A temporary increase in food stamps expires Oct. 31, meaning for millions of Americans, the benefits that help put food on the table won’t stretch as far as they have for the past four years.
Food stamps — actually the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — go to 47 million Americans a month, almost half of them children and teenagers.
“Every week is a struggle as it is,” said Heidi Leno, 43, who lives in Concord with her husband, 9-year-old daughter and 5-year-old twins. “We hate living paycheck to paycheck, and you have to decide what gets paid.”
Starting in 2009, the federal stimulus pumped $45.2 billion into SNAP, increasing what would have been a monthly benefit of $588 a month to $668 for an average household of four. In November, that same family will start getting $632 a month, about a 5 percent cut.
The benefits, which go to 1 in 7 Americans, fluctuate based on factors including food prices, inflation and income.
Families and providers worry the expiration of the stimulus bump comes at a particularly bad time:
Though census figures from September show poverty remains stuck at about 22 percent, in some states, including New Hampshire, the number of children living in poverty is climbing.
The House voted to cut almost $4 billion a year from the roughly $80 billion- a-year program in an effort to find savings in the budget. A Senate bill would cut around $400 million a year.
In cold-weather states, even a slight decrease in the benefit can trigger a decision between heating and eating. Heating-fuel prices are expected to increase this year too, the government warned this week.
And the program could face another shortfall if the government is shuttered past Nov. 1.
The stimulus was never intended to be a permanent source of money, said former New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg. He opposed the stimulus, calling it at the time “a great deal of money not well spent.”
“All stimulus funding was to be temporary,” Gregg, now the CEO of a banking industry group, said Wednesday.
John Cochrane, a professor of finance at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, also opposed the stimulus, saying it advanced the false assumption that “completely wasted federal spending helps the economy.”
He said that worries about people who need help were a legitimate concern but that food stamps create a disincentive to move to find a better job because recipients are worried they’ll lose the benefit.
“At some point,” he said, “you have to be a little bit heartless.”
One recipient, Jennifer Donald, a 31-year-old mother of three in Philadelphia, said she counts on the family’s $460 monthly benefit to put food on the table. Her husband has a job sanitizing machines at meat-packing plants, but it doesn’t pay enough. She’ll have to reduce the quality of the food she buys to stretch the benefits, then turn to food pantries once the money runs out.
“I was mad and devastated and a little bit confused because we need our benefits,” Donald said in an interview at her rowhouse, where she was preparing ground-beef tacos, a family favorite, while her 10-year-old daughter and two sons, 6 and 4, played and did homework.
In Concord, the New Hampshire Food Bank has seen demand grow steadily even as donations have fallen. The bank distributed 8.5 million pounds of food last year, compared with 4.5 million pounds at the start of the recession in 2007.
Executive Director Mel Gosselin said the added pressure from expiration of the supplement will hurt.