Below are the five questions about key hunger and poverty policies that we posed to all candidates for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives who will be up for election in Allegheny County on November 8th. They will likely vote on these policies in the next session.
U.S. Congress Candidate Questions
1. Do you support changing federal funding of SNAP (food stamps) to block grants, which each state then controls?
Our recommendation: No.
SNAP is one of the most important programs of the federal social safety net. Three-quarters of food stamps go to families with children, and nearly a third of beneficiaries are senior citizens or people with disabilities. Because food is a necessity of life, the federal government considers people who qualify for food stamps as entitled to this critical food assistance benefit. The federal government therefore made funding for SNAP able to automatically expand during an economic downturn so it can provide eligible households with immediate help during hard times.
This flexibility and protection from (some amount of) political gamesmanship would not be true of state block grants. Furthermore, states would likely shift funds from food assistance to other purposes. There would be no incentive to address low participation in the program despite high eligibility. This is what happened when TANF cash assistance was block granted in 1996; its funds have since been frequently used by states to fill budget holes or on questionable programs that don’t help low-income families in their struggle to get back on their feet, and only a fraction of eligible families receive assistance.
2. Do you support changing federal funding of the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs and Summer Food Program to block grants, which each state then controls?
Our recommendation: No.
Like the food stamp program (see question 1), federal funding for school nutrition programs automatically changes in response to need. When more children qualify for free or reduced-price meals because of a widespread downturn like a recession or local unemployment, schools receive reimbursement for those meals. This design enables schools to ensure that students have the nutrition needed to learn and thrive. Block grant funding of the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs and Summer Food Program would only hurt children.
3. Do you support making the Earned Income Tax Credit permanent and expanding it to include childless workers?
Our recommendation: Yes.
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is one of the nation’s most effective antipoverty programs. It was created for low-income working households. According to the Census Bureau, the EITC lifted 6.2 million people out of poverty in 2013, including 3.2 million children. However, the program does much more for families with children than for working households without.
Just Harvest supports making the EITC permanent and its expansion to include childless workers. Under the current tax code, someone who works full-time at a minimum- or low-wage job can be taxed into poverty. Workers without children received a maximum credit of only $503 in 2015, compared to a maximum of $3,359 for workers with one child and $6,242 for workers with more than two children. Changes must be made to the EITC program to help workers without children.
4. Do you support increasing the current minimum wage ($7.25/hour) to a living hourly wage of $15.00 and increasing the tipped wage ($2.13/hour) to a living hourly wage of $3.15, and making sure both keep up with inflation?
Our recommendation: Yes.
At its peak value in 1968, the earnings of one full-time worker at minimum wage was enough to support a family of three above the poverty level. Today, that same family would fall $4,000 below the federal poverty line. The current minimum wage of $7.25 per hour does not allow people to afford the average rent, buy food and clothes, and pay for transportation every month, much less support a family. Even people who work more than 60 hours/week at minimum wage are having a hard time making ends meet.
Every worker who works a full-time job should be able to live a dignified life in which they and their families’ basic human needs are met. The minimum wage should be raised to $15 per hour and allowed to automatically increase every year so as to keep up with rising costs of living.
5. Do you support more federal funding for subsidized child care for low-income working families?
Our recommendation: Yes.
Subsidized child care for low-income workers is a critical federal anti-poverty program that provides funding and sets spending caps for the states. The states then give child care subsidies to eligible low-income working families with children age 12 and younger, or with children aged 13 to 19 with a physical or emotional disability. Subsidies are paid to the parent’s choice of a child care center, a small family day care home, a group day care home, or even a relative or neighbor to care for his/her child, and the parent is responsible for a co-pay.
The current amount of federal funding for subsidized child care has not been increased since 1996. This not only limits low-income families’ ability to afford quality child care, but the budgets of child care centers and the pay of child care workers as well.
