WASHINGTON (NEXSTAR) – A partisan debate is heating up in Congress over whether to impose stricter work requirements on adults who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as SNAP.
Republicans argue the food assistance program is in need of reform and say tightening work rules for able-bodied adults without dependents will save taxpayer dollars and encourage self-sufficiency.
Democrats, however, warn the proposed changes would punish vulnerable Americans already struggling to afford basic needs.
“I think we can all agree that we don’t want to see American families go hungry,” said Rep. Mike Bost (R-Ill.) during a House hearing this week. But beyond that, there was little bipartisan consensus.
Democrats accused Republicans of targeting low-income Americans while ignoring broader economic pressures like inflation and wage stagnation.
“Let me get this straight,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). “You guys tanked the economy. You drive up food prices, and your solution is to cut food assistance for people who already struggle to afford food.”
McGovern called the proposal “insane,” comparing it to “setting the house on fire and slashing the fire department’s budget at the same time.”
Current federal law requires able-bodied adults aged 18 to 54 without dependents to work at least 20 hours per week to continue receiving SNAP benefits after three months btut Republicans say too many states are exploiting waivers that allow individuals to bypass the requirement.
“According to the USDA, only 28% of non-disabled adults without dependents who are subject to work requirements are working,” Bost said. “Forty percent of all able-bodied adults currently live under a state waiver of work requirements, including in my home state of Illinois.”
Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) defended the GOP stance, saying work is “a positive force in people’s lives.”
A panel of policy experts offered opposing views on the issue.
Angela Rachidi, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, backed the proposed changes.
“We have a lot of evidence showing that employment is financially beneficial to households, as well as non-financial in terms of the dignity of work and social networks,” she said.
Dr. Diane Schanzenbach, an economist at Northwestern University, said stricter rules could do more harm than good.
“SNAP work requirements do not address the problems these individuals face in obtaining stable employment,” she said.
Republicans are expected to push for these changes in an upcoming budget reconciliation package, which could include sweeping cuts across federal programs.
