With the movement of SB306 through the Arkansas legislature, there has been a great deal of talk of how asset limits on food stamps impact government dependency. Proponents of expanding the food stamp asset limit have gone so far as to claim that more food stamps actually reduce dependency.

This is a misleading and inaccurate statement that flies in the face of both commonsense and the facts, as we have explained.

But thanks to actual food stamp enrollment data reported by the USDA, we don’t need to guess at the answer. 

Here are the facts:

• Of the five states with the lowest food stamp enrollment per capita, the majority use the federal minimum asset limit, like Arkansas;

• Of the five states with the highest food stamp enrollment per capita, none of them have an asset limit at all;

• Arkansas — which has the lowest-allowable asset limit in the nation — has among the lowest food stamp enrollment per capita in the region; and

• Louisiana and Oklahoma — both of which are neighboring states with no asset limits at all — have among the highest food stamp enrollment per capita in the entire nation (Mississippi, also a no-asset-limit state, is not far behind them)

In fact, on average, eliminating the asset limit is associated with a 4,500 reduction in food stamp enrollment (for every 100,000 citizens).

Put simply, food stamp asset limits are directly and causally related to lower government dependency. Ditching or raising asset limits are what causes greater dependence on welfare--which is precisely why Arkansas must guard against attempts to undermine its food stamp program.

While SB306 was thankfully largely gutted in House committee this week, the bill's sponsors made it clear that they will continue to push for asset increases in the future, so it's important for lawmakers to continue to educate themselves about how resource limits work and why they are so important for protecting the food stamp program.