SNAP logo

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)^[1] provides financial assistance for food purchasing to low- and no-income people and families living in the U.S. It is a federal aid program, administered by the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but benefits are distributed by the individual U.S. states. It is historically and commonly known as the Food Stamp Program.

In the 2010 fiscal year, $65 billion in food stamps were distributed, with an average benefit per recipient in a household of $133 per month.^[2] As of October 2011^[update], 46,224,722 Americans were receiving food stamps.^[3] In Washington, D.C., and Mississippi, more than one-fifth of residents receive food stamps.^[4] Recipients must have at most near-poverty incomes to qualify for benefits.^[5]

Since June 2004, all states have used Electronic Benefit Transfer (debit card) for all food-stamp benefits.^[6] For most of its history, however, the program actually used paper-denominated stamps or coupons worth US$1 (brown), $5 (blue), and $10 (green). These stamps could be used to purchase any prepackaged edible foods regardless of nutritional value (for example soft drinks and confectionery could be purchased on food stamps). In the late 1990s, the food-stamp program was revamped and actual stamps were phased out in favor of a specialized debit-card system known as Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) provided by private contractors. Many states merged the use of the EBT card for public-assistance welfare programs as well. The 2008 farm bill renamed the Food Stamp Program as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (as of October 2008), and replaced all references to "stamp" or "coupon" in federal law to "card" or "EBT."^[7][8]

History[link]

First Food Stamp Program (FSP) (May 16, 1939—Spring 1943)[link]

The idea for the first FSP has been credited to various people, most notably U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace and the program's first administrator, Milo Perkins. Of the program, Perkins said, "We got a picture of a gorge, with farm surpluses on one cliff and under-nourished city folks with outstretched hands on the other. We set out to find a practical way to build a bridge across that chasm." The program operated by permitting people on relief to buy orange stamps equal to their normal food expenditures; for every US$1 worth of orange stamps purchased, fifty-cents' worth of blue stamps were received. Orange stamps could be used to buy any food; blue stamps could be used only to buy food determined by the Department to be surplus. Over the course of nearly four years, the first FSP reached approximately 20 million people at one time or another in nearly half of the counties in the U.S. at a total cost of $262 million. At its peak, the program assisted 4 million people simultaneously. The first recipient was Mabel McFiggin of Rochester, New York; the first retailer to redeem the stamps was Joseph Mutolo; and the first retailer caught violating program rules was Nick Salzano in October 1939. The program ended when the conditions that brought the program into being (unmarketable food surpluses and widespread unemployment) no longer existed.

Pilot Food Stamp Program (1961—1964)[link]

The eighteen years between the end of the first FSP and the inception of the next were filled with studies, reports and legislative proposals. Prominent U.S. Senators actively associated with attempts to enact a food stamp program during this period are George Aiken, Robert M. La Follette, Jr., Hubert Humphrey, Estes Kefauver and Stuart Symington. From 1954 on, U.S. Representative Leonor Sullivan strove unceasingly to pass food-stamp-program legislation. On September 21, 1959, P.L. 86-341 authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to operate a food-stamp system through January 31, 1962. The Eisenhower Administration never used the authority. However, in fulfillment of a campaign promise made in West Virginia, President John F. Kennedy's first Executive Order called for expanded food distribution and, on February 2, 1961, he announced that food stamp pilot programs would be initiated. The pilot programs would retain the requirement that the food stamps be purchased, but eliminated the concept of special stamps for surplus foods. A Department spokesman indicated the emphasis would be on increasing the consumption of perishables.

Mr. and Mrs. Alderson Muncy of Paynesville, West Virginia, were the first food stamp recipients on May 29, 1961. They purchased US$95 worth of food using food stamps for their 15-person household. In the first food stamp transaction, they bought a can of pork and beans at Henderson's Supermarket. By January 1964, the pilot programs had expanded from eight areas to 43 (40 counties, Detroit, Michigan, St. Louis, Missouri, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) in 22 States with 380,000 participants.

Of the program, U.S. Representative Leonor K. Sullivan of Missouri asserted, "...the Department of Agriculture seemed bent on outlining a possible food stamp plan of such scope and magnitude, involving some 25 million persons, as to make the whole idea seem ridiculous and tear food stamp plans to smithereens."^[9]

Food Stamp Act of 1964[link]

The Food Stamp Act of 1964 appropriated $75 million to 350,000 individuals in 40 counties and three cities. The measure drew overwhelming support from House Democrats, 90 percent from urban areas, 96 percent from the suburbs, and 87 percent from rural areas. Republican lawmakers opposed the initial measure: only 12 percent of urban Republicans, 11 percent from the suburbs, and 5 percent from rural areas voted affirmatively. President Lyndon B. Johnson hailed food stamps as "a realistic and responsible step toward the fuller and wiser use of an agricultural abundance."^[10][11]

Rooted in congressional logrolling, the act was part of a larger appropriation that raised price supports for cotton and wheat. Rural lawmakers supported the program so that their urban colleagues would not dismantle farm subsidies. Food stamps, along with Medicaid, Head Start, and the Job Corps were foremost among the growing anti-poverty programs.^[10]

President Johnson called for a permanent food-stamp program on January 31, 1964. Agriculture Secretary Orville Freeman submitted the legislation on April 17, 1964. The bill eventually passed by Congress was H.R. 10222, introduced by Congresswoman Sullivan. One of the members on the House Committee on Agriculture who voted against the FSP in Committee was then Representative Bob Dole. As a Senator, Dole became a staunch supporter of the program. The law was intended to strengthen the agricultural economy and provide improved levels of nutrition among low-income households; however, the practical purpose was to bring the pilot FSP under congressional control and to enact the regulations into law.

The major provisions were:

• The State Plan of Operation requirement and development of eligibility standards by States;
• They required that the recipients should purchase their food stamps, while paying the average money spent on food then receiving an amount of food stamps representing an opportunity more nearly to obtain a low-cost nutritionally adequate diet;
• The eligibility for purchase with food stamps of all items intended for human consumption except alcoholic beverages and imported foods (the House version would have prohibited the purchase of soft drinks, luxury foods, and luxury frozen foods);
• Prohibitions against discrimination on bases of race, religious creed, national origin, or political beliefs;
• The division of responsibilities between States (certification and issuance) and the Federal Government (funding of benefits and authorization of retailers and wholesalers), with shared responsibility for funding costs of administration; and
• Appropriations for the first year limited to $75 million; for the second year, to $100 million; and, for the third year, to $200 million.

The Agriculture Department estimated that participation in a national FSP would eventually reach 4 million, at a cost of $360 million annually, far below the actual numbers.

Program expansion: participation milestones in the 1960s and early 1970s[link]

In April 1965, participation topped half a million. (Actual participation was 561,261 people.) Participation topped 1 million in March 1966, 2 million in October 1967, 3 million in February 1969, 4 million in February 1970, 5 million one month later in March 1970, 6 million two months later in May 1970, 10 million in February 1971, and 15 million in October 1974. Rapid increases in participation during this period were primarily due to geographic expansion.

Major legislative changes (early 1970s)[link]

The early 1970s were a period of growth in participation, concern about the cost of providing food stamp benefits, and questions about administration, primarily timely certification. During this time, the issue was framed that would dominate food stamp legislation ever after: How to balance program access with program accountability. Three major pieces of legislation shaped this period, leading up to massive reform to follow:

P.L. 91-671 (January 11, 1971) established uniform national standards of eligibility and work requirements; required that allotments be equivalent to the cost of a nutritionally adequate diet; limited households' purchase requirements to 30 percent of their income; instituted an outreach requirement; authorized the Agriculture Department to pay 62.5 percent of specific administrative costs incurred by States; expanded the FSP to Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands of the United States; and provided $1.75 billion appropriations for Fiscal Year 1971.

Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-86, August 10, 1973) required States to expand the program to every political jurisdiction before July 1, 1974; expanded the program to drug addicts and alcoholics in treatment and rehabilitation centers; established semi-annual allotment adjustments, SSI cash-out, and bi-monthly issuance; introduced statutory complexity in the income definition (by including in-kind payments and providing an accompanying exception); and required the Department to establish temporary eligibility standards for disasters.

P.L. 93-347 (July 12, 1974) authorized the Department to pay 50 percent of all states' costs for administering the program and established the requirement for efficient and effective administration by the States.

1974 nationwide program[link]

In accordance with P.L. 93-86, the FSP began operating nationwide on July 1, 1974. (The program not fully implemented in Puerto Rico until November 1, 1974.) Participation for July 1974 was almost 14 million.

Eligible access to Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries[link]

Once a person is a beneficiary of the Supplemental Security Income Program he (or she) may be automatically eligible for Food Stamps depending on his (or her) state’s laws. How much money in food stamps they receive also varies by state. Supplemental Security Income was created in 1974.^[12]

Food Stamp Act of 1977[link]

Both the outgoing Republican Administration and the new Democratic Administration offered Congress proposed legislation to reform the FSP in 1977. The Republican bill stressed targeting benefits to the neediest, simplifying administration, and tightening controls on the program; the Democratic bill focused on increasing access to those most in need and simplifying and streamlining a complicated and cumbersome process that delayed benefit delivery as well as reducing errors, and curbing abuse. The chief force for the Democratic Administration was Robert Greenstein, Administrator of FNS; in Congress, major players were Senators George McGovern, Jacob Javits, Humphrey, and Dole and Congressmen Foley and Richmond. Amid all the themes, the one that became the rallying cry for FSP reform was "EPR"—eliminate the purchase requirement—because of the barrier to participation the purchase requirement represented. The bill that became the law (S. 275) did eliminate the purchase requirement. It also:

• eliminated categorical eligibility;
• established statutory income eligibility guidelines at the poverty line;
• established 10 categories of excluded income;
• reduced the number of deductions used to calculate net income and established a standard deduction to take the place of eliminated deductions;
• raised the general resource limit to $1,750;
• established the fair market value (FMV) test for evaluating vehicles as resources;
• penalized households whose heads voluntarily quit jobs;
• restricted eligibility for students and aliens;
• eliminated the requirement that households must have cooking facilities;
• replaced store due bills with cash change up to 99 cents;
• established the principle that stores must sell a substantial amount of staple foods if they are to be authorized;
• established the ground rules for Indian Tribal Organization administration of the FSP on reservations; and
• introduced demonstration project authority.

In addition to EPR, the Food Stamp Act of 1977 included several access provisions:

• using mail, telephone, or home visits for certification;
• requirements for outreach, bilingual personnel and materials, and nutrition education materials;
• recipients' right to submit applications the first day they attempt to do so;
• 30-day processing standard and inception of the concept of expedited service;
• SSI joint processing and coordination with AFDC;
• notice, recertification, and retroactive benefit protections; and
• a requirement for States to develop a disaster plan.

The integrity provisions of the new program included fraud disqualifications, enhanced Federal funding for States' anti-fraud activities, and financial incentives for low error rates.

The House Report for the 1977 legislation points out that the changes in the Food Stamp Program are needed without reference to upcoming welfare reform since "the path to welfare reform is, indeed, rocky...."

EPR was implemented January 1, 1979. Participation that month increased 1.5 million over the preceding month.

Cutbacks of the early 1980s[link]

The large and expensive FSP proved to be a favorite subject of close scrutiny from both the Executive Branch and Congress in the early 1980s. Major legislation in 1981 and 1982 enacted cutbacks including:

• addition of a gross income eligibility test in addition to the net income test for most households;
• temporary freeze on adjustments of the shelter deduction cap and the standard deduction and constraints on future adjustments;
• annual adjustments in food stamp allotments rather than semi-annual;
• consideration of non-elderly parents who live with their children and non-elderly siblings who live together as one household;
• required periodic reporting and retrospective budgeting;
• prohibition against using Federal funds for outreach;
• replacing the FSP in Puerto Rico with a block grant for nutrition assistance;
• counting retirement accounts as resources;
• State option to require job search of applicants as well as participants; and
• increased disqualification periods for voluntary quitters.

Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) began in Reading, Pennsylvania, in 1984.

Mid-to-late 1980s[link]

Recognition of the severe domestic hunger problem in the latter half of the 1980s led to incremental expansions of the FSP in 1985 and 1987, such as elimination of sales tax on food stamp purchases, reinstitution of categorical eligibility, increased resource limit for most households ($2,000), eligibility for the homeless, and expanded nutrition education. The Hunger Prevention Act of 1988 and the Mickey Leland Memorial Domestic Hunger Relief Act in 1990 foretold the improvements that would be coming. The 1988 and 1990 legislation accomplished the following:

• increasing benefits by applying a multiplication factor to Thrifty Food Plan costs;
• making outreach an optional activity for States;
• excluding advance earned income tax credits as income;
• simplifying procedures for calculating medical deductions;
• instituting periodic adjustments of the minimum benefit;
• authorizing nutrition education grants;
• establishing severe penalties for violations by individuals or participating firms; and
• establishing EBT as an issuance alternative.

Throughout this era, significant players were principally various committee chairmen: Congressmen Leland, Hall, Foley, Leon Panetta, and de la Garza and Senator Patrick Leahy.

1993 Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act[link]

By 1993, major changes in food stamp benefits had arrived. The final legislation provided for $2.8 billion in benefit increases over Fiscal Years 1984-1988. Leon Panetta, in his new role as OMB Director, played a major role as did Senator Leahy. Substantive changes included:

• eliminating the shelter deduction cap beginning January 1, 1997;
• providing a deduction for legally binding child support payments made to nonhousehold members;
• raising the cap on the dependent care deduction from $160 to $200 for children under 2 years old and $175 for all other dependents;
• improving employment and training (E&T) dependent care reimbursements;
• increasing the FMV test for vehicles to $4,550 on September 1, 1994 and $4,600 on October 1, 1995, then annually adjusting the value from $5,000 on October 1, 1996;
• mandating asset accumulation demonstration projects; and
• simplifying the household definition.

Later participation milestones[link]

In December 1979, participation finally surpassed 20 million. In March 1994, participation hit a new high of 28 million.

1996 Welfare Reform and subsequent amendments[link]

The mid-1990s was a period of welfare reform. Prior to 1996, the rules for the cash welfare program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), were waived for many states. With the enactment of the 1996 welfare reform act, called the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), AFDC, an entitlement program, was replaced that with a new block grant to states called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).

Although the Food Stamp Program was reauthorized in the 1996 Farm Bill, the 1996 welfare reform made several changes to the program, including:

• eliminating eligibility to food stamps of most legal immigrants who had been in the country less than five years;
• placing a time limit on food stamp receipt of three out of 36 months for Able-bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs) who are not working at least 20 hours a week or participating in a work program;
• reducing the maximum allotments to 100 percent of the change in the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) from 103 percent of the change in the TFP;
• freezing the standard deduction, the vehicle limit, and the minimum benefit;
• setting the shelter cap at graduated specified levels up to $300 by fiscal year 2001, and allowing states to mandate the use of the standard utility allowance;
• revising provisions for disqualification, including comparable disqualification with other means-tested programs; and
• requiring states to implement EBT before October 1, 2002.

As a result of all these changes, "participation rates plummeted" in the late 1990s, according to Slate online magazine.^{[13][quantify]}

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) and the Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Act of 1998 (AREERA) made some changes to these provisions, most significantly:

• using additional Employment and Training (E&T) funds to providing work program opportunities for able-bodied adults without dependents;
• allowing states to exempt up to 15 percent of the able-bodied adults without dependents who would otherwise be ineligible;
• restoring eligibility for certain elderly, disabled and minor immigrants who resided in the United States when the 1996 welfare reform act was enacted; and
• cutting administrative funding for states to account for certain administrative costs that previously had been allocated to the AFDC program and now were required to be allocated to the Food Stamp Program.

The fiscal year 2001 agriculture appropriations bill included two significant changes. The legislation increased the excess shelter cap to $340 in fiscal year 2001 and then indexed the cap to changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Consumers each year beginning in fiscal year 2002. The legislation also allowed states to use the vehicle limit they use in a TANF assistance program, if it would be result in a lower attribution of resources for the household.

Impact[link]

Participants[link]

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (based on a study of data gathered in Fiscal Year 2010), statistics for the food stamp program are as follows:^[14]

• 49% of all participants are children (17 or younger), and 49% of them live in single-parent households.
• 15% of all participants are elderly (age 60 or over).
• 20% of all participants are non-elderly disabled people.
• The average gross monthly income per food stamp household is $731; The average net income is $336.
• 36% of participants are White; 22% are African-American, not Hispanic; 10% are Hispanic; 2% are Asian, 4% are Native American, and 19% are of unknown race or ethnicity.^[14]

An annual report released by the Department of Agriculture about the composition of households participating in the Food Stamp Program is identified as the Characteristics Report.^[15]

Aside from nutritional assistance, SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) funds can also be used to provide recipients with education and training and career pathways programs.^[16] SNAP outreach funds can also be integrated with screening tools for other public benefit programs.^[17]

Fraud and abuse[link]

According to the Government Accountability Office, at a 2009 count, 4.36% of food stamps benefits were found to be overpaid, down from 9.86% in 1999.^[18] A 2003 analysis found that two-thirds of all improper payments were the fault of the caseworker, not the participant.^[18] There are also instances of fraud involving exchange of food stamp benefits for cash and/or for items not eligible for purchase with food stamps.^[19] In 2011, the Michigan program was revised after it was discovered that about 26,000 full-time college students were receiving monthly food stamp benefits.^[20]

In Maine, extremely isolated incidents of recycling fraud have occurred in the past where individuals once committed fraud by using their EBT to buy canned or bottled beverages (requiring a deposit to be paid at the point of purchase for each beverage container), dump the contents out so the empty beverage container could be returned for deposit redemption, and thereby, allowed these individuals to eventually purchase non-EBT authorized products with cash from the beverage container deposits. The Maine Office of Health and Community Services changed agency regulations pertaining to the EBT purchase of eligible items in beverage containers and now requires that Maine General Assistance recipients to pay the entire cost of their beverage container deposits with their own money.^[21]

Housing expenditure[link]

The lack of affordable housing in urban areas means that money that would have been spent on food is spent on housing expenses. Housing is generally considered affordable when it costs 30% or less of total household income; rising housing costs have made this ideal difficult to attain.

This is especially true in New York City, where 28% of rent stabilized tenants spend more than half their income on rent.^[22] Among lower income families the percentage is much higher. According to an estimate by the Community Service Society, 65% of New York City families living below the federal poverty line are paying more than half of their income toward rent.^[23]

The current eligibility criteria attempt to address this, by including a deduction for "excess shelter costs." This applies only to households that spend more than half of their net income on rent. For the purpose of this calculation, a household's net income is obtained by subtracting certain deductions from their gross (before deductions) income. If the household's total expenditures on rent exceed 50% of that net income, then the net income is further reduced by the amount of rent that exceeds 50% of net income. For 2007, this deduction can be no more than $417, except in households that include an elderly or disabled person.^[24] Deductions include:

1. a standard deduction that is subtracted from income for all recipients,
2. an earned income deduction reflecting taxes and work expenses,
3. a deduction for dependent care expenses related to work or training (up to certain limits),
4. a deduction for child support payments,
5. a deduction for medical expenses above a set amount per month (only available to elderly and disabled recipients), and
6. a deduction for excessively high shelter expenses.^[25]

The adjusted net income, including the deduction for excess shelter costs, is used to determine whether a household is eligible for food stamps.

Income maintenance[link]

The purpose of the Food Stamp Program as laid out in its implementation was to assist low-income households in obtaining adequate and nutritious diets. According to Peter H. Rossi, a prominent sociologist whose work involved evaluation of social programs, "the program rests on the assumption that households with restricted incomes may skimp on food purchases and live on diets that are inadequate in quantity and quality, or, alternatively skimp on other necessities to maintain an adequate diet".^[26] Food stamps, as many like Rossi, MacDonald and Eisinger contend, are used not only for increasing food but also as income maintenance. Income Maintenance is money that households are able to spend on other things because they no longer have to spend it on food. The FSP is meant solely to increase food purchases, not to act as a tool of income maintenance.

According to various studies shown by Rossi, because of income maintenance only about $0.17–$0.47 more is being spent on food for every food stamp dollar than was spent prior to individuals receiving food stamps.^[27]

Nutritional improvement[link]

Another benefit sometimes attributed to the Food Stamp Program is that it makes nutritious food more readily available.

According to the National Food Consumption Survey individuals in food stamp households do not differ significantly from those living in non-recipient households in the nutritional quality of the food eaten. As a result, Rossi argues that this objective is not being met.^[28] However, other studies found that that lack of nutritional improvement was a result of selection bias where only those most in need of nutritional supplement took advantage of the program and therefore the nutritional gains of these participants were not seen in the data.^[29]

Nutritional standards[link]

Unlike other federal programs that provide food subsidies, SNAP does not have nutritional standards. In October 2010, New York City proposed excluding sweetened beverages from the program, but federal officials rejected the pilot program.^[30]

Overweight and obesity issues[link]

A criticism of SNAP is that participants often have to compromise food choices for options higher in sugar, fat, and preservatives because healthy alternatives are not always affordable. SNAP participants consume less produce and healthy options and purchase at least 40% more sugar-sweetened beverages than any other consumer group.^[31] Maximilian Schmeiser, an economist with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, noted that each additional year of SNAP participation increases the BMI of women and men by 1.6 BMI points (2009). The Economics and Human Biology journal uses an example that an average American woman, 5 feet 4 inches tall, will be 5.8 pounds (2.6 kg) heavier if she is on SNAP than someone who is SNAP eligible, but not receiving food assistance.^[32] Another contributing factor to overweight and obesity issues in SNAP participants may be the lack of access participants have to healthy option because low-income areas are more often served with mini-marts that sell chips and soda as opposed to grocery stores^[33] that sell a more diverse variety of foods. A review of the evidence from a variety of disciplines reports that only for women using SNAP long term is there a consistent association between excess weight and food assistance.^[34] This same study also reports evidence that causality may also run the other direction, obesity can lead to poverty and thus eligibility for SNAP. Furthermore,other factors, for example disability or abuse, can lead to both obesity and low income.

Macroeconomic effect[link]

Like other forms of government spending, SNAP, by putting money into people's hands, increases aggregate demand and stimulates the economy. In congressional testimony given in July 2008, Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Economy.com, provided estimates of the one-year fiscal multiplier effect for several fiscal policy options, and found that a temporary increase in SNAP was the most effective, with an estimated multiplier of 1.73.^[35] In 2011, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack gave a slightly higher estimate: "Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity."^[36] Vilsack's estimate was based on a 2002 George W. Bush-era USDA study which found that "Ultimately, the additional $5 billion of FSP (Food Stamp Program) expenditures triggered an increase in total economic activity (production, sales, and value of shipments) of $9.2 billion and an increase in jobs of 82,100," or $1.84 stimulus for every dollar spent.^[37]

Healthy Incentives Pilot[link]

Background[link]

The 2008 Farm Bill authorized $20 million to be spent on pilot projects to determine whether incentives provided to SNAP recipients at the point-of-sale would increase the purchase of fruits, vegetables, or other healthful foods.^[38] Fifteen states expressed interest in having the pilot program and, ultimately, five states submitted applications to be considered for HIP. Hampden County, Massachusetts was selected as the Healthy Incentives Pilot (HIP) site. HIP is designed to take place from August 2010 to April 2013 with the actual operation phase of the pilot program scheduled to last 15 months, from November 2011 to January 2013.^[39]

HIP offers select SNAP recipients a 30% subsidy on produce, which is credited to the participant’s EBT card, for 15 months. 7,500 households will participate HIP and an equal number will not; the differences between the two groups will be analyzed to see the effects of the program.^[40] Produce, under the HIP, is defined as fresh, frozen, canned, or dried fruits and vegetables that do not have any added sugar, salt, fat, or oil.

Impact on SNAP participants[link]

Fruits and vegetables are higher in both nutritional value and price, making it difficult for SNAP recipients to purchase regularly, limiting their access to healthy options. The subsidy would give participants more purchasing power while not restricting “bad”, unhealthy foods. Such subsidies encourage sellers to offer more fresh produce at locations that previously did not carry them. This increases access for the SNAP recipients and may further encourage healthy eating habits.

Administrative responsibility[link]

The Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA) is the state agency responsible for SNAP. DTA has recruited retailers to take part in HIP and sell more produce, planned for the EBT system change with the state EBT vendor, and hired six new staff members dedicated to HIP. DTA has agreed to provide FNS with monthly reports, data collection and evaluation.

See also[link]

• Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2007 Farm Bill)
• Food stamp challenge
• Lone Star Card (Texas Electronic Benefit Transfer)
• National School Lunch Act
• Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
• Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973)
• Lyng v. Castillo, 477 U.S. 635 (1986)

References[link]

In text:

General:

• United States Department of Health and Human Services, "2002 Indicators of Welfare Dependence Appendix A: Program Data: Food Stamp Program"
• Article based on the USDA Web publication: A Short History of the Food Stamp Program
• Eisinger, Peter K. Toward an end to hunger in America. Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1998.
• MacDonald, Maurice. Food, Stamps, and Income Maintenance. New York: Academic Pres, Inc, 1977.
• Gundersen, Craig; LeBlanc, Michael; Kuhn, Betsey, "The Changing Food Assistance Landscape: The Food Stamp Program in a Post-Welfare Reform Environment, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economics Report No. (AER773) 36 pp, March 1999

External links[link]

• Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) at Food and Nutrition Service
• History of the Food Stamp Program video from Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the United States Department of Agriculture.

v t e Agencies under the United States Department of Agriculture Headquarters: Jamie L. Whitten Building Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture · Kathleen Merrigan, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services Farm Service Agency · Foreign Agricultural Service · Risk Management Agency · Commodity Credit Corporation · Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment Forest Service · Natural Resources Conservation Service · Office of Environmental Markets Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development Rural Housing Service · Rural Utilities Service · Rural Business-Cooperative Service Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services Food and Nutrition Service · Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education, and Economics Agricultural Research Service · Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service · Economic Research Service · National Agricultural Library · National Agricultural Statistics Service Under Secretary of Agriculture for Marketing and Regulatory Programs Agricultural Marketing Service · Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service · Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

Paul Ryan
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Wisconsin's 1st district
Incumbent
Assumed office January 3, 1999
Preceded by	Mark Neumann
Chairman of the House Committee on the Budget
Incumbent
Assumed office January 3, 2011
Preceded by	John Spratt
Personal details
Born	Paul Davis Ryan (1970-01-29) January 29, 1970 (age 42) Janesville, Wisconsin
Political party	Republican
Spouse(s)	Janna Ryan
Children	Elizabeth, Charles, and Samuel
Residence	Janesville, Wisconsin
Alma mater	Miami University (B.A.)
Religion	Roman Catholic
Website	U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan

Paul Davis Ryan^[1] (born January 29, 1970) is the U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's 1st congressional district, serving since 1999. He is a member of the Republican Party, and has been ranked among the party's most influential voices on economic policy.^[2][3][4]

Born and raised in Janesville, Wisconsin, Ryan graduated from Miami University in Ohio and later worked as a marketing consultant for Ryan Incorporated Central, run by a branch of his family. In the mid to late 1990s, he worked as an aide to United States Senator Bob Kasten, as legislative director for Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, and as a speechwriter for former U.S. Representative and 1996 Republican vice presidential nominee Jack Kemp of New York. In 1998, Ryan won election to the United States House of Representatives, succeeding the two-term incumbent, fellow Republican Mark Neumann.

Ryan currently chairs the House Budget Committee, where he has played a prominent public role in drafting and promoting the Republican Party's long-term budget proposal. He introduced a plan, The Path to Prosperity, in April 2011 as an alternative to the budget proposal of President Barack Obama, and helped introduce The Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal in March 2012, in response to Obama's 2013 budget.^[5] Ryan is one of the three co-founders of the Young Guns Program, an electoral recruitment and campaign effort by House Republicans. He endorsed Republican presidential candidate and former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney for the 2012 United States presidential election.^[6] Ryan has been considered as a possible running mate for Romney.^[7]

Early life, education, and career[link]

Ryan was born and raised in Janesville, Wisconsin, the youngest child of Elizabeth A. "Betty" (née Hutter) and Paul Murray Ryan, a lawyer.^[8][9][10] He is of Irish and German ancestry,^[11] and is a fifth-generation Janesville native. Ryan's great-grandfather is Patrick William Ryan, who founded the Ryan Incorporated Central construction business in 1884.^[12] Ryan's mother is an outdoors enthusiast who led her husband and four children (Ryan's sister Janet and two brothers, Tobin and Stan) on regular hiking and skiing trips in the Colorado Rocky Mountains.^[9][13] As a boy, Ryan attended Camp Manito-wish YMCA, a wilderness canoe tripping camp located in Boulder Junction, Wisconsin; while in college, he returned there to work as a staff member and counselor during summer vacation.

Ryan attended Joseph A. Craig High School in Janesville. In college, he briefly worked for Oscar Mayer as a Wienermobile driver.^[14] Ryan went on to graduate from Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, with a BA in economics and political science in 1992. He also studied at the Washington Semester program at American University and was a member of the Delta Tau Delta social fraternity. Following his studies, Ryan returned to Wisconsin and worked as a marketing consultant for an earth-moving company run by a branch of his family.^[13][15]

Ryan was 16 years old when he found his father in bed, dead from a heart attack at age 55. As a result, he received Social Security survivor's benefits until he turned 18. Ryan's grandfather and great-grandfather had also died from heart attacks, at ages 57 and 59 respectively.^[16]

Early political career[link]

In 2005, Ryan said, "The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand".^[17] New York magazine has claimed that Ryan requires his staff to read Atlas Shrugged.^[18] In 2012, however, he said that while as a young man he became interested in economics because of her novels, "It’s a big stretch to suggest that a person is therefore an Objectivist... I reject her philosophy. It's an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person's view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas. Don't give me Ayn Rand."^[19]

During his junior year at Miami University, Ryan worked as an intern opening mail for the foreign affairs advisor assigned to Senator Bob Kasten of Wisconsin.^[20] Concerned that her son "...was destined to become a ski bum", Betty Ryan reportedly nudged him to accept another congressional position as a staff economist attached to Kasten's office.^[20][21] In his early years working in D.C., Ryan moonlighted on Capitol Hill as a waiter at the Tortilla Coast restaurant and as a fitness trainer at Washington Sport and Health Club, among various other side jobs.^[22]

After Kasten was defeated by Democrat Russ Feingold in 1992, Ryan became a speechwriter and a volunteer economic analyst with Empower America, an advocacy group formed by Jack Kemp, former education secretary Bill Bennett, the late diplomat Jeane Kirkpatrick, and former Representative Vin Weber of Minnesota.^[16][23]

Ryan worked as a speechwriter for Kemp, the Republican vice presidential candidate in the 1996 United States presidential election, and later worked as legislative director for US Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas. Ryan then returned to Wisconsin, where he worked as a consultant to an earth-moving company.^{[citation needed]} In 1998, he ran for Congress.

U.S. House of Representatives[link]

Following his first election to the US House of Representatives in 1998, one of Ryan's priorities as a new congressman was to convert a truck into a rolling district office. This allowed him to keep regular congressional office hours with his constituents at various locations across Wisconsin's 1st congressional district.^[24][1]

In 2002, Ryan voted in favor of the Iraq War resolution, authorizing President George W. Bush to use military force in Iraq.^[25] In 2003 he voted in favor of the Medicare Part D prescription drug expansion.^[26]

In 2005, Ryan spoke at a Celebration of Ayn Rand event hosted by The Atlas Society. During the event, Ryan spoke about the influence of Atlas Shrugged on his life.^[27]

He is one of the three founding members of the House GOP Young Guns Program.

In 2008, Ryan voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the Wall Street bailout that precipitated the Tea Party movement, and the bailout of GM and Chrysler.^[28]

In 2010, The Daily Telegraph ranked Ryan the ninth most influential US conservative.^[2] In 2011, he was selected to deliver the Republican response to the State of the Union address.^[29]

In 2012, Ryan accused the nation's top military leaders of using "smoke and mirrors" to remain under budget limits passed by Congress.^[30] Ryan later said that he misspoke on the issue and called General Martin Dempsey to apologize for his comments.^[31]

Ryan's Second Budget Plan[link]

At the end of March 2012, the House of Representatives passed a newer version of Ryan's budget plan along partisan lines 228 yeas to 191 nays; ten Republicans voted against bill, along with all the House Democrats.^[32] Ryan's budget would reduce all discretionary spending in the budget from 12.5% of GDP in 2011 to 3.75% of GDP in 2050. This goal has been criticized as unrealistic since it includes spending on defense, which has never fallen below 3% of GDP.^[33] Congressman Justin Amash, a Republican from Michigan criticized Ryan's budget for insufficient cuts, its continuation of deficit spending through 2022 and beyond, and its exemption of military spending from reductions. ^[34] His budget has also been criticized because it would not balance the budget until 2035. Marc Goldwein, the policy directory for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget stated "We may never, as a country, have a balanced budget again, And you know what? We don't have to." Ryan saw this as evidence of the severity of the deficit crisis.^[35]

The 2012 Ryan budget also received criticism from elements of the Catholic Church, specifically from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and from faculty and administrators of Georgetown University. In its letter to Rep. Ryan, the group of Georgetown faculty and administrators criticized the Ryan budget as trying to "to dismantle government programs and abandon the poor to their own devices," going on to say that Catholic teaching "demands that higher levels of government provide help—"subsidium"—when communities and local governments face problems beyond their means to address such as economic crises, high unemployment, endemic poverty and hunger." The letter also criticizes Ryan for his attempts at "gutting government programs" and states that Ryan is "profoundly misreading Church teaching."^[36] A statement issued by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops criticized the Ryan budget in similar terms.^[37] Ryan rejects the bishops' criticism that his budget plans would disproportionately cut programs that "serve poor and vulnerable people."^[38] Ryan's difficulties with the Catholic Church worsened when videos of Ryan praising and endorsing the "morality" of Ayn Rand's hyper-individualist philosophy were published on Youtube in 2012. ^[39]

In May of 2012, Ryan voted for H.R. 4310 which would increase spending on defense, Afghanistan and various weapon systems to the level of $642 billion - $8 billion more than what was agreed to by President Obama and the Congress in the summer of 2011. ^[40]

Committee assignments[link]

• Committee on the Budget (Chairman)
• Committee on Ways and Means
  • Subcommittee on Health

Caucus memberships[link]

• Congressional Middle East Economic Partnership Caucus
• International Conservation Caucus
• Republican Study Committee
• Sportsmen's Caucus (Co-Chair)

Roadmap for America's Future[link]

Ryan speaking at CPAC in February 2011.

On May 21, 2008, Ryan introduced H.R. 6110, titled "Roadmap for America's Future Act of 2008."^[41] This proposed legislation outlined a plan to deal with entitlement spending.^[42] Its stated objectives were: to ensure universal access to health insurance; to strengthen Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; to lift debt from future generations; and to promote economic growth and job creation in America.^[43] Despite significant press coverage, it did not move past committee.^[44]

On April 1, 2009, Ryan introduced his alternative to the 2010 United States federal budget. This alternative budget would have eliminated the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, lowered the top tax rate to 25%, introduced an 8.5% value-added consumption tax, and imposed a five-year spending freeze on all discretionary spending.^[45] It would also have replaced Medicare.^[46] Instead, it proposed that starting in 2021, the federal government would pay part of the cost of private medical insurance for individuals turning 65.^[46] Ryan's proposed budget would also have allowed taxpayers to opt out of the federal income taxation system with itemized deductions, and instead pay a flat 10 percent of adjusted gross income up to $100,000 and 25 percent on any remaining income.^[47] Ryan's proposed budget was heavily criticized by opponents for the lack of concrete numbers.^[48] It was ultimately rejected in the house by a vote of 293-137, with 38 Republicans in opposition.^[49]

In late January 2010, Ryan released a new version of his Roadmap.^[50] The modified plan would: give across the board tax cuts by reducing income tax rates; eliminate income taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest; and abolish the corporate income tax, estate tax, and alternative minimum tax. The plan would privatize a portion of Social Security,^[51][52] eliminate the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance,^[52] and privatize Medicare.^[51][52]

On April 15, 2011, the House passed the Ryan Plan by a vote of 235-193. Four Republicans joined all House Democrats in voting against it.^[53] A month later, the bill died in the Senate by a vote of 57-40, with five Republicans and most Democrats in opposition.^[54]

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman criticized the contention that Ryan's plan would reduce the deficit, alleging that it only considered proposed spending cuts and failed to take into account tax changes. According to Krugman, Ryan's plan "would raise taxes for 95 percent of the population" and produce a $4 trillion revenue loss over ten years from tax cuts for the rich. Krugman went on to label the proposed spending cuts a "sham" because they depended on making a severe cut in domestic discretionary spending without specifying the programs to be cut, and on "dismantling Medicare as we know it," which is politically unrealistic.^[55]

In response to Krugman, economist and former American Enterprise Institute scholar Ted Gayer wrote a more positive assessment of the Ryan plan. Gayer agreed that, as written, the plan would cause a $4 trillion revenue shortfall over 10 years. He noted, however, that Ryan had expressed a willingness to consider raising rates in his tax plan.^{[clarification needed]} Gayer concluded that "Ryan’s vision of broad-based tax reform, which essentially would shift us toward a consumption tax... makes a useful contribution to this debate."^[56]

Journalist Ramesh Ponnuru, writing in National Review, argued that the revenue loss to which Krugman refers is based on a comparison between Ryan's plan and current law, which "includes middle-class tax increases... cuts in payment to Medicare providers... [and] the expansion of the Alternative Minimum Tax."^[57] He added that "current law automatically raises the tax rates to pre-Bush levels in 2013... so if you're comparing the tax level with current law, Ryan's plan represents a tax cut" and "the CBO's actual projections for the Ryan plan show a debt level in 2021 that is $4.7 trillion lower than its projections for Obama's budgets."^[57]

Rick Foster, the chief actuary of Medicare, endorsed Ryan's plan for reducing Medicare costs: "If you can put that pressure on the research and development community, you might have a fighting chance of changing the nature of new medical technology in a way that makes lower costs like this possible and more sustainable. I would say that the Roadmap has that potential. There is some potential for the Affordable Care Act price reductions, although I’m a little less confident about that."^[58]

In December 2011, it was revealed that Ryan would begin a new push for changes in Medicare in 2012 by working with Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon to modify Ryan's previous Medicare proposal. His most recent approach for semi-privatization of Medicare would keep traditional Medicare as an option for senior citizens, but would also introduce private insurance into an exchange market to compete with traditional Medicare. Seniors would still be given a voucher to purchase care if they so desired, as in his previous proposal. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has supported a similar plan in his campaign.^[59]

Opposition to SOPA[link]

On January 9, 2012, four months after the introduction of Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), Ryan pledged his opposition to the bill, saying, "The internet is one of the most magnificent expressions of freedom and free enterprise in history. It should stay that way. While H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act, attempts to address legitimate problems, I believe it creates the precedent and possibility for undue regulation, censorship and legal abuse. I do not support H.R. 3261 in its current form and will oppose the legislation should it come before the full House."^[60]

Political campaigns[link]

Ryan was first elected to the House in 1998, when two-term incumbent Mark Neumann retired from his seat in order to make an unsuccessful bid for the Senate. Ryan won both a Republican primary over 29-year-old pianist Michael J. Logan of Twin Lakes and the general election against Democratic opponent Lydia Spottswood.^[61] Ryan successfully defended his seat against Democratic challenger Jeffrey C. Thomas in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.^[62] In 2002, Ryan had also faced Libertarian candidate George Meyers.

2008[link]

Ryan defeated Democratic nominee Marge Krupp by a wide margin in the 2008 general election.^[62]

2010[link]

Ryan defeated both Democratic nominee John Heckenlively and Libertarian nominee Joseph Kexel by a wide margin in the 2010 general election.

Electoral history[link]

Personal life[link]

Ryan married Janna Little, a tax attorney,^[1] in December 2000.^[8] The Ryans live in Janesville with their three children Elizabeth Anne, Charles Wilson, and Samuel Lowery.^[63]

Ryan is a Catholic and is a member of St. John Vianney's Church.^[64]

Ryan is a fitness enthusiast and promotes fitness as a daily routine for young people. In 2009, his exercise program was based on the P90x fitness program.^[22]

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan

	Biography portal
	Politics portal
	Wisconsin portal

• Congressman Paul Ryan official U.S. House site
• Paul Ryan for U.S. Congress official campaign site
• A Roadmap for America's Future Paul Ryan's alternative to the United States federal budget
• Biography at WhoRunsGov.com at The Washington Post
• Biography at the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress
• Voting record maintained by The Washington Post
• Biography, voting record, and interest group ratings at Project Vote Smart
• Congressional profile at GovTrack
• Congressional profile at OpenCongress
• Issue positions and quotes at On the Issues
• Financial information at OpenSecrets.org
• Staff salaries, trips and personal finance at LegiStorm.com
• Campaign finance reports and data at the Federal Election Commission
• Appearances on C-SPAN programs
• Appearances on Charlie Rose
• Collected news and commentary at The New York Times
• Works by or about Paul Ryan in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
• Health Care Reform: The Long-Term Perspective at Cato Institute, June 2009
• Monitor Breakfast conversation on medicare voucher reform at Christian Science Monitor, December 2010

The following is a list of significant men and women known for being the father, mother, or considered the founders mostly in Western socities in a field, listed by category. In most non-science fields, the title of being the "father" is debatable.

Church[link]

Games[link]

Humanities[link]

Military[link]

Nations[link]

Natural and social sciences[link]

Sports[link]