For the last few weeks, news outlets and the media have covered the government shutdown in detail: tracking its development, causes, and possible solutions. On October 1, Congress failed to pass the appropriations bill necessary to keep the government running. As a result, many government workers went without pay, and other essential services, such as SNAP benefits, were in danger. As of Wednesday morning, November 12, it appears that this shutdown will finally come to an end, as the Senate has approved a final package, and the House is expected to vote on it tonight. President Trump is expected to sign off, which will allow the government to finally reopen. However, this development has come at a cost; after forty-three days of shutdown, countless Americans have felt the effects, one of the most impacted groups being those reliant on SNAP benefits.
Just before Halloween, the news broke that SNAP benefits would be cut because “Congress has not passed the bill to keep funding going,” as Ann Thekkinedath (12) reports, and “Trump refused to tap into the emergency fund,” Daniel Lowery (12) notes. Many Americans from both parties were deeply concerned about this because, as Alissa Phillips (12) states, “42 million Americans rely on SNAP benefits.” Phillips adds that the effects of the cut would not only have been widespread but also profound: “Without SNAP, that means a lot of people aren’t going to be able to feed their families.”
Short-term solutions to this looming problem have been implemented. Thekkinedath gives the example of how “states like California have been helping by using state funding…and bringing lawsuits forth against the Trump administration for illegally withholding funds for SNAP benefits.” Phillips adds on to this, stating that “private organizations and communities have worked to help reduce the impact of the crisis, opening food banks.” While these fixes were inspiring and helpful for those in need, they were not long-term solutions. The only thing that could help permanently was reopening the government.
Fortunately, it appears that Congress is well on its way to doing just that, which would mean an end to the struggle with SNAP benefits and the various other issues the shutdown has caused. Just because the government is reopening, though, does not mean people should forget about it. The problems that arose during the shutdown still hold importance today, especially in light of the current political landscape and severe polarization that persists in the U.S.
One of the most prominent issues with the SNAP benefit cut was the ethical question: Are political parties using starving Americans as pawns in forwarding their own agendas? To many, like Phillips, it certainly seemed that way: “The majority of Americans want to see the government shutdown end, but politicians, especially in this case Republicans, didn’t pass a temporary spending bill or something that will continue to at least fund SNAP benefits.” This was mainly because both parties refused to compromise with each other, with Democrats remaining steadfast in their support for a bill that increased government spending, and Republicans maintaining their stance against it. It is even easier to believe this idea given that “both sides spout rhetoric that the other party is the one keeping the government shut down,” as Lowery claims.
This ethical dilemma is still relevant today. Considering the polarization that dominates American politics, it is unlikely that this will be the last time politicians use citizens as pawns in this manner. While it is in the nature of their job to support and further their own and their parties’ agendas, politicians must consider how far is too far to push in pursuing that goal. Placing the basic needs of Americans at risk, as they did in this case, may have crossed the line and gone too far.
