Second+Rebuttal


 * Group B: JoAnne Maynard, Karen Jew, Allison Johnson, and Kelly Shaw **

** Group A’s Reason #4: ** SNAP’s current asset limits are counterproductive to the intent of the program. The emergency food system encourages people to save and to better their economic situation, moving away from poverty. In order to qualify for SNAP benefits, the applicant household must have no more than $2000 in assets. This discourages households to save because if they save too much money, they will no longer be eligible for benefits. The emergency food system does not disqualify households for their assets.

** Group B’s Rebuttal: ** It is inaccurate to state that an applicant household must have no more than $2,000 in assets. This $2,000 amount refers to liquid assets such as money in a bank account and excludes fixed assets. Furthermore, provisions in the 2008 Farm Bill encourage savings by excluding retirement and education accounts from this asset amount. (1) Given the income requirement for SNAP, it is unlikely that participants would have liquid assets exceeding the $2,000 amount. The ability to grow a bank account indicates that household income is greater than expenses and that household needs are able to be met and therefore no assistance is required.

The SNAP can make a greater contribution to moving households away from poverty by increasing access to healthier food for low income households, supporting local businesses, and strengthening economic landscapes to attract further economic growth and opportunities. Redemption of food stamp benefits impacts production, income, and employment throughout the food system and other sectors of the economy. For every $5 in SNAP benefits can generate $9.20 in community spending. (2)

1. USDA Food and Nutrition Service, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Available at: []. Accessed: October 12, 2010. 2. Hanson, Kenneth, and Elise Golan (2002). Effects of Changes in Food Stamp Expenditures Across the U.S. Economy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Available at //http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr26///// fanrr26-6/fanrr26-6.pdf //. Accessed: October 10, 2010.


 * Group A's Second Rebuttal: **

Any type of asset limit sends the wrong message to program applicants and participants. It tells them that saving and asset building should be avoided. There is also a chance that it might encourage people to try and hide their money in order to meet eligibility rules. According to the website, http://scorecard.cfed.org/downloads/pdfs/resource_guides/rg_AssetLimits.pdf, since 1996 - 24 states have eliminated SNAP asset limits. Evidence seems to suggest that those states that have eliminated asset limits are seeing an administrative cost savings that outweighs any increase in real or potential caseloads. Lastly, by saving money, people have the ability and the motivation to move themselves off of benefit programs. Since the private emergency food system does not have any type of asset limit, it helps people move toward self-sufficiency, rather than allowing them to receive benefits indefinitely and being permanently dependent on federal assistance. The private system could be organized in such a way to provide incentives to participants to move toward self-sufficiency. Asset limits complicate program rules, increase the administrative burden on the agency, applicants and recipients, and increase administrative costs. A private emergency food system would not suffer from these problems.