Every able-bodied person who receives government aid should be expected to work. It’s the kind of statement that resonates with our innate sense of fairness and crosses political lines. It’s the belief that animates support for legislation such as the federal 2018 farm bill and the state’s recent efforts to impose work requirements on beneficiaries of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System.
The trouble is, most people who receive these benefits already work, and broad attempts to penalize the few taking advantage of the system often end up hurting those who need help the most.
Take the House farm bill — a traditionally bipartisan piece of legislation crafted entirely by Republicans — which includes large-scale changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP, commonly known as food stamps.
It requires program participants ages 18 through 59, who are not legally disabled or helping raise a child under 6, to work at least 20 hours a week, participate in a work program for at least 20 hours a week, or a combination of the two. They must then submit proof of work every month or risk losing their benefits for a year after a first infraction and 36 months for each subsequent violation.
SNAP already has work requirements, and able-bodied people without children can be kicked off for 36 months if they don’t find a job during a three-month period.
These new regulations are problematic. Many SNAP recipients work in low-paying jobs, which lack stability and offer the minimum in paid sick leave. Any sudden change to their situation — fewer hours, a sick family member — could put them at risk of losing their benefits. And the monthly reporting not only burdens workers, the states must now figure out a way to track all this information.
The bill also eliminates the flexibility states have to broaden eligibility limits and extend the program to more working families. As reported in the Star, under current guidelines an Arizona family of three earning about $37,000 a year qualifies for some assistance, about $100 per month. The change would lower that income threshold to about $28,000.
It is ironic that a bill that ostensibly seeks to put people to work also penalizes those who do; that forces someone to consider whether taking even a modest wage increase or a better job is worth losing much-needed aid.
This contradiction also strikes calls for work requirements under AHCCCS. A full-time minimum-wage job puts someone over the income eligibility limit, yet, if an employer doesn’t offer health insurance, that minimum wage is not enough to afford coverage.
The problem is a fundamental disconnect, where lawmakers seek to cut aid, regardless of the consequences, while failing to provide support for measures that would help lead to their — at least purported — preferred outcomes.
Legislators who want fewer people on Medicaid yet oppose the Affordable Care Act; who want people on SNAP to be employed yet underfund work training programs; who want working families to pull themselves up yet “forget” to authorize the use of $56 million in federal child-care dollars, something our Legislature did last session.
We all want fewer people to rely on government assistance. But efforts should focus on helping people climb up from the social safety net, not on cutting enough holes in it so they fall through.
