You know times are tough when the government starts cutting down a program aimed to feed the hungry, but how far is too far in the name of fiscal reform?

The House of Representatives voted to cut $39 billion in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) food assistance program, according to an article in USA Today.

SNAP helps low income individuals and families by assisting them financially when it comes to buying food.

States such as Delaware, Kansas, Utah, New Hampshire, and Vermont have already begun implementing the reductions, according to USA Today.

According to The Huffington Post, an estimated 47 million Americans are on food stamps. Cutting down on a program that is already barely sufficient for some could be catastrophic.

The same Huffington Post article states the average food stamp allotment is $133 per person per month. In the big picture, $133 may seem adequate, but when divided by how many days there are in a month, the total comes down to about $4.43 a day.

The main reason SNAP is being cut down is to remove people from the rolls who don’t necessarily need food stamps to feed themselves and their families.

That being said, the real solution to this problem isn’t so much cutting down SNAP but rather making eligibility requirements more difficult. People who actually need food stamps should not have to suffer the consequences because others are abusing the system.

The requirements that must be met in order to qualify for SNAP are based off income and employment along with special rules for the elderly and disabled, according to the United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service.

A possible solution would be to change eligibility for SNAP so that it would be based on net worth rather than income. Subtracting a person’s liabilities, such as debt, from what one owns, such as cars and property, would be a more accurate determinant on whether or not one is eligible for food stamps.

If the representatives who voted in favor of cutting down SNAP were asked to live the same lifestyle as those who are dependent on food stamps, would they have voted the same? It’s simple to overlook the problem at hand when the people who are making the decisions are not personally affected by the problems.

Panera Bread CEO Ron Shaich took on the SNAP Challenge, which is a weeklong endeavor of eating on just $4.50 a day, according to Newser. On his LinkedIn blog, Shaich wrote “I can’t stop thinking about food. When is my next meal? How much food is left in my cabinet?”

Fortunately for Shaich, after his week was up he was able to resume a life free from food anxiety and could once again afford his groceries. For others, this isn’t just a week long challenge; it’s their everyday life.

Although these cuts have already been embraced by some, it is a shame government officials are making such snap decisions that will make the people in this country who are going to bed hungry even hungrier.