Cutting critical family support won't solve the labor crisis
As the United States emerges from the pandemic and local economies reopen, there is an important debate regarding how relief program benefits should operate and evolve in the coming months. The debate is not just about COVID-related packages - such as the temporary $300-a-week unemployment benefits supplement, that at least 26 states propose to end -but is also about how we see the relationship between family economic resiliency and assistance programs.
These program benefits, such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), have aided millions of Americans through crises for decades. Ending or limiting access to these critical programs is one of the most devastating ways to prevent assisted families from preparing for their economic futures and limit their ability to increase and maintain savings.
Last week, members of Congress reintroduced two measures: the Allowing Steady Savings by Eliminating Tests (ASSET) Act and the CSA Opportunity Act. Simply stated, the ASSET Act, sponsored by Reps. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.), Kim Schrier (D-Wash.), Jahana Hayes (D-Conn.) and Senators Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Chris Coons (D-Del.), would eliminate or substantially raise asset limits for certain assistance programs. For example, if enacted, the bill would prohibit states from enforcing any limits on asset accumulation - such as a savings account - for families receiving benefits from TANF, SNAP or LIHEAP. The CSA Opportunity Act, sponsored by Rep. Matthew Cartwright (D-Pa.), is more narrowly tailored, would not be necessary should the ASSET Act be passed and would explicitly permit families from saving for college without fear of losing essential food, cash and utility assistance. But the question arises: Why have this debate as we emerge from the crisis, and what is the link with the larger debate about assisting families in meeting basic needs and how they prepare for their financial futures?
The answer is simple. Those in one corner of the debate have long argued that it is a conflict for families to receive benefits when looking for employment. For example, In 2012, then-chair of the House Budget Committee Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said, "We don't want to turn the safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency, that drains them of their will and their incentive to make the most of their lives." This message was neither subtle nor corroborated by evidence. In fact, a comprehensive literature review in 2016 by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities underscored how little support exists for the disincentive theory argument.
-more-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cutting-critical-family-support-won-t-solve-the-labor-crisis/ar-AALhUgW