Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Snap Asset Limit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Arkansas committee rejects bill to raise SNAP asset limit to inflation-adjusted level
Summary
Lawmakers debated a proposal to raise Arkansas’ SNAP asset limit to the 1977 baseline adjusted for inflation (roughly $7,800) and allow biennial CPI adjustments; proponents said it would encourage savings, opponents warned of perverse incentives. The committee voted the bill down.
Get email alerts on the Snap Asset Limit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senator (sponsor of SB 650) introduced Senate Bill 650 to raise Arkansas’ Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program asset limit to the 1977 baseline adjusted for inflation — roughly $7,800 — and to allow the Department of Human Services to request the federal waiver and adjust the threshold every two years based on CPI. The sponsor said the change would encourage savings for low-income households and correct a limit that has risen only modestly since 1977.
Janie Genocchio, public policy director for Southern Bancorp, told the committee her organization’s research and national comparisons support higher asset limits, saying states without strict caps are more likely to have banked households and small savings. "We feel that SNAP asset limits are a barrier to savings," Genocchio said, noting 36 states have no asset limit or have raised them significantly.
Opponents pressed practical and philosophical objections. Jamie Barker of Opportunity Solutions Project said allowing larger cash holdings while receiving taxpayer-funded benefits could send the wrong priorities and risk improper use of assistance. Committee members asked whether the proposal would encourage people to "spend down" assets to retain benefits and questioned the programmatic fiscal impact; the sponsor said an inflation-adjusted baseline and income eligibility rules would limit those risks.
After extended questioning and public testimony, the committee moved the bill. The motion to give the bill a "do pass" recommendation failed on a voice vote, and the sponsor acknowledged the bill would not proceed from the committee.
