Yesterday the Senate released its version of the Economic Recovery Act. However, we can expect changes since they currently lack the 60 votes to pass it.

The House and Senate versions of the bill are fairly similar. Yet, while the Senate version costs more, it offers lest assistance for food stamps - $3.5 billon less. This shouldn’t just concern those of us who care about domestic hunger. In fact, anyone who wants the economy to rebound should advocate for the House spending levels on food assistance.

Mark Zandi, chief economist and cofounder of Moody’s Economy.com and former advisor to Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign, has said that increasing food stamp benefits is one of the best ways to boost the economy. In a testimony to House Committee on Small Business Zandi noted:

More specifically, extending food stamps are the most effective ways to prime the economy’s pump. A $1 increase in food stamp payments by $1 boosts GDP by $1.73 People who receive these benefits are very hard-pressed and will spend any financial aid they receive within a few weeks. These programs are also already operating, and a benefit increase can be quickly delivered to recipients.

Comparatively, the multiplier effect of making the Bush income tax cuts permanently is only .29, the effect of cutting the corporate tax rate is .30, and making the dividend and capital gains tax permanent is only .37.

If we want to get the biggest bang for our buck, we can’t let Rush Limbaugh and Senate Republicans define the terms of the debate.

Today’s papers bring grim economic news: the 2009 budget deficit is projected to reach $1.2 trillion, a figure that doesn’t account for President-elect Obama’s proposed $800 billion stimulus spending; pension plans are underfunded by $409 billion; and over one million jobs were lost in November and December alone.

The bad news is that this economic crisis is going to get worse before it gets better, and many families will struggle. The good news is that Obama’s Economic Recovery Package includes increased benefits for food stamps, unemployment insurance and the Earned Income Tax Credit. And while an increase in these benefits must be a priority in any stimulus package, the government must also make sure that everyone who is eligible for current benefits can easily apply.

Some have estimated that $65 billion worth of government benefits targeted to help low-income families and individuals is unused every year. The IRS estimates that each year 20 percent of the $36 billion EITC goes unclaimed. And a study by the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) that looked at 24 U.S. cities, found that only 66 percent of the people surveyed who were eligible for food stamps actually received them - leaving $2 billion food assistance benefits unclaimed.

Why is all this money left on the table? Well, some people just don’t know that they are eligible or that the government even provides these benefits. And for others, the process for applying can be extremely complicated, confusing and timely.

All of this brings us to the first What Works post of 2009: single stop organizations that allow people to apply for many government benefits at one location. Two organizations, SingleStop USA and the Benefit Bank, have been extremely successful in helping more people receive assistance. A study on SingleStop found:

that for every dollar invested, the program immediately returned to its clients at least $3 in benefits; $4 to $13 in legal counseling; $2 in financial counseling; and $11 in tax credits.

In 2007, the Benefit Bank helped:

more than 6,100 clients who received more than $7.7 million in tax refunds, including $3.3 million in Earned Income Tax Credits. The federal tax returns filed represent a 95 percent increase over this time last year.

Both of these organizations use technology that allows caseworkers and volunteers to tell clients exactly what they are eligible for with just a click a mouse. By streamlining government services, they help people get back on the road to self sufficiency.

SingleStop USA and The Benefit Bank provide an invaluable service, but they don’t have to be in business. As the federal government looks to expand benefits for low-income Americans through an economic recovery stimulus package, leaders should simplify the application process. Finding jobs may get harder, feeding your family may get harder, but getting federal assistance shouldn’t be.

Happy new year. Now that the holidays are over, Moving Up USA is back in full swing with regular postings. It looks like 2009 should be a busy year for those of us who are interested in social mobility. This month we will swear in a new president who has vowed to create jobs, improve education, and take a new look at work-family balance. In fact, president-elect Obama is currently meeting with members of Congress, to promote his economic recovery package. (More on that later this week)

Today, however, let’s focus on some good news from Vermont. As of January 1, the Green Mountain State will no longer give “food stamps” but instead will enroll families in the “3Squares VT” program - think three square meals a day. This is much more than a name change. The new program will:

• Raise the eligibility ceiling from 130 percent of the federal poverty level to 185 percent of the federal poverty level, making more families and individuals able to qualify for the benefit;
• Remove the asset test so that families are no no longer discouraged from saving for college and retirement; and will
• Automatically enroll those who qualify for 3Squares VT in other programs such as free school and day care meals, and discount phone services.

Often people do not participate in food stamps because of the stigma it creates. According to Renee Richardson, director of the new program, raising the income limit will increase eligibility and reduce this stigma:

“That’s still lower income, but when you take away the onus of being the poorest of the poor, people realize, ‘This is for me!’”

Not only will this help more Vermont families in this economic crisis, but Vermont leaders believe that the new program can stimulate the state’s economy. 3Squares VT — and other state food stamp programs — are paid for completely with federal dollars. The governor’s office estimates that the expansion will bring an extra $12 million per year in food assistance and could infuse up to $22 million into the states economy.

Congressional leaders and President-elect Obama have said they want to include up to $200 billion in the Economic Recovery Package to assist revenue-strapped states. As states decide what to do with this money, they should consider follwoing Vermont’s lead.

Jane Black, of the Washington Post, reports that food stamp use is expected to exceed 30 million this month - a number higher than the historic increase after Hurricane Katrina.

Any doubt that the next stimulus package should include increased food stamp benefits should now be erased.

“We soon will have the most food stamps recipients in the history of our country,” said Jim Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Center, a D.C.-based anti-hunger policy organization. “If the economic forecasts come true, we’re likely to see the most hunger that we’ve seen since the 1981 recession and maybe since the 1960s, when these programs were established.”

Earlier this month Obama’s new Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel said:

“Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste….They are opportunities to do big things.”

When Congress returns to session, they should heed their former colleague’s advice and think big on ending domestic hunger.

As promised on Friday, our latest “Memo to the Next President” is by Joel Berg and Tom Freedman on ending domestic childhood hunger.  36 million Americans, including 12 million children have been classified as food insecure.  But even though these numbers are startling and depressing, we can fix it. How do we bring the troops home from Iraq? What is the best way to reduce green house emissions? Those are hard questions. How do we end childhood hunger? We have the tools and know-how to do that. Berg and Friedman note:

This is no quixotic venture. It can be accomplished by reforming existing programs and with some new spending, most of which would go into the expansion of school meals and food stamp benefits targeted at children.

They outline a five part plan to help President-elect Obama meet his goal of ending childhood hunger by 2015.

Step 1: Provide all children with a free school breakfast. Most low-income students are eligible for free- or reduce-priced school breakfast but do not take advantage of it because of stigma and availability. Adopting a universal school breakfast policy will feed more low-income children and produce positive effects throughout the entire school. Furthermore, it can save schools time and money through reduced paperwork and bureaucracy.

Step 2: Improve program accountability and efficiency. The application process for food and nutrition programs is too complex. Berg and Friedman argue that the Obama administration should combine the food stamp program with other nutrition programs to:

This will create administrative efficiencies, widen eligibility, and boost participation.

Step 3: Support Working Families. Berg and Friedman argue that we can’t end childhood hunger without making sure parents earn a decent wage. Therefore, we should expand the Earned Income Tax Credit and index the minimum wage to inflation.

Step 4: Reward Best Practices in the States. Provide bonuses to states that are particularly successful and innovative in reducing hunger.

Step 5: Provide Real Ammo for the Armies of Compassion. Berg and Friedman believe the government must form creative partnerships with non profit and religious groups to not only feed more people, but help break the cycle of poverty.

Read the entire memo here.

As one would expect, the number of people needing food stamps has dramatically increased due to the weakened economy and the coinciding increase in food prices. This summer alone, there were one million new food stamp recipients, bringing the total to 29 million Americans.

In these tough times, we need to ensure that all families in need get the help they deserve.  Thankfully, more individuals and families may be able to qualify for this food benefit because of relaxed income regulations included in the 2008 farm bill that went into effect this month. According to USA Today, families with income from combat pay, retirement accounts or education savings will now face fewer barriers to eligibility requirements.

States also have the authority to further adjust eligibility rules as they deem necessary in the wake of the financial downturn and some have done so.  California, Ohio, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Vermont have further expanded eligibility by allowing individuals to keep some savings and still apply for food stamps.

There seems to be little good news on the economic front these days. Just today, Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve told Congress that the economy is “likely to be weak for several quarters” and there is “risk of a protracted slowdown.”

Without any clear end in site, other states should find ways to loosen food stamp income eligibility requirements so that families don’t have to “sink to ground zero to get help.”

Frequently policy making and analysis happens from afar by people in Washington or state capitols or institutions of higher learning. In our detached way, we try to make lives easier for low-income Americans, but too often individuals who need assistance become nothing more than a faceless data point or benefit recipient.

That’s why I was so pleased to read today that Michigan governor, Jennifer Granholm is taking the food stamp pledge. According to the AP article:

Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm this week is doing something millions of her constituents are being forced to do year-round; she’s living on food stamps.

“She is one of 300 people who are taking a pledge” to eat like a food stamp recipient, including executives of Michigan-based auto giants General Motors, Ford and Chrysler and dozens of legislators, said the state’s human services department chief Ismael Ahmed.

“It’s my second day on 5.87 dollars a day,” Ahmed told AFP by telephone. “I’ve already calculated that I’ll be out of bread by Thursday.”

In July, the number of food stamp recipients increased to 29 million, an increase of one million new recipients since April. As the financial crisis continues to loom, we can expect this number to increase.

Today is Blog Action Day and bloggers across the globe have united to discuss the issue of poverty. As we collectively work to reduce poverty, we should applaud Gov. Granholm and other Michigan leaders as they try to come up with solutions by walking a mile in someone else’s shoes.

A trip to the grocery store these days drains the wallets of every American, but for low-income families, buying food for the week often completely wipes out their budgets. Unfortunately, it seems like these higher food prices are here to stay.

While we struggle to solve other national problems like the economic downturn, ending hunger is something we know how to do. In fact, the federal food stamp program - soon to be rebranded as the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) - works. Yet, with the current increase in grocery prices, the amount of food stamp assistance no longer covers the costs of feeding a family for the entire month. The one good thing to come out of this spring’s dismal and pork-laden farm bill was an increase in nutrition subsidies. However, it is not enough.

Typically these arguments come only from anti-hunger and poverty advocates. That is why Michael Gerson’s Op/Ed in yesterday’s Washington Post was so effective. As a former Bush policy adviser and speech writer, he gives a conservative voice to the issue of domestic hunger and outlines a very morally compelling, straightforward and bipartisan argument for the expansion of the food stamp program:

And this raises a moral issue. We have in place an automated food stamp program that is generally efficient and effective. We know it could be expanded with little increase in overhead. And we know with precision when its benefit runs out each month. So how is it then possible to justify funding three weeks of food instead of four? What additional dependence, what added moral hazard could a full month of eating possibly create?

Many social problems seem complex beyond hope. But dramatic progress against hunger is not. There are many explanations why this effort has not been undertaken — but there are no good excuses.

Let’s hope that leaders from both sides of the aisle hear Gerson’s moral call-to-action and get behind a simple solution to enable all Americans put food on the table for their families