WASHINGTON — Ashanti Davis, who lives in St. Paul, is among thousands of Minnesotans who will soon face what for him is a tough choice – get a job or lose food stamp benefits.
As an adult without dependent children, Davis, 36, will soon be subject to work requirements that were lifted for the food stamp program during past three years because the pandemic. But the emergency declaration that paused the work requirement ended in February and they will be reinstated in July.
So about 32,500 Minnesotans like Davis will have to prove they work or attend a work training program for at least 80 hours a month to continue to receive benefits from the Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program (SNAP), the official name for food stamps. Otherwise, they can get the benefits for only three months within a three-year period.
“If I have to, I guess I’ll do it,” said Davis about finding a job. But he said working will be difficult for him.
Davis had been employed, as a cashier at a thrift shop and a security guard, before his Type 1 diabetes became too difficult to control.
“I could not keep my blood sugar level,” he said.
Like many SNAP recipients, Davis suffered a cut in benefits, in his case from about $295 a month to $200 a month, when the pandemic-era boost to benefit ended in February. Now he also faces the reintroduction of work requirements for single adults like him.
And House Republicans are seeking to broaden those requirements as one of their conditions for raising the nation’s debt ceiling. A default would roil the U.S. economy.
The GOP plan calls for raising the age which would exempt single, childless SNAP recipients from the work requirements to 55. The age at which no work requirements are imposed on those “abled-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWD) is currently 50.
According to the Minnesota Department of Human Services, if the age limit were raised to 55 years and older, approximately 6,700 additional Minnesotans could be subject to work requirements.
Work requirements were included in the SNAP program by Republican lawmakers who argued that they can lift people out of poverty and end their reliance on the government.
“Incentives matter. And the incentives today are out of whack,” said House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., in a speech last month at the New York Stock Exchange. “It’s time to get Americans back to work.”
House Republicans are also seeking to broaden work requirements on some Medicaid recipients and impose cuts on all domestic programs in their negotiations with the White House over the debt ceiling.
For many Democrats, especially members of the House Progressive Caucus like Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., cutting people off food stamps, in which he said the average benefit is a “measly” $6 a day is cause enough to reject a debt-limit agreement.
“How rotten do they want to be?” McGovern asked of GOP lawmakers who insist on expanding SNAP work requirements.
‘Coming into a hard time’
For Davis, food stamps helps him afford “the right kind of food” to battle his illness at a time when food prices have risen sharply due to inflation and remain stubbornly high.
Type 1 diabetics like Davis are urged to eat a consistent amount of food every day and take insulin to control their disease. And most patients are urged to consume diets low in sugar and fats and high in fruits and vegetables.
The reinstatement of work requirements will disproportionately impact other low-income, single adults, in the state too.
According to a letter sent to every member of Minnesota’s congressional delegation by Alison O’Toole, CEO of Second Harvest Heartland, the largest food bank in the state, at least one-in-four single adults without children who receive food stamps are homeless, one in three have significant chronic health conditions that interfere with stable employment and 40% have severe mental illness.
“The vast majority of SNAP participants who can work already are,” O’Toole said.
She sent the letter to the members of Congress in response to the GOP plans to expand work requirements and said that would “barely affect our national debt – and it will have a negative impact on local economies, especially in rural Minnesota.”
Rachel Sosnowchik, spokeswoman for Second Harvest Heartland, said the food bank is feeding more people now than at the height of the pandemic and the end of the extra benefits SNAP recipients had been receiving has increased food insecurity.
“We are coming into a very hard time now,” Sosnowchik said.
The reintroduction of work requirements will make things worse, with many recipients unaware that they will be in effect on July 1, she said.
Tom McKenna, a former Marine and board member of Every Third Saturday, a Minneapolis-based nonprofit that helps struggling military veterans, handing out hundreds of $25 grocery store gift cards a year.
McKenna said the work requirements will hurt many of the vets who come to Every Third Saturday for free clothes and hygiene items, and for music and art therapy and a place to gather with friends.
“I think this is going to cause food insecurity for veterans who didn’t have to worry about it for the last several years,” McKenna said.
“…a tough choice – get a job or lose food stamp benefits.”
Noticing the taxes confiscated from your check stub is informative.
Not confiscated! If you think they are confiscated do not call police or use the highways that taxes pay for. You want to crack down on the poor and sick and be a freeloader yourself, or am I misunderstanding what you said?
Donated?
However most employers are not going to hire somebody who has to miss lots of days due to medical appointments or being ill. At some point, the cost of having an oversight system such as Republicans want, cost more or almost as much as allowing the SNAP benefits for cases that are more complicated. You would need to get more employers on board with hiring people with resumes that they may have overlooked or rejected in the past.
Able bodied adults should work. If you physically can’t work there are exceptions for you. There should be work requirements and a closer look at every program needs to be taken. The United States have exceeded their credit card limits and are trying to up the credit limit TRILLIONS of dollars. That is ridiculous, cuts need to made in every department…..
75% of the wealth in this country is held by 5% of the people, while 40% of the population makes do with less than 1%. Yet the morally and ethically bankrupt ideals of conservatives support public support or minimum wages that constitute a poverty trap in a system where the number one factor in anyone’s wealth is the wealth of the family into which they were born. Meanwhile, they think that wealthy people should be able to live off the returns of their wealth without working or paying taxes. Again and again, conservatives show that their entire belief structure is completely dependent on poverty.
No wonder so many conservatives need to believe in a religion where your sins are forgiven just for “believing.” They sure have no ability to behave morally while alive.
Dan, you are totally wrong again. I was born to a miner in N Minnesota who never graduated high school. I’m one of those evil 1%ers you hate so much by hard work and good fortune. It goes without saying that if you are born into a family that is extremely wealthy, you will have economic privilege, no matter your skin color. That doesn’t guarantee you will be successful but you definitely have a leg up. If you are born into a family that is not wealthy, you still can make a great living by making good choices but the road is a bit more bumpy. Don’t make excuses (Lefties favorite thing) make good choices.
The number one factor in your wealth is the wealth into which you were born. That does’ claim that exceptions don’t exist due to, as you say, “good fortune.” But the anecdotal stories are just that and don’t describe the system as a whole and instead of looking at that you claim that the “good fortune” is due to your inherent superiority. If you go to a casino and play a game with a 1% chance of winning and hit would you then claim that is a viable path for everyone? Because that is what you are claiming. Either that or you are saying that everyone who isn’t in the top 1% is just lazy. A statement that couldn’t be more obviously wrong.
BTW, nobody in the top 1% worked for their wealth even if they were born poor. The only way to build that amount of wealth is to leverage capital, not through labor. The uber-wealthy are essentially parasites. They don’t personally provide value they just find a way to skim the value of other people’s labor to enrich themselves. If you have the wealth to enjoy the income of your lowest-paid employee (or employee of a company in which you are an owner/investor) for the rest of your life without working but still take profit from that employee, there is no doubt of your role in society.
https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/schooled2lose/
The 5 %, you mean like zuckerburg, soros, gates, etc.
All democrats
If you knew basic facts about SNAP, you would know that the majority of SNAP recipients do work, often full time. You would also know that the federal budget for SNAP funding is miniscule. If you want to look at financial responsibility, start advocating for the repeal of tax cuts for the wealthy. Billionaires and corporations do not need – nor do they deserve – the tax breaks they have. We could also look at auditing the Pentagon and it’s endless black hole of money.
Mike, fantastic that most SNAP recipients work, that is the way it should be. The article was about a type 1 diabetic that might not be able to work. If an independent review decides he can’t work, he should get his SNAP benefits. Every program in a balloted system needs the same scrutiny applied and free loaders thrown off….. Period!
Ms. Radelat, Mr. Smith and Mr. Davidson: we’d all, including Mr. Ashanti, benefit if he could work. He says he can’t work because he can’t manage his blood sugar, yet dropping him from SNAP will make it harder to get healthy food he needs to keep blood sugar in range. Catch 22!
Both healthy eating and managing blood sugar are crucial for people with diabetes. Modern tech, “continuous glucose monitoring” (CGM) would let him track his blood sugar 24/7/365, with a Bandaid-size skin patch. Medicaid (called Medical Assistance in MN) covers CGM: https://diatribechange.org/news/cgm-and-medicaid-whos-covered#:~:text=27%20states%27%20Medicaid%20programs%20(and,Carolina%2C%20North%20Dakota%2C%20Ohio%2C. Best course for Mr. Ashanti AND our state is to keep him on SNAP and Medical Assistance, and teach him to use CGM, so he can manage his diet and blood sugar and go back to work.
How about first having people pay for national defense, the police, and courts based on the wealth being protected by those things? Then we can ensure basic infrastructure like roads, power-grid, rail, and utilities are paid for based on the return on those public investments. Once those fundamental pieces of fairness are instituted, we can talk about the requirements for providing sustenance to the destitute.
Because anyone who doesn’t want the first two and only complains about the third doesn’t really care about people getting only what they work for. They just want to blame poor people for not having as much money as they think they deserve rather than the 25% of the population that holds the wealth. It is like somebody blaming the unpaid intern for not getting the raise they wanted.
Conservatives believe in a system that completely is dependent on poverty. This is why in a time when the basic human necessities are in surplus they must artificially create scarcity.
In English please, for the commonfolk as I have no idea what any of this comment means.
He’s saying that conservatives choose to create barriers to success in order to maintain the status quo where the wealthy accumulate more and the poor own less. The United States is effectively the wealthiest society the world has ever seen. Yet we have rampant poverty, malnutrition, and embarrassingly high child mortality rates.
I prefer to let the commenter speak for himself.
They did. And it was already in English. You wanted it made simpler, and someone did. Quit complaining that someone did the work for you and you didn’t get to choose who gave you the free labor.
Yup. Thanks for the “translation.”
Some expect people to be prepared to work hard when you keep them hungry? That is what Nazis did to Jews in the death camps. If their slave laborers died, it was a matter of indifference.
The entire worldview of conservatives is based on a definition of liberty created to support slavery and genocide. When they can’t have that directly, they must find a way to get as close as possible or their entire belief structure collapses. It also explains why “Make America Great Again” resonated with them.
To the commentators who believe the only way to success is to born into it, you are wrong. A 2019 Wealth-X study showed 68% of folks with a net worth of 30 million, made it themselves. A Fidelity Investment study showed 88% of all millionaires did not inherit their money they made it themselves.
I guess hard work still pays much better than complaining about someone else’s money…. Who knew??
Joe, you would be well advised to read the articles rather than just cutting and pasting the headline. Though I know looking beyond the headline is anathema to conservative ideas since they all fall apart under even light scrutiny. The WealthX study is global, not of the U.S. It also doesn’t define self-made beyond “a majority of their wealth” and provides no data to review. The Fidelity Study provides even less backup and seems to use a self-reported survey rather than actual data.
The bad headline regurgitation Las shows the shallowness of conservative thinking. To think those headlines matter, you have to believe that inheritance is the only benefit of being born into a wealthy family. Which is obviously ridiculous. Things like going to college without debt, having a parent that can buy you a car, and, most importantly, provide contacts that get you your first job in a high-income field are massively important and don’t include “inheritance”. Even the WealthX report stated that a commonality for millionaires is having a wealth “mentor”. Guess what would be the primary factor in knowing enough wealthy people to have a good chance of one of them being willing to mentor you? Just coming from a family that is generally debt free and doesn’t live paycheck to paycheck provides a huge advantage because it allows risk-taking without the worry of becoming homeless or destitute.
Given the U.S. is in the middle of the pack on wealth mobility (a fact that actually has backup methodology and data) while Scandinavian countries are at the top, backing up your fantasy might take more work.
“If I have to, I guess I’ll do it“
That’s the spirit!
“Weeerk!” – Maynard G. Krebs.
People who consider themselves “pro life” taking food from the people Christ called “the least of these”. Shameful.
I thought you people believe in the separation of church and state? Jesus never once advocated for the government to feed the poor. That’s your job.
The govt would be an agent of the people. Plus, it is more efficient to have a single source of benefits for everyone rather than an uncoordinated system of groups collecting public donations. The govt can run deficits in times of need and repay those deficits when there are surpluses. Neither business nor individuals can operate on that scale, nor can they incur significant deficits–they would be bankrupt.
Second Harvest seems to be doing ok. And it’s all thanks to evil corporate America.
Yup, one effective* nonprofit means nobody in the US needs any additional help, ever.
* the way I understand it, Second Harvest has lately had a hard time meeting demand. But, sure, let’s push more people to the point of needing food shelf assistance.
Dennis,
I think Jesus was saying it’s our job, hence, collectively, our government is included.
The problem is when you place the responsibility with government, it becomes a mandate. Maybe you don’t agree with Jesus and want to opt out of helping the poor (“the poor will always be with us”). That should be your right, and Jesus would support your decision. Not so with government. There is no “opt out” with government. That’s why food shelves are voluntary operations and are typically manned by religious people. But it’s their choice. No one is making them show up and help. Forcing people to do it is not something Jesus would approve of.
Jesus of Nazareth, living in an essentially barbaric age in a militarily occupied land, did not have much concept of the modern welfare state, sorry to say. Such ideas were beyond him, and utrerly alien to such a primitive and brutal age.
Nevertheless, Jesus did say, “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a wealthy man to enter the Kingdom of God”. The rich of his day did nor adequately aid the poor, in Jesus’s view. Further, when pressed by his opponents on the issue of the legality of taxation, Jesus offered the formulation: “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s”. So yes, even two thousand years ago Jesus understood the state can enforce taxation, and that one should comply with it; and that the rich did not do anywhere near their fair share for the poor (and of course, the poor can’t help the poor, by definition).
I therefore think his attitude towards, say, the SNAP or Medicaid programs of the 21st Century may be fairly inferred from the New Testament, if one can stop ingesting “conservative” claptrap and willful blindness supposedly offered in “his” name…
Dennis is always great at providing examples of moral bankruptcy or conservative ideology, even if he does so unintentionally, such as his longstanding praise of seditious traitors like the Oath Keepers. Here he showcases that the only time conservatives get upset about the use of force is when they are being asked to pay for what they consume or if it helps others. He is fine when the funds are used to pay bad cops or compensate victims of the crimes those cops commit. Similarly, he is fine if they pay for a bloated military when it defends corporate interests but not an allied country when it is invaded by fascists. He approves of force being used to dictate his stance on healthcare as well. So obviously, it isn’t the fact that taxes aren’t voluntary that bothers him since he is very selective about when he brings it up.
So once that factor is eliminated, it becomes clear what remains. Similar to the retcon story about “states’ rights” being the reason the South succeeded and you ask a states’ right to do what? That answer was, of course, to enslave people based on race. Here we can determine what outcomes conservatives oppose by looking at when they decide to be against using public funds.
You can also easily see the disingenuousness of conservatives at a macro level by simply looking at how red states and counties are the ones most dependent on other people’s money. They are fine taking the money; they just get upset when asked to pay their share. It is like the person at a group work lunch who refuses to pay their part because they didn’t get their preferred restaurant. But the most ironic thing, a concept to which conservatives seem immune, is those red rural areas would be completely unlivable if they didn’t receive outside support. Yet the fundamental cognitive dissonance needed to be a conservative allows them to support that for themselves while claiming it is wrong for anyone else.
1. Define “politician” as NOT being a “job”. And cut the pay to $0 for that reason.
2. As “corporations are people” (yeah, right. LOL), carefully note they are NOT MARRIED AND HAVE NO DEPENDENTS. Thus, they must file taxes as a SINGLE TAXABLE PERSON. Eliminate all “corporate” tax benefits–and thus remove 98+% of all existing tax law. They can now file their taxes “on a postcard”. HEY !! That was a “big point” for the right. So giving them what they SAY they want is appropriate–RIGHT?
3. This would also put a LOT of lawyers and corporate tax accountants out of their current jobs of screwing the public for private benefit. The right would LOVE that (or not?). Good question. What do they say?
Poorhouses or workhouses are a thing of the past but the moralistic temper that created them lives on as evidenced in the SNAP work requirement and also in the comments above by the Minnpost conservative commenters. First off, SNAP, formerly known as the food stamp program, grew out of and may still be associated with the problem of agricultural surpluses that overproduces food for the US. Rather than waste the food, some alert politician or bureaucrat came up with the win/win idea of making this already subsidized surplus food available the large numbers of needy people in this US, rather than exporting it to needy people abroad.
Making work a condition of getting this already subsidized food sounds a lot like an unconstitutional condition that conservatives are so fond of pointing out elsewhere. Minnesota’s Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude. What is work for people can’t work because of a medical condition anything but involuntary servitude or slavery? Wasn’t that supposed to be eliminated by the Fourteenth Amendment?
Second, the problem of food surplus is another facet of the modern industrial or post-industrial condition of surplus in production and surpluses in labor. Both drive down the prices of producers and laborers. This surplus exists because of technological advances which have made much of what we call work simply redundant. When a few robots can operate a manufacturing plant that used to employ thousands, there’s a moral issue of finding new employment or work for those who have been laid off. Sure, the country is now experiencing record unemployment lows, but how many of those new jobs created in the last 40 years have been at pay levels enjoyed during the post-WWII boom?
The conservatives have no answers to these problems of our post-industrial era because they don’t see them as problems. The underlying policy of SNAP work requirements is: ” if you don’t work or don’t eat” as if no one would work if they aren’t threatened with starvation. It might have made sense during the pre-industrial 18th and 19th century before a time of food surplus and overabundance but that justification has long since evaporated. Today, if you can’t work or you’re not making enough at your 1, 2 or 3 jobs to feed yourself and your family, it’s not one person’s fault.
If there’s any moral issue today, it’s the greed and avarice of the wealthy minority who divert attention from their own failings by blaming the poor for the conditions created by the wealthy few. No one “deserves” or has a moral right to wealth. Wealth is not something anyone “earns.” We’re all prone to make excuses but it’s one thing to excuse people from moral responsibility from things which are beyond their control. It’s another for conservatives to excuse the wealthy minority in this country from their duty to give as they have received from society in making their wealth possible and from their duty to pay their fair share of taxes to prevent the appalling and inexcusable poverty that still exists in the US. SNAP work requirements say more about the cruel nature of conservative thinking and excusing their own moral failings.
The best anecdote Minnpost could find was some who prefers not to work? This country has many options for helping truly disabled people. Plenty of people with diabetes can live productive lives.
Creative interpretation. As a Type 1 diabetic, not being able to manage blood glucose can cripple or kill you. How do you manage blood glucose? Regular monitoring, eating, insulin shots, etc. (here’s some info if you’d like to be a bit more educated: https://www.everydayhealth.com/hs/type-1-diabetes/what-people-with-type-1-diabetes-wish-you-knew/ and what it’s like to work with Type 1 diabetes https://www.equipsme.com/blog/whats-it-like-working-with-type-one-diabetes/). If your job does not accommodate those things, and your insurance doesn’t cover the types of devices that can make it easier (continuous glucose monitors, insulin pumps, etc.), then you risk death and disability by working. Now, it might be possible that there are jobs that Mr. Davis might be able to do, but if he’s not otherwise qualified or hired for said jobs, then what? Someone is required to make up a job and hire him? Oh, and what about insurance? Once you start getting financially ahead, suddenly there’s no public aid for health insurance and in many jobs, you can’t access health insurance for some time after you’ve started. I sure hope you think that Mr. Davis still should have access to insulin and blood glucose monitoring equipment while he’s transitioning. I’m not sure it matters if you do…our system doesn’t work that way.