Chicken Little Politics and the SNAP Scare

Spend a few minutes scrolling through social media and you’ll see panic spreading like wildfire. Posts warn that food banks will be emptied within days and grocery store shelves will be bare. According to some, any change to SNAP benefits will leave Alabama families starving by next week.

It is a familiar pattern. Every time Washington debates the federal food assistance program, the loudest voices rush to predict catastrophe. But what is happening here is not the end of the world. It is Chicken Little politics. The sky is not falling.

Let’s start with a little perspective. Roughly 750,000 Alabamians receive EBT or SNAP benefits. That number might sound large, but it represents less than 15 percent of the state’s total population. When you take a closer look, only a small fraction of that group is truly unable to work because of age, disability, or serious health issues. The percentage is likely around 3 percent, possibly even lower.

That means the vast majority of SNAP recipients are people who can work and often do. Many are employed part time or in low-wage jobs that do not stretch far enough to cover groceries and bills. Others are families in temporary hardship who use SNAP as a safety net until they get back on their feet. The point is, the system was designed to help in moments like that, not to serve as a permanent income source.

Despite this, social media turns every discussion about benefit changes into a crisis. People share rumors, half-truths, and outdated statistics until fear takes over. You will read claims that food banks will be “picked clean” or that stores will run out of staples overnight. Realistically, that is not going to happen.

When SNAP adjustments occur, the pattern is consistent. Some people spend what is left on their cards early, often stocking up on essentials like rice, beans, and canned goods. They may have to skip snack foods or soda for a few weeks, but that is hardly the collapse some describe. Food banks and churches see a temporary increase in demand, but shelves do not empty and the system does not break.

What deserves real attention is how these moments get used by politicians. Democratic leaders in Washington often present themselves as defenders of the poor, yet they treat SNAP recipients as bargaining chips when budget fights begin. They use the threat of benefit cuts to rally outrage, hoping it pressures opponents to cave on unrelated spending priorities. It is emotional leverage disguised as compassion.

In Alabama, people tend to see through that kind of performance. They know what real struggle looks like. They also understand how federal programs can sound generous in theory but become complicated and costly in practice.

That brings us to another example, the Affordable Care Act. When it launched, Americans were told it would make health coverage cheaper and easier to access. More than a decade later, the program still relies on heavy federal subsidies to stay afloat. If it were truly affordable, why would it need constant government support? That question exposes how federal promises rarely match real-world results.

The same pattern repeats with SNAP. A program meant to help working families through tough times becomes a political weapon whenever a spending deal is on the table. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle use fear to score points, while the people who rely on the program are left anxious and uncertain.

It is not wrong for Americans to expect accountability or reform. Every major federal program should be reviewed and adjusted to ensure that it helps those who genuinely need it. What is wrong is turning a safety net into a stage prop for political theater.

Alabama has weathered far greater challenges than a temporary policy dispute. Our communities are strong because they know how to adapt. Churches, civic groups, and neighbors have long filled the gaps that Washington leaves behind. When times get tight, people here help each other. They do not wait for politicians to fix everything.

The conversation around SNAP should be grounded in facts, not fear. Yes, more than 750,000 Alabamians depend on the program each month, but that still means 85 percent of the state does not. It is not a majority, it is a manageable issue. Programs like this can and should exist to help people in genuine need. But they should also encourage independence and work, not dependence and political manipulation.

If Washington really wants to help families, it should focus on building a stronger economy where fewer people need assistance in the first place. Expanding jobs and improving wages does far more to reduce hunger than another round of political grandstanding.

For now, the noise will continue. The headlines will warn of disaster, and the usual players will fan the flames. But Alabamians should take a breath and look around. The shelves are still stocked. The food banks are open. The sky, as it turns out, is still right where it belongs.