♪ This program is brought to you by the members of WCNY.

Thank you.

♪ ♪ KATKO: Welcome, America, to "Balancing Act," the show that aims to tame the political circus of two-party politics.

I'm John Katko.

This week, the SNAP program, is it working or in need of reform?

In the center ring, we'll ask Craig Gundersen about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Then Gina Plata-Nino and Chris Edwards debate the issue on the trapeze.

Then I'll give you my take.

And Bloomberg's Erik Wasson is here with what's happening next week in Washington.

But first, let's walk the tightrope.

♪ In his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy said, "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich."

One way America helps those in need is through SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

SNAP provides low-income households with money to buy groceries.

You may remember it as food stamps, and its mission goes back nearly a century.

During the Great Depression, farmers were producing more food than struggling families could afford.

So, in 1933, under the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the federal government stepped in, buying surplus food and distributing it to hungry households.

It stabilized prices for farmers and fed millions of Americans.

Then, in 1939, the first food stamp program launched.

Participants bought orange stamps-think early coupons- And for every dollar spent, they received 50 cents in blue stamps to buy surplus foods like milk, eggs, beans, and produce.

It was practical, targeted, and temporary.

When wartime jobs surged, the program ended in 1943.

But hunger didn't disappear.

In the early 1960s, investigations revealed severe food insecurity in some of the poorest communities in America.

In response, Congress passed the Food Stamp Act of 1964, creating a permanent, nationwide program as part of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty.

In 1977, sweeping reforms simplified eligibility and made benefits more accessible.

A major turning point came in 1996 with a bipartisan bill between Democratic President Bill Clinton and Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich.

It was called the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act and introduced work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents.

Work, volunteer, or attend job training for at least 20 hours a week, or benefits were capped.

In 2008, the program officially became SNAP and transitioned fully to electronic benefits cards.

Today, SNAP helps about 40 million Americans buy groceries each year.

Since the beginning of the big, beautiful bill in 2025, the rules have tightened.

More adults up to age 64 now fall under work requirement guidelines.

While this program is essential, it isn't perfect.

According to the U.S.

Government Accountability Office, roughly 11.7% of SNAP benefits - about $10.5 billion in 2023 alone- were improper, including agency errors and fraud.

That raises important questions about oversight, integrity, and how well the program is serving both taxpayers and families in need.

Let's explore those questions with our first guest in the center ring.

♪ ♪ KATKO: Joining me now in the center ring is Craig Gundersen with the Baylor Collaborative on Hunger and Poverty.

Craig, welcome to the show, and let's jump right into it.

Can you give us some of the history of SNAP-what it is and why did it start?

GUNDERSEN: Right, so SNAP began in the early '60s as a program to address the severe problems of hunger and malnutrition in the United States, and it's expanded over time.

It became a nationwide program in 1974, and today it serves approximately 40 million Americans at a cost of $100 billion a year.

KATKO: What were some of the precursors that gave rise to the SNAP program in the '60s?

GUNDERSEN: Some of the precursors were commodity distribution programs, where they would give various food commodities to individuals.

Then it developed into SNAP, originally called the Food Stamp Program, whereby instead of giving people food directly, they were given vouchers to purchase food.

Now today, it's run through the electronic benefit transfer card, or EBT card, which SNAP recipients can use to purchase food at approved food retailers.

KATKO: So let's talk about the evolution for a moment.

It started in the '60s, but there have been some milestones along the road where they've made adjustments to the program.

Could you highlight those for us?

GUNDERSEN: Yes, sure.

I think there were two main changes.

The first was in 1979 when it switched from the so-called purchase requirement, whereby you had to purchase SNAP benefits at a discount, to the fact that people were just given SNAP benefits.

The second major change occurred in 2021, when there was a permanent 20% increase in SNAP benefits.

This was an unprecedented increase in SNAP benefits.

Historically, SNAP benefits have just been increased by inflation, but for many SNAP recipients, SNAP levels were not enough to bring them out of food insecurity.

So in 2021, there was a permanent 20% increase in SNAP benefits.

KATKO: And that was during the COVID epidemic, is that correct?

GUNDERSEN: That was actually after it, and it was distinct from COVID.

There were some changes made to SNAP during COVID, but this 20% increase was independent of COVID.

KATKO: Now, there was a time, I believe it was 2008, when they went from the actual coupons recipients were given to the electronic format.

Why was that?

GUNDERSEN: So it's for a few different reasons.

First of all, as we moved more and more to a system where people were using credit cards and debit cards rather than cash, this made more sense.

Previously, people got a coupon that they would use in stores.

There are two fundamental reasons for this.

First, it made it easier for individuals to use.

It was a lot easier for SNAP recipients to use an EBT card rather than these coupons- They could lose the coupons and things like that.

EBT cards are more straightforward.

But it also allowed us to cut down on some aspects of fraud.

It was much more difficult for recipients to sell their benefits.

It was also much more difficult for stores to basically give individuals cash in exchange for their SNAP benefits.

Both those things decreased dramatically when we switched to these electronic benefit transfer cards.

KATKO: So it basically helped eliminate the black market for the food stamps, right?

GUNDERSEN: Exactly.

KATKO: Okay, great, so let's go forward and talk about what the program is doing now and who it's serving.

How many people are being served in this program?

GUNDERSEN: Roughly, I mean, the number of SNAP recipients goes up and down with the state of the economy.

During good economic times, it tends to decline; During bad economic times, it tends to increase.

Currently, there's about 42 million Americans on SNAP, which is down from the record highs back in 2013, but it's at the cost of about $100 billion a year for SNAP.

KATKO: So how does one get SNAP benefits?

How do they qualify and how do they go about getting them?

GUNDERSEN: The main criteria is, in essence, somebody's income has to be below the poverty line, and their assets have to be below a certain threshold, which varies by state.

If my income and my assets are below those levels, I then go into an office that distributes SNAP benefits and fill out the application forms.

I first have to apply for the benefits, and then on an occasional basis, anywhere from six months to a year, I have to go back in and recertify for benefits.

KATKO: So what happens if, during that time period after you get SNAP benefits, you start making money?

What happens?

GUNDERSEN: In principle, what somebody's supposed to do is, if I'm on SNAP and my income increases, I should report that to the office, and then my benefits will be changed accordingly.

The way it works is that the amount of SNAP benefits I get is inversely related to my income.

So if my income rises, my SNAP benefits fall, and if there's a change in my income, I should report this.

People have to report this every time they recertify.

KATKO: So you get the SNAP card, and then it's reloaded electronically or what have you.

When they go to the store, are there any restrictions on things they can purchase?

GUNDERSEN: In general -- for example, I can't purchase paper towels, I can't purchase Kleenex.

Also, I can't purchase alcohol or tobacco products.

These are some of the things that are available at food stores that I would not be able to purchase.

There are also some very specific restrictions, like I can't purchase, if I'm on SNAP, rotisserie chickens or already prepared foods like that.

But other than that, there are very few restrictions on what people can purchase with SNAP.

KATKO: There's been some criticisms that that's a concern-that people are allowed to buy foods that are not good for them from a health standpoint.

Have there been any studies done about that, about the use of SNAP for those things?

GUNDERSEN: SNAP recipients, like the rest of the population, have a mix of quote-unquote healthy and quote-unquote unhealthy foods.

So their consumption patterns do not differ that markedly from other persons of similar incomes who are not on SNAP.

Studies have shown that SNAP recipients just purchase food like everybody else does.

In fact, if anything, SNAP enables people to purchase a healthier mix of foods because they have more money to purchase this food with.

KATKO: Well, we have about a minute and a half left, but let's talk about the practical realities of this.

What would happen if the SNAP program didn't exist in the United States?

If we didn't have this food program?

GUNDERSEN: There would be a dramatic increase in food insecurity in the country.

As I mentioned before, about 40 million Americans receive SNAP, and we would imagine that a high proportion of those, if SNAP benefits ended tomorrow, would become food insecure.

This would be in addition to SNAP recipients who are already food insecure.

If we lost SNAP, we'd see huge increases in food insecurity in the United States.

KATKO: So we've got about a minute left, and in that time, I just wanted to ask you, have there been any proposals to tweak the program in any way, shape, or form?

In particular, one that I've heard is about block granting the money to the states, allowing the states to better implement the program.

What do you think about that?

GUNDERSEN: I think there has been a push in some circles to block grant SNAP.

And I think there are some advantages to that.

States do a lot of creative things, and I would allow my home state of Texas to do some creative stuff.

We would do things differently than, say, Illinois.

But the reason I'm not in favor of block granting is one of the key strengths of SNAP is that it's an entitlement program.

So whenever there's increased need for SNAP benefits, for the reasons we were talking about earlier, the program automatically expands.

When you move to a block grant program, that automatic expansion or contraction of the program is removed.

So this is part of the reason why I'm just not a fan of block granting of SNAP.

KATKO: Craig Gundersen from Baylor University, thank you so much for your time.

Now it's time for the trapeze.

♪ ♪ On the trapeze this week are Gina Plata-Nino, the SNAP Director at the Food Research and Action Center, and Chris Edwards from the Cato Institute.

Welcome to both of you.

Gina, let's get right into it.

Do you have any concerns with the SNAP program in its current form?

PLATA-NINO: Thank you for having me, and yes, we do.

Back in July, SNAP experienced one of the biggest cuts in history, pretty much setting up the dismantling of the program.

Over $187 billion were targeted towards the program, and we are going to see deep cuts, and we're starting to see deep cuts into the program-something that has been completely unprecedented.

KATKO: So when you say deep cuts, can you briefly summarize what you're referring to?

PLATA-NINO: Yes, it attacks the program at various levels.

It expands time limits, meaning individuals can only get SNAP benefits for three months in a three-year period if they can't show that they're working at least 20 hours a week, even though there's data that many individuals aren't working.

It's just that our economy and the gig economy doesn't allow for enough hours.

It expands to individuals from 18 to 64, even those who have retired and are on Social Security for the first time in history.

It also impacts caretakers of individuals 14 and up.

It takes away protections from veterans, from unhoused individuals, from youth aging out of foster care, and all of this means that state agencies will have to touch these cases multiple times and will be cutting off individuals-millions of Americans-throughout the year beginning next year.

We also have seen that the bill has frozen the way that the program is evaluated, meaning SNAP benefits right now-about less than $6 a day-will be stagnant, regardless of the fact that our food prices have risen so much, regardless of inflation, regardless of how expensive things are.

SNAP benefits will remain the same.

Two of the most major concerns is that, for the first time in history, it takes away the partnership between the state and the federal government from 50/50%, saying that now states have to provide 75% of administrative funding.

Beginning in FY28, it will require states to pay a partial amount of their benefit amount.

This is important because SNAP has never been a line item budget in most state budgets.

For some states, it will come out to having to pay billions of dollars to keep the program going-billions of dollars that could have been utilized in other aspects but are much needed in order to keep individuals, Americans fed and making sure that they have enough resources to put food on the table.

KATKO: Okay, Chris, any concerns you have in its current form?

EDWARDS: I think cuts in SNAP are entirely appropriate.

The program has exploded in costs in recent years.

The number of people on SNAP has gone from 20 million to over 40 million over the last 20 years, and the costs have skyrocketed.

So I think cuts are entirely reasonable to low-income welfare programs like SNAP, but we should also cut welfare for wealthy people and corporate welfare as well.

I'm for need fairness across the board.

We have a giant federal government deficit.

I think we ought to cut corporate welfare and low-income welfare.

With SNAP in particular, one of my big concerns is that, remarkably, one-quarter of all the benefits in SNAP-a quarter of $110 billion a year in benefits-goes for junk food: cola, potato chips, candy bars, etc.

With the SNAP or EBT cards, people can go into grocery stores and food stores and buy essentially anything.

So that's an enormous amount of waste, in my view.

We have a huge obesity crisis in this country.

Low-income folks, in particular, have higher obesity than other Americans, and yet we're massively subsidizing junk calories through the SNAP program.

That's a real big concern.

KATKO: Okay, Gina, two quick questions and brief answers on these, if you will, please.

The first one is responding to his concern about the junk food issue.

Isn't that a legitimate concern if SNAP is supposed to provide basic nutritional value and people are able to get junk food with that?

Shouldn't we try and do something about that?

PLATA-NINO: It does provide nutritional value for all Americans, and the diets of low-income individuals who are on SNAP do not differ from the rest of Americans.

We have an issue across America, and individuals utilizing those programs should not be targeted.

The study that is being quoted is a study that's 10 years old.

It was utilized for one specific region.

It's not up to date.

In fact, SNAP users have better health outcomes than most individuals, and their diets do not differ from most Americans.

KATKO: Okay, the second question I have for you, and then I'll go back to Chris, is, listen, what Chris noted was true.

We have terrible budget deficits, and we're getting squeezed from all sides.

Isn't it a good idea to take a good, hard look at SNAP and try and squeeze out some efficiencies in the program if we can?

Isn't it a good idea to get efficiencies back into the program?

PLATA-NINO: No, I agree with what Chris is saying-that the $87 billion cut from SNAP was given to wealthy corporations and individuals.

We should definitely look at our tax budget.

But SNAP provides not just individuals with food; it provides jobs, it provides billions of dollars to the local economy.

It is a program that, for every dollar spent, creates almost $1.80 in the local economy, creating economic mobility and generation.

KATKO: So, Chris, could you point to some specific areas where you think we could increase efficiencies in the program without having to cut the actual benefits of SNAP?

I mean, you hear a lot of stories about the bureaucracy and the waste, the fraud, the abuse.

Anything in particular you can point to?

EDWARDS: Well, there is an enormous amount of fraud in the SNAP program.

There's a big problem with skimming, for example.

People are stealing the EBT card numbers and getting fraudulent benefits.

I think the trick here to reforming SNAP is to give the program back to state governments.

I think there is a problem with low-income obesity.

Low-income folks on SNAP are more obese than other Americans.

There is no doubt about that-study after study.

But low-income obesity is a complex problem, so I think the solution here is to give the SNAP program back to the states, let the states experiment with different types of nutrition programs.

That's the way to deal with that problem.

The same with the fraud problem, which is a big problem in SNAP.

The states now have no incentive to cut back on fraud because the federal government pays for 100% of the benefits in SNAP.

If you give more responsibility back to the state governments, they will have more of an incentive to double-check and make sure people getting SNAP really are eligible.

KATKO: Gina, what about that?

What about just giving the block grants to the states and letting the states figure it out and try to increase the efficiencies?

PLATA-NINO: There's already a partnership.

It is a partnership between the federal government and the state governments.

KATKO: We're talking about just giving the money to the states and letting the states kind of figure out how to implement it.

That's what he's saying.

PLATA-NINO: Well, they are.

States have options of how to run the program, which is why, depending on your ZIP code, the state program is more accessible depending on what states do.

You know, there's a partnership of 50/50% of administrative funding, so states are paying.

But states-the federal government sets up the guidelines, and states have options of how to administer the program, and some do it more successfully than others.

KATKO: Okay, Gina, really quickly here, we've got about a minute left.

I want to give Chris an opportunity to respond.

If you could fix one thing in this bill, or one thing in this program to reform it, what would it be?

PLATA-NINO: Going back to July 3rd and calling back the reconciliation law that had the major cuts to SNAP.

KATKO: Okay, Chris?

EDWARDS: Well, again, one-quarter of all the benefits here-that's over $20 billion a year of taxpayer money-is being spent on junk food.

I think that's ridiculous.

We ought to give the states the option to be able to cut out as much of the junk food as they can in the SNAP program.

KATKO: So we actually have a few seconds left here, Gina.

What about that?

Isn't there any concern at all about the junk food issue?

It seems like a legitimate concern to me from a health standpoint.

PLATA-NINO: It's a concern for all Americans, and again, there's one study.

The data doesn't match it.

The SNAP recipients are no different.

And so you can't say that.

It's not a fact that individuals are accessing this food.

In fact, they have better health outcomes than individuals-less likely to be in the ER, less likely to be hospitalized because of the nutrition that SNAP provides for low-income individuals.

KATKO: Gina, Chris Edwards, thank you both for a robust conversation.

PLATA-NINO: Thank you.

EDWARDS: Thank you.

KATKO: Now it's time for my My Take.

America is blessed with tremendous wealth and economic power.

And to whom much is given, much is expected.

We should both expect and desire to take care of the neediest among us.

We do that partly through SNAP benefits, which help feed 40 million Americans every year.

However, with roughly 10% of SNAP's dollars lost to waste, fraud and abuse-more than $10 $10 billion annually-we could be MIllions more.

We have an obligation to the poor, but we also have an obligation to the taxpayers.

That's not cold; that's just good governance.

I urge Congress to conduct rigorous oversight, and for the relevant federal agencies to put politics aside, strengthen their stewardship, and identify problem areas in the SNAP program.

Too many issues get kicked down the road in Washington.

If we know there's a problem, we should address it and fix it.

Congress must enact necessary reforms, ensuring that hard-earned taxpayer dollars go to a SNAP program that operates smoothly and efficiently.

We owe it to those who need it and to those who fund it.

And that's my take.

♪ ♪ For a look at what's happening next week in Washington, we turn to Bloomberg's Congressional reporter, Erik Wasson.

Welcome, Erik.

WASSON: Thanks so much for having me on.

The main thing that Congress is looking to deal with in the coming week is the Obamacare premium subsidy issue.

Without action by Congress, premium subsidy tax credits will expire at the end of the year, and many users-maybe 22 million Obamacare users-will see their premiums go up.

The Democrats, as part of their shutdown-ending deal, secured a promise from Majority Leader John Thune for a vote on the Senate floor on their preferred proposal.

We expect it to be sort of a clean extension, maybe two or three years of this premium subsidy.

That's not going to attract Republican support, so it's expected to fail.

There had been some attempts at a compromise of sort of putting income limits, anti-fraud controls, and other reforms to the program.

If that comes through, that's something I'm looking for, whether it comes from the White House or from a group of moderates led by Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania in the House.

If that comes through, there's a chance that these premium subsidies could be extended.

If that doesn't come through, we're going to see a failed vote in the Senate.

The Republicans may put a very conservative option up, essentially to the Democrats, which they say would weaken Obamacare by allowing cheaper alternative plans, and that would also fail.

So this would be a hit to consumers and also to insurance companies that we are tracking here on the markets because it is going to deprive them of a large number of healthy clients who would opt not to pay for the higher premiums and go without insurance.

We're also looking at the annual defense authorization bill.

This is always a bill that attracts a lot of attention.

Congress, for decades, has passed this in December on time.

This year, there's an attempt to sort of regulate or to deal with the artificial intelligence issue.

There are some people who want to have a moratorium on the state patchwork of state regulations on AI that could be attached to this bill.

There's other attempts to sort of regulate the sale of advanced chips.

NVIDIA is one of the biggest capitalized stocks trading on The U.S.

stock markets.

They're looking to be able to have looser restrictions on the sale of the advanced chips abroad, and their opponents with national security concerns want to restrict that.

So those are some of the things that I'm looking forward to.

Of course, we have another funding deadline at the end of January.

The government would shut down again, and I'm looking at any sort of movement to pass the remaining nine appropriations bills that would be needed to prevent such a shutdown.

KATKO: Erik, a quick question for you.

Obamacare's subsidies- These were temporary subsidies that were enacted during COVID, is that correct?

WASSON: That's correct.

There are subsidies for low-income people that are more permanent and part of the Obamacare law.

They will remain in place, but there were enhanced subsidies that go more towards the middle class that were put under COVID.

Republicans say that this is a waste of money.

Obamacare needs to be reformed to lower health care costs.

They're kind of proposing, for example, a health savings account to allow consumers to shop around and use that money on their own to get some market forces in here.

But a lot of the proposals don't allow that money to be used for premiums-more for out-of-pocket so Democrats say it doesn't really help in the short term with the Obamacare premium spike that's coming at the end of the year.

KATKO: Erik Wasson, Bloomberg News.

Thanks so much.

That's all for this week, folks.

To send in your comments for the show or to see "Balancing Act" extras and exclusives, follow us on social media or go to BalancingActWithJohnKatko.com.

Thank you for joining us, and remember, in the circus that is politics, there's always a balancing act.

I'm John Katko.

We'll see you next week, America.

♪ ♪ ♪