Too Many People Are Going Hungry Right Now. Harris, Gillibrand, and Sanders Are Offering a Lifeline.

“Existing nutrition benefits don’t get people through the end of the month.”

Workers distribute food at a distribution event in FloridaWilfredo Lee/AP

The coronavirus is a rapidly developing news story, so some of the content in this article might be out of date. Check out our most recent coverage of the coronavirus crisis, and subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

As the novel coronavirus spreads through the country infecting nearly 850,000 people, killing more than 47,000, and shuttering businesses, the number of unemployed people has skyrocketed at rates not seen since the Great Depression in the 1930s. The massive spike in unemployment, with 22 million unemployed, has led to a crushing wave of people in desperate need of food; photos of families and individuals sitting in miles-long lines of cars waiting at food distribution centers in California, Michigan, and Florida have gone viral in the last several weeks.

In response to this unprecedented food crisis, senators Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have just introduced a bill that would expand access to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps.

“We are in the midst of a historic economic crisis—people are hurting,” Harris said. “They are struggling to put food on the table, and existing nutrition benefits don’t get people through the end of the month.”

In 2019, 38 million people received food assistance from the federal government, which averaged $448 for a family of four. Though advocates have long called for the benefit to be expanded, it remains a crucial lifeline for individuals and families living in poverty. It also boosts the economy by allowing people to purchase groceries and creates jobs in the food and trucking sector. 

The lawmakers’ Closing the Meal Gap Act would increase the benefit to individuals and families by 30 percent and allow territories like Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and Northern Mariana Islands to receive food assistance as an entitlement, instead of a block grant. Today, territories only receive grants, which are a fixed amount of money, while states receive entitlements that can be increased by the federal government based on need. Currently, able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 49 who have no dependents can only receive three months of assistance in a three-year time period unless they prove that they are working at least 20 hours a week. States with high unemployment rates can request waivers to exempt recipients from the three-month rule. The proposed legislation also strips away all work requirements for food assistance.

The Families First Coronavirus Act, passed by Congress and signed into law last month allows the US Department of Agriculture, which administers the program, to increase benefits during the public health emergency and temporarily suspends work requirements until one month after the crisis is over. Harris’ proposed bill seeks to make these changes permanent.

“The SNAP program provides a critical lifeline for food insecure families, but during this unprecedented crisis, the program needs more support than ever to meet the needs of every SNAP recipient,” said Gillibrand. “Not only must SNAP provide more benefits, but barriers to eligibility should also be limited in order to reach more families.”

The strict work requirements are often a burden on those needing food assistance, as I reported in December:

Despite conservative rhetoric, able-bodied adults without dependents who receive SNAP are some of the poorest Americans. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, their average income is 18 percent of the poverty line. Their average monthly SNAP benefits are approximately $165 a month. For many of them, because they are adults without children or other dependents, these are the only federal benefits they are eligible for.

Then there’s the problem of documenting seasonal and gig work. Many individuals who receive SNAP earn their incomes through a string of jobs in the gig economy, such as rideshare driving or one-day freelance projects. “It’s difficult to document that,” Hamler-Fugitt says. “Who’s supposed to certify that you’re working 20 hours?”

Last December, the Trump administration proposed a new rule that would make requesting waivers even more difficult. Advocates estimated that this would have kicked nearly 700,000 people off of the food stamp rolls beginning in April 2020. Last month, the Trump administration was still planning to implement the rule, despite COVID-19 having been declared a pandemic and businesses closing down:

At a budget request hearing at the House Committee of Appropriations on Tuesday, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) asked USDA Administrator Sonny Perdue if he had considered delaying the rule considering the public health emergency. Perdue responded that his agency had considered delaying but ultimately decided not to. Lee noted that wages in the US remain stagnant with many people are still struggling to find work. 

“If they can’t find work in an economy of 3.5 percent unemployment,” Perdue replied, “I’m not sure when they can.”

A few days after the hearing, however, a federal judge blocked the new rule, citing concern over the coronavirus. “As a global pandemic poses widespread health risks, guaranteeing that government officials at both the federal and state levels have flexibility to address the nutritional needs of residents and ensure their well-being through programs like SNAP, is essential,” Chief Judge Beryl Howell of the US District Court in Washington, DC, said. The Trump administration announced plans to appeal the decision.

In contrast, the proposed legislation aims to make SNAP more accessible. “We need to give people the resources they need to afford food during tough times,” Harris said. “No one in America should ever go hungry, especially during a public health crisis.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate