Bronze Teeth Aff - Food Stampsv3.1

SPC Poverty
<Food Stamps Aff v.3.Steel Teeth>
Food Stamps Aff Steel Teeth 3.1

Food Stamps Aff Steel Teeth 3.1................................................................1
1AC Introduction.......................................................................................2
1AC Contention 1: The Status Quo...........................................................3
1AC Contention 1: The Status Quo...........................................................4
1AC Plan....................................................................................................5
1AC Contention 2: Solvency.....................................................................6
1AC Contention 3: Food Insecurity...........................................................7
1AC Contention 3: Food Insecurity...........................................................8
1AC Contention 4: Economy.....................................................................9
Funding FYI..................................................................................................12
Inherency Eligible People Up....................................................................13
Inherency Funding Increases Inevitable.....................................................14
Inherency A2 Policy Changes....................................................................15
Inherency A2 Kabbani and Wilde Contradict............................................16
Inherency States Assign Recertification Periods........................................17
Solvency Short Recertification Decreases Participation............................18
Solvency Quality Control Discourages Working Families........................19
Solvency Application Process Reduces Participation................................20
Solvency Food Stamps Key to Social Safety Net......................................21
Solvency A2 Fraud/Trafficking/Theft........................................................22
Solvency A2 Stigma...................................................................................23
Food Security Food Stamps Solve.............................................................24
Food Security Food Stamps Solve.............................................................25
Food Security A2 No Solvency..................................................................26
Food Security Insecurity High Now..........................................................27
Food Security Concentrated in Poverty.....................................................28
Food Security Disease................................................................................29
Food Security Disease................................................................................30
Food Security Food Insecurity Poverty...................................................31
Food Security Economy Impact Mod........................................................32
Food Security Economy Impact Mod - Extensions...................................33
Food Security A2 Programs Now..............................................................34
Economy Low............................................................................................35
Economy Stimulus Not Enough.................................................................36
Economy Food Stamps = Automatic Stabilizers........................................37
Economy Food Stamps = Automatic Stabilizers........................................38
Economy Automatic Stabilizers Key.........................................................39
Economy State Budgets Low.....................................................................40
Economy State Budgets Hurt Economy.....................................................41
Economy Solve State Budgets...................................................................42
Economy Solve Consumer Spending.........................................................43
Economy Stabilize Income........................................................................44
Economy Ripple Effects.............................................................................45
Economy Emergency-Type Financing Key...............................................46
Economy Impact Calculus.........................................................................47
Economy Impact Mod Hegemony..........................................................48
Agriculture Increasing Benefits Solves......................................................49
Agriculture Food Stamps Solve.................................................................50
Agriculture Good Economy.......................................................................51
Agriculture Food Stamps = Consumption Stabilizer.................................52
Agriculture Consumption Stabilizer: A2 Empirics....................................53
Child Malnutrition Add-on............................................................................54
Obesity Add-On (1/2).................................................................................55
Obesity Add-On (2/2).................................................................................56
Obesity Add-On A2 Power Backlash.........................................................57
Obesity Add-On Economy Impact Mod....................................................58
Topicality Persons Living In Poverty Lay Block....................................59
Topicality Persons Living In Poverty Flow Block (1/2).........................60
Topicality Persons Living In Poverty Flow Block (2/2).........................61
Topicality Persons Living in Poverty We Meet.......................................62
Topicality Persons Living in Poverty We Meet.......................................63
Topicality Persons Living in Poverty: Prefer Consumption......................64
Topicality Persons Living in Poverty: Prefer Consumption......................65
Topicality Increase Violation Block........................................................66
Topicality A2 FX Topicality.......................................................................67
Topicality Social Services Block............................................................68
A2 Spending/Budget DA..............................................................................69
A2 Immigration DA......................................................................................70
A2 Obesity DA..............................................................................................71
SPC Poverty
A2 Dependency.............................................................................................72
A2 Health Care DA Outweigh...................................................................73
A2 Food Prices DA No Link......................................................................74
Obama Good Turn......................................................................................75
Obama Bad Turn (1/2)...............................................................................76
Obama Bad Turn (2/2)...............................................................................77
A2 Universal CP Targeting Good: Morality..............................................78
A2 Universal CP Targeting Good: Morality..............................................79
A2 Universal CP Targeting Inevitable.......................................................80
A2 Universal CP Targeting Good: Agriculture..........................................81
A2 States CP Preemption...........................................................................82
A2 States CP Fed Key to Resources..........................................................83
A2 Private Charities CP Block...................................................................84
SPC Poverty
1AC Introduction
The inability of impoverished households to afford food, the complexity of alleviating a collapsed
economy - these are the problem posed to us as policymakers in this debate. However, there
remains a solution to these problems. The Food Stamp Program allows for the correct
strategy to address these pressing issues. Unfortunately, there remains a limitation on the
overall effectiveness of these programs known as the Quality Control System that prevents
the participation of working households in need of aid and deters other eligible people from
participating.
Thus, my partner and I affirm the resolution:
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase social services for
persons living in poverty.
SPC Poverty
1AC Contention 1: The Status Quo

1. The stimulus recently increased food stamp benefits
CBS News, Terrell Brown, Food Stamp Stimulus Felt Coast-to-Coast August 2 , 2009,
nd
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/26/eveningnews/main5189631.shtml
President Obama's economic stimulus program which gives poor families additional
food stamp money to spend each month . One Los Angeles market has had an 88 percent increase in food stamp purchases and that has given
Sweredoski is reaping the early benefits of
Sweredoski more money to spend on expansion. "I recently bought a new John Deere tractor," he said, a purchase that hopefully added - or at least saved American jobs in another part of the country. Starting in April, a family of four on food stamps received an extra $80 a month - from
$525 to $606. The Department of Agriculture estimates that every $5 of food stamp spending results in $9.20 worth of economic activity. That's why the
food stamp boost is also helping this in New York City, where one supermarket manager says his sales are up 10 percent since the stimulus program started.
"We're actually thinking of hiring more people," said Jose Almonte, the manager of an Associated Supermarket. "Food stamps have the biggest bang for the
buck of any kind of stimulus," said Moodys.com economist Mark Zandi. That's because food stamps put money into the hands of people who will spend it
quickly. It's estimated that a $1 increase in food stamps creates $1.73 in stimulus . Infrastructure, another high-impact stimulus
creates $1.59 for every dollar spent. Compare that to tax cuts which generate only $1.03 for every dollar returned to taxpayers. The food stamp stimulus,
while powerful, is temporary. But it's a spark that can ignite business - and put more food on the table during difficult times.
2. However, there remains a quality control system within the program that is based around
decreasing error rates, or an ineligible person on the program. This is enforced through
financial penalties on states that have higher error rates
Kabbani, assistant professor at the American University of Beirut, and Wilde, economist with the Economic Research Service for USDA, 2003
Nader Kabbani, assistant professor at the American University of Beirut, and Parke Wilde, economist with the Economic Research Service for USDA, 2003,
Short Recertification Periods in the U.S. Food Stamp Programs, in The Journal of Human Resources
Because the federal government pays the entire food stamp benefit, it has a strong incentive to ensure that households only obtain the benefit amount to
which they are entitled. To that end, USDA requires states to estimate their program error rates . An error arises when an ineligible
household is allowed to participate in the program, when a new participant household receives the wrong benefit amount, or when a continuing household
receives the wrong benefit amount, either because the participant household failed to report a change in income or other circumstance that should have
been reported or because the program agency failed to respond appropriately to the change within a certain period of time. Even if front-line caseworkers
initially calculate the benefit amount correctly, income volatility may cause an error to be registered if the case is sampled for review a few weeks or months
later. Error rates are determined through an annual review of approximately 50,000 food stamp households. A quality control reviewer
checks the information in caseworker files and frequently interviews an adult household member, employers, or others familiar with the case. The dollar
amounts of payments to ineligible households and overpayments and underpayments to eligible households, estimated from the quality control sample, are
summed to arrive at the state's combined error amount. This combined amount is divided by the state's total food stamp benefit issuance to arrive at the
state's reported error rate, which is adjusted slightly using a regression proce- dure to produce USDA's official error rate for each state. The average error rate
fluctuated from year to year, but generally declined from 10.8 percent in fiscal year 1993 to 8.9 percent in fiscal year 2000. Using public use food stamp
Quality Control microdata for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, we find that average error rates for households with earnings were consistently
much higher than error rates for households without earnings (Figure 1). During the study period, the federal government financially
penalized states with error rates that were higher than the national average and provided enhanced funding to
states with especially low error rates (below approximately 6 percent). Because states were subject to penalties if their error
rates rose above the national average, the QC system generated a competitive incentive to reduce error rates (Rosenbaum 2000). In
fiscal year 2000, 18 states were subject to liabilities totaling $46 million, while 11 states were eligible for bonuses totaling $55 million. In practice, the
penalties were frequently modified through negotiations between states and FNS,2 but by all accounts this system of bonuses and penalties focused the
attention of state agencies sharply on quality control. During the 1990s, states adopted several strategies to help reduce their error
rates, including: having supervisors review the accuracy of the benefit calculations; providing training for new caseworkers; analyzing quality control
data to identify common types of errors; using other federal and state databases to verify participants' assets and incomes; and using computer software to
help caseworkers determine an appli- cant's eligibility and calculate benefit amounts (US GAO 2001). Many of these strategies were innocuous from the
perspective of a program participant or eligible appli- cant. This paper focuses on a significant and empirically measurable strategy that may have imposed
more substantial costs of program participation: the increased use of short recertification periods of three months or less. Many states reasoned that
the risk of an error might increase with the length of time since the most recent application or recertification,
especially for households with volatile incomes . If so, then assigning shorter recertification periods could reduce
errors (Mills 1988). A 2001 survey of 28 states by the U.S. General Accounting Office found that 16 states used shorter recertification periods as a way of
reducing their error rates. Twelve of these states "required households with earned income to be recertified quarterly because their incomes tend to fluctuate
increasing the likelihood of payment errors" (US GAO 2001).
SPC Poverty
1AC Contention 1: The Status Quo

3. Despite recent increases in participation, there is still one demographic not being helped those
with volatile monthly income. The difficult application process the quality control system
is still deterring them
Associated Press, USDA Concerned About States' Food Stamp Programs November 24th, 2009,
http://cbs5.com/national/food.stamps.usda.2.1332414.html
With more Americans going hungry than ever before, the Agriculture Department is concerned that dozens of
states aren't adequately administering food stamp programs designed to provide food to low-income Americans.
Several states have run the program in a way that is "problematic and resulted in a more complex and difficult
enrollment process," the department said in a letter to state administrators dated Nov. 20 and obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press. The letter,
signed by Kevin Concannon, the department's undersecretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, says practices in those states "have not
served our clients or our taxpayers well." The letter comes as the department released an annual report on food stamp enrollment and
eligibility showing that just 18 states enrolled 70 percent or more of those eligible for food stamps in 2007, the time period covered by the report. Dozens
of states failed to reach some of the country's most needy citizens , the report stated. Food stamp programs "are
essential to good nutrition and well-being, especially in tough economic times," Concannon said in a statement commenting on
the report. Two states -- Wyoming and California -- had fewer than 50 percent of those eligible enrolled to receive food stamps. Many of the states
that struggled were among the most populous , including New York, where 61 percent of eligible citizens participated; Florida, where 57
percent participated; and Texas, where 55 percent were enrolled. The most successful state was Missouri, where nearly 100 percent of those eligible received
government aid. Maine, Michigan, Tennessee and Oregon also had participation rates of 87 percent or higher . Still, the department's letter was a
sharp rejoinder to states with high numbers of eligible citizens and low participation rates . It specifically criticized states
where private firms, rather than state workers, processed enrollment.
SPC Poverty
1AC Plan
Thus the plan: The United States Federal Government should eliminate the Quality Control
System within the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program while retaining the
mandatory annual recertification period. Furthermore, all additional expenses in the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program should be funded through emergency-type
financing for the increased caseload. Funding and enforcement will be through the
Department of Agriculture. We reserve the right to clarify
SPC Poverty
1AC Contention 2: Solvency

1. Federal policies based around error rates have led to decreasing participation in the Food
Stamp Program because of increasing recertification periods, paperwork, and transaction
costs
Craig Gundersen et. al., Economic researcher for USDA, August 2009
Craig Gundersen, Economic researcher for USDA and Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois, Dean Jolliffe and Laura
Tiehen, Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, The challenge of program evaluation: When increasing program participation
decreases the relative well-being of participants, Volume 34, Issue 4, Pages 367-376, ScienceDirect
In determining eligibility for program benefits, administrative errors frequently arise. As a consequence, to monitor the
delivery of benefits the USDA annually constructs an error rate for each State. The error rate is calculated as the
percentage of total dollars incorrectly given to or taken from food stamp recipients. That is, it is the value of benefits given to ineligible
households plus the under-issuance of benefits to eligible households as a percent of total value of food stamps distributed. States are subject to a
financial penalty if their error rates exceed the national average . In response, some States have taken actions to reduce
these error rates. For example, States have increased the amount of paperwork needed to verify eligibility and the
consequent benefit level and States have increased the frequency with which a household has to recertify their eligibility status (US GAO, 1999). These
and other actions can lead to a more cumbersome application process and this has been associated with a fall in the
number of people receiving food stamps because of the higher transactions costs associated with navigating the
application process (See Kabbani and Wilde (2003) for more on the relation between changes in administrative practices, error rates, and changes in
participation rates. Also see Rosenbaum, 2000 and Ziliak et al., 2003).
SPC Poverty
1AC Contention 3: Food Insecurity

1. The United States Federal Government has stripped itself of the obligation to those who are
food insecure, which is the inability of a family to have a steady supply of food, by putting
pressures on the Food Stamp Program
Allen, Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems @ University of California, 1999
Patricia Allen, Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems @ University of California, 1999, Reweaving the food security safety net: Mediating
entitlement and entrepreneurship, in Agriculture and Human Values
Federal food assistance programs were rst developed in an effort to jointly attack problems of farm surpluses and
city poverty during the Depression (USDA, 1963). At this time, the emphasis was less on feeding hungry people than on disposing of surpluses
purchased in order to support farm incomes (Lipsky and Thibodeau, 1990). Hunger alleviation funds were withheld when it was thought that they would
disrupt agricultural markets (Andrews and Clancy, 1993). These early programs to subsidize or give away food were suspended when the war economy
increased food demand and employment. Contemporary food assistance programs can be dated to the late 1960s when hunger was discovered in
America. An anti-hunger movement rose with the tide of the powerful social movements of the 1960s, such as the civil rights, free speech, and anti-war
movements. The Citizens Crusade Against Poverty conducted an inquiry into the incidence of hunger and malnutrition in order to focus national attention
on the problem of hunger (Kotz, 1969). For the rst time, social programs to combat hunger directly were instituted (Fitchen, 1997).
These included the food stamp program ,
school lunches, and supplemental food for women, infants, and children (WIC). While these
programs were designed to meet the food needs of low-income people, supplementing food industry income also played a key role. For example, the USDA
food stamp program was originally developed largely through the self-interested rent seeking behavior of economic agents rather than social welfare
(DeLorne et al., 1992). Regardless of their multiple motivations, these programs made signicant improvements in food security for
low-income people. Eventually, however, the slowdown of the postwar economic boom, the breakdown of the political contract
between capital and labor, and the upsurge in movements of the right combined to create a new food-security
crisis. In the 1980s many peoples economic conditions worsened; low-income people lost gains they had made and many
middle-class families became newly poor. For example, wages have declined steadily since the 1970s for production and nonsupervisory workers, with
average weekly earnings of $255 in 1993 lower than those in 1960 (US Dept. of Labor, 1994). During this same period, policymakers began
cutting safety-net food programs . In the early 1980s, Congress reduced food stamp benets to levels below those considered necessary for
households to obtain an adequate diet (Ohls and Beebout, 1993). Since this time, in nearly every advanced industrialized country
the state has been shedding its responsibilities for social welfare . In ve of these nations the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, and
New Zealand governments have been changing welfare systems while neglecting the growing issue of hunger and food insecurity
(Riches, 1997). In the United States, the 1996 changes in food programs represent the largest cutbacks since they were rst
established. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Recon- ciliation Act of 1996 (welfare reform) made substantial cuts to the three largest
social welfare programs in the US Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Supplemental Security Income, and the Food Stamp Program. Fully half of
the projected budget savings from the 1996 welfare bill will come from reduced expenditures for the food stamp program (Center on Budget and
has been the primary source of food assistance for the poor . Another $2.9 billion in savings is realized
Congress has placed most of the responsibility for the social safety net onto the states
through a state block grant program that includes lifetime benet limitations and xed funding levels regardless of need (Kramer-LeBlanc et
al., 1997). As early as 1989, food security in the US came to be dened as a problem experienced by a community rather
than by an individual and one which could be solved by joint private and public sector efforts (e.g., Cohen and Burt,
Policy Priorities, 1996), which
by cuts to child nutrition programs.
1989). Policymakers have elev- ated the role of the private emergency food network, extolling volunteerism and charity, expecting them to ll the gaps
caused by the cuts. Private sector emergency food programs such as food banks, food pantries, and soup kitchens, have stepped up efforts to try to ll the
increasing food needs, but are nding this difcult, since demand for their services are up,but supplies are down due to efciency increases in the food
industry (Sarasohn, 1997).
SPC Poverty
1AC Contention 3: Food Insecurity

2. Food stamps are the best means of coping with food insecurity
NMFPP, New Mexico Fiscal Policy Project, 2008
NMFPP, New Mexico Fiscal Policy Project, October 2008, The Economic Impact of Increasing Food Stamp Utilization by New Mexico Families,
http://www.nmvoices.org/fpp_attachments/Food%20Stamps%20&%20Econ.%20Impact%2008.pdf
Food Stamps are the nations best defense against food insecurity and hunger. A household is considered food
insecure if members occasionally skip meals, reduce the quality of food they eat, or feed their children unbalanced
diets because they cannot afford to buy adequate or more nutritious food . Households are considered hungry if financial
constraints cause adults or children to decrease the quality and/or quantity of food they consume to the degree that they frequently experience hunger.
3. You have a moral obligation to combat death by lack of food if you have the ability to address it
your decision as a judge is not just as a policymaker this round. The decision of this round
is of personal moral importance as well
Singer, professor of philosophy, 1972
Peter Singer, professor of philosophy and Director of the center for Human Bioethics at the University of Monash, 1972, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, in
World Hunger and Morality ed. Wiliam Aiken and Hugh LaFoullette p. 26-28
As I write this, in November 1971, people are dying in East Bengal from lack of food, shelter, and medical care. The suffering and death that are occurring
there now are not inevitable, not unavoidable in any fatalistic sense of the term. Constant poverty, a cyclone, and a civil war have turned at least nine
is not beyond the capacity of the richer nations to give enough assistance to
reduce any further suffering to very small proportions. The decisions and actions of human beings can prevent this kind of
suffering. Unfortunately, human beings have not made the necessary decisions . At the individual level, people have, with very few exceptions,
million people into destitute refugees; nevertheless, it
not responded to the situation in any significant way. Generally speaking, people have not given large sums to relief funds; they have not written to their parliamentary representatives demanding increased
government assistance; they have not demonstrated in the streets, held symbolic fasts, or done anything else directed toward providing the refugees with the means to satisfy their essential needs. At the
government level, no government has given the sort of massive aid that would enable the refugees to survive fo more than a few days. Britain, for instance, has given rather more than most countries. It has, to
date, given 14,750,000. For comparative purposes, Britains share of the non-recoverable development costs of the Anglo-French Concorde project is already in excess of 275,000,000, and on present
estimates will reach 440,000,000. The implication is that the British government values a supersonic transport more than thirty times as highly as it values the lives of the nine million refugees. Australia is
another country which, on a per capita basis, is well up in the aid to Bengal table. Australias aid, however, amounts to less than one-twelfth of the cost of Sydneys new opera house. The total amount given,
from all sources, now stands at about 65,000,000. The estimated cost of keeping the refugees alive for one year is 464,000,000. Most of the refugees have now been in the camps for more than six months.
The World Bank has said that India needs a minimum of 300,000,000 in assistance from other countries before the end of the year. It seems obvious that assistance on this scale will not be forthcoming. India
will be forced to choose between letting the refugees starve or diverting funds from her own development program, which will mean that more of her own people will starve in the future. These are the essential
facts about the present situation in Bengal. So far as it concerns us here, there is nothing unique about this situation except its magnitude. The Bengal emergency is just the latest and most acute of a series of
major emergencies in various parts of the world, arising both from natural and from man-made causes. There are also many parts of the world in which
people die from malnutrition
and lack of food independent of any special emergency . I take Bengal as my example
only because it is the present concern, and

because the size of the problem has ensured that it has been given adequate publicity. Neither individuals nor governments can claim to be unaware of what
is happening there. What are moral implications of a situation like this ? In what follows, I shall argue that the way people in relatively
affluent countries react to a situation like that in Bengal cannot be justified; indeed,
the whole way we look at moral issues
our moral
conceptual scheme needs to be altered, and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society. In arguing for this
conclusion I will not, of course, claim to be morally neutral. I shall, however, try to argue for the moral position that I take, so that anyone who accepts
certain assumptions, to be made explicit, will, I hope, accept my conclusion. I begin with the assumption that suffering and death from lack of
food, shelter, and medical care are bad. I think most people will agree about this, although one may reach the same view by different routes. I shall not
argue for this view. People can hold all sorts of eccentric positions, and perhaps from some of them it would not follow that death by starvation is in itself
bad. It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to refute such positions, and so for brevity I will henceforth take this assumption as accepted. Those who disagree
need read no further. My next point is this: if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without
thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it . By without sacrificing
anything of comparable moral importance I mean without causing anything else comparably bad to happen, or doing something that is wrong in itself, or
failing to promote some moral good, comparable in significance to the bad thing that we can prevent. This principle seems almost as uncontroversial as the
last one. It requires us only to prevent what is bad, and not to promote what is good, and it requires this of us only when we can do it without sacrificing
anything that is, from the moral point of view, comparably important. I could even, as far as the application of my argument to the Bengal emergency is
concerned, qualify the point so as to make it: if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything
morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it. An application of this principle would be as follows: if I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child
drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while the death of the child
would presumably be a very bad thing. The uncontroversial appearance of the principle just stated is deceptive. If it were acted upon, even in
its qualified form, our lives, our society, and our world would be fundamentally changed . For the principle takes,
firstly, no account of proximity or distance . It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a
neighbors child ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away.
Secondly, the principle makes no distinction between cases in which I am the only person who could possibly do
anything and cases in which I am just on among millions in the same position.
9
SPC Poverty
1AC Contention 4: Economy

1. Despite commonly held beliefs that the economy is rising, unemployment is still rising
hampering any further growth
Ian Swanson, staff writer for the Hill, Economy loses 85,000 jobs; unemployment rate stuck at 10 percent,
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/74907-economy-loses-85000-jobs-unemployment-stuck-at-10-percent
January 8th, 2010,
The economy shed 85,000 jobs in December as the nations unemployment rate stuck for a second month at 10
percent. The job losses reported in the monthly Labor Department report were higher than expected by many analysts, dimming
hopes that the economy was headed for a quicker turnaround after a brutal recession. In the days before the reports release,
there had been predictions the report might show the economy actually added jobs last month. Those hopes built after unemployment fell in November from
10.2 percent to 10 percent and Labor reported the economy lost a mere 11,000 jobs. Labor on Friday revised that report to show the economy actually added
4,000 jobs in November - the first gain in nearly two years.Instead,
job losses in December went back into negative territory, with
manufacturing and construction showing losses.
2. Food Stamps stabilize the economy in three unique ways:

First, Food stamps function as an automatic stabilizer this means the program expands during a
recession and contracts during an expansion
programs, such as unemployment insurance and Food Stamps, which contract when the economy is strong and
expand during a downturn, are known as automatic stabilizers. Automatic stabilizers minimize the depth of
recession and speed economic recovery by increasing the income of people who will generate immediate
economic activity by spending all of it within the local economy . The more responsive a public program is to economic conditions, the
more effective it is as an automatic stabilizer. Because it is one of the few federal social programs still funded as an
entitlement, the FSPs role as an economic stabilizer is more important than ever .
Public
10
SPC Poverty

And, the economy will fail without effective automatic stabilizers the stimulus will not be
effective enough and collapsing state budgets will further the recession without them
Stiglitz, professor @ Columbia University and Nobel Laureate in Economic Sciences, 2009
Joseph Stiglitz, professor @ Columbia University, Chair of the Commission of Experts of the President of the United Nations General Assembly on Reforms
of the International Monetary and Financial System, and winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, 2009, The global crisis, social protection
and jobs, in International Labour Review, Vol. 148
the stimulus is not only too little but also

too late, and it has not been well designed. In looking at the size of the stimulus, one has to look at what else is
going on in the economy. Are there automatic stabilizers or automatic destabilizers ? When the economy gets weaker,
Social protection, automatic stabilizers and jobs The particular problem in the United States is that
spending on social protection and unemployment schemes should automatically go up, helping to stabilize the economy. However, at least in the United
States and some other countries, one of the sad facts of the so-called reforms in recent decades is that we have been
weakening these important automatic stabilizers . The extent of progressivity in tax systems has been lowered, and we have moved from
defined benefit systems to defined contribution retire-ment systems, again weakening the automatic stabilizers of the economy and in some cases converting
them into automatic destabilizers. If one compares the situation when the United States had good social protection, with defined benefit pension
programmes, and the situation that country has been moving into, with weak social protection, with defined contribution pension programmes: what has
happened to most Americans? They have seen their retirement accounts devastated at the same time as the value of their house has fallen dramatically by 20
30 per cent, in some cases 50 per cent. The money that people put away to pay for the education of their children or for their own retirement has been wiped
out. The country used to have a system that would protect them against these kinds of risks, but mistakenly it got rid of it. As Americans see their savings
and retirement accounts eroded, they will realize that they have to save more. In many ways, in the long run, this is a good thing for the American economy:
the household savings rate had gone down to zero, and that was not sustainable. In the short run, however, it is a real problem. Already, there are indications
that the savings rate in the United States may have gone from zero all the way up to 5 per cent, and it is still increasing. This is a massive change in
aggregate demand: if people are saving more, they are spending less. It is this reduction in spending that is weakening the global economy, leading to a lack
of aggregate demand. The weakening of the United States automatic stabilizers is compounded by the further problem that the
states have automatic destabilizers. They have balanced budget frameworks, which means that when revenues go down,
they either have to cut back expenditures or raise taxes. The magnitude of these destabilizers is enormous . A few
months ago, before the downturn got much worse, it was estimated that the shortfall in state taxes would be around US$150 billion a year. Now it is probably
much larger than that, perhaps US$200 billion a year. This means that over a two-year period, the negative stimulus from the
reduction in state revenues offsets 40 or 50 per cent of the total federal stimulus . From this perspective, one
realizes how small the United States stimulus package really is and that it clearly is not up to the task lying ahead.
Second, Increases in food stamp cases solve state economies by increasing federal funds given to
states
Renwick, Senior Economist @ Fiscal Policy Institute, 2003
Trudi
Renwick,
Ph.D.
Senior
Economist
Fiscal
Policy
Institute,
http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/HumanResourcesTestimony03WITHTABLES.pdf
March
3,
2003,
Testimony
of
Trudi
Renwick,
V. AUTOMATIC STABILIZERS Public
assistance programs can provide critical stimulus to state and local economies during
an economic recession and therefore state policymakers should resist efforts to convert the food stamp program and
Medicaid program to block grants. There are several federal programs that automatically increase expenditures when the
economy slows down, thereby providing economic stimulus . As shown in the following chart, federal grants to the state of New York
have grown faster when employment growth was slow and more slowly when employment growth accelerated. For example, the federal food stamp
program is one of the most powerful automatic stabilizers. When job growth slows and unemployment goes up ,
more individuals apply for and receive food stamps, which are funded entirely by the federal government, thereby
increasing the flow of federal funds into the state . Likewise, as job growth accelerates and unemployment falls, the growth of food stamp
expenditures has fallen. Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Supplemental Security Income(SSI) and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
have also historically served as automatic stabilizers. While both Medicaid and SSI expenditures have been growing steadily, they have grown faster in
times of economic distress and experienced slightly lower growth rates when the economy was doing well.
11
SPC Poverty

Third, food stamps increase household spending, but effective overall stimulus is only effective
when emergency-type financing is used
Hanson and Golan, economic researchers for USDA, 2002
Kenneth Hanson and Elise Golan, economic researchers for USDA, August 2002, Effects of Changes in Food Stamp Expenditures Across the U.S. Economy,
http://ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr26/fanrr26-6/fanrr26-6.pdf
The Food Stamp Program (FSP) is one of the Federal Governments primary countercyclical assistance program s,
providing assistance to more households during a recession and to fewer households during an economic expansion.
These countercyclical changes in FSP expenditures can also have beneficial stabilizing effects on the economy, stimulating
economic activity during a recession and slowing demand during an expansion . The extent of the programs
economy wide stabilizing effect depends on how the program is financed. The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990
requires that all Federal programs be funded through budget-neutral means (balanced budget) except in emergencies as
determined by Congress. The Food Stamp Program provides an economic stimulus during a recession only if
emergency-type financing is used. Determining the ultimate stimulative effect of the Food Stamp Program on economywide consumption,
production, and income requires simultaneous analysis of the effect of budgeting requirements, government spending, household spending patterns, labor
supply, and the level and distribution of production.
12
SPC Poverty
Funding FYI
Emergency financing is still budget neutral there is a fund that accommodates these caseload
increases
In this analysis, emergency financing includes the Food Stamp Program contingency fund. This fund is designed to accommodate caseload increases during
a recession that requires expenditures greater than budgeted. Expenditures from this fund do not count against budget
neutrality.
13
SPC Poverty
Inherency Eligible People Up

The New York Times, THE SAFETY NET Food Stamp Use Soars, and Stigma Fades By JASON DePARLE and ROBERT GEBELOFF
(NYT) 11/29/2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html?_r=2&sq=food%20stamps&st=cse&scp=2&pagewanted=print
Although the program is growing at a record rate, the federal official who oversees it would like it to grow even faster. I think the response of the program
has been tremendous, said Kevin Concannon, an under secretary of agriculture, but were mindful that there are another 15, 16 million who
could benefit. Nationwide, food stamps reach about two-thirds of those eligible, with rates ranging from an estimated 50 percent in California to
98 percent in Missouri. Mr. Concannon urged lagging states to do more to enroll the needy, citing a recent government
report that found a sharp rise in Americans with inconsistent access to adequate food. This is the most urgent
time for our feeding programs in our lifetime , with the exception of the Depression, he said. Its time for us to face up to the
fact that in this country of plenty, there are hungry people .
Declines in the economy increase the amount of people who need food stamps
Ziliak, prof @ University of Kentucky, Gundersen, USDA researcher, and Figlio, prof @ University of Florida, 2003
James P. Ziliak, professor of economics @ University of Kentucky, Craig Gundersen, economic researcher for USDA, and David N. Figlio, professor of
economics @ University of Florida, April 2003 Food Stamp Caseloads over the Business Cycle, in Southern Economic Journal
After years of caseload declines, policymakers have begun discussing the reasons for the recent rise of welfare caseloads. This paper provides an explanation
for why this caseload increase is occurring. Our results demonstrate the macroeconomy's substantial impact on food stamp
caseloads both before and after the implementation of welfare reform. The substantial influence of the macroeconomy and the dynamic nature of the
ways in which macroeconomic features affect the food stamp caseload suggest that a recession may trigger sizable increases in food
stamp caseloads- upward of at least a 15% increase after two years . More broadly, our results demonstrate the
continuing importance of food stamps as an automatic stabilizer for low-income families , even in the era of welfare reform.
The results also suggest that state budget forecasts predicting permanent sharp reductions in food stamp caseloads may
end up dramatically understating necessary food stamp expenditures in the future .
14
SPC Poverty
Inherency Funding Increases Inevitable

During negative economic times food stamp funding must be increased
But much has changed in the policy landscape since the last recession. Our results indicate that
several of the policies implemented during
the 1990s to reform the Food Stamp Program have influenced
the recent changes in the food stamp caseload . For

instance, while our finding that states' waivers from the ABAWD work requirement led to substantial changes in the food stamp caseload may be due to
unmeasured substate variation in macroeconomic attributes, it is also likely that this policy change had effects on the food stamp caseload independent of the
contribution of local economic factors. Future research should examine how much of this effect is due to the waivers themselves and how much reflects the
negative economic conditions at a more local level. While such research would have import for the Food Stamp Program, it would also help
inform other policy questions examining how, in a post-welfare reform era of block grants,
funding should be increased in response to
negative economic conditions
at a local level. Another change worth exploring further is the possible breakdown of the traditionally close
relationship between AFDC and food stamps after welfare reform. Our result, which is robust to alternative specifications, has implications for policymakers
who have traditionally looked to changes in AFDC caseloads as a prime mover for food stamp caseloads. After welfare reform, policymakers may
wish to consider how food stamps and TANF move independent of one another and the attendant implications of
such independence for both programs.
15
SPC Poverty
Inherency A2 Policy Changes

Changes in the Quality Control System will not be perceived by states they will still use short
recertification periods
Short Recertification Periods in the U.S. Food Stamp Program, in The Journal of Human Resources
Because of these policy changes, the role of recertification policies may have changed subsequent to our study period. Following nearly a decade of steady
increases, the share of participants in working households subject to short recertification periods declined from 36 percent in fiscal year 2000 to 32 percent in
fiscal year 2001 (after simplified reporting became available for working households, but before the recent program reauthorization by Congress). Still, in
these most recently available data, the use of short recertification periods remains high by historical standards, and it
remains to be seen whether and how quickly states will move to longer recertification periods . The answer to that
question will depend in large part on how states perceive the impact of their new policy options on their participation rates and
error rates, as measured through the Quality Control system.
16
SPC Poverty
Inherency A2 Kabbani and Wilde Contradict

Even if our authors mention changes in the Quality Control system they conclude that it will still
increase short recertification periods
This assessment of the Quality Control system turned out to be influential in later policy developments. As part of legislation reauthorizing the Food Stamp
Program in 2002, Congress changed major features of the program related to the tradeoff between error rates and participation rates. Congress offered states
new reporting options, which may reduce the association between longer recertification periods and higher error rates. Under one of the new options, known
as "simplified reporting," states may assign a fixed benefit for six months to any household (a change in program regulations in November 2000 allowed
this option for working households only). Income fluctuations during the six-month period need not be reported by participants, and state agencies need not
act on fluctuations that would reduce benefits, unless the income fluctuations are so large as to lift the household above130 percent of the poverty line. As of
February 2003, 26 states had adopted simplified reporting rules. Congress also substantially revised the way in which bonuses and penalties are assessed
under the Quality Control system. Previously, states with estimated error rates above the national average were at risk of penalties. Under the new
legislation, states are only subject to penalties if their error rate exceeds 105 percent of the national average by a statistically significant margin, and only if
the error rate exceeds this cutoff for two years in a row. These changes removed the most competitive aspect of the previous policy, in which one state's
success in reducing error rates seemed necessarily to come at another state's expense. Because of these policy changes, the role of recertification policies
may have changed subsequent to our study period. Following nearly a decade of steady increases, the share of participants in working households subject to
short recertification periods declined from 36 percent in fiscal year 2000 to 32 percent in fiscal year 2001 (after simplified reporting became available for
working households, but before the recent program reauthorization by Congress). Still, in these most recently available data, the use of short
recertification periods remains high by historical standards, and it remains to be seen whether and how quickly
states will move to longer recertification periods . The answer to that question will depend in large part on how states
perceive the impact of their new policy options on their participation rates and error rates, as measured through the Quality
Control system.
17
SPC Poverty
Inherency States Assign Recertification Periods

States are free to assign their own recertification periods
States also had discretion over how participants became recertified for continued eligibility. Under federal rules,
participant households had to be recertified for the program at least once a year , or every two years for households with an
elderly or disabled person. States were free to assign recertification periods shorter than one year , and many states established
policies that guided caseworkers in assigning different recertification periods to different household types. In contrast with the all- or-nothing nature of the
state's reporting policies, the recertification policies were generally a matter of degree. By the late 1990s, states varied widely in terms of the
fraction of participating households that were assigned short recertification periods of three months or fewer.
18
SPC Poverty
Solvency Short Recertification Decreases Participation

Short recertification periods have decreased participation in the Food Stamp Program ruining the
original intention of the program
greater use of short recertification periods was associated with lower Food Stamp
Program participation rates. As noted previously, shorter certification periods could reduce participation in at least two ways: by
re- moving households who became ineligible from the caseload, and by imposing administrative burdens that would discourage
participation even by eligible households. A 10 percentage-point increase in the frequency of short recertification periods for both
working and nonworking households appeared to lower the number of food stamp participants as a fraction of the state population by
Second, during the study period,
around 2.7 percent. Con- trary to expectations, short recertification periods did not have a greater marginal effect on the participation rates of working
households than nonworking households. However, because states most sharply increased the use of short recertification
policies for working households, the changes in recertification policy during the 1990s most strongly affected the overall
participation rates for working households . Ironi- cally, policymakers during this period intended that the Food Stamp
Program would continue to provide support for working households even as they left the rolls of cash assistance
programs, so the policy changes encouraged by the Quality Control system may have produced an undesired effect
on participation rates.
Short recertification periods significantly decrease participation

The magnitude of the effect of short recertification periods on participation rates is noteworthy. The increase in
the use of short recertification periods during the 1990s can explain 10 percent of the overall decline in program
participation during the period. Most previous studies of caseload decline during the 1990s did not address changes in
recertification policy or addressed it using error rates as a proxy. No previous studies estimated separate policy effects for working and nonworking
households. Our estimate for the overall effect of short recertification periods on participation rates is slightly higher than the one previous study using a
similar vari- able for recertification policy (Kornfeld 2002) and confirms that recertification policy was a substantial policy instrument during the study
period.
The Quality Control system reduces participation rates it incentivizes shorter recertification
periods
These findings corroborate an assessment of the Quality Control system that gained currency in policy circles during the second half of the 1990s
(Rosenbaum 2000; US GAO 2001). According to this assessment, the Quality Control system provided states with an incentive to
institute shorter recertification periods in order to reduce error rates, and this policy change tended to lower
program participation rates. The incentive to impose short recertification periods was especially strong for
working households, who tended to have higher error rates, because such a policy simultaneously reduced the error rate for working households and
reduced the proportion of working households in the caseload mix. The main contribution of the present research is therefore not to
uncover a previously unrecognized relationship, but rather to confirm empirically that the relationship did exist and quantify the impact of short
recertification periods using national data for the period from fiscal year 1990 to 2000.
19
SPC Poverty
Solvency Quality Control Discourages Working Families

The quality control system creates an incentive for states to increase the frequency of
recertification processes and discourage working families from participating
The
ability of the Food Stamp Program to retain eligible participants generated a vigorous debate in policy circles, leading to administrative
countermeasures in 2000 and to substantial program changes during congressional reauthorization in 2002. An important thread of this debate concerned the
possibility that the program's federally mandated Quality Control (QC) system offered a perverse incentive for states to
discourage participation by working families , even though in principle federal policymakers hoped to encourage food stamp participants to
work (Rosenbaum 2000). The QC system, which is described in the next section, financially penalized states that more frequently
assigned wrong benefit amounts or permitted ineligible people to participate. While federal law required
households to be recertified for program eligibility at least once per year, or at least once every two years if they contained an elderly
person, many states believed they could reduce their risk of errors by imposing shorter recertification periods , especially for
households whose incomes were likely to fluctuate. Working households stood out as a category of participants with a high degree of income volatility from
one month to the next, compared to households whose incomes came predominantly from cash assistance and retirement programs. States
dramatically increased the share of working households who were assigned very short recertification periods of
three months or less. Nationally, the frequency of such short recertification periods for participants in working households
rose nearly eight-fold from 4.7 percent in fiscal year 1992 to 36 percent in fiscal year 2000. This little-studied but dramatic change in recertification policy
raises several empirical questions: (1) were states successful in reducing their error rates by increasing their use of short recertification periods?; (2) did the
increased use of short recertification periods contribute to the Food Stamp Program's caseload declines?; and (3) what was the magnitude of the tradeoff that
states faced between lower error rates on one hand and lower participation rates on the other?
20
SPC Poverty
Solvency Application Process Reduces Participation

The food stamp application process drives away eligible families because of its complexity and
intrusiveness
Applying for Food Stamps The
Food Stamp application process varies substantially across states. A review of the application processes in all
50 states concluded that most applications are much longer than necessary, are difficult to read and complete, and include
excessive and invasive questions often with little or no legal connection to the Food Stamp Program.27 Much of the complexity in
state Food Stamp applications arises from state efforts to minimize the number of ineligible households that
receive Food Stamps. Before 2002, the federal government levied financial penalties against states with Food Stamp error rates that exceeded the
national average. After years of encouraging states to reduce their Food Stamp rolls, the federal government granted states more flexibility in how they
administer their programs with the Food Stamp Reauthorization Act of 2002. The act allowed states to align their Food Stamp income and resource rules to
those of TANF and Medicaid. When calculating income for purposes of Food Stamps, states can opt to exclude resources and income they exclude in
determining eligibility for TANF and/or Medicaid. This provision has the potential to reduce the paperwork and verification burden of applying for Food
Stamps, both for applicants and caseworkers. The 2002 reauthorization also gave states the option of extending benefits to families transitioning off of
welfare from three months to five, and of increasing benefits for larger households. Food Stamp recipients must periodically re-certify their eligibility by
completing a new application and being re-interviewed. States were granted more flexibility regarding re-certification in the Food Stamp reauthorization of
2002. In New Mexico, Food Stamp recipients with earned income certify every 12 months, but must report changes in income and household composition
quarterly. Fixed income cases, including many of the elderly and those receiving SSI, re-certify every two years. Food Stamp cases without income certify
every three months. Average certification periods vary considerably across states. In 2006, the average certification period for the U.S. was 11.8 months
and ranged from 15.7 months in Massachusetts to 5.9 months in Wyoming and 7.1 months in Arizona. New Mexicos 9.1-month average certification period
was two months shorter than the national average.29 Barriers to Access Despite the increase in Food Stamp recipiency since 2000, significant
barriers to Food Stamp enrollment exist for many eligible families. Many eligible families that do not participate in
the Food Stamp Program believe that their income or assets preclude them from doing so, others are intimidated by the cumbersome
and intrusive application process , still others believe that they are ineligible because they are legal immigrants.30 Additional impediments
to access include limited English proficiency and literacy, lack of telephone or transportation, and problems providing the documentation necessary
to certify eligibility. Still others report that they have trouble getting their caseworker on the phone or even leaving messages, they receive conflicting
information or not enough information, and some report that their paperwork or documentation has been repeatedly lost.32
The difficult and extensive paperwork is keeping eligible households from participating in the
Food Stamp Program.
Carla Kaiser, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, July 2008
IATP, Food Stamps, Food Security, and Public Health: Lessons from Minnesota
The paperwork required to participate in the Food Stamp Program is a nother barrier to participation. The
application process is intensive, detailed and time consuming. 17 Once in the program, Minnesota participants must report
monthly on income and expenses, a situation that for some is not worth the trouble . Although the average monthly benefit in
Minne- sota was $89.15 in 2005, the minimum monthly benefit is a mere $10.00.19 The unknown amount of return for the extensive effort turns many away.
In addition, Food Stamp orga- nizers report that many eligible people refuse to participate in order to avoid dealing with county employees, who do not
receive customer service training.20
21
SPC Poverty
Solvency Food Stamps Key to Social Safety Net

Food stamp participation increases as the economy decreases they are a key component of the
social safety net
Ziliak, prof @ University of Kentucky, and Gundersen, economic researcher for USDA, 2003
James P. Ziliak, professor of economics @ University of Kentucky, and Craig Gundersen, economic researcher for USDA, 2003, The Role of Food Stamps
in Consumption Stabilization, in The Journal of Human Resources
The Food Stamp Program is an integral component of the social safety net in the United States. This cornerstone
of food assistance programs works under the principle that everyone has a right to food for themselves and their families
and, hence, with few exceptions, the program is available to all citizens who meet income and asset tests. Most participants receive an Electronic Benefit
Transfer (EBT) card for the purchase of food in authorized, privately run retail food outlets. Subject to passing the income and asset limits, the program is an
entitlement to needy families, and participation moves countercyclically with the state of the macroeconomy (Ziliak, Gundersen,
and Figlio 2003). At its peak in 1994, more than 27 million people received food stamp benefits at an expense of $25 billion to the federal government. In
terms of total expenditures, the Food Stamp Program lies between the major cash-assistance program, Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and the major work-support program, the Earned Income Tax Credit (Scholz and
Levine 2002). In some states with low TANF benefit levels, food stamp benefits can constitute more than 50 percent
of the disposable income of TANF recipients. Despite the Food Stamp Program's entitlement status and its
potential role as a consumption-insurance mechanism when incomes and assets are transitorily (or permanently) low,
research on the consumption-stabilizing impact of food stamps is largely absent . In this paper we examine the effect of food
stamps on income and food-consumption volatility.
22
SPC Poverty
Solvency A2 Fraud/Trafficking/Theft
1. Food stamp trafficking has declined due to better federal monitoring, but federal penalties
increase pressure on the states
Nilsen, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security at the GAO, 2007
Signurd Nilsen, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security at the GAO, 2007, Statement of Sigurd Nilsen Director Education, Workforce, and
Income Security Issues GAO, Federal Food Assistance Programs http://www.gao.gov/htext/d07422t.html
Improper food stamp payments and trafficking of benefits have declined in a time of rising participation , and although
progress has been made, ensuring program integrity will continue to be a fundamental challenge facing the program . We
found that payment error rates have declined substantially as FNS and states have taken steps to improve payment accuracy and that future
reductions may prove challenging. Attention from top USDA management as well as continued support and assistance from FNS will likely
continue to be important factors in further reductions. In addition , if error rates continue to decrease, this trend will continue to
put pressure on states to improve because penalties are assessed using the state's error rate as compared with
the national average. We also found that FNS, using EBT data, has made significant progress in taking advantage of new
opportunities to monitor and disqualify traffickers . However, a more focused effort to target and disqualify these stores could help FNS
meet its continuing challenge of ensuring that stores are available and operating in areas of high need while still maintaining program integrity. Given the
size of the Food Stamp Program, the costs to administer it, and the current federal budget deficit, achieving program goals more cost-effectively may become
more important. FNS and the states will continue to face a challenge in balancing the goals of payment accuracy, increasing program participation rates, and
the need to contain program costs.
2. The Electronic Benefits Transfer system reduces fraud, theft, and abuse
North Carolina Division of Social Services, Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT), July 10 , 2009,
th
http://www.dhhs.state.nc.us/dss/foodstamp/ebt.htm
Benefits are placed in accounts automatically. Recipients do not have to pick up coupons or wait for them to come in the mail. This allows recipients to
access benefits faster and more efficiently. EBT reduces the incidence of fraud, theft, and abuse. If the card is lost or stolen, it
can not be used by someone who does not know the PIN. It can be easily cancelled and replaced . EBT reduces the
cost of printing, storing, and shipping paper coupons. EBT allows better state and federal tracking of use of FNS
benefits. Retailers no longer have to process paper coupons. Payments are processed electronically. Recipients no longer receive cash back from
purchases. At the time of purchase, benefits are debited from their account. The account balance is printed on the receipt. Recipients no longer have to keep
up with multiple coupon booklets. The same card is used each month. The card is only re-issued if card has been lost, stolen, or damaged. Recipients can
check their benefit balance 24 hours a day by calling a toll-free number that is located on the back of the card.
23
SPC Poverty
Solvency A2 Stigma
There has been a marked decrease in stigma associated with the food stamps program
National Confectioners Association, [Preserving Food Choice in SNAP/Food Stamps.. June 19, 2009,
http://www.candyusa.com/News/PublicPolicyDetail.cfm?ItemNumber=1599]
Much of the stigma that used to be attached to participation in the SNAP (Food Stamps) stemmed from the visibility
participants received when redeeming food stamp coupons in a supermarket line. The stigma deterred many desperately needy families
from enrolling in the program. The implementation of EBT technology has helped to mainstream and make using
SNAP/Food Stamps virtually invisible at the point of sale . EBT interoperability has made this transaction work for customers and retailers
across state borders. In fact, during Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, food stamp recipients displaced from their homes - many to different states - were
able to seamlessly access their benefits because of EBT interoperability.
The Electronic Benefits Transfer system is a check against stigma

Richard Berg, Director of the New York City Coalition Against Hunger, ALL YOU CAN EAT: HOW HUNGRY IS AMERICA? 2008, lexis
Electronic Benefit Cards (EBTs),

like, and are used like, ATM cards. This switch was a rare public policy change that pleased both sides of the ideological spectrum.
Conservatives liked it because it reduced fraud , as benefits on individualized cards were far harder to trade illegally than generic coupons.
Antihunger advocates liked it because it reduced the stigma in making food purchases , since the coupons that were clearly
The term "food stamps" has actually been a misnomer since the 1990s when paper coupons were replaced by
which look
only used by poor people were replaced by cards similar to those that non-poor people use at banks.
Despite the stigma, people will and have demonstrated a desire for food stamps
D. Stanley Eitzen, Prof., Emeritus, Sociology, Colorado State U., EXPERIENCING POVERTY: VOICES FROM THE BOTTOM,
RICH1231 )
2009,
96.
Food stamps convey a degraded social status, and yet they also provide essential goods . Respondents disliked the
social meaning of food stamps, but most also found food stamps helpful for budgeting and getting through the
month. When I asked the women if they thought that food stamps should be replaced with cash, almost all said no. For the respondents,
balancing the practical advantages of food stamps with potentially negative social consequences was a central
task.
24
SPC Poverty
Food Security Food Stamps Solve

Food stamps solve food insecurity economic expansion does not fully address the problem
Pelletier, professor @ Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, 2005
David L. Pelletier, professor @ Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, April 2005, The Science and Politics of Targeting: Who Gets What,
When, and How, in The American Society for Nutritional Sciences
Food security was significantly higher and adult

food insecurity was significantly lower in those households in which food stamps lasted the entire month than in
The levels of food insecurity did not differ between the FS and NFS groups (Table 2 ).
households in which they lasted <4 wk. The association between monthly food stamp duration and food security remained (OR 0.10 for <4 wk versus 4 wk,
95% CI 0.020.56) even after adjustment for amount of monthly food stamp allotment in dollars (1.01, 1.001.02) and caretakers level of formal education
(0.43 for less than high school versus high school or higher, 0.111.64). Dietary assessment Nutrient intakes. FS preschoolers had a higher energy-adjusted
intake of thiamin, niacin, vitamin B-6 and iron (Table 3 ). In the multivariate analyses, food stamp participation was significantly associated with abovemedian energy-adjusted intakes for vitamin B-6, folate and iron (Table 4 ). Thiamin intake was marginally associated (P = 0.055) with food stamp use.
Multivariate analyses also showed that NFS children were more likely than FS children to have an iron consumption of <8 mg/d (OR 3.73, 95% CI 1.09
12.80). FFQ. The 14-item FFQ revealed that the FS group had a significantly higher consumption of "sodas and artificially flavored beverages" and tended
to have a lower consumption of fruits (P = 0.055) (Table 5 ). The positive association between food stamps and consumption of "sodas and artificially
flavored beverages" became marginal (P = 0.056) after controlling for socioeconomic covariates (Table 6 ). Traditionally, FSP has been seen as, and
a food assistance program that would complement the family diet and not be responsible for the
majority of food purchases (Ohls and Beebout 1993 ). The present study, however, suggests that this is not the case in this
community, because food stamps were indeed the major source for food purchases in these households. This is particularly
important to document at a time when the benefits of the current strong economy have not translated into improvements in the
food security situation of low-income households in the United States (Nord et al. 1999 ). The results from this study derived from
a predominantly Hispanic sample suggest that FSP is associated with the food security of the households in which the study preschoolers
lived. In particular, the monthly duration of food stamps appears to be an independent predictor of food security. This
finding is fully consistent with a previous study conducted by our group with Hispanic children in Hartford (Himmelgreen et al. 2000 ) and
in fact it was envisioned as,
with a study conducted with Caucasians in rural upstate New York (Olson et al. 1997 ). The original contribution from this study is the finding that this
association remained even after controlling for the caretakers level of formal education and monthly food stamp allotment. Thus, there may be other factors,
such as efficiency of household budget management, that are in part responsible for this finding. This suggests that household food security could be
improved through "home economics" interventions, including nutrition education, budgeting and menu planning. To our knowledge, there is no national
nutrition survey that currently asks the question, "In an average month, how long do food stamps last in your household?" Thus, we strongly encourage this
question to be included in future surveys.
Food stamps solve food insecurity simply increasing agricultural production wont solve
Allen, Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems @ University of California, 1999
Patricia Allen, Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems @ University of California, 1999, Reweaving the food security safety net: Mediating
entitlement and entrepreneurship, in Agriculture and Human Values
A dening contradiction of the American food and agriculture system has been the persistence of hunger despite
the worlds most productive agriculture . Producers, consumers, and policymakers have assumed that maximizing
agricultural production will both ensure an adequate supply of food and keep food prices sufficiently low so that
all Americans can be food secure. Where this approach has failed to provide food access for everyone, strategies such as food
stamps, gleaning, food banks, and surplus commodity distribution have intervened. While the American food system has emphasized production
with distribution and consumption considered separately, the new approach of community food security (CFS) seeks to re-link
production and consumption with the goal of ensuring both an adequate and accessible food supply in both the present and the future. In its focus
on consumption, CFS has prioritized the needs of low-income people; in its focus on production, it emphasizes local and regional food systems. Although
the CFS movement is working to integrate these objectives, it is also facing the question of where it should place its emphasis on low-income access or on
local food systems. These objectives are not necessarily compatible and may even be contradictory. This article describes the approach of community food
security and raises some questions about how the movement can meet its goals of simultaneously meeting the food needs of low-income people and
developing local food systems.
25
SPC Poverty
Food Security Food Stamps Solve

Food stamps are key to solve food insecurity
Food Stamps are the nations best defense against food insecurity and hunger. A household is considered food
insecure if members occasionally skip meals, reduce the quality of food they eat, or feed their children unbalanced
diets because they cannot afford to buy adequate or more nutritious food . Households are considered hungry if financial
constraints cause adults or children to decrease the quality and/or quantity of food they consume to the degree that they frequently experience hunger.
Food stamps are key to solve poverty they increase gross income
Food Stamps are available to households with limited assets that have incomes below 130 percent of the federal
poverty level (FPL) or about $23,466 for a family of three in 2007. The USDA estimates that when Food Stamp benefits are included
in gross income, they lift 6 percent of recipient households out of poverty. The effect of Food Stamp participation on
deep poverty is even more dramatic. Deep poverty is defined as income below 50 percent of the FPL or about $10,326 per year
for a family of four in 2007. The FSP lifts 16 percent of these households up over the 50 percent poverty threshold .6
26
SPC Poverty
Food Security A2 No Solvency

Studies that base their findings on the relative well-being of participants to non-participants are
not a reason to not increase participation
Craig Gundersen et. al., Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois, August 2009
Craig Gundersen, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois, Dean Jolliffe and Laura Tiehen, Economic Research Service,
US Department of Agriculture, The challenge of program evaluation: When increasing program participation decreases the relative well-being of
participants, Volume 34, Issue 4, Pages 367-376, ScienceDirect
policymakers and program administrators in the US and

to adjust their expectations regarding the outcome of increased participation rates . As seen in this paper,
increasing participation rates may cause the well-being of participants, as measured against non-participants, to
decline. Policymakers may choose not to pursue increased participation rates for a number of reasonsto contain
program costs; to avoid possible negative labor supply consequences; or if they believe that those most in need are
already receiving benefits. However, policymakers should not necessarily reject efforts to increase participation
because they do not lead to improvements in the well-being of participants versus non-participants .
We conclude with four policy implications emerging from this paper. First,
elsewhere may need
27
SPC Poverty
Food Security Insecurity High Now

Food insecurity has reached a dramatic peak at almost 50 million people highest amount ever
reported
Amy Goldstein, Washington Post Staff Writer, November 17, 2009, America's economic pain brings hunger pangs,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/16/AR2009111601598_pf.html
The nation's economic crisis has catapulted the number of Americans who lack enough food to the highest level
since the government has been keeping track , according to a new federal report, which shows that nearly 50 million people -including almost one child in four -- struggled last year to get enough to eat . At a time when rising poverty, widespread unemployment and
other effects of the recession have been well documented, the report released Monday by the U.S. Department of Agriculture provides the government's first
detailed portrait of the toll that the faltering economy has taken on Americans' access to food. The magnitude of the increase in food
shortages -- and, in some cases, outright hunger -- identified in the report startled even the nation's leading anti-poverty
advocates, who have grown accustomed to longer lines lately at food banks and soup kitchens. The findings also intensify pressure on the
White House to fulfill a pledge to stamp out childhood hunger made by President Obama, who called the report "unsettling." The
data show that dependable access to adequate food has especially deteriorated among families with children. In
2008, nearly 17 million children, or 22.5 percent, lived in households in which food at times was scarce -- 4 million children more than the year before. And
the number of youngsters who sometimes were outright hungry rose from nearly 700,000 to almost 1.1 million. Among Americans of all ages,
more than 16 percent -- or 49 million people -- sometimes ran short of nutritious food , compared with about 12 percent the
year before. The deterioration in access to food during 2008 among both children and adults far eclipses that of any other
single year in the report's history.
28
SPC Poverty
Food Security Concentrated in Poverty

Food insecurity is high in the US it is concentrated at those in poverty
Hampton, PhD and frequent Medical journal author, 2007
Tracy Hampton, PhD and frequent Medical journal author, October 24-31, 2007, Food Insecurity Harms Health, Well-being of Millions in the United States
JAMA Vol. 298 No. 16
Nutrition is paramount to health and survival, yet many individuals and families struggle to maintain a healthy diet,
especially those with low incomes. Nearly 12.6 million households (11%) in the United States were "food insecure " at
times during 2005, meaning they were without the resources to feed themselves enough or were unable for economic reasons to purchase healthful
foods, according to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Most, but not all, of the world's undernourished people live outside the
United States, in poor countries. According to a report by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, in 2001 to 2003, 820 million of the
854 million undernourished people worldwide were in developing countries, 25 million in the transitional countries, and 9 million in the industrialized
countries (http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0750e/a0750e00.htm). In the United States, food insecurity tends to be higher among
households with incomes near or below the federal poverty line , households headed by single women with children, and black and
Hispanic households.
29
SPC Poverty
Food Security Disease

Food insecurity increases the spread of disease and fatal health conditions
Food insecurity can affect health in a variety of ways . For example, an individual whose diet is lacking can experience
malnutrition. Medication adherence may not be a high priority for patients who must focus their resources on
obtaining access to an adequate food supply. And, as research is beginning to explain, access to food can affect the development and
prevention of medical conditions and diseases. These effects can be especially profound in children. When children live in foodinsecure households, their health status may be impaired , making them less able to resist illness and more likely to become hospitalized
(Casey PH et al. J Nutr. 2004;134[6]:1432-1438). Also, poverty and its associated poor nutrition can increase risks of stunting,
inadequate cognitive stimulation, iodine deficiency, and iron deficiency anemia (Walker SP et al. Lancet. 2007;369[9556]:145157). In adults, food insecurity has been associated with type 2 diabetes (Seligman HK et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22[7]:10181023). "Patients with diabetes require special diets, and yet the ability to be consistent with those special diets was compromised by
food insecurity," said Mark Nord, PhD, of the Food Assistance Branch at the Economic Research Service of the USDA.
Food insecurity is leading to increasing chronic diseases posing threats to public health
Kennedy, professor @ Tufts University, 2005
Eileen T. Kennedy, professor @ Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, April 2005, The Global Face of Nutrition: What Can
Governments and Industry Do?, in The American Society for Nutritional Sciences
The world has changed dramatically in the last century and this includes the world of food security and nutrition. In the immediate,
post-World War II period, there was increased attention focused on food insecurity and hunger both in the U.S. and in developing countries. The
agricultural technologies developed in the late 1950s and the 1960s collectively named "the Green Revolution" led to
advances in food production, improved incomes of small farmers, and , in some areas of the world, increased demand for
hired labor (1). The increases in incomes of poor farmers and landless households resulted in improvements in food security, diet, and the nutritional
status of individual family members (2). The 1969 White House Conference on Food, Nutrition and Health was a seminal
event, influencing U.S. nutrition policy for decades to come (3). Recommendations from this 1969 conference led to
nationwide expansion of the Food Stamp Program , creation of the school breakfast program and Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC),3 and provided the impetus to the establishment of the Dietary Guidelines. The major nutrition problems of nutrient
deficiencies, inadequate energy intakes, and poor growth were mitigated by the collective response from public and private sector investments in agriculture,
food, and public health. While problems of underconsumption and poor nutritional status continue to exist, increasingly
problems of diet/chronic diseases are emerging as significant public health issues
globally. This article provides an updated
view of global nutrition and discusses potential strategies for addressing these new challenges.
30
SPC Poverty
Food Security Disease

Nutrition promotion for the poor is critical to address chronic disease
The challenge for policy makers and researchers is to identify policies, programs, and approaches that deal with
the new nutrition realities. Consumers worldwide have gotten what they asked for: cheap food supplies and more leisure
time (14). Given this reality, translational research is needed to develop interventions to promote healthy lifestyles . A
key part of this challenge is that there are fewer successful nutrition interventions for the urban poor . Interventions implemented
primarily in rural areas have focused on undernutrition, not overnutrition and chronic disease. An essential first step is to identify models
for healthy lifestyle interventions that address the complexity of the diet/physical activity/chronic disease links .
Clearly, the newer approaches will likely involve a combination of diet and physical activity. What is less apparent is the combination of national policies
and interventions that are needed to prevent overweight/obesity and diet-related chronic diseases.
31
SPC Poverty
Food Security Food Insecurity Poverty

A. Food insecurity traps people in the cycle of poverty
Dix, former assistant editor at U.S. Catholic, freelance Chicago-based writer, 2007
(Tara K. Dix, former assistant editor at U.S. Catholic, freelance Chicago-based writer, October 2007, Recipe for a hungry planet,
http://uscatholic.claretians.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12729&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=usc_)
Sen. George McGovern, former ambassador to the United Nations food agency and coauthor of Ending Hunger Now (Augsburg Fortress), puts it in blunt
terms: If we fail to do this, we will stand condemned before the bar of history. In that case, shame on you, and shame on me. The biggest problem
facing the hungry is the poverty trap: the cyclical combination of no money, no food , and no health care. Malnutrition
leads to illness; illness drains financial resources; drained finances lead to malnutrition . Factor in a lack of access
to education, financial services, or creditall of which prevent upward economic mobility and youve got a person who isin a
wordtrapped.
B. We have a moral obligation to combat poverty it is a torturous form of violence that degrades
the victim
Udayakumar, director of the South Asian Community Center for Education and Research, 1995(S.P Udayakumar, The Futures of the Poor,
Futures Vol. 27, no. 3 pp 339-351, 1995)
Although race, ethnicity, gender, generation and political powerlessness all contribute to poverty ,
the economic worth factor forms the

basis in poorcide, the genocide of the poor . It is an economic group (or class) discriminated against in poorcide. A particular group of
people is massacred in genocide, but poverty kills indiscriminately, irrespective of the group . Genocide just kills you, but poverty
tortures and condemns you to a slow and painful death . Poverty degrades human beings, negates human dignity
and wastes human resources, genocide prompts physical elimination, but poverty causes physical pain, mental agony, moral
degradation and spiritual dissipation. Extending the analysis of physical violence and structural violence to genocide, we can distinguish between direct and
indirect or physical and structural, genocide. Genocide means not just massive killing (which we can call direct or physical genocide) but also includes
calculated attacks on and constant efforts at undermining the basic human dignity and life-support systems of a particular group of people (which may be
described as the indirect or structural genocide). Poorcide may not be actual physical elimination of the poor in a massive scale ,
but its a slow-pace silent holocaust. Genocide takes place in pockets of human polity, but poverty afflicts humanity all over the world. Unlike
genocide, poverty is widespread, systematically rooted and popularly accepted. However fickle and fragile, the victims, or potential victims, of
genocide may be able to take some precautions. But the victims of poverty can only watch themselves being taken for granted,
or even worse, being taken advantage of by the privileged . In a genocidal act, only those with prejudices and biases participate, but we
are all complicit in the poverty crime. Leading a rich lifestyle; or letting the problem persist is the definite complicity in the crime of poorcide.
32
SPC Poverty
Food Security Economy Impact Mod

Hunger has a significant impact on the US economy and perpetuates a vicious cycle of poverty
Alexis Bylander. (Policy Analyst at Food Research Action Center, Bill Emerson National Hunger Fellow @ Congressional Hunger Center, Healthy
Policy Fellow @ Resuls and Results educational Fund, MA @ Carnegie Mellon University)"Supplemental Nutrition." The Heinz Journal. Volume 6 Issue 2.
7 May 2009. Online
Although the United States is one of the most powerful and affluent countries in the world, it has a poverty rate
higher than most other developed countries. Currently, 37 million people in the U.S. live below the official poverty line.2 According to
the 2008 federal poverty guidelines, a family of four is considered to be in poverty if their household earns less
than $21,200 per year . 3 In addition to the millions of people who live below the official poverty line, millions more struggle to live on the money
they currently earn. Poverty has a plethora of causes, many of which are interrelated. A low federal minimum wage, the high cost of health care, a limited
number of affordable housing units, rising food costs and a myriad of other issues cause people to live in poverty. As the number of people living in poverty
has increased, the disparity between the wealthy and the poor has continued to grow as well, now reaching an unprecedented level. In 2005, the richest one
percent of Americans had 19 percent of the nations income while the poorest 20 percent of Americans had only 3.4 percent.4 People living in
poverty face several challenges, and the most basic one can be ensuring they have enough food to eat . Even
though the U.S. is the largest and most efficient producer of food in the world, 35.5 million Americans experience
hunger.5 This population is forced to make tough choices between food and other essential items, such as housing,
heat, and healthcare. In 1943, the psychologist Abraham Maslow developed the concept of a hierarchy of needs.
He believed that people are motivated to fulfill their basic needs, like food and shelter, before fulfilling their
higher level needs, such as personal growth and fulfillment .6 This concept conveys why hunger can have such
a devastating impact on our nations poor. People must fulfill their basic need of obtaining enough to eat before
they can work towards getting a good education, finding a job, or accessing resources that could help lift them out
of poverty. Hunger contributes to a vicious cycle of poverty and although only a portion of people go hungry in
the U.S., all Americans are impacted by the economic toll that hunger takes on the economy . The Economic Cost
of Domestic Hunger study, led by Harvard University School of Public Health researchers, estimated that the
U.S. pays more than $90 billion annually for the direct and indirect costs of hunger-related charities, illness and
psychosocial dysfunction and the impact of less education/lower productivity . 7 Of the 37 million people experiencing hunger
in America, 12.6 million of them are children.8 Several studies have shown the negative impact that hunger has on a childs
ability to learn and perform well in school. Children experiencing hunger earn lower math scores and are more
likely to repeat a grade. In short, hunger prevents children from reaching their full potential . Additionally, they have more
behavioral, emotional and academic problems than other children.9 Educational reform efforts, such as hiring better teachers,
implementing new curriculum, and using enhanced technology cannot help these children if they are too hungry
to focus on the information being taught.The current state of hunger and poverty in America is pervasive, and it is unlikely that any single
program could address all of the complex issues poverty raises. However, there are several federal programs that provide people with the basic necessities
that prevent Americans from experiencing the poverty and malnourishment that is seen in developing countries.
33
SPC Poverty
Food Security Economy Impact Mod - Extensions

Expanding food stamp programs is the best way to solve economic problems and improve our
deficit
James D.
Weill (President of the Food Research and Action Center). "The Effects of Hunger and Food Insecurity In America." Presentation to the
Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry U.S. House Committee on Agriculture. 23 July 2008. Online.
research has shown that obesity too can be a consequence of food

insecurity . Obesity among both
adults and children means more cardiovascular disease,
diabetes, and hypertension. Among adult food
insecure women who have children, the
reasons for obesity may include the ways in which low-income
mothers must cope with
limited resources for foodsacrificing at times their own nutrition in order to protect
their children from hunger and lower nutritional quality. Food insecurity and poverty
may also act as
physiological stressors leading to hormonal changes that predispose adult
women to obesity.
But there
are connections between food insecurity and obesity for children as well .
Children in food insecure
households are more likely to be at risk of overweight or to be
obese . When children are both born at low birthweight and live in a family suffering from
As to obesity,
food insufficiency, they have a 27.8 times higher chance of being overweight or
obese at age 4 .
5
Finally, we must not forget that food insecurity harms seniors. Food insecure elderly
persons have been found to be 2.33 times more
likely to report fair or poor health status.
And food insecurity among elders increases disability, decreases resistance to infection,
and extends hospital stays. Moreover, many medications need to be taken with food to
assure their
effectiveness. Too many seniors have to skip meals in order to purchase
medication, only to see a Take with food label on the prescription bottle because
without food the drug will be less effective. Medically this is self-defeating, and,
What all this comes down to is that hunger and food insecurity not only are
unnecessary
and immoral in our wealthy nation, but they are vastly counter-productive in every
important realm. They are a hindrance to our accomplishment of a range of essential
national goals :
At
a time when the nation is looking for strategies to broaden health insurance
coverage and improve quality of
health care while controlling costs, eliminating
food insecurity is a necessary part of an effective and costeffective national
health strategy.
As the nation struggles to address its obesity epidemic, establishing
food security
and assuring that families have resources adequate to purchase a healthy diet are
essential
components of a successful anti-obesity strategy.
At a time when our scientific knowledge of the critical importance of early childhood development has been growing by
ultimately, costly. And from the patients perspective it is a cruel Catch-22.
leaps and bounds although our
policy development is having trouble keeping pace eliminating food insecurity
is a prerequisite to the strongest possible early childhood policy.
As the nation struggles with education policy and the
And as we struggle to restore

economic growth, boost productivity, improve our
competitiveness, and keep deficits under control,
eliminating food insecurity is
one important key to improving the nations economic and fiscal futures .
reauthorization of the No
Child Left Behind Act, eliminating food insecurity is a compelling and costeffective
strategy to improve schools and student performance.
34
SPC Poverty
Food Security A2 Programs Now

Current food assistance programs are making progress, but it is not enough to address food
insecurity
Food insecurity in the United States is being addressed by a number of ongoing efforts, including federal food
assistance programs such as the National School Lunch Program; the Food Stamp Program; and the Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children. While these programs have made great strides in improving diet quality, they are
not able to reach all individuals in need.
35
SPC Poverty
Economy Low
State budgets will continue in crisis leading to further unemployment and declining consumer
spending the stimulus will not be fully effective
Lieb, Associated Press writer, October 4, 2009
David A. Lieb, Associated Press writer, October 4, 2009 Recession's end marks start of states' budget woes
To balance their budgets in the meantime, states are likely to further raise taxes on the money people earn and spend; increase college
tuition; reduce funding for the arts and other cultural programs; and push costs into the future by delaying pay raises for employees and repairs of
government buildings. Some states, including Massachusetts, Missouri and Arizona, already are making or considering fresh cuts just
months after lawmakers agreed on new budgets. Rising unemployment and a decline in consumer spending have
put a big dent in states' tax revenues. Census figures show states' income taxes plunged almost 28 percent in the
second quarter of 2009, falling even further in places such as Arizona and California that were among the hardest hit by the housing market collapse.
States' quarterly sales taxes fell almost 10 percent compared to the previous year. Unlike the federal government,
states generally must balance their budgets. That's why one-third of states have raised taxes this year. They've hit the wealthy with
income tax surcharges, hiked sales taxes that disproportionately affect the poor and targeted smokers, drinkers and motorists with higher taxes and fees.
Hundreds of thousands of state employees have been furloughed . And government "rainy day" funds have been
diminished to half their highs of just three years ago . Billions of dollars in federal stimulus money has enabled state lawmakers to
maintain funding for programs like Medicaid and public schools. But that emergency aid will run out long before the labor market
improves and states' budgets have healed. At that point, further cuts to less vital services are a near certainty.
Consumer spending is expected to decline concerns over job security and consumer uncertainty
Business Wire October 6, 2009
Business Wire October 6, 2009, NRF Forecasts One Percent Decline in Holiday Sales http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?
ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20091005006572&newsLang=en
Though some hopeful signs of a recovery have begun to emerge , like better-than-expected sales in August and momentum in the
stock market, continued consumer uncertainty over job security and housing values will take a toll on spending this holiday
season. And, as retailers become even more promotional, certain popular holiday categories like apparel and electronics may experience deflation due to
aggressive sales. The expectation of another challenging holiday season does not come as news to retailers, who have
been experiencing a pullback in consumer spending for over a year, said NRF President and CEO Tracy Mullin. To
compensate, retailers focus on the holiday season has been razor-sharp with companies cutting back as much as possible on operating costs in order to pass
along aggressive savings and promotions to customers.
36
SPC Poverty
Economy Stimulus Not Enough

The stimulus goal for jobs will not be enough
in terms of jobs, the stimulus package was supposed to create or save about 3.6 million jobs.
However, the United States has already lost upwards of 2.5 million jobs, and it is still losing 600,000 per month.
This rate is likely to continue . Meanwhile, there are almost 2 million new entrants into the labour force every year.
Thus, at this juncture, there is already a job shortfall of 5 million, and there will be a shortfall of another 23 million
jobs over the next two years. The creation or saving of 3.6 million jobs is inadequate relative to the need . By
To put it another way,
2010, there will be a very large job deficit in the United States. And I think these problems are being replicated, in some cases even more dramatically, in
other countries around the world.
37
SPC Poverty
Economy Food Stamps = Automatic Stabilizers

Food stamps are one of the few automatic stabilizers remaining welfare reform eliminated most
of them
economic downturn following the longest expansion in U.S. history has renewed interest in the role of
automatic stabilizers designed to insure households against negative cyclical income shocks . This system of income
and consumption stabilizers includes, among others, the individual income tax and the panoply of social insurance programs, such as unem
ployment insurance and the Food Stamp Program. While the income tax and unemployment insurance have received recent attention (Gruber 1997;
Auerbach and Feenberg 2000; Kniesner and Ziliak 2002a, b), little is known about the role of food stamps as an automatic
stabilizer even though the program served over 27 million Americans at its peak in 1994. This gap in the literature is particularly acute in light of passage
The onset of the current
of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Welfare Reform Act), which introduced new rules on cash-assistance
recipients and thus the nearly half of food stamp recipients who also receive cash welfare. Moreover, the 1996 welfare reform also had a direct
administrative effect on the Food Stamp Program
by ending the eligibility of some recipients, reducing average benefit levels, and
eliminated the
entitlement status of the main cash-welfare program , Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), thus positioning food
stamps as a more prominent countercyclical consumption stabilizer . A first task in assessing the possible stabilization role of food
requiring states to replace paper coupons with Electronic Benefit Transfer cards. Importantly, the Welfare Reform Act also
stamps in the era of welfare reform is to identify the cyclical sensitivity of food stamp caseloads. If food stamp caseloads are acyclical, then we would expect
no role for food stamps in smoothing consumption over the business cycle. If, however, food stamp caseloads are highly cyclical, then food stamps may
function as an important antirecessionary tool. By the same token, the new welfare policies may independently affect food stamp
caseload movements and interact with the business cycle , thereby altering the possible stabilization role of the
program. In this paper, we specify a dynamic model of food stamp caseloads to estimate the responsiveness of the caseload to the business cycle, to
welfare policies, and to interactions between the business cycle and welfare policies.
Food stamps are automatic stabilizers that function as income insurance

Food stamps are part of an extensive system of government programs that provide income insurance when
incomes are low. These so-called automatic stabilizers are designed to smooth consumption in the face of both
aggregate business-cycle shocks and idiosyncratic shocks such as an adverse health event or a significant change in family
composition. Some of these programs are explicit and fall under the rubric of "social insurance" [for example, unemployment insurance (UI),
social security, and disability insurance]. Others are known as "means-tested transfers," including TANF, food stamps, and Medicaid. In
addition to these explicit programs there are more subtle, but equally important, insurance programs in the U.S. tax code such as the federal income tax, the
payroll tax, and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). While there has been research on the consumption-smoothing benefits of UI (Hamer- mesh 1982;
Gruber 1997), TANF (Gruber 2000), and income taxes (Auerbach and Feenberg 2000; Kniesner and Ziliak 2002a,b), research on the potential
stabilizing benefits of the Food Stamp Program is lacking .
Food aid functions as an automatic stabilizer that maintains food consumption levels in the
country
Gupta et al., International Monetary Fund, Fiscal Affairs Department, 2004
Sanjeev Gupta et al., International Monetary Fund, Fiscal Affairs Department, Benedict Clements, and Erwin R. Tiongson, 2004, Foreign Aid and
Consumption Smoothing: Evidence from Global Food Aid, Review of Development Economics,8(3),379390,
Fluctuations in food aid can have important macroeconomic consequences. In particular, the timing of food aid and its sale
could be viewed as an automatic stabilizer for the economy; when food output in a country falls, government
revenues decline and spending increases. Monetization of food aid ows under these circumstances stabilizes
ows to the budget in addition to shielding food consumption levels in the country . Furthermore, food aid (including
commodities distributed directly to households) is critical for alleviating spending pressures on the budget to offset the adverse consequences of food
shortages.
38
SPC Poverty
Economy Food Stamps = Automatic Stabilizers

Food stamps are powerful automatic stabilizers and increase federal funds to states
Fiscal Policy Institute 2002
Fiscal Policy Institute January 23, 2002, New York and the Federal Fisc in the Aftermath of September 11th: The State and Local Impacts of Federal Policy
Options, http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/FederalOptions.pdf
There are several federal programs that automatically increase expenditures when the economy slows down, thereby providing economic stimulus. As
shown in the following chart, federal grants to the state of New York have grown faster when employment growth was slow and more slowly when
employment growth accelerated. For example, the federal food stamp program is one of the most powerful automatic
stabilizers. When job growth slows and unemployment goes up, more individuals apply for and receive food stamps which are
funded entirely by the federal government, thereby increasing the flow of federal funds into the state . Likewise, as job growth
accelerates and unemployment falls, the growth of food stamp expenditures has fallen. If food stamps had been converted from an
entitlement program to a block grant, this important function of the program would have been lost . Fortunately, during
the course of last years reauthorization debate, no serious proposal for making such a conversion was on the table.
Food stamps stabilize the economy by functioning as automatic stabilizers that increase during
recession and decrease during growth
Public programs,
such as unemployment insurance and Food Stamps, which contract when the economy is strong and expand
during a downturn, are known as automatic stabilizers. Automatic stabilizers minimize the depth of recession and
speed economic recovery by increasing the income of people who will generate immediate economic activity by
spending all of it within the local economy . The more responsive a public program is to economic conditions, the more effective it is as an
automatic stabilizer. Because it is one of the few federal social programs still funded as an entitlement, the FSPs role
as an economic stabilizer is more important than ever.
39
SPC Poverty
Economy Automatic Stabilizers Key

Automatic stabilizers are critical for alleviate the current economic downturn financial
regulations will not be enough
As we approach the problems posed by the current crisis, it is imperative to keep in mind the importance of
maintaining the automatic stabilizers and the social protections. For a robust and sustained recovery, we must also
address the underlying problem of insufficiency of aggregate demand, caused by global inequality as well as inequality
within countries, and the build-up of excessive reserves, which is related to the global imbalances that have been a cause of growing concern in recent
years. Unless the problems in developing countries are addressed in a more effective way than they have been in the past, the inequality will increase and the
demand for excessive reserves will grow even greater. We have to have a better way of managing global risks including a new global reserve system to
replace the dollar reserve system, which is fraying. While we all work hard to fix the problems and reform the regulatory
system, we have to recognize that these actions only fix the plumbing . Of course, it is important to have good plumbing.
However, if we do not address these more fundamental problems, we will not be able to restore our global
economy to sustainable, robust and equitable growth.
Automatic stabilizers are key to stabilize an economy they prevent unsustainable growth and
large reduction in the economy
Riley, Head of Economics at Eton College, 2009
Geoff Riley, Head of Economics at Eton College, May 26, 2009, Revision - Automatic Stabilisers, http://www.tutor2u.net/blog/index.php/site/author/3/
Are there ways in which an economy can self stabilize in the event of an external shock? The answer is yes if an economic
system contains automatic stabilizers. This brief revision note looks at what they are. Automatic stabilizers refer to how fiscal
policy instruments will influence the rate of GDP growth and help counter swings in the business cycle . During phases of high
economic growth, automatic stabilizers will help to reduce the growth rate and avoid the risks of an unsustainable
boom and accelerating inflation. With higher growth, the government will receive more tax revenues - since people
earn more and so pay extra income tax (note the tax rate doesnt change, the % just becomes higher). With higher growth, there will also be a fall in
unemployment so the government will spend less on unemployment and other welfare benefits. Conversely in a recession, economic growth
becomes negative but automatic stabilizers will help to limit the fall in growth . With lower incomes people pay less tax, and
government spending on unemployment benefits will increase. The result is an automatic increase in government borrowing with the state sector injecting
extra demand into the circular flow. How strong are the automatic stabilizer effects? Recent evidence from the OECD suggests that a
government allowing the fiscal automatic stabilizers to work might help to reduce the volatility of the economic
cycle by up to 20 percent. The strength of the automatic stabilizers is linked to the size of the government sector (e.g.
government spending as a % of GDP), the progressivity of the tax system and how many welfare benefits are income-related. In short automatic
stabilizers help to provide a cushion of demand in an economy and support output during a recession.
40
SPC Poverty
Economy State Budgets Low

States are facing massive budget shortages that will continue for two years
Lav and McNichol, Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 2009
Iris J. Lav was a former deputy director at the CBPP, Elizabeth McNichol is a Senior Fellow at the CBPP, both specialize in State Budget and Tax,
8/12/2009, New Fiscal Year Brings No Relief From Unprecedented State Budget Problems, http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=711
state fiscal problems brought on by the worst decline in tax receipts in decades show no signs of
letting up. On July 1 the start of the fiscal year in most states an unusually high number of states were still struggling to adopt budgets for fiscal
year 2010. Most states have adopted budgets that closed the shortfalls they faced with a combination of federal stimulus dollars,
service reductions, revenue increases, and funds from reserves. But these budgets are already falling out of balance as the economy
has caused state revenues to decline even more than projected. States will continue to struggle to find the revenue
needed to support critical public services for a number of years. The Centers most recent survey of state fiscal conditions found many signs of
The unprecedented
the depth of the state budget crisis. At least 48 states have addressed or still face shortfalls in their budgets for fiscal year 2010 totaling $168 billion or 24
percent of state budgets. An unusual number of these states are still struggling to balance their 2010 budgets two months after the start of the fiscal year.
Three states Arizona, Michigan, and Pennsylvania have not yet adopted budgets for 2010. In addition, new shortfalls have opened up in at least 15 of
the states that have adopted budgets California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming plus the District of Columbia . These additional gaps some of which have already been addressed[1]
totaled $28 billion. The states fiscal problems will continue into the next fiscal year and likely beyond . At least 36 states
have looked ahead and anticipate deficits for fiscal year 2011. These shortfalls total $74 billion 15 percent of budgets for the 30
states that have estimated the size of these gaps by comparing expected spending with estimated revenues, and are likely to grow as more states prepare
projections and revenues continue to deteriorate. Combined budget gaps for the next two fiscal years those already mostly closed for 2010
and those projected for 2011 are
estimated to total at least $350 billion.
41
SPC Poverty
Economy State Budgets Hurt Economy

States cannot deficit spend or borrow this means that their abilities to cope with budget deficits
only destabilize the economy
Unlike the federal government, the vast majority of states are governed under rules that prohibit them from running a
deficit or borrowing to cover their operating expenses. As a result, states have three primary actions they can take during a fiscal
crisis: draw down available reserves, cut spending, and raise taxes . States already have begun drawing down reserves; the
remaining reserves are not sufficient to allow states to weather the remainder of the recession . The other alternatives
spending cuts and tax increases can further slow a states economy during a downturn, which produces a
cumulative negative impact on national recovery as well.
State budget crises will deepen the recession only increasing federal support can end these
harmful policies
If revenue declines persist as expected in many states, additional spending and service cuts are likely. Budget cuts often
are more severe later in a state fiscal crisis , after largely depleted reserves are no longer an option for closing deficits. Expenditure cuts
and tax increases are problematic policies during an economic downturn because they reduce overall demand and
can make the downturn deeper . When states cut spending, they lay off employees, cancel contracts with vendors, eliminate or lower payments to
businesses and nonprofit organizations that provide direct services, and cut benefit payments to individuals. In all of these circumstances, the
companies and organizations that would have received government payments have less money to spend on
salaries and supplies, and individuals who would have received salaries or benefits have less money for consumption.
This directly removes demand from the economy. Tax increases also remove demand from the economy by reducing the
amount of money people have to spend though to the extent these increases are on upper-income residents that effect is minimized because
much of the money comes from savings and so does not diminish economic activity. The federal government which can run deficits can
provide assistance to states and localities to avert these pro-cyclical actions.
42
SPC Poverty
Economy Solve State Budgets

Federal assistance is critical to solve declining state budgets resulting in education cuts
The current situation has been made more difficult because many states never fully recovered from the fiscal crisis
of the early part of the decade. This heightens the potential impact on public services of the shortfalls states now are projecting. State spending
fell sharply relative to the economy during the 2001 recession, and for all states combined it still remains below the fiscal year 2001 level. In 18 states,
general fund spending for fiscal year 2008 six years into the economic recovery remained below pre-recession levels as a share of the gross domestic
product. In a number of states the reductions made during the downturn in education, higher education, health coverage,
and child care remain in effect. These important public services were suffering even as states turned to budget cuts to close the new budget gaps.
Spending as a share of the economy declined in fiscal year 2008 and is projected to decline further in 2009 and again in 2010. One way states can avoid
making deep reductions in services during a recession is to build up rainy day funds and other reserves when the economy is growing. At the end of fiscal
year 2006, state reserves general fund balances and rainy day funds totaled 11.5 percent of annual state spending. Reserves can be particularly
important to help states adjust in the early months of a fiscal crisis, but generally are not sufficient to avert the need for substantial budget cuts or tax
increases. In this recession, states have already drawn down much of their available reserves; the available reserves in states with deficits are likely to be
depleted in the near future. Federal Assistance Crucial Federal assistance can lessen the extent to which states need to take pro-
cyclical actions that
can further harm the economy . The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act recognizes this fact and includes
substantial assistance for states. The amount in ARRA to help states maintain current activities is about $135 billion to $140 billion or less than half of
projected state shortfalls. Most of this money is in the form of increased Medicaid funding and a Fiscal Stabilization Fund. This money has reduced to a
degree the depth of state spending cuts and moderated state tax and fee increases. There are also other streams of funding in the economic recovery act
flowing through states to local governments or individuals, but this will not address state budget shortfalls.
43
SPC Poverty
Economy Solve Consumer Spending

Food stamps boost consumer spending by displacing income that is normally used for food
purchases
Food Stamps reduce the amount of cash families must

budget for groceries, allowing that money to be used for the purchase of other necessities . Research indicates that Food
Stamps are a more efficient way to combat hunger than simply giving people cash . A typical low-income family will spend 12
cents of every additional dollar of cash income on groceries. Food Stamp benefits, of course, can only be spent on food, but between 20 and
45 percent of each Food Stamp dollar will represent the purchase of additional food beyond what the family
previously spent on food.5 The other 80 to 55 percent will displace money that was already being spent on
groceries, freeing it up for other expenditures.
Food Stamps and Poverty Food Stamps function as a supplement to income.
44
SPC Poverty
Economy Stabilize Income

Food stamps stabilize income and consumption volatility for eligible participants
food stamps reduced income volatility by about 3 percent and food-consumption volatility
by about 4 percent, but this stabilizing role is a much more pronounced 12 and 14 percent among families at high
ex ante risk of food stamp participation . Despite the positive role of the Food Stamp Program in smoothing income and consumption shocks,
We find that across all families
there was a marked decline of nearly two-thirds in the income and food-consumption-smoothing benefits of the program in the early 1990s relative to the
1980s. This situation had improved only modestly by the end of the 1990s.
Food stamps solve income and consumption volatility

Our results suggest that
participation in the Food Stamp Program smoothes the volatility of both income and food
consumption. On average food stamp benefits lower the transitory variance of income changes by about 3 percent across all families over the 1980s and
1990s but these benefits smooth income upward of 12 percent among those families with the greatest ex ante risk of entering the program. Because
food stamp benefit changes are negatively correlated with income changes, the Food Stamp Program lowered
food-consumption volatility by almost 14 percent among the high-risk families who are currently income eligible for
food stamps.
Food Stamps are key to consumption and income stabilization

In distinction to the declining use of food stamps as a consumption-smoothing mechanism , recent research has
demonstrated the increased importance of the income tax code (in other words, the combined federal income tax, the EITC, the
payroll tax, and the state income tax) in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Kniesner and Ziliak 2002b). Part of this is due to the sizable expansions in the EITC
and the payroll tax rate and base, and as demonstrated here part is due to reduced effectiveness of an important income-transfer program. With the
contraction of the welfare state emanating from the 1996 welfare reform, income transfers overall are a less readily available
channel of income insurance. Because the Food Stamp Program is the remaining universal entitlement in the
social safety net, it is likely to increase in importance as an income and consumption stabilizer within the pool of meanstested transfers. The results of this paper, however, indicate that programs and policies in addition to food stamps are necessary to smooth incomes and, in
turn, consumption among vulnerable low-income families.
45
SPC Poverty
Economy Ripple Effects

Food stamps solve the economy by creating ripple effects throughout the economy to other
businesses and their employees
The Food Stamp Program is helpful in offsetting the effects of an economic downturn. By
bolstering the diminished purchasing power of the newly unemployed, Food Stamps protect families and boost
local economies. The benefits of participation in the Food Stamp Program ripple outward from the families that utilize Food
Stamps to the local businesses where the families spend their money, to the firms that supply goods and services to local businesses,
to the people who are employed by these firms, and so on . Because they increase the purchasing power of households, Food
Stamps generate economic activity, which creates jobs . For example, Food Stamp benefits spent in grocery stores support grocery store
Food Stamps and the Economy
employment and employment in industries that supply grocery stores with goods and services, such as food wholesalers. This is the direct effect of Food
Stamp spending. Food Stamp spending also has indirect and induced economic effects. These are the outward
reverberations of the initial economic stimulus created when Food Stamps are spent . Indirect effects in the grocery store
example would include increases in employment in those industries that supply goods and services to the food wholesalers manufacturers of milk cartons,
for example. The induced effects are the increases in employment attributable to increased spending by people who occupy the new jobs measured in the
direct and indirect effects, that is, the jobs created when the new employees of the grocery stores and food wholesalers spend their money at local businesses.
46
SPC Poverty
Economy Emergency-Type Financing Key

Food stamps stimulate the economy by increasing additional spending by households, but this only
happens if emergency-type financing is used
During a recession, FSP expenditures increase as the program expands to provide benefits to more
households. The rise in benefits increases spending by recipient households, which then stimulates production.
Higher production boosts labor demand and household income. Increased household income triggers additional
spending. Ultimately, the initial increase in food stamp expenditures provides an automatic stimulus to an economy in
recession. However, this result occurs only if the Government finances the increase in program expenditures
through emergency financing. In a recession scenario with excess liquidity, excess productive capacity, and unemployment, government
borrowing does not crowd out private investment . In this case, emergency financing stimulates economic activity.
Background:
47
SPC Poverty
Economy Impact Calculus

There is an expert consensus that an expansion of the food stamps program is the most important
policy initiative, both economically and morally speaking
James D. Well (President of the Food Research and Action Center, A national Nonprofit organization that works with hundreds of national, state, and local
nonprofit organizations, public agencies, and corporations to address hunger and its root cause, poverty). "Providing Food Stamps Benefits in the Stimulus."
Poverty and Opportunity. 2009. Online
dollar-for-dollar, increasing food stamp benefits is the single best form of economic stimulus. Thats
because the help the federal government gives to needy people is spent almost immediately . Mark Zandi of Moodys
Economy.com has noted that $1 in food stamps generates $1.73 in increased economic activitybetter than any other
stimulus investment. The virtues of food stamps as economic stimulus have been noted by such diverse
economists as Martin Feldstein, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Robert Rubin, Peter Orszag, and Jared Bernstein .
At another time of crisis, 1943, the midst of World War II, Winston Churchill said that There is no finer
investment for any community than putting milk into babies. As Congress works through the economic recovery
bill, there is no investment more needed, smarter, or more moral than helping the growing numbers of people
facing a spiraling struggle to get enough healthy nutrition.
For example,
48
SPC Poverty
Economy Impact Mod Hegemony

A strong economy is key to military strength and sustainable hegemony
Richard Holbrooke, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations from 1999 to 2001, Current Chair of Asia Society, Foreign Affairs September/October
2008, The Next President: Mastering a Daunting Agenda

To restore the United States to its proper world leadership role, two areas of weakness must be repaired: the
domestic economy and the United States' reputation in the world. Although the economy is usually treated as
a domestic issue, reviving it is as important to the nation's long-term security as is keeping U.S. military
strength unchallengeable. This will require more than a cyclical upturn; to repair the economy in the long
term, a new national policy on energy and climate change will be essential . And restoring respect for American values and
leadership is essential -- not because it is nice to be popular but because respect is a precondition for legitimate leadership and enduring influence. The
president should address both issues as early as possible in order to strengthen his hand as he tackles pressing strategic issues, including the five
neighboring countries at the center of the arc of crisis that directly threatens the United States' national security -- Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and
Pakistan. A few early actions that lie wholly within his authority can make an immediate impact. The most compelling such actions would be issuing a
clear official ban on torture and closing the detention facility at Guantnamo Bay, Cuba, which now holds only 260 prisoners. Because the Bush
administration limited itself to punishing only those at the very bottom of the chain of command at Abu Ghraib, the damage to the United States'
image has been immense and continuing -- the gift that keeps on giving to the United States' enemies. Presidential directives making clear that the
U.S. government does not tolerate or condone torture are necessary in order to separate the new administration from that costly legacy. As for
Guantnamo, closing it is complicated, as Bush administration apologists (and many lawyers) say. Well, a lot of things in life are complicated.
Guantnamo must not become the next president's albatross, too; closing it, no matter how difficult, is not just desirable but imperative. A NEW
FACTOR History is not immutable. But there is one pattern that comes very close to being a law of history: in
the long run, the rise and fall of great nations is driven primarily by their economic strength. Rome, imperial
China, Venice, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom -- all had their day, and their
international decline followed inexorably from their economic decline.
Economic strength is inexorably tied hegemony

N.Y. Times,
David Sanger, staff writer, February

Powerhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/us/politics/02deficit.html?hp
1st, 2010, Huge
Deficits
May Alter
U.S. Politics and Global
Unless miraculous growth, or miraculous political

compromises, creates some unforeseen change over the next decade, there is virtually no room for new domestic
initiatives for Mr. Obama or his successors. Beyond that lies the possibility that the United States could begin to suffer the
same disease that has afflicted Japan over the past decade. As debt grew more rapidly than income, that countrys influence
around the world eroded. Or, as Mr. Obamas chief economic adviser, Lawrence H. Summers, used to ask before he entered government a year ago,
How long can the worlds biggest borrower remain the worlds biggest power ? The Chinese leadership, which is lending
For Mr. Obama and his successors, the effect of those projections is clear:
much of the money to finance the American governments spending, and which asked pointed questions about Mr. Obamas budget when members visited
Washington last summer, says it thinks the long-term answer to Mr. Summerss question is self-evident. The Europeans will also tell you that
this is a big worry about the next decade. Mr. Obama himself hinted at his own concern when he announced in early December that he planned to send
30,000 American troops to Afghanistan, but insisted that the United States could not afford to stay for long. Our prosperity provides a
foundation for our power, he told cadets at West Point. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy . It taps the
potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry.
49
SPC Poverty
Agriculture Increasing Benefits Solves

Increasing food stamp benefits solves food demand and farm production
Hanson et al., PhD in economics, 2002
Kenneth Hanson et al., agricultural economist for USDA and Ph.D. in economics, April 2002, Tracing the Impacts of Food Assistance Programs on
Agriculture and Consumers
Changes in food assistance policy can have impacts on economic activity and household income across the economy. Using a
Computable General Equilibrium model focusing on food assistance, we found that both a hypothetical cut in food stamp benefits and a
hypothetical cash-out of the Food Stamp Program led to reductions in food demand and farm production . In addition, the
cut in food stamp benefits resulted in a decline in transfer income for low- income households that was not
compensated for by increased labor income . The cash-out triggered general equilibrium effects that led to higher taxes and reductions in
labor income, chiefly for high-income households. The interaction between food assistance and the general economy depends on the economic interaction
among households, industry, the government, and the rest of the world. This interaction involves a complex system of relationships and economic
transactions. A Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model describes this complex system. The Food Assistance CGE model developed at USDAs
Economic Research Service (ERS) describes the U.S. economy, focusing on the relationships between food assistance programs, households, the farm
economy, and general economic activity. It provides a mechanism for examining the impact of food assistance programs on economic activity, and vice
versa. The Food Assistance Computable General Equilibrium model includes a number of innovations that make it
particularly useful for analysts investigating the potential economic impact of changes in food assistance policy: Households are categorized by
demographic variables and income to better capture the impact of changes in food assistance programs and taxes. Consumption patterns vary according to
household income to better capture the impact of redistribution on economic activity. Industry categories highlight key agricultural and food processing
sectors. Labor occupations are categorized by skill level to highlight differences in labor supply and demand by skill level across households and industries.
Labor supply elasticities are detailed by household type to better capture the impact of the redistribution of economic activity. Government transfers to
individuals are specified by program in order to focus on the role each transfer plays in assisting low-income households. The policy simulation
experiments address two questions, What would happen if funding for the Food Stamp Program were cut by $5 billion?
and What would happen if food stamp benefits were converted from food vouchers to cash ? Each simulation experiment
changed the initial conditions described in the base CGE model to reflect the hypothetical policy change and then, given the change, the model recalculated
the new equilibrium conditions. Acompari- son of the new equilibrium conditions with the initial equilibrium revealed the economywide impacts of the
hypothetical policy change. Both simulation experiments had an impact on the farm economy. The $5 billion food stamp
cut led to decreases in farm and food processing production of approximately $1.3 billion and 7,500 jobs lost. The hardest hit farm
sectors were livestock, feed crops, and fresh fruits and vegetables. The $18.5 billion food stamp cash-out led to decreases in farm and
food processing production of approximately $3.5 billion and 18,500 jobs lost. Again, the hardest hit farm sectors were livestock, feed crops, and
fresh fruits and vegetables. The production and job losses resulting from the experiments were distributed across the Nation, with the greatest losses
occurring in nonmetropolitan areas specializing in livestock and feed crops. For the food stamp cut, the hardest hit area was the Plains States, with nonmetro
job losses of 441. However, many nonmetro areas gained jobs after the food stamp cut. In the aggregate, nonmetro employment expanded by over 1,000
jobs, illustrating the fact that many nonmetro areas of the country have an economic base extending beyond agriculture. All metro areas of the country
experienced job growth, gaining 21,000 jobs in aggregate after the food stamp cut. In the cash-out experiment, all nonmetro areas of the country experienced
job reductions, losing almost 8,000 jobs overall. The hardest hit nonmetro areas were located in the Plains and North Central States. The negative impact of
the cash-out spilled over into many metro areas as well, particularly in the North Central States, illustrating how widespread the economic linkages are
between agricultural and other industries. The number of working poor increased as a result of the food stamp cut. Spurred by the reduction in food
stamp benefits, low-income households sought more work hours, but, in aggregate, did not earn enough labor income to compensate for the drop in food
stamp benefits. The results of the cash-out experiment revealed a surprising negative effect on mid- and high-income households. The cash-out caused a
shift in low-income household consumption from food to nonfood goods and services, which led to decreased production in industries demanding a
relatively high amount of occupations with mid-level skills. These occupations are primarily filled by workers from mid- and high-income households. As a
result, these households experienced a decline in labor income (a result that would have been dampened or reversed if the model had calculated longer term
impacts on the housing market). Simultaneously, economywide changes triggered an increase in taxes for the mid- and high-income wage earners. The
general equilibrium analysis reveals that a welfare policy change that is seemingly limited to effects on low- income recipient households, such as the food
stamp cash-out, may have ramifi- cations that extend to other income groups. The results of the simulation experiments hinge critically on assumptions
about consumption patterns embedded in the Food Assistance CGE model. Because the model incorporates a different marginal propensity to consume food
with food stamps than with cash, an additional dollar of cash income produces a different mix of consumption than an additional dollar of food stamp
benefits. Without this slippage effect, households would spend food stamp benefits the same way that they spend cash. In this case, the economywide effects
triggered by the simulation experiments would be severely dampened or disappear com- pletely. The value for the marginal propensity to consume food with
food stamps that was used in the Food Assistance CGE model is taken from the lower range of estimates reported in the literature. One of the primary
strengths of the Food Assistance CGE model is that it provides policymakers and analysts with a mechanism for examining the economywide,
distributional impact of potential policy changes. This is an important quality for a model designed to examine food assistance programs. Like all welfare
assistance programs, food assistance programs are redistributive; these programs take government funds collected through taxes and redistribute them to
lower income groups in the form of cash or in-kind assistance payments. The redistributive intent of food assistance programs means that an assessment of
the consequences of these programs would benefit from a measure of distributional impact. To the extent that assumptions about consumption patterns for
households remain valid, the results of the simulations would have been similar, though of opposite sign, if we had flipped the questions to ask, What would
happen if funding for the Food Stamp Program were increased by $5 billion? and What would happen if cash welfare benefits were converted to in-kind
food benefits? No matter which way the question is posed, changes in food assistance policy have effects on low-
income households and the farm economy. As shown with the Food Assistance CGE model, the effects extend
beyond these households and sectors, affecting the level and distribution of economic activity throughout the
economy.
50
SPC Poverty
Agriculture Food Stamps Solve

Reduction in food stamp expenditures leads to reduced food consumption
Hanson et al., PhD in economics, 2002
Kenneth Hanson et al., agricultural economist for USDA and Ph.D. in economics, April 2002, Tracing the Impacts of Food Assistance Programs on
Agriculture and Consumers
In the first policy-experiment simulation, we assessed the economy wide

impacts of reducing annual food stamp expenditures by $5 billion. This simulation traces the impact of a
redistribution of income from low- income households (by a cut in food stamps) to high- income households (by a cut in
taxes). The economywide changes triggered by this redistribution followed a number of routes. The reduction in food stamps represented
an immediate loss of food purchasing power by low-income households (modeled as proportional cuts in benefit payments to all recipient
households with incomes at or below 130 percent of the poverty line). These households reacted to this reduction by reducing their
consumption spending. The reduction in income taxes represented an immediate income gain to other, primarily high-income, households, which
Experiment 1:A Reduction in Food Stamp Benefits
reacted to the rise in income by increasing their consumption spending and savings. Because lower income and higher income households spend their
income on different arrays of goods, the redistribution of income triggered a redistribution in consumption demand. This
shift in demand led to price and output adjustments. The output changes led to changes in labor demand. The
interindustry linkages spread the impacts among the industries supplying intermediate goods.
51
SPC Poverty
Agriculture Good Economy

Agriculture is key to the economy it makes up thousands of companies and a large percentage of
the gdp
Maloni, professor @ Kennesaw State University, and Brown, professor @ Penn State, 2006
Michael J Maloni, professor in Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Kennesaw State University, and Michael E. Brown, professor in Black
School of Business, Penn State, 2006, Corporate Social Responsibility in the Supply Chain: An Application in the Food Industry, in Journal of Business
Ethics
The food industry is a highly visible and important element of the US economy . It is estimated that
the industry represents more than 12% of the US g ross domestic product (Stock, 2004). Examining individual industry
segments, grocery stores and super- markets represent $590 billion in annual sales (Standard & Poors, 2005c), food processing and
distribution represents about $1 trillion in revenue annually (Stock, 2004), and farms produced $235 billion in food in 2004 (Standard and Poors, 2005a).
Furthermore, restaurants retain approximately $450 billion in sales and employ 12.2 million workers, the largest employer outside of the government (National Restaurant Association, 2005; Standard and Poors, 2005b). In addition, food is the leading US export (Standard and Poors,
2005a) though some experts predict that population growth may cause the US to stop exporting in as soon as 20 years (Stock, 2004). The US food
supply chain consists of hundreds of thousands of companies , all working to deliver food products to the end consumer (Stock, 2004).
US Food Supply Chain
Figure 1 reveals that the industry supply chain is extremely complex and that the path of a specic food product may vary. For instance, whether crop or
animal based, food originates from growers. Growers will then generally sell to the food processors (either directly or through a broker), but they also have
some avenues to directly reach farther down the chain to distributors, retailers (supermar- kets, restaurants, etc.), and even consumers. Simi- larly, food
manufacturer/processors usually sell to distributors, wholesalers, and brokers, though large manufacturer/processors may also have direct reach to retailers
and consumers. The exact supply chain path for a particular food product depends not only on the product itself but also on the size and market power of the
supply chain members.
52
SPC Poverty
Agriculture Food Stamps = Consumption Stabilizer

Food stamps are a key consumption stabilizer welfare reform eliminated others
Rectifying the scarcity of research on the stabilizing role of food stamps is especially important after the passage
of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). This legislation
eliminated the old cash assistance program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), and replaced it with
the block-granted TANF program. In addition, the 1996 welfare reform had a direct effect on the Food Stamp
Program by ending the eligibility of some recipients, reducing average benefit levels , and requiring states to replace paper
coupons with EBT cards. Beyond the direct effect this legislation had an indirect effect on the Food Stamp Program because
nearly half of food stamp recipients also receive cash welfare . Perhaps of more importance from the perspective of the insurance
benefits of income transfers, PRWORA eliminated the entitlement status of AFDC. Consequently the Food Stamp Program is positioned
more prominently as a potential idiosyncratic and countercyclical consumption stabilizer for low-income households.
Food stamps solve food consumption volatility for impoverished people

Blundell, professor of economics at University College London, and Pistaferri, assistant professor of economics at Stanford University, 2003
Richard Blundell, professor of economics at University College London, Department of Economics, and the Research Director of the Institute for Fiscal
Studies, and Luigi Pistaferri, assistant professor at Stanford University, Department of Economics, and a research affiliate of the Center for Economic and
Policy Research, 2003, Income Volatility and Household Consumption: The Impact of Food Assistance Programs, in The Journal of Human Resources
we have analyzed the impact of food assistance programs (food stamps) on food expenditure in a period of
rising income inequality using 1978-92 PSID data. Our framework allowed for self-insurance, in which con-sumers
smooth idiosyncratic shocks through saving. It also considered the complete markets assumption in which all idiosyncratic shocks are insured.
In this paper
These two models sit amidst a wide range of missing insurance opportunities. We were able to assess the degree of insurance over and above self-insurance
through savings. We did this by contrasting shifts in the cross-sectional distribution of income growth with shifts in the cross-sectional distribution of food
consumption growth, and analyzing the way these two measures of household welfare correlate over time. To summarize, we find that as expected the
program has no effect on food-smoothing with respect to income shocks in a sample of medium- to high-income
households. We find a stronger sensitivity of food consumption to permanent income shocks in the low-income
sample. When we include the monetary value of food stamps in the definition of food consumption, there is no
effect in the high-income sample, whereas in the low-income sample the response of food to a permanent income
shock is on average a third lower . Even though poor households are less able to smooth permanent shocks to their income, both conditionally
and uncondi- tionally, it is encouraging to find that food assistance programs such as food stamps reduce, though they do not eliminate, the effect
of permanent income shocks upon low-income families . Combining data from the Consumers Expenditure Survey (CE), Blundell,
Pistaferri, and Preston (2002) examine the robustness of these results and provide a detailed analysis of partial insurance and consumption inequality. They
consider the role of other transfers and also show the importance of durable expenditures in providing insurance to permanent shocks.
53
SPC Poverty
Agriculture Consumption Stabilizer: A2 Empirics

The only reason food stamps didnt smooth consumption in the past is because benefits were
decreased
The consumption insurance offered by the Food Stamp Program fell in the 1990s relative to the 1980s. There are many possible explanations for this. We
believe one of the more compelling possible reasons is the change in the take-up rate of food stamps over this time period.
As seen in Table 1, the take-up rates fell substantially from the 1980s to the 1990s . As an indirect test of this conjecture, we conduct a
counterfactual experiment whereby we fix the residual variance of the food stamp transfer rate and the covariance between income and food stamps at the
high point of insurance (the 1981 recession year) for the gross income-eligible group, but allow the variance of income to change over time. This exercise
identifies how much smoothing of food consumption would have been provided by the Food Stamp Program in the
1990s if incomes and benefits were as strongly correlated as they were in the early 1980s. In terms of our models, a fall in foodconsumption-smoothing from food stamps is then attributable to some combination of declines in take-up rates
and nonincreases in food stamp benefits . Because the latter is a function of inflation, we believe the decline in take-up rates is the possible
primary mechanism behind the fall in food-consumption-smoothing benefits. Our results are found in Figure 6. A comparison of this figure with Figure 5
demonstrates the importance of the changing relation between benefits and income. In both figures, after 1990 there was a fall in the insurance benefits of
food stamps. However, in Figure 6 this fall is less pronounced, especially for the groups with higher ex-ante probabilities of receiving food stamp benefits (a
40 percent decline instead of a two-thirds decline). We believe one should ascribe at least a portion of this difference to the fall in food stamp take-up rates.
The decline of consumption smoothing in the 90s is unexplained by research

research is also needed on why the consumptionsmoothing benefits of food stamps diminished in the early 1990s and was only partially restored by the end of the 1990s. We believe
three factors may be especially pertinent. First, in the early 1990s, there was an unexpected increase (based on previous relations between the
macroeconomy and food stamp caseloads) in food stamp caseloads . Gleason, Scho- chet, and Moffitt (1998) showed this increase was
primarily due to longer stays in the Food Stamp Program . These longer stays may have been surprising to recipients (just as they were
Along with research on the reasons underlying this higher volatility in the early 1990s
to researchers) and, therefore, the usual smoothing role of food stamps may have changed. If the post-1996 era is back to the "usual case," the increase seen
in the consumption-smoothing role of food stamps amongst the income eligible may be consistent with the results here. Second, the early 1990s was
a time of rising income and consumption volatility . This may also have been unexpected and, therefore, the usual consumptionsmoothing role people expected from food stamps may have correspondingly declined . Lastly, our counterfactual
experiment whereby we hold fixed the covariance of income and food stamp benefits at its early 1980s level indicates that part of the decline in
consumption-smoothing in the 1990s is from the secular decline in food stamp take-up rates in the PSID.
54
SPC Poverty
Child Malnutrition Add-on

Food Stamps solve child hunger and malnutrition solves the overall family shortages
Drake et al., Department of Nutritional Sciences @ the University of Conneticut, 2000
Linda Drake et al., Department of Nutritional Sciences @ the University of Conneticut, 2000, Food Stamps Are Associated with Food Security and Dietary
Intake of Inner-City Preschoolers from Hartford, Connecticut, in Journal of Nutrition
The Food Stamp Program (FSP)4 is being funded at a level of $20 billion/y. Although this food assistance program
receives more funding from the federal government than other food assistance programs , such as the Supplemental Food
Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) (Rush 1986), much less is known about its effectiveness in alleviating child
hunger and malnutrition (Ohls and Beebout 1993 ). Studies that compared FSP households with similar households that
were not participating in FSP have shown that an additional $1 of food stamps increases food purchases by 20 to 50 cents and that FSP
increases nutrient availability levels by 1520% for the average FSP household (Ohls and Beebout 1993 ). These data suggest
that both dietary quantity and quality are positively related to participation in FSP . A recent analysis of the 19891991
Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (Rose et al. 1998 ) documented in a sample of predominantly non-Hispanic white or black children that
food stamps were associated, independent of WIC exposure, with improved dietary intake among children aged 14 y. In particular, this study
documented higher intakes of iron, zinc and water-soluble vitamins among children who were exposed to FSP . The
average increase in iron and zinc intake associated with FSP was 12.3 and 9.2% of the respective preschoolers recommended daily allowance.
55
SPC Poverty
Obesity Add-On (1/2)

A. Modern transitions to energy-dense foods are concentrated at the impoverished level leading to
increasing obesity
The nutrition transition involves populations shifting from a traditional grain-based diet to one with increased
variety including more fat and sugars. The change in dietary patterns is related to urbanization . As populations shift from rural to
urban living, dietary patterns diversify to include more energy-dense foods. The shift in diet occurs at the same time
that levels of physical activity are decreasing . Two recent reviews of human and animal studies suggest that diets with a variety of
energy-dense foods are associated with increased rates of obesity in both human and animal studies (7,8). The challenge for
preventing overweight and obesity is clearly energy balance; current research suggests that achieving energy balance is more difficult with energy-dense
foods. Drewnowski (9) identifies the cost of a healthful diet as the key determinant of an individuals food choices. Energy-dense foods provide
an inexpensive source of calories. Approximately 40% of the energy intake of low-income populations is provided
by fats and sugars, which are cheap sources of calories (10). Table 1 provides a summary of trends in energy and fat intake over the past 30 y with
future projections to the year 2030. Consumption of kcals per caput per day has increased by 600 kcal in this time period and is projected to increase 300
kcal more by 2030. During these same time periods, fat intakes have increased with increasing amounts coming from animal sources. These changes
in dietary patterns have occurred at the same time that physical activity levels
worldwide have been declining. Recent

global energy recommendations released by FAO/WHO/UNU indicate that work related, transportation related and leisure time energy expenditures have
been declining since the early 1980s (11). The combination of less intensive work, transportation, and leisure have meant that many people are consuming
more kcals than are needed to balance energy expenditure. The nutritional transition with the concomitant changes in diet and physical
activity has led to burgeoning rates of overweight and obesity . In both the U.S. and developing countries, the overweight and
obesity epidemic is more common in lower income populations ; in developing countries, the poverty/obesity link is most prominent
in urban areas. Table 2 provides some data for Chile and Brazil. In Brazil, the rates of obesity have increased in both rich and poor women in a 20-year
period. However, for women in the lowest 25% of income, obesity increased more than 2-fold, compared to 1.1% increase in Brazilian women from the
highest income category. A cross-sectional comparison from Chilean women indicates that at all socioeconomic levels, the rates of overweight and obesity
are high. However, the highest rates are found in women from the low-income group.
56
SPC Poverty
Obesity Add-On (2/2)

B. Expanding food stamp programs is the best way to solve economic problems and obesity both
an economic and moral burden to our nation
James D.
Weill (President of the Food Research and Action Center). "The Effects of Hunger and Food Insecurity In America." Presentation to the
Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry U.S. House Committee on Agriculture. 23 July 2008. Online.
research has shown that obesity too can be a consequence of food

insecurity . Obesity among both
adults and children means more cardiovascular disease,
diabetes, and hypertension. Among adult food
insecure women who have children, the
reasons for obesity may include the ways in which low-income
mothers must cope with
limited resources for foodsacrificing at times their own nutrition in order to protect
their children from hunger and lower nutritional quality. Food insecurity and poverty
may also act as
physiological stressors leading to hormonal changes that predispose adult
women to obesity.
But there
are connections between food insecurity and obesity for children as well .
Children in food insecure
households are more likely to be at risk of overweight or to be
obese . When children are both born at low birthweight and live in a family suffering from
As to obesity,
food insufficiency, they have a 27.8 times higher chance of being overweight or
obese at age 4 .
5
Finally, we must not forget that food insecurity harms seniors. Food insecure elderly
persons have been found to be 2.33 times more
likely to report fair or poor health status.
And food insecurity among elders increases disability, decreases resistance to infection,
and extends hospital stays. Moreover, many medications need to be taken with food to
assure their
effectiveness. Too many seniors have to skip meals in order to purchase
medication, only to see a Take with food label on the prescription bottle because
without food the drug will be less effective. Medically this is self-defeating, and,
What all this comes down to is that hunger and food insecurity not only are
unnecessary
and immoral in our wealthy nation, but they are vastly counter-productive in every
important realm. They are a hindrance to our accomplishment of a range of essential
national goals :
At
a time when the nation is looking for strategies to broaden health insurance
coverage and improve quality of
health care while controlling costs, eliminating
food insecurity is a necessary part of an effective and costeffective national
health strategy.
As the nation struggles to address its obesity epidemic, establishing
food security
and assuring that families have resources adequate to purchase a healthy diet are
essential
components of a successful anti-obesity strategy.
At a time when our scientific knowledge of the critical importance of early childhood development has been growing by
ultimately, costly. And from the patients perspective it is a cruel Catch-22.
leaps and bounds although our
policy development is having trouble keeping pace eliminating food insecurity
is a prerequisite to the strongest possible early childhood policy.
As the nation struggles with education policy and the
And as we struggle to restore

economic growth, boost productivity, improve our
competitiveness, and keep deficits under control,
eliminating food insecurity is
one important key to improving the nations economic and fiscal futures .
reauthorization of the No
Child Left Behind Act, eliminating food insecurity is a compelling and costeffective
strategy to improve schools and student performance.
C. Extend New Mexico Fiscal Policy Project evidence the Food Stamps Program is the best way
to handle food insecurity.
57
SPC Poverty
Obesity Add-On A2 Power Backlash

Overwhelming military force ensures compliance, even if countries are upset
Immanuel Wallerstein, senior research scholar at Yale, Foreign Policy, July 1, 2002
Following the terrorist attacks, Bush changed course, declaring war on terrorism, assuring the American people that "the outcome is certain" and informing
the world that "you are either with us or against us." Long frustrated by even the most conservative U.S. administrations, the hawks finally came to dominate
American policy. Their position is clear: The United States wields overwhelming military power , and even though countless
foreign leaders consider it unwise for Washington to flex its military muscles, these same leaders cannot and will not do
anything if the United States simply imposes its will on the rest. The hawks believe the United States should act as an imperial power for
two reasons: First, the United States can get away with it. And second, if Washington doesn't exert its force, the United
States will become increasingly marginalized. Today, this hawkish position has three expressions: the military assault in Afghanistan, the de
facto support for the Israeli attempt to liquidate the Palestinian Authority, and the invasion of Iraq, which is reportedly in the military preparation stage. Less
than one year after the September 2001 terrorist attacks, it is perhaps too early to assess what such strategies will accomplish. Thus far, these schemes have
led to the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan (without the complete dismantling of al Qaeda or the capture of its top leadership); enormous destruction
in Palestine (without rendering Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat "irrelevant," as Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said he is); and heavy opposition from U.S.
allies in Europe and the Middle East to plans for an invasion of Iraq. The hawks' reading of recent events emphasizes that opposition to U.S. actions,
has remained largely verbal. Neither Western Europe nor Russia nor China nor Saudi Arabia has seemed
ready to break ties in serious ways with the United States. In other words, hawks believe, Washington has indeed gotten away with it.
while serious,
Anger is inevitable maintaining hegemony is necessary to prevent actual backlash

Christopher Ross, special coordinator for public diplomacy and public affairs at the Department of State, Washington Quarterly, Spring,
2002
the United States, as the

world's dominant power, will inevitably be accused of heavy-handedness and arrogance . It will inform and influence public
Although the wording of recriminations varies -- ranging from hegemony to multilateralism to cultural imperialism --
opinion effectively only if it changes the paradigm of the past and establishes a two-way approach that builds credible dialogue. To arrive there, the United
States should experiment and take a few chances, developing programs that encourage two-way engagement with the people it seeks to influence. Some
efforts may fail, but others will succeed; the U.S. government can use those successes to shape a sustained future effort. Terrorism has changed the way
people think about public diplomacy. Today, no serious observer can deny the link between perceptions of the United States and the country's national
security. Some of those perceptions range far beyond U.S. control. Some of them, however, depend on how the United States talks to the world. All the
pieces matter: the U.S. policy message itself, the channels of communication the United States selects, the tone of voice in which it speaks, and its familiarity
with the environment in which it is speaking. The United States will never persuade its sworn enemies. The surprisingly
muted reaction to the quick U.S. military success in Afghanistan, however, suggests that more people might be
able to be persuaded than we originally thought . Certainly, most people will back a winner. The United States is
winning and, because it is resolute, it will continue to win .
U.S. Leadership is key to deter nuclear war

Zalmay Khalilzad (Dep. Secretary of Defense) Spring 1995 The Washington Quarterly
A world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more
open and receptive to American values--democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing
cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation , renegade states, and low level conflicts. Finally, US
leadership would help preclude the rise of another global rival, enabling the US and the world to avoid another cold or
hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange.
58
SPC Poverty
Obesity Add-On Economy Impact Mod

Obesity will strain the health care system and destroy the economy.
Kahan (Physician and postdoctoral fellow with the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health). and Susan Roberts (Registered Dietitian and
Attourney). "Save Dollars, Improve Health With Better Options in School Food." The Desmoines Register. 23 August 2007. Online.
Scott
health-care costs, which are busting federal and state budgets and eating into
corporate profits. Already nearly $1 of every $6 of our economy is spent on health care. Then there are the staggering epidemics of
obesity and chronic disease.
These are intimately linked: The best way to decrease health-care costs is to
prevent the most costly diseases.
Poor diet and obesity are key causes for diabetes, high blood pressure,
heart disease, stroke, numerous cancers and other chronic diseases . Given kids' poor diets, the majority of American teens already
Congress is struggling with how to address rising
have some degree of atherosclerosis (clogged arteries). Eighty percent of diabetes cases and at least one-third of heart-disease cases and cancers could be
avoided by lifestyle changes, including improved nutrition and maintaining a healthy weight.
Obesity and diet-related diseases
threaten the health of our economy. The Department of Health and Human Services estimates obesity costs
American families, businesses and governments more than $115 billion yearly.
And the problem is getting
worse. One-third of American children and two-thirds of adults are overweight or obese. Obesity rates have
tripled in children and doubled in adults over the past two decades.
If the progression of obesity and
related chronic diseases continues to grow unchecked, it will break the bank .
Obesity overwhelms health care and collapses the economy.

Zach Wamp. (Representative. U.S. House Committee on House Education and Labor). Congressional Quarterly. 24 July 2008. Online.
The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that by 2010, 20 percent of children in the United States
will be obese. A decline in physical activity has been a significant factor in the unprecedented rise in childhood obesity. A troubling
consequence of obesity is the growing number of children experiencing illnesses and other health problems, such
as Type II diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease, stroke, respiratory problems, and some cancers.
The rise in obesity-related health conditions also has high economic costs and has greatly increased health care
spending. Our nation is already spending nearly $100 billion a year on obesity related health care costs . If we
don't change our lifestyles, our Medicare and Medicaid systems will be overwhelmed . The most effective and practical way to
combat rising healthcare costs is for people to get healthy by engaging in physical activity .
59
SPC Poverty
Topicality Persons Living In Poverty Lay Block

1. We Meet: Food stamp participants have a NET MONTHLY income at or below the poverty line
before taxes is only when it is above the poverty line
Households have to meet three financial criteria to qualify for the Food Stamp Program : the gross income, net
income, and asset tests. A household's gross income before taxes in the previous month must be at or below 130 percent
of the poverty line. Households with disabled persons or headed by someone older than the age of 60 are exempt from this test (although they must
pass the net income test). After passing the gross income test, a household must have a net monthly income at or below the poverty
line. The Food Stamp Program calculates net income in the following manner. First, a standard deduction is subtracted from a household' s gross income.
Households with earnings from the labor market then deduct 20 percent of these earnings from their gross income. Deductions are also taken for childcare
and/or care for disabled dependents, medical expenses, and excessive shelter expenses. Finally, net-income-eligible households must meet a liquid-asset
test (in other words, nonbusiness, nonhousing assets) and vehicle-value test. All net- income-eligible households with liquid assets less than $2,000 qualify
for the program ($3,000 for households headed by someone older than age 60). The value of a vehicle above $4,650 (in 2002) is also considered an asset
unless it is used for work or for the transportation of disabled persons. The amount of food stamps a family receives is equal to the maximum food stamp
benefit level minus 0.3 times its net income. So a family with zero net income will receive the maximum benefit level. Food stamp recipients must
occasionally recertify their continuing eligibility and the proper amount of benefits. The frequency of recertification
depends on the state of residence and the source of a household's income .
2. The United States interprets poverty as: when a family or individual is impoverished is lacking
the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living.
Wright State University Senior Honors Institute Fellow Dylan Borchers, (site uses sources such as NewsWeek, US Census, Washington Post,
etc.) January 2007
The United States defines poverty in absolute terms. This is the threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking
the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living: insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and
clothing needed to preserve health. The European Union, on the other hand, measures poverty in relative terms. This is defined as having
significantly compromised access to income and wealth than other members of society: an income below 60% of the national median equalized disposable
income after social transfers for a comparable household (1). If poverty in the United States were to be defined in relative terms as determined by the
European Union, the level would be much higher.
3. We are predictable
4. We are at least reasonably topical
5. Food Stamps are the nations best program for handling food insecurity this means that the
food stamps affirmative is an essential part of topic education
60
SPC Poverty
Topicality Persons Living In Poverty Flow Block (1/2)

1. We Meet: Food stamp participants have a NET MONTHLY income at or below the poverty line
before taxes is only when it is above the poverty line
Households have to meet three financial criteria to qualify for the Food Stamp Program : the gross income, net
income, and asset tests. A household's gross income before taxes in the previous month must be at or below 130 percent
of the poverty line. Households with disabled persons or headed by someone older than the age of 60 are exempt from this test (although they must
pass the net income test). After passing the gross income test, a household must have a net monthly income at or below the poverty
line. The Food Stamp Program calculates net income in the following manner. First, a standard deduction is subtracted from a household' s gross income.
Households with earnings from the labor market then deduct 20 percent of these earnings from their gross income. Deductions are also taken for childcare
and/or care for disabled dependents, medical expenses, and excessive shelter expenses. Finally, net-income-eligible households must meet a liquid-asset
test (in other words, nonbusiness, nonhousing assets) and vehicle-value test. All net- income-eligible households with liquid assets less than $2,000 qualify
for the program ($3,000 for households headed by someone older than age 60). The value of a vehicle above $4,650 (in 2002) is also considered an asset
unless it is used for work or for the transportation of disabled persons. The amount of food stamps a family receives is equal to the maximum food stamp
benefit level minus 0.3 times its net income. So a family with zero net income will receive the maximum benefit level. Food stamp recipients must
occasionally recertify their continuing eligibility and the proper amount of benefits. The frequency of recertification
depends on the state of residence and the source of a household's income .
2. Counter Interpretation: Consumption is a better determinant of poverty income is not reliable

Meyer, professor of economics @ Northwestern University, and Sullivan, assistant professor of economics @ University of Notre Dame, 2003
Bruce D. Meyer, professor of economics and a faculty fellow of the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University and a faculty research fellow at
the NBER, and James X. Sullivan, assistant professor of economics at the University of Notre Dame, 2003, Measuring the Well-Being of the Poor Using
Income and Consumption, in The Journal of Human Resources
Income is almost exclusively used to measure economic deprivation in the United States . Relative to consumption, income
is generally easier to report and is available for much larger samples , providing greater power to test hypotheses. An extensive
literature examines the effects of low income on child outcomes such as test scores, behavior problems, and health (for example, see Mayer 1997). Although the accuracy of income reports in many data sets has been analyzed, this work has not focused on validating income measures for poor families.1
For those at the bottom, where the extent of material deprivation is most important, there is little evidence to
support the reliability of income measures . Moreover, there is significant evidence suggesting that income is badly
measured for the poor. Unlike the U.S., in developing countries consumption is the standard measure of material well-being.2 Although there are
obvious differences between developing and developed countries, such as the extent of formal employment, these distinctions are blurred when looking at
the poor in developed countries who may have little attachment to the formal labor market. Arguably, consumption is better measured than
income for poor families. Consumption is less vulnerable to under-reporting bias, and ethnographic research on poor
households in the U.S. suggests that consumption is better reported than income . There are also conceptual and economic
reasons to prefer consumption to income because consumption is a more direct measure of material well-being .
3. Food stamps use consumptions levels to determine eligibility that is more reliable than income
consumption is better measured than income for those with few resources . We also find that
consumption performs better as an indicator of low material well-being. These findings favor the examination of
consumption data when policymakers are deciding on appropriate benefit amounts for programs such as Food Stamps,
just as consumption standards were behind the original setting of the poverty line . Similarly, the results favor using
We find substantial evidence that
consumption measures to evaluate the effectiveness of transfer programs and general trends in poverty and food spending. Nevertheless, the ease of
reporting income favors its use as the main eligibility criteria for transfer programs such as Food Stamps and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF).
61
SPC Poverty
Topicality Persons Living In Poverty Flow Block (2/2)

4.Redefiningthepovertylineisvitaltohavingeffectivedebatesoverpublicpoliciesforthepoor
Robert V. Kerr, senior fellow in economics at the Brookings Institution in Washington, LosAngelesTimesHowwemeasurepovertySeptember15,
2008http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/laoeblank152008sep15,0,6860739.story)
That's why Congress
needs to pass legislation to direct one of the statistical agencies to calculate a new federal
poverty measure, guidedbytheNASrecommendations.Underanewmeasure,singlemotherfamiliesreceivingfoodstampsandinsubsidized
housingwouldappearalittlebetteroff;disabledindividualswithhighmedicalexpenses,alittleworse.Familiesinbigcitieswithhighhousingcosts,such
asinCalifornia,wouldbepoorer,andfamiliesthatreceiveworkingtaxcreditslesspoor.Butthatisjustasitshouldbe. If
we want to debate new

policies to help the poor, we first need a poverty measure that shows us who they really are.
5. Utilizing the poverty line is bad for policymaking

Institute of Research on Poverty, 19 March, 2009 http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq1.htm
Both the thresholds and the guidelines are the same for all mainland states, regardless of regional differences in the cost of living. Both are updated annually
for price changes using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U ). The poverty guidelines are sometimes loosely
referred to as the "federal poverty level " or "poverty line," but these terms are ambiguous, and should be avoided in
situations (e.g., legislative or administrative) where precision is important.
6. Prefer our interpretation because it is more accurate and theirs is biased and bad for
policymaking
7. We are predictable
8. We are at least reasonably topical
9. Food Stamps are the nations best program for handling food insecurity this means that the
food stamps affirmative is an essential part of topic education
10. Reverse Voting Issue Voting negative off topicality is essentially depriving debaters of topic
education
11. Reverse Voting Issue The negative interpretation is effectively limiting people out of being
helped when we have the ability, which is morally wrong (extend Singer 72)
12. Reverse Voting Issue This is probably a time suck and if they drop it weve basically wasted
time where we could be learning about the plan.
62
SPC Poverty
Topicality Persons Living in Poverty We Meet

Impoverished families are targeted by the Food Stamp Program
"They realize how economically fragile families who qualify for the Food Stamp Program and are living on this amount of money
while the food stamp benefit should be increased, the

ultimate goal is to boost individuals' funds so they no longer depend on such programs. Individuals with low
incomes tend to spend a greater percentage of their income on food , suggesting that a small increase in income could have a great
are," said Lynn Parker, of the Food Research and Action Center. Parker noted that
effect on the ability to obtain a nutritionally adequate diet (Nelson K et al. JAMA. 1998;279[15]:1211-1214).
63
SPC Poverty
Topicality Persons Living in Poverty We Meet

Food stamp eligibility is determined by income and assets
Eligibility for the Food Stamp Program depends principally on income and assets .1 The benefit generally functions like a
negative income tax, with lower benefits as income rises. For eligible households, the monthly benefit amount equals a maximum benefit, which varies by
household size, minus 30 percent of net income. Due to the way "net" income is computed, the effective benefit reduction rate depends in a
on household size, income level, housing expenses, and whether income comes from earnings or another source (Wilde
Participant households must report changes in their circumstances that could affect their eligibility for the
program or their benefit levels. Federal rules guide households in completing these reports and caseworkers in responding to them, but state agencies
complex way
2001).
have some discretion. For example, until more options were added recently, states could adopt one of two reporting systems for most households. Monthly
reporting required participant households to submit monthly reports on their circumstances, even if no significant changes occurred during the month.
Change reporting required participant households to report specific changes in circumstances, including certain changes in earned income, within a specific
period of time. States also could apply to FNS for a waiver to implement other reporting options. States were not permitted to assign monthly reporting to
households with an elderly or disabled person and no earnings. For households with earnings, state policy typically required either all households or no
households to file monthly reports. Intermediate reporting policies were seldom used.
64
SPC Poverty
Topicality Persons Living in Poverty: Prefer

Consumption
Consumption is more reliable for measuring material well-being
current consumption more directly measures the material well-being of the family than
current income.4 Current income can be a misleading indicator of the economic status of the family because
earnings are susceptible to temporary fluctuations due to transitory events such as layoffs or changes in family status. These
temporary changes cause current income to vary more than consumption , but they do not necessarily reflect changes in wellbeing (see Wem- merus and Porter 1996). Consumption is more likely to capture a family's long- term prospects than is
income.5 Income measures also fail to capture disparities in consumption that result from differences across families in the accumulation of assets or
Economic theory suggests that
access to credit (Cutler and Katz 1991). Expenditures reflect a family's long-term prospects but may be lumpy because of the indivisibility of certain
purchases such as houses and cars. Consumption should reflect the smoothed flow of services obtained from these durable goods.
65
SPC Poverty
Topicality Persons Living in Poverty: Prefer

Consumption
Measurement of food consumption is more reliable than income it accounts for illicit activities
consumption can be divided into meaningful categories such as food and housing provides two advantages over income.
First, one can directly measure well- being using essential expenditure categories such as food and housing, and one can
measure child well-being using child clothing and other child goods. Second, one cannot account for relative price changes with a
single deflator for income . However, one can deflate different components of consumption using different price indices. This flexibility may be
particularly important if the market basket of goods consumed by those with few resources differs from the general population. Income measures also
may fail to handle appropriately illegal activity. For example, if the illicit activity is on the expenditure side (drug purchases, for
example), expenditures on food, housing, or total expenditures (which do not include illicit drug purchases) would still provide
meaningful summary information on family well-being . In the case of an individual selling illicit drugs, this individual may not
report revenue from this illicit activity as income (a problem for income data), but involvement in illicit activity does not imply that food
That
and housing expenditures will be misreported. This second case is really an example of why the absolute value of the error in reported income, ?r, might be
much larger than the error in reported consumption, ?c, which is the issue on which the next subsection focuses.
Prefer our interpretation of consumption it has less of a measurement error than income
B. Reporting Issues Although there are conceptual reasons to prefer consumption to income, the extent to which income and consumption are reported with
error is the other main issue in choosing a measure of material well-being. We believe that the main reason to prefer consumption to
income is that measurement error in consumption is less pronounced for those with few resources than
error in income.
is measurement
66
SPC Poverty
Topicality Increase Violation Block

1. The topicality debate stemming from increase is just whether or not we can create a new social
service we increase the participation in a pre-existing social service and that is topical
enough
Jeremiah Buckley et al, Attorney, Amicus Curiae Brief, Safeco Ins. Co. of America et al v. Charles Burr et al, 2006
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/06-84/06-84.mer.ami.mica.pdf)
First, the court said that the ordinary meaning of the word increase is to make something greater, which it believed should not be limited to cases in
which a company raises the rate that an individual has previously been charged. 435 F.3d at 1091. Yet the definition offered by the Ninth Circuit compels
the opposite conclusion. Because increase means to make something greater, there must necessarily have been an existing
premium, to which Edos actual premium may be compared, to determine whether an increase occurred.
Congress could have provided that adverse

action in the insurance context means charging an amount greater than the optimal premium, but instead chose to define adverse action in terms of an
increase. That definitional choice must be respected, not ignored. See Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 392-93 n.10 (1979) ([ a] definition
which declares what a term means . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated ). Next, the
Ninth Circuit reasoned that

because the Insurance Prong includes the words existing or applied for, Congress intended that an increase in any charge for insurance must apply to all
insurance transactions from an initial policy of insurance to a renewal of a long-held policy. 435 F.3d at 1091. This interpretation reads the words
existing or applied for in isolation. Other types of adverse action described in the Insurance Prong apply only to situations where a consumer had an
existing policy of insurance, such as a cancellation, reduction, or change in insurance. Each of these forms of adverse action presupposes an alreadyexisting policy, and under usual canons of statutory construction the term increase also should be construed to apply to increases of an
already-existing policy. See Hibbs v.
Winn, 542 U.S. 88, 101 (2004) (a phrase gathers meaning from the words around it) (citation omitted).
2. This is a preferable interpretation of the resolution because it is kinder to the negative there is
a clear list of what is topical and what isnt.
3. Food Stamps and debate about the Quality Control system is absolutely essential debate in
regards to the topic. More people than ever in the United States are hungry and something
must be done to learn about this is to be more informed Americans.
4. We meet their interpretation we do increase the participation in the Food Stamps program.
The elimination of the Quality Control system perpetuates this.
67
SPC Poverty
Topicality A2 FX Topicality
1. On this years topic, FX T is both essential and inevitable- affs that reverse court decisions
(i.e. abortion) and then lead to an increase in a social service are part of the core of the
topic
2. Real World- any policy action takes multiple steps to implement and being real world is key
to our education
3. Increased Ground checks predictability - each additional step the plan takes actually gives
the neg more ground, which offsets any fairness loss you get from those steps being
unpredictable
4. Predictability- the steps the aff takes (i.e. reversing court decisions or increasing funding)
are are a key part of the topic and they are grounded in the literature- you should be ready
to debate them
5. Increase Education- we force you to look at the implementation of the plan just as much as
its outcome which is increases our policymaking education
6. Reasonability- unless you feel that we are being absurd in the plan implementation, you
dont even consider voting us down
7. Potential Abuse isnt a voting issue - judge us only based on what happens in this round
68
SPC Poverty
Topicality Social Services Block

1. Food stamps were one of the first social services and have been synonymous with social
services since the Great Depression
2. A Social Service provides assistance to improve the wellbeing of a person.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
"social service." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Merriam-Webster Online. 30 November 2009 <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social
service>
Social Service: an activity designed to promote social well-being ; specifically : organized philanthropic assistance (as
of the disabled or disadvantaged)
2. Predictable
3. Reasonable
4. Key to Education
69
SPC Poverty
A2 Spending/Budget DA
1. Emergency financing is still budget neutral there is a fund that accommodates these caseload
increases
In this analysis, emergency financing includes the Food Stamp Program contingency fund. This fund is designed to accommodate caseload increases during
a recession that requires expenditures greater than budgeted. Expenditures from this fund do not count against budget
neutrality.
2. Benefits from the Food Stamp Program occur quickly each dollar we spend results in a return
of two dollars
Joy Moses, Policy Analyst with the Poverty & Prosperity Program at the Center for American Progress, February 3, 2009 Basic Needs Assistance for
the Poor Advances Economic Recovery and Employment Goals, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/02/basic_needs_brief.html)
each $1 billion invested in food stamps results in an increase of

16,400 private sector jobs due to expanded economic activity in such areas as farming, livestock, food processing,
and transportation. Further, food expert Joel Berg points out that food programs help recipients seek employment and function on the job: Finding
and keeping a job is hard enoughit is even harder on an empty stomach. Among other research, he cites a study indicating
that women who have enough food to eat have better employment and income outcomes. Other benefits related to recovery: Investments in food
programs increase the spending power of low-income households . Their limited resources and unmet needs make them more likely
Contribution to national employment goals: According to the USDA,
to spend, increasing their consumption and contributions to the economys recovery. The Congressional Budget Office has noted that the vast majority of
food stamp benefits are spent extremely rapidly, so the effect is immediate . Ultimately, each $1 invested in food
stamps results in an economic boost of nearly $2.
3. The beneficial effects we have on the economy would offset any deficit we produce. In fact, we
would improve the deficit in the long-term because of increasing tax revenue for the
government
Montgomery and Irwin, Washington Post Staff Writers, 2009
Lori Montgomery and Neil Irwin, Washington Post Staff Writers, October 17, 2009, Record-High Deficit May Dash Big Plans,
The government had been running deficits even before the recession began in December 2007, due largely to the Bush tax cuts; in 2008, the budget gap was
$455 billion, or 3.2 percent of the overall economy. If the economy rebounds strongly, tax revenues would surge , automatically
driving the deficit lower. The more difficult question is what to do if the economy remains sluggish or dips back into recession. "In the short term
the deficit is not our primary problem ," said Heather Boushey, a senior economist at the left-leaning Center for
American Progress. "The unemployment rate is near 10 percent, and the key thing is to get the economy growing, which will
increase tax revenues. But in the long term we do need to think about the deficit problem and do something about it."
4. Empirically denied The president increased the benefits given in the food stamps program and
has spent much more than the 4-6 billion that would be utilized from the Emergency Type
Financing Fund
70
SPC Poverty
A2 Immigration DA
1. According to our CBS News 2009 evidence, the stimulus increased food stamp benefits by the
negative teams logic there should have already been a sudden influx of illegal immigration
2. Federal programs are cracking down on illegal immigration we would not affect this
Hsu, Washington Post Staff Writer, 2009
Spencer S. Hsu, Washington Post Staff Writer, October 16, 2009, DHS Reshapes
Its
Immigration
Enforcement
Program,
A controversial federal program that deputizes state and local law enforcement agents to catch illegal immigrants is
expanding under the Obama administration, despite changes announced this summer intended to curb alleged racial profiling and other police abuses.
The Department of Homeland Security is expected to report Friday morning that a small number of the 66 participating agencies have dropped out because
of the new federal requirements, officials said. And those losses are offset by applications from 13 additional police and sheriff's
departments, a federal official said, speaking on condition of anonymity before the formal announcement.
In the Washington area, sheriff's offices in

Frederick, Loudoun and Prince William counties intend to continue to participate, according to local officials. Nationwide, the program identified about
60,000 illegal immigrants for deportation over the past year, the highest number since the program was expanded
nationwide in 2006. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in July said agencies that receive federal grants and training under the program
would have 90 days to agree to new terms aimed at ending controversial police practices identified by congressional auditors and civil rights groups. Critics
cited cases in which police conducted roadside stops and neighborhood sweeps aimed at Latinos and other ethnic groups, often arresting minorities for traffic
and other minor offenses in pursuit of illegal immigrants.
3. It is implausible that we would attract illegal immigrants for a few reasons:

A. People have to prove citizenship to be initially on the program, so immigrants without
documentation of citizenship would not be allowed on
B. Illegal immigrants would not find out about a repeal of a policy within the Food Stamp
Program most of them probably do not pay attention to US politics
C. Immigrants do not want food stamps
New York City Coalition Against Hunger, What's the most effective way to stop hunger? Discover the top 10 myths about Food
Stamps April 2, 2007, http://www.nyccah.org/node/31)
False: Illegal
immigrants are not eligible to receive food stamps, and never have been; there are stringent processes
to determine citizenship in the program. Legal immigrants are also not allowed to receive food stamps until they
have been in the country for five year s (with the exception of asylum cases and some other situations). Immigrants generally are far
less likely than other groups to apply for food stamps, both because they fear jeopardizing their immigration status,
and because the complex application process is doubly hard for those who do not speak English well.
71
SPC Poverty
A2 Obesity DA
Empirically, the food stamp program has never lead to an increase in obesity results indicating
otherwise are based off faulty experiments
Steven S. Cuellar, Professor of Economics at Sonoma State University 2003
Ph.D. Department of Economics Sonoma State University, March 3, 2003, Do Food Stamps Cause an Over-Consumption of Food?
It is clear that obesity has become a national health problem over the last ten to fifteen years, afflicting approximately thirty percent of the population. The
problem of obesity, however, has hit women, most notably minority women where obesity afflicts approximately half of all Black women, at a
disproportionately higher rate than men. The relationship between food stamps and obesity is much less clear. Analysis using the standard consumer
optimization model shows that food stamps do indeed have the intended effect of increasing expenditures on food. The effect on obesity, however, is
ambiguous since the increase in income resulting from food stamps may induce a change in the types of food consumed. If low quality foods are a normal
good, then food stamps result in an increase in the consumption of fat inducing foods and result in an increase in obesity among food stamp recipients.
However, if high quality foods are a normal good and low quality foods are an inferior good, then the effective increase in income resulting from the food
stamps will induce a substitution from lower quality foods to higher quality foods and reduce obesity. The degree to which low income families switch from
low to high quality foods depends on the nutritional information possessed by low income families. It may be that low income consumers lack the nutritional
education needed to make healthy diet choices. However, research shows that although low income consumers are not as nutrition conscious as high income
consumers, low income families do choose similar diets to those of middle income consumers. Furthermore, the same research shows that food stamp
recipients have diets similar to other low income families not receiving food stamps.9 Whether or not food stamps induce recipients to change the mix of
food consumed, food stamps will not necessarily increase the consumption of food beyond what most recipients would
consume if given cash. Only those consumers with an extreme preference for goods other than food would be induced to consume more food under
the food stamp program than they would under a program that provided an equivalent cash grant. Since these consumers are those who consume the least 9
Trippe (2000). amount of food, it is highly unlikely that food stamps result in an increased incidence of obesity among these
supra-marginal consumers. Consequently, a conversion of the food stamp program to a cash grant is unlikely to reduce obesity among food stamp recipients.
Further doubt is cast upon the relationship between obesity and food stamps when data on food stamps, obesity and
income are examined. The data fails to indicate a clear relationship between obesity and the implementation of the
food stamp program. Nor does there appear to be any clear relationship between obesity and income or poverty
status. The incidence of obesity among the most effected groups , namely females and most particularly minority females,
predates the beginning of the food stamp program and occurs across income and education categories. To be sure, the
data examined in this paper are discrete and highly aggregated. Clearly, as better data becomes available, more research needs to be conducted.
Nevertheless, the findings of this paper do not support, either theoretically or empirically, a causal link between food stamps
and obesity. As a result, a move from a fixed quantity food stamp program to a program that provides a cash grant is unlikely to have any effect on the
very real problem of obesity among the poor.
72
SPC Poverty
A2 Dependency
1. There will always be some people abusing the system that is something inherent in welfare
programs. However, the self-stigma associated with food stamps makes the program a safety
net.
2. People will use food stamps despite the stigma
D. Stanley Eitzen, Prof., Emeritus, Sociology, Colorado State U., EXPERIENCING
POVERTY: VOICES FROM THE BOTTOM,
2009,
96.
RICH1231 )
Food stamps convey a degraded social status, and yet they also provide essential goods . Respondents disliked the
social meaning of food stamps, but most also found food stamps helpful for budgeting and getting through the
month. When I asked the women if they thought that food stamps should be replaced with cash, almost all said no. For the respondents,
balancing the practical advantages of food stamps with potentially negative social consequences was a central
task.
3. Food stamps solve and overcome incentives to live a dependent life the self-stigma checks
dependency
USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, November 15, 2007, THE BENEFITS OF INCREASING FOOD STAMP PROGRAM PARTICIPATION IN
YOUR STATE, http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/outreach/pdfs/bc_facts.pdf)
Thirty percent of participating food stamp households have earnings.9 Employees whose nutrition needs are met at home may be healthier and thus may take
fewer sick days for themselves or their children. Employees may stay longer with companies that care about them by sharing information about food stamp
benefits and its importance as a work support. The FSP helps families become financially stable and make the transition to self-sufficiency, getting them
through the tough times. Half of all new participants will leave the program within nine months.10 Food stamp benefits are a work support .
Food stamp benefits help those leaving the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program and transitioning to work by
supplementing their food budgets so that they can stay independent and work toward self-sufficiency .11 Since food
stamp benefits decrease only by 24 to 36 cents for every additional dollar of earnings, food stamp recipients have
incentives to work since they will be better off working rather than receiving food stamp benefits alone
4. Proof of the aforementioned: Dependency is on the decline and has been since 1995
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services , Appendix B Alternative Definition
Income from TANF and Food Stamps, January 16, 2009, http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators08/apb.shtml
of Dependence Based on
Dependency on AFDC/TANF and food stamp receipt has declined since 1995, while dependency on SSI receipt alone has remained
stable, as shown in Table B-2. As a result, the difference between the standard definition (based on all three programs) and the alternative definition (based
on TANF and food stamps only) has grown. In 1995, over two-thirds (68 percent) of individuals who were dependent under the standard definition also were
dependent under the alternative definition shown in this appendix. By 2005, the proportion had dropped to just over half (55 percent). If this report
had focused on the alternative definition of dependence, it would have shown an even larger decline in
dependence than usually reported. For example, between 1995 and 2005, dependency declined by 42 percent (3.6
percent to 2.1 percent) under the alternative definition, compared to a decline of 28 percent (5.3 percent to 3.8 percent) under the standard definition.
5. This is empirically denied there is no reason why food stamps would increase dependency
anymore than the 200 billion in social services provided by the stimulus
73
SPC Poverty
A2 Health Care DA Outweigh

Food stamps is more of an immediate concern than health care benefits
Stacy Forster Staff writer Journal Sentinel, May 26,
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/29594949.html
2008
Weak economy, changes to state program increase enrollment nearly 10%
In tough economic times, people's need for food stamps can be seen more immediately than for other government
benefits, said Rea Holmes, executive assistant at the state Department of Health and Family Services." People might not need health care
services right away way, but they're going to need food much sooner," Holmes said.
74
SPC Poverty
A2 Food Prices DA No Link

Food stamps have no effect on food prices
Rogers, Ph.D. Tufts University School of Nutrition Science and Policy and Jennifer Coates, M.S. Tufts University School of
Nutrition Science and Policy Food-Based Safety Nets and Related Programs September 2002
Beatrice Lorge
Food Stamps Compared with Cash Transfers. Food stamps are a distinct class of interventions from in-kind supplementary feeding on the one hand and from
direct cash transfers on the other. Unlike general food price subsidies, food stamps do not affect food prices so produce
fewer distortions in the market. Stamps, if their use is restricted, may increase demand for certain specific foods,
but they do not otherwise alter the market.
75
SPC Poverty
Obama Good Turn

Food stamps are popular because of merit good
Beatrice Lorge
food, because of its association with childrens health and with

families basic needs, is a merit good. A program that provides cash may be perceived as encouraging wasteful or
irresponsible consumption, while food stamps are seen as promoting a worthwhile type of consumption and
improving nutrition (See box 3). Taxpayers prefer to see publicly provided benefits devoted to such goods.
Politically, food stamps are more acceptable than cash transfers;
Food stamps are popular the agriculture sector likes the program
Beatrice Lorge
Political Economy. It was mentioned above that food stamps are more politically acceptable to government decisionmakers and to the (non-poor) public
because food is a merit good and because food stamps can be linked to a health or nutritional objective. Another political strength of food
stamp programs is that they often have the support of the agriculture sector and the private sector food industry,
because they expand demand for food. Support is likely to be broader the more widely the food stamps can be used. In the U.S., food stamps
can be used for any food or drink (other than alcohol), regardless of nutritional quality. WIC coupons, by contrast, are for a very specific, limited range of
nutritious foods. The WIC program is constantly under pressure from the food industry to permit other foods, such as non-fortified breakfast cereals and
cereals with a higher sugar content than is currently allowed by the program.
76
SPC Poverty
Obama Bad Turn (1/2)

Food stamps are uniquely unpopular with farm lobbies
Dorothy Rosenbaum, Senior Policy Analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, July 5, 2005, FOOD STAMPS AND THE CUTS THAT
THE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEES MUST MAKE: What Is A Fair Share of the Cuts for the Food Stamp Program to Bear? http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?
fa=view&id=565)
Some agricultural commodity groups have suggested that the House and Senate Agriculture Committees meet
their $3 billion reconciliation instruction by cutting each program area that the Committees control in proportion to that areas share of
overall Agriculture Committee spending. These groups have circulated documents showing that under this approach, the Food Stamp Program
would be reduced by $1.7 billion over five years and bear 57 percent of the cuts in the House, and $2 billion over five years (bearing 67 percent of the cuts)
in the Senate. The purpose of this proposal is clear to shift the majority of the cuts from farm-related programs to
food stamps.[1]
This self-serving proposal assumes that the task at hand for the Agriculture Committees is a simple matter of arithmetic that does not
entail any setting of priorities. But priorities are inevitably involved. And it should be noted that the proposal these commodity groups are pushing departs
sharply from the priorities in the Presidents budget. Moreover, the proposal is sharply inconsistent with the position these groups took in 2002, when the
Farm Bill was being considered and the Congressional budget made money available for increases in Agriculture Committee programs. These groups did
not suggest in 2002 that the increases be distributed proportionately, but rather that the lions share go to farm programs.
* In his budget, President Bush
proposed $9 billion over five years in cuts in Agriculture Committee programs.
* The President proposed that 7 percent of these cuts come from the Food
Stamp Program, which serves the neediest and most vulnerable people in the nation and provides them, on average, with $1 per person per meal. The
Congressional budget resolution subsequently shrank the overall cuts in Agriculture Committee programs from the $9 billion that the President proposed to
$3 billion. The proposed cuts in Agriculture Committee programs were thus reduced by two-thirds. Yet the commodity groups are now
proposing to triple the food stamp cut the President proposed. Under their proposal, cuts in areas outside of the
nutrition programs would be 85 to 90 percent smaller than the President proposed, while the food stamp cut would
be about three times larger than the President proposed.
77
SPC Poverty
Obama Bad Turn (2/2)

These farm lobbies and local support are key to the agenda
Chicago Tribune,
June 4,
2006,
Farm lobby's power has deep roots, http://www.floridafarmers.org/news/articles/Farmlobby
%27spowerhasdeeproots.htm)
the farm lobby is distinguished by a

well-organized grass-roots network of organizations that extends throughout rural America . In the capital, farmers
are represented by a core group of long-serving lobbyists who regularly band together, setting aside divergent
interests to keep the dollars flowing to farm programs. And this lobby can draw on public sympathy for a stereotype of a quaint family farm. The political
Although the health-care industry and trial lawyers spend far more than Big Farm to influence Washington,
structure also works in its favor. The Senate's equal representation gives voters in sparsely populated rural states extra political weight. And it doesn't hurt that the first presidential caucus is held in Iowa, where
candidates ritually pay homage to the myth of the family farm. Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., former chairman of the Senate agriculture committee, stands as an anomaly. He opposed much of the farm subsidy
program the last time Congress rewrote the farm bill. Lugar said lawmakers use votes for the farm bill as a sort of currency: Senators from non-agricultural states agree to support subsidies as long as farm-state
senators back the others' favored programs. "They say, 'Give us our program, and we won't cause you a whole lot of trouble,"' said Lugar. "So expediently, people will say, 'Well, that's probably about right."'
And there are practical considerations. Farmers vote. And in states dependent on agriculture those votes can swing a race. What's at stake for farmers who benefit from subsidies is a regular payment from the
government, not unlike Social Security. Others also gain. Subsidies are paid to absentee landowners who live far from the fields, in places like Chicago and to wealthy gentleman farmers. Recipients have
included former basketball star Scottie Pippen and newsman Sam Donaldson. On a sunny Saturday morning last month at a farm exhibition in Great Bend, Kan., Rep. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., a member of the
House Agriculture Committee, stood onstage dressed in Wranglers and cowboy boots to take questions. The farmers there had a one-track mind: maintaining government aid for farmers, from drought relief to
ethanol promotion to the more basic subsidies. "And even when they don't talk about it, it's never far from their minds," said Moran, whose district has collected the second most in farm subsidies since 1995,
$6.2 billion, according to the Environmental Working Group, a conservation organization. "It is a part of whether their son or daughter has a future in farming." Farm subsidies were started during the
Depression as, in theory, a temporary emergency measure to aid farmers amid a decline in crop prices. Even then, politics were part of the calculus. President Franklin D. Roosevelt used subsidies to get rural
and Southern support for the New Deal. The program survived and expanded even as its natural constituency dwindled. In 1930, 1 in 4 Americans lived on a farm; now about 1 in 100 do, and many farmers are
only part-timers. Two-thirds of farmers receive no subsidies, as the benefits go only to producers of a handful of basic crops. Defenders of subsidy programs say their $23 billion cost is a miniscule percentage
of the federal budget, less than 1 percent. "There are other programs out there that spend money that probably have a lot more controversy surrounding them," Combest said. He said he sees nothing wrong
with fighting for farms as a lobbyist. "I have agriculture as an interest. I've had it all my life," he said. "People have a tendency to stay involved in an area that they have some expertise and knowledge. ... I'm
not working for an industry I disagree with." But critics argue that farm programs stifle U.S. business by blocking trade agreements and encourage large-scale industrial agriculture because the system rewards
farmers for growing as much as possible. And they indirectly damage the environment, critics say, because intensive farming relies so heavily on chemicals. Developing nations say they can't compete when
U.S. overproduction is dumped on world markets. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley has joined the critics, blaming artificially high sugar prices supported by the farm program for driving Brach's and other
Chicago-based candy-manufacturers overseas. The renewal of the farm subsidies is typically reauthorized in six-year increments. And each crop brings its own constituency. The Midwest covets corn and
soybean subsidies. The Great Plains pitch for the wheat program. The Southwest, Texas and California plead for help for cotton, rice and peanuts. The Northeast, upper Midwest and Southeast appeal for dairy
programs. And sugar support comes from cane growers in Florida, Louisiana, Hawaii and beet growers in many Northern states. Nutrition programs for the poor - such as food stamps - were added to the farm
bill in the 1960s. That way, urban lawmakers agree to support farm subsidies as long as farm-state congressmen vote in favor of nutrition programs. "There's no secret why food stamps are in the ag bill because they get votes from people who wouldn't know a corn stalk if they saw one," said Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., a former Agriculture Committee member. The coalition of farm groups has been resilient, in
part because none of the interests has waged war against another. Even when health advocates attacked tobacco subsidies, the coalition continued to support them until tobacco growers agreed to a federal buyout. "It was made very clear to those of us on the committee," LaHood said. "I don't grow one leaf of tobacco in my area in Illinois. The point was, even if you don't like tobacco, you'd better be for tobacco if
The farm lobby works hard to maintain chummy relations on Capitol Hill. When the
sugar industry hosted Sens. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and five congressional staffers at its "sweetener symposium" in Vail, Colo., in
2004, the leisure activities included white-water rafting and golf. Three mornings of seminars on trade and sugar issues were spread over the five-day event.
As a general rule, the more controversial the farm program, the more money its backers dole out in junkets and campaign contributions. And the
you want corn and (soy) beans to be taken care of."
biggest beneficiaries of agriculture's funding are the leadership of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees,
and the leadership of the agriculture appropriations subcommittees . Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas, chairman of the House
appropriations subcommittee, has raised $300,000 from the farm sector, and Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee,
$287,000. The farm lobby also generates good will by offering jobs to members of Congress and their staffs. The committees overseeing agriculture have
become a reliable farm system for the USDA, commodity organizations and lobbying firms. Dale Thorenson is a typical example. A farm boy from North
Dakota, Thorenson started as an aide for Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., in 1999. He helped with the 2002 farm bill. Just months after it passed, Thorenson
joined Gordley Associates, where he lobbies on behalf of some of his home state's key crops. "Everybody in town knows that if you want to stay in town
and get a job, you've got to get along with the big commodity groups, because they are the biggest employers," said a former congressional staffer who
worked on agricultural issues. Thorenson disagreed, saying he fully intended to move back to North Dakota after his work was done on Capitol Hill. While
denying a quid pro quo, he said congressional staffers who work on agriculture issues, most of whom have farm backgrounds, are uniquely qualified to
lobby Congress. "If you have not been a staff person up there, it's pretty hard to know what they go through and the demands they face each day," he said.
The loose alliance working to reform American farm policy is broad and diverse . It includes the Environmental Defense, the
Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, the Cato Institute, a libertarian research group based in Washington, and the Food Products Association, a trade
association fighting for market-oriented farm programs that would reduce sugar prices and accelerate trade talks. The groups have different
reasons for trying to change farm policy - some want more money for conservation, others want to lower the
federal budget deficit - but they all want to roll back subsidy payments. Even the most passionate reformers,
however, acknowledge it will be hard to match the intensity of the farm lobby.
78
SPC Poverty
A2 Universal CP Targeting Good: Morality

Targeted policies are more rational non-targeted programs lead to value-free programs
Targeting has been defined as "a method by which goods, services, or other programmatic actions are delivered to groups or
individuals that have specific characteristics " (1). This is very similar to a widely cited definition of politics: "the social processes that
determine who gets what, when, and how" (2). This similarity has several implications. First, it suggests nutrition professionals might be
fundamentally engaged in politics when we recommend which foods, nutrients, or services should be delivered; which
individuals or groups should receive them; when and for how long they should receive them; and how they should receive them. The
decision to fortify the U.S. food supply with folate is an example. Second, it implies nutrition scientists also are engaged in politics,
albeit indirectly, when we decide which nutritional problems, interventions, and population groups to study, and which we will not
study. The examples of micronutrient supplements, genetically engineered crops, and food aid in developing countries come to mind. Targeted
research often shapes future actions. Third, it implies nutrition professionals should expect to be part of a larger social
process when making and promoting certain program, policy, and targeting options, some of which are overtly political and others are
not. The controversies related to infant formula vs. breast-feeding, and development of dietary guidelines related to fat, sodium, and sugar illustrate some of
these larger social processes. Finally, this similarity calls into question the claim for "value-free science" or policy
recommendations based solely on "sound science " or "expert judgment." All our research choices and policy or program recommendations
carry value and political implications, regardless of the scientific or the technical manner in which they are developed, presented, and justified. This article is
based on the premise that most of our analyses and perspectives regarding targeting reflect a technical form of rationality
the appropriateness and effectiveness of our recommendations and efforts can be improved by taking
greater account of the sociopolitical dimensions of targeting (3,4). The article illustrates the relationships between these 2 perspectives
and that
and draws some conclusions for practice.
79
SPC Poverty
A2 Universal CP Targeting Good: Morality

Targeting is key to an effective politics combines moral duties and politics
A sociopolitical perspective on targeting As suggested in the definitions of targeting and politics provided above, targeting does not simply have political
implications. Targeting is at the very core of politics , and some very interesting perspectives emerge by examining our work through a
political lens and by examining politics through our technical lens. It is possible to translate our familiar 2 x 2 table into some language often used in
analysis of social programs (Fig. 3). In this context, successful targeting occurs when the needy are provided with services and
the non-needy are excluded from services. Unsuccessful targeting occurs in 2 ways: through false positives, representing
leakage or the wasting of resources on the non-needy; and through false negatives, representing the failure to provide services
to some of the truly needy. These 2 types of errors are inversely relatedan increase in one implies a corresponding decrease in the other. It also is
possible to translate the 2 x 2 table into social policy rhetoric from both sides of the liberalconservative political spectrum (Fig. 4). In this context, and
without necessarily having all cells of a 2 x 2 table in mind, liberals stereotypically are concerned with the left-hand side and conservatives with the righthand side, each using distinct language to justify and to motivate their claims. Liberals stereotypically favor expanding a program by
relaxing eligibility criteria
(i.e., expanding the definition of "targeted for services" and the upper two cells in Fig. 4). This has the effect of
this translates into more fully addressing social needs,

moral duties, and human rights on the left-hand side, while simultaneously increasing dependency, fraud, waste, and inefficiency on the rightincreasing Se but simultaneously decreases Sp. In terms of political rhetoric,
hand side. The converse also is truerestricting or shrinking a program by tightening eligibility criteria (or otherwise restricting access to the program) has
the effect of increasing Sp while decreasing Se. This is justified by conservatives as eliminating dependency, fraud, waste, and inefficiency on the right but
castigated by liberals for failing the poor and shirking moral duty on the left. While these examples have focused on the political implications of changing
the cutoff point, neither politics nor public health restricts itself to that dimension of the 2 x 2 table. Rather, the very definition of the "truly needy" also is
subject to debate and revision (i.e., the horizontal axis in Fig. 4). In this case, liberals (left panel) stereotypically seek to expand the definition of need by
identifying more and more problems requiring governments attention, while conservatives (right panel) seek to restrict the definition of need or to suggest
nongovernmental mechanisms for addressing human needs. Finally, this 2 x 2 framework for analyzing politics provides some insights concerning more
recent shifts in political rhetoric and social policy. In recent years, conservatives have identified a number of themes that reinforce their traditional space on
the right-hand side of this table, such as erosion of moral character (upper-right cell) and personal responsibility (lower-right cell). They also have claimed
space in traditionally liberal cells on the left-hand side of this table, however, with themes such as maintaining a social safety net, enhancing opportunity,
rewarding work, and compassion, as conservative justifications for "reformed" social programs (upper-left cells). This is in addition to "tightening the belt,
fiscal responsibility, and downsizing government" as justifications for restraining the growth of social programs (lower-left cells). It appears more difficult
to identify cases in which liberals have either fortified their claims to the traditional space on the left or captured any of the space on the right. Improving
human capital (upper-left cell) and preventing future harm (upper-right cell) are 2 examples that come to mind. Both of these draw upon rather technical and
complex arguments, however, and, in terms of political rhetoric, fall rather flat compared with the resonant social themes of the conservatives (7). These
examples confirm the fundamental connection between politics and the technical perspective on targeting, and
illustrate some of the insights about politics that can be obtained by explicitly combining the two . The examples
provided above, however, only focus on using the 2 x 2 table of the technical perspective to understanding politics in a somewhat different way. The next
section uses political frameworks to understand our technical work in a different way.
80
SPC Poverty
A2 Universal CP Targeting Inevitable

Targeting is inevitable social processes involving training support targeting
While the technical perspective on targeting emphasizes the outcomes of "who gets what , when, and how," the political
perspective emphasizes the social processes that determine those outcomes . In general terms, the social process
involves participants (individuals, organizations, and groups), with diverse perspectives (defined by their identities, expectations about the
future, and goals), using their power, resources, and strategies to pursue their goals . This social process produces a variety of direct
and indirect immediate outcomes, as well as longer-term effects (8). This perspective on politics is used below to examine some features of the nutrition and
public health community, in other words, us. We participants in nutrition and public health come from government and nongovernmental
perspectives are shaped to a large extent by our training and the problems we
address, with specialization being a hallmark of this policy domain. Early in our careers, many or most of us are encouraged to
specialize in certain nutrients (iron, vitamin A, zinc, iodine, folate), diseases (diarrhea, acute respiratory illness, malaria, HIV), populations
groups (pregnant women, neonates, infants, children, elderly, refugees), solutions (supplements, fortification, education, agricultural, or health
interventions), or in other terms. Thus, some of the targeting decisions, concerning "who and what," are shaped by some
upstream processes related to specialization.
organizations, academia, and the private sector. Our
Targeting cannot be solved social institutions shape academic disciplines that create targeting
we specialists in any given area become committed advocates for what we have studied or worked on for
many years. This becomes a large part of our individual and organizational goals and identities. Our most common
strategies are to accumulate evidence and arguments for greater investment in each specialized problem, based on
its unacceptably high prevalence, the severity of its immediate or long-term consequences, the social or the biological vulnerability of the mostaffected groups, the availability of low-cost or cost-effective solutions, or the higher cost of addressing the consequences of the problem at some later
Commonly,
time. Sometimes we advance evidence and arguments not only for certain problems, solutions, or target groups, but also for certain forms of targeting or
certain indicators to be used in targeting This pattern of specialization and advocacy for relatively narrow issues shapes and is shaped by
the character of our academic disciplines and subdisciplines; the organizational structure of governments, donors, and
nongovernmental organizations; the creation of expert bodies and professional interest divisions; and other institutional structures.
Our socialization into specialization is so commonplace, we scarcely recognize it or stop to ponder its outcomes and effects in terms of
the policy process.
81
SPC Poverty
A2 Universal CP Targeting Good: Agriculture

Targeting the poor for food stamps solves consumption volatility
Food stamps lead to a reduction in income volatility, especially for the primary intended recipients of food
stamps. We now assess the role of food stamps as a stabilizer of food-consumption . A key input in the variance decomposition
of Equa- tion 5 is an estimate of 13 from Equation 3, which reflects the extent to which food- consumption changes in response to income changes. In Table
3 we record instru- mental variables estimates of income changes on (real) food-consumption changes. In addition to the log income change and time
dummies the empirical food-consumption model controls for changes in family size, the number of children, the age of the youngest child, and marital
status, the level of education of the head, the race of the head, and the five-year birth cohort of the head. For clarity of presentation we suppress the latter
variables and only record the point estimates associated with the income change. As instruments for the income change we use time (t - 1) levels of the
head's annual hours of work, after-tax hourly wage, self-employment status, health status, union status, home-ownership status, industry, occupation, and
region of country, as well as the time t state-level variables capturing the party affiliation of the governor, the party affiliation of both houses of the
legislature, the real maximum AFDC/food stamp benefit, the unemployment rate, the growth rate of the state's Gross State Product (GSP), the food stamp
error rate (the amount of overpayment and underpayment of food stamps), and indicators for the year the state's welfare- reform waiver or TANF program
was implemented, and for the implementation of the statewide EBT program. As documented in Table 3, food-consumption elasticities with respect to
income changes range from a low of 0.047 for the lifetime poor to a high of 0.130 for all families pooled together. Relative to more broad measures of
consumption used in Kniesner and Ziliak (2002a) these elasticities of food consumption with respect to income are small. This is perhaps not too surprising
since food is about 10 percent of total expenditures for the typical household but around 20-30 percent for the poor. Using the estimated P from each sample
in Table 3, in Figure 4 we document food-consumption volatility without food stamps. Food consumption is significantly less volatile than income. In light
of the relatively small parameter estimates in Table 3, this lower volatility is not unexpected. Interestingly, while the income-eligible families experience
great volatility in both income and food consumption, the lifetime income poor and the ever eligible, who have high income volatility, actually have
comparatively low food-consumption volatility because of the very weak link between income changes and food-consumption changes. On the other hand
the pooled sample of all families, who had the lowest income volatility, have relatively high food-consumption volatility.8 As with income volatility, foodconsumption volatility did rise after 1990 although this increase is small for the ever poor and lifetime poor. The second panel of Table 2 records the
average percent reduction in food-consumption volatility due to food stamps. Consistent with one of the targeting mechanisms of the
Food Stamp Program (in other words, the inverse relation between income and benefit levels), income eligible and households with
low average incomes have the largest reductions in food-consumption volatility , averaging 12.2 (13.8) percent and 9.6 (9.0)
percent in the models without (with) fixed effects. It is noteworthy that the average reduction in uncertainty of food consumption
exceeds that of income . This is attributable to the negative covariance between income changes and benefit changes in the variance decomposition.
Parallel to our results for income volatility, the reduction in food-consumption volatility due to food stamps has been declining over time as depicted in Table
3. During and immediately following the recession of the early 1980s gross-income- eligible families had their food
consumption stabilized by upward of 22 percent from food stamps , and those families whose incomes were in the first quartile of
average income smoothed food-consumption changes upward of 15 percent in the same period. However, by 1993 and during the peak of foodconsumption volatility, the variance reduction from food stamps plummeted to 5 percent and 3 percent for each group, respectively. After this low point the
role of food stamps in stabilizing food- consumption volatility rose to about 6-7 percent for these groups just before and after passage of PRWORA.
82
SPC Poverty
A2 States CP Preemption
Federal food policy preempts states
Hamilton, director of the Agricultural Law Center @ Drake University, 2002
Neil D. Hamilton, Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Agricultural Law Center @ Drake University, Summer 2002, PUTTING A FACE ON
OUR FOOD: HOW STATE AND LOCAL FOOD POLICIES CAN PROMOTE THE NEW AGRICULTURE, in Drake Journal of Agricultural Law
Developing state and local food policy is not free of limitations . In some situations federal law may restrain or even pre-empt
the ability of state governments to act . A good example relating to food labeling and the limitations presented by federal policy is reflected in
the court decision prohibiting Vermonts attempt to label milk for the presence of bovine growth hormone.31 Some issues by their nature are
reserved to the federal government such as immigration policy and most trade related issues. While states may develop innovative
ways to address local dimensions of these issues, for the most part the topics are preserved for federal action . Other
issues may be too large or too costly for states or local governments to address. The best example is the economics of commodity production. This explains why few states have attempted to provide anything similar to federal commodity programs. Instead state efforts on farm economics
are more targeted and relate to promotion and marketing. As an alternative, in recent years many states, especially in the Midwest have created initiatives to
finance various farmer owned food processing enterprises, often referred to as value- added agriculture.32
83
SPC Poverty
A2 States CP Fed Key to Resources

Federal action on food assistance is key to acquiring necessary resources to solve
Hamilton, director of the Agricultural Law Center @ Drake University, 2002
Neil D. Hamilton, Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Agricultural Law Center @ Drake University, Summer 2002, PUTTING A FACE ON
OUR FOOD: HOW STATE AND LOCAL FOOD POLICIES CAN PROMOTE THE NEW AGRICULTURE, in Drake Journal of Agricultural Law
There is perhaps no more emotional and troubling social issue than the question of hunger . Recent studies indicating
hunger and food insecurity continue to exist in our nation are cause for public concern.37 Developing effective initiatives to
respond to hunger and address the underlying causes of it continues to challenge both the public and private sectors in our nation.38 Addressing hunger and food assistance is somewhat like the development of farm programs . While the impacts of the problem are experience by
individuals at a local level, the public resources and responsibility for addressing the issues have been primarily assigned to
the federal government. The development and funding for food stamps , the WIC program, school lunches, elderly meals,
donations of surplus commodities, and similar programs are all done at the federal level .39 The dominant role given federal
efforts reflects the issue being a national priority, the magnitude of the expenditures needed, and the need for or
value of uniformity in response. The sad truth is that even with over $35 billion spent each year, combined with significant private efforts, ten
percent of households in the nation, about ten million, still experience food insecurity.40
84
SPC Poverty
A2 Private Charities CP Block

1. Private charities cant spur local economies like the federal government the food stamps
program is more advantageous in terms of economic support
2. The New Mexico Fiscal Policy Project evidence indicates that the Federal Government is
the most effective means of combating food insecurity. There is no competition between
private charities and the food stamps program federal governmental aid, when done
right, is always superior
3. The Federal Government is a better actor: The effects of the plan would be more far
reaching, better funded, and quicker due to inherent advantages the plan would have.
Emergency type financing, federal oversight and monitoring these are things that the
affirmative uniquely provides
85

Bronze Teeth Aff - Food Stampsv3.1

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Bronze Teeth Aff - Food Stampsv3.1

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

SPC Poverty

<Food Stamps Aff v.3.Steel Teeth>

Food Stamps Aff Steel Teeth 3.1

<Food Stamps Aff v.3.Steel Teeth>

<Food Stamps Aff v.3.Steel Teeth>

<Food Stamps Aff v.3.Steel Teeth>

1AC Contention 1: The Status Quo

<Food Stamps Aff v.3.Steel Teeth>

1AC Contention 1: The Status Quo

<Food Stamps Aff v.3.Steel Teeth>

<Food Stamps Aff v.3.Steel Teeth>

1AC Contention 2: Solvency

<Food Stamps Aff v.3.Steel Teeth>

1AC Contention 3: Food Insecurity

These included the food stamp program ,

by cuts to child nutrition programs.

<Food Stamps Aff v.3.Steel Teeth>

1AC Contention 3: Food Insecurity

people die from malnutrition

only because it is the present concern, and

the whole way we look at moral issues

<Food Stamps Aff v.3.Steel Teeth>

1AC Contention 4: Economy

January 8th, 2010,

job losses in December went back into negative territory, with

manufacturing and construction showing losses.

2. Food Stamps stabilize the economy in three unique ways:

<Food Stamps Aff v.3.Steel Teeth>

1AC Contention 4: Economy

the stimulus is not only too little but also

V. AUTOMATIC STABILIZERS Public

<Food Stamps Aff v.3.Steel Teeth>

1AC Contention 4: Economy

<Food Stamps Aff v.3.Steel Teeth>

<Food Stamps Aff v.3.Steel Teeth>

Inherency Eligible People Up

<Food Stamps Aff v.3.Steel Teeth>

Inherency Funding Increases Inevitable

several of the policies implemented during

the 1990s to reform the Food Stamp Program have influenced

the recent changes in the food stamp caseload . For

funding should be increased in response to

negative economic conditions

<Food Stamps Aff v.3.Steel Teeth>

Inherency A2 Policy Changes

<Food Stamps Aff v.3.Steel Teeth>

Inherency A2 Kabbani and Wilde Contradict

<Food Stamps Aff v.3.Steel Teeth>

Inherency States Assign Recertification Periods

<Food Stamps Aff v.3.Steel Teeth>

Solvency Short Recertification Decreases Participation

Short recertification periods significantly decrease participation

<Food Stamps Aff v.3.Steel Teeth>

Solvency Quality Control Discourages Working Families

<Food Stamps Aff v.3.Steel Teeth>

Solvency Application Process Reduces Participation

<Food Stamps Aff v.3.Steel Teeth>

Solvency Food Stamps Key to Social Safety Net

<Food Stamps Aff v.3.Steel Teeth>

<Food Stamps Aff v.3.Steel Teeth>

The Electronic Benefits Transfer system is a check against stigma

Electronic Benefit Cards (EBTs),

<Food Stamps Aff v.3.Steel Teeth>

Food Security Food Stamps Solve