http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113374019166713634.html?mod=todays_free_feature

States' Food-Stamp Fight Intensifies
Push to Extend Benefits to Working Poor
Collides With Congress's Push to Cut Deficit
By JANE ZHANG
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
December 5, 2005; Page A4

Nearly a decade after welfare reform, some states are placing a new emphasis
on food stamps as a program to improve the nutrition of the working poor.
But their efforts to sign up more families have put them on a collision
course with the Bush administration and House Republicans who believe the
government should rein in food-stamps coverage.

States have been working to broaden the reach of food stamps, in part
because of concerns that welfare reform pushed many low-income residents off
other assistance programs. A number of states, led by Michigan and North
Dakota, in recent years simplified their application process and
aggressively recruited the working poor. On average, 25.5 million Americans
received food stamps last year, up from 17.2 million in 2000.
That trend is colliding with Congress's drive to attack red ink in the
federal budget. The food-stamp program is the federal government's biggest
nutrition-assistance program, and while it picks up the cost for food
purchases, it splits administrative costs with the states. The federal
government's food-stamps tab rose to $27 billion in 2004 from $17.1 billion
in 2000, an increase that has made the program a ripe target for budget
cutters on Capitol Hill.

The five-year, $50 billion deficit-reduction bill that passed the House last
month would cut spending on food stamps by $700 million. The Senate bill
didn't include such a cut, and it is uncertain whether the provision will
remain after House and Senate conferees work out differences in the two
bills.

The House bill cuts spending mainly by changing some eligibility
requirements. It also would take away some flexibility that states have used
to boost enrollment.

In Oregon, for example, some families with gross incomes that are 185% of
the poverty level can obtain food stamps if certain deductions, primarily
for housing and child care, bring income down to the poverty level of
$19,350 for a family of four. If the House bill is adopted, that cap would
drop to 130% of the poverty level, and most of the recipients who stand to
lose their eligibility have incomes hovering just above that cutoff, says
Stacy Dean, director of food stamp and immigrant policy at the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities.

Food stamps, an outgrowth of the Great Depression, started out by giving
recipients orange and blue stamps that could be redeemed for food. Coupons
eventually replaced the stamps, and just last year, a debit-card system was
launched, taking some of the stigma out of using paper coupons and also
cutting down error rates. Reflecting the changes, some states have renamed
their programs, such as the Basic Food Program in Washington state, the Food
Assistance Program in Michigan, and the Food Support Program in Minnesota.
"I think we've seen a positive attitude in general," says Jean Daniel, a
spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. "This is really a
nutrition -- not a welfare -- program." And even in the face of cutbacks,
Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns last week announced that the department
has available $1 million for public agencies as well as nonprofit, community
and faith-based organizations to reach out to potential food-stamp
recipients.

Efforts to increase awareness of the program nudged participation rates up
to 56% of those eligible in 2003, the latest figure available, according to
Mathematica Policy Research, which analyzed the program for the Agriculture
Department. The rate had been as high as 75% before the 1996 welfare-reform
law took effect, but had plunged to 53% by 2001.

The House bill could put a damper on further outreach. The Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities figures that Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Washington and
Wisconsin would be hit hardest by the changes in eligibility. Overall, it
figures, some 150,000 people might be removed from the program, in addition
to 70,000 legal immigrants who would become ineligible under a provision
that increases their residency requirement to seven years from five years.

In Oregon alone, the House bill would cancel benefits for about 16,000
families, or 40,000 recipients, including 12,000 schoolchildren, says Sue
Abrams, administrator of the Office of Self-Sufficiency Programs at the
Oregon Department of Human Services. The state has boosted its participation
rate from 70% in 1999 to 83% in 2003, the highest in the nation.
Trudy Flores signed up six months ago. "We went from having to worry about
whether we will have enough money for food to always having the
[food-stamps] card," said Ms. Flores, a graduate student and a part-time
editor in Portland, Ore. Her husband, Juan, is unemployed, but sometimes
gets temporary jobs. "We might not have money for toothpaste and soap, but
we always have food to feed our kids."

Enrolling in the Food Stamp Program, which provided the family with $499
last month, has also opened doors to other benefits, including Oregon's
phone assistance program, which has halved the Flores's monthly phone bill
to about $13. Her daughters, age 6 and 10, also get free school lunches. But
that could change if the House bill becomes law. "It just makes me mad and
makes me sad," Ms. Flores says. "It's stressful trying to figure out whether
you'll make ends meet for the month."

Because recipients like Ms. Flores often are enrolled automatically in other
government-assistance programs, such as school lunches, Medicaid and energy
assistance, many would leave those programs if they had to apply separately,
says Cassandra Garrison, public-policy manager for the Oregon Food Bank. "So
it basically backpedals the success we've had in the last couple of years,"
says Ms. Garrison. "At this level, between 130-185% [of the federal poverty
level], these are working poor families. ... We want them to keep working."
Ms. Garrison worries that if the House bill is enacted, her food bank once
again will see a swell of clients, much as it did after welfare reform was
adopted. Worse, she says, illnesses linked to malnutrition could rise.
The prospect of paring rolls at a time when families face high heating
costs, is another worry, particularly for those in Northern states, says
Barbara Van Burgel, acting director for the integrated access and support
programs in Maine's Department of Health and Human Services. The state's
food-stamps participation rate jumped to 95% in 2004 from 72% in 2003, and
residents automatically receive food stamps if they are issued cash
assistance. To slash food benefits, says Ms. Van Burgel, "would be
detrimental to our population."

Write to Jane Zhang at Jane.Zhang@wsj.com