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.
PA General Assembly Questions
1. Do you support an increase in the TANF cash grant from its current level of $403/month for a family of three?
Our recommendation: Yes.
The amount of cash assistance provided to recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) has not increased since January 1, 1990. Since then, TANF cash grants have lost 79% of their buying power due to rising costs of living, like for rent, home heating, and transportation. The monthly TANF grant in 1990 – $403 for a family of three – gave families about half of the federal poverty level income (or halfway to being out of poverty). With the cash grant for a family of 3 still at $403, that family is now in deeper poverty, at around 1/4 of the poverty threshold income in Pennsylvania.
The dollar amount of TANF cash grants must be increased. Since welfare reform in 1996, TANF caseloads have dropped by 59%. As a result, more money is now available to provide a larger cash grant to families in need. TANF is an integral part of the safety net for low-income families across the state. It must continue to provide the level of support it gave when first created.
2. Do you support an increase in the TANF Earned Income Disregard to 75% and expanding it to applicants for benefits?
Our recommendation: Yes.
A parent who is receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits must prove they are trying to find a job or are enrolled in an approved job training or education program. Once employed, they will continue to receive cash assistance until they earn about half of the poverty threshold income, $806 a month for a family of three in most PA counties. Pennsylvania disregards 50% of their earnings when determining their benefit level – the Earned Income Disregard – which allows them to gradually transition to self-sufficiency. But typically, the jobs they find are low- or minimum-wage, and they can lose much of their wages to expenses like taxes, transportation, clothing, and child care. Thus, newly employed TANF families end up feeling like they are not much better off after gaining employment than they were when unemployed but receiving more in TANF.
Increasing the TANF Earned Income Disregard (EID) from 50% to 75% would leave families in better financial standing before ending their TANF benefits, making them more likely to gain self-sufficiency. Expanding the EID rate of 75% to TANF applicants would allow for equal treatment of all the low-income families who desperately need support. Ultimately, this will allow more struggling PA families to receive at least a partial TANF grant while they work to climb out of poverty.
3. Do you support raising corporate taxes and eliminating corporate tax loopholes to fully fund human services and cut the state’s structural deficit?
Our recommendation: Yes.
The amount of taxes the government collects determines the quality of services it is able to provide. Nearly 75% of Pennsylvania’s corporations pay a lower tax rate than many of the low-income clients Just Harvest serves every year at its tax preparation program for low-income households. Corporations benefit from tax loopholes that allow them to avoid paying their fair share of taxes even though 1 in 7 Pennsylvanians live in poverty.
Legislators must permanently close corporate tax loopholes. A comprehensive list of ways to fix Pennsylvania’s unfair tax code can be found here.
4. Do you support drug testing applicants for Food Stamps (SNAP) and/or other public benefits?
Our recommendation: No.
Aside from evidence that it is very expensive and not very effective, drug testing is demeaning. Drug testing applicants for public welfare programs delays their receiving much-needed assistance. It also outright deters those who are eligible but don’t wish to subject themselves to the indignity of a urine test. This unfairly punishes people who are in need of help, not judgment. The overwhelming majority of welfare recipients are families with children, seniors, people with disabilities, and veterans.
There is no evidence that low-income people use drugs at higher rates than other people, including those who receive other forms of government assistance, like tax breaks for the wealthy, or research grants. It only serves to encourage the myth that applicants for public assistance are suspicious or are criminals who are not worthy of dignity or public assistance. With the recent decriminalization of recreational marijuana use in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, drug testing should be considered more irrelevant and unhelpful than ever before.
5. Do you support barring people convicted of a drug felony from receiving food stamps after they’ve served their sentence?
Our recommendation: No.
Denying government assistance to people who are otherwise unable to afford their basic needs, such as food and housing, only perpetuates poverty and its enormous costs to taxpayers and our communities. The overwhelming majority of former drug felons are non-violent offenders who have served lengthy sentences. They just want to return to society as law-abiding and self-sufficient individuals. An increasing portion of them are women, who are often innocent bystanders. The rules of our nation’s overly aggressive War on Drugs made them criminally liable (or pressed them to plead guilty) while also unfairly targeting people of color.
Former drug felons already face discrimination in the job market for their criminal record. A lifetime ban on food stamp eligibility just makes it much more difficult for them to make ends meet and reintegrate as productive members of society. Furthermore, drug treatment facilities often use their patients’ SNAP and TANF benefits to subsidize the cost of treatment. If individuals who are recovering from drug addiction are denied access to these benefits it is much less likely that they will be able to live drug-free in the community and stay out of jail.
