Right on cue, the “waste, fraud and abuse” crew deploys a familiar smokescreen to distract from their corruption. Last weekend, the social media platform owned by the oligarch-in-chief was awash in posts decrying the inclusion of sugar-sweetened sodas on the list of eligible foods to purchase through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

The demonization of SNAP recipients is nothing new, and complaints about eligible benefit purchases are only one element of the generations-long strategy to weaken or eliminate the program. Also, the attacks have been bipartisan.

The SNAP program originated in the Great Depression to remedy two overwhelming challenges: people were hungry, and farmers had surplus crops they couldn’t sell. Known as the Food Stamp Program (FSP), the nascent initiative appeared to wrap up with the postwar economic boom of the 1940s.

However, the Kennedy Administration’s growing awareness of systemic poverty in America’s urban and rural regions reignited interest in the program. Kennedy launched a pilot FSP in 1961, which was later expanded as a key element of the Johnson administration’s “war on poverty.”

Due to widespread economic stagnation during the Carter administration, the program became a lifeline for 20 million Americans. It also helped slow the decline of the American agriculture industry, expanding the customer base for food grown in the U.S.

Cracks began to appear in the public perception of the FSP during Ronald Reagan’s 1976 and 1980 presidential campaigns. During that time, the former California governor began to introduce a stereotype in his speeches that would become a virtual mascot for conservative attempts to weaken and dismantle federal programs designed to uplift the most vulnerable–the “welfare queen.”

The welfare queen was an exaggerated figure designed to spread the false belief that there was widespread fraud and corruption in the Food Stamp Program.

Reagan’s welfare queen character is widely believed to be based on the real-life Linda Taylor, who was charged with fraudulently collecting tens of thousands in welfare under multiple aliases.

Taylor was from Chicago and of mixed-racial ancestry. The dog whistle conflating welfare fraud (and Chicago) with “Black” was a part of the Southern Strategy that Lee Atwater famously depicted in a bombshell interview with Alexander Lamis.

In the interview, Atwater described how the increased stigmatization of overt racism drove politicians to use more abstract policy language to advance a racist agenda. In other words, you can no longer say the “N” word, but you can talk about policies that white voters believe will disproportionately harm non-white individuals.

One such policy concerns food assistance programs. (Never mind the fact that far more white people benefit from these programs than those with other racialized identities.)

Attacks on the FSP by diminishing the character of those who benefit from it transcended party affiliation. Bill Clinton famously ran for President on “ending welfare as we know it” by promoting “welfare to work” programs.

By the Obama administration, the FSP had become known as SNAP. The rebrand was intended to reduce the stigma associated with the program. That didn’t stop Obama from using “personal responsibility” talking points that implied poverty is a choice people make rather than a structural condition.

Clinton and Obama’s rhetoric was certainly less racially-coded than Reagan’s. However, they nevertheless advanced the false narrative, implying that people are in poverty and “take advantage of the system” because they “don’t want to work.”

Clinton’s policies created a new reality that still exists for those needing food assistance programs. Work requirements and asset tests heightened the barriers low-income citizens must overcome to access much-needed nutrition.

In many states, an unemployed applicant can only qualify for SNAP if their assets, including savings and vehicles, fall below a certain level. Additionally, “able-bodied” applicants must prove they are seeking employment to receive benefits.

This all seems fair, doesn’t it?

On the surface, sure. But what if you live in a location, like my home state of Texas, where only those with reliable vehicles can look for work? How can we incentivize saving money for those on the brink of poverty when those savings can be used against them if they lose their jobs?

All this aside, there are essential facts that almost always get ignored in these conversations.

The SNAP program is one of the most effective tools for addressing widespread systemic food insecurity. It also is crucial in keeping U.S. farmers in business and grocery prices low for all consumers.

The modernization of the SNAP system has reduced fraud to historic lows, making it one of the most well-run federal programs. Most “waste, fraud and abuse” in the program comes at the administration and management levels, not from recipients. 

But what about taxpayers fitting the bill for SNAP recipients to buy sugar-sweetened drinks?

This diversion is always trotted out whenever critics are confronted with the facts about the program. It comes under the guise of a well-intentioned concern about consumers’ health.

Despite his dangerous beliefs about vaccines (and other unorthodox practices), this has been a positive contribution Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made to the public conversation.

While food choices are legitimate public health concerns, is SNAP the appropriate venue to hold this conversation?

Numerous studies have shown that the purchasing choices of SNAP recipients don’t significantly diverge from those of non-SNAP recipients. Their baskets at the checkout line look mostly the same.

So what is behind the desire to police what low-income families purchase with SNAP benefits?

In our social conditioning to “otherize” everyone, we have been led to believe that those who wind up on the losing end of the capitalist game should not be allowed to live like those on the winning end. To keep the system of winners and losers afloat, we simply can’t allow all people to live with the same level of dignity.

Every major faith tradition proclaims a similar truth: The health of a community can only be measured by the health of its most vulnerable members.

Federal programs to address systemic issues of hunger and poverty are not inherently virtuous. However, their ability to utilize economies of scale makes them the best option for feeding those experiencing hunger.

And for us Christians who believe what Jesus preached about the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25, feeding those who experience hunger is a condition of our salvation.