 cents on the dollar stay local compared to
the 14 cents when buying from a national chain. This 34 cent
difference sounds like the kind of margin that could change a
community.
So, how do we make those dollars stay local, improve and
enrich our communities while delivering the relief families and
individuals need, without losing money?
by
wesley
bauman
32