Earlier in December, the Trump administration introduced new regulations in its campaign to dismantle the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Under a new USDA rule, people between the ages of 18 and 49—who are childless and not disabled—will be required to work a minimum of 20 hours a week for more than three months over the previous three years to qualify for food stamps. It's a move that's expected to cull nearly 700,000 people currently relying on SNAP to get by. In a call with reporters, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said the change was made "in order to restore the dignity of work," adding that SNAP "was never intended to be a way of life."

Altogether, the cut is a relatively small percentage of the 42 million Americans who receive food assistance, the USDA claims it will save $5.5 billion over five years, and, on paper, the work requirements might even appear reasonable. But this is one more step toward scrapping SNAP entirely, and the formula is straightforward: the narrower you can make a program, the easier it is to starve it and eventually scrap it.

SNAP is what's known as a "means tested" program, meaning that people are only eligible for it if they meet set income requirements and other criteria. Medicaid, the federal program that provides health care to millions of people living in poverty, is another means tested program. This is in contrast to "universal" programs, like libraries, fire departments, and public schools—everyone in America, regardless of how much or how little money they make, has a right to use these resources. Often, universal programs are massively popular. A Pew Research study from this past summer, for example, found that a staggering 74 percent of Americans oppose any cuts to Social Security.

Since universal programs are harder to cut, conservatives frequently target ones with means testing. In the case of the new SNAP work requirements, the USDA claims it will save $5.5 billion over five years, which sounds like a lot if you ignore the fact that in 2017 Republicans passed $1.5 trillion in tax cuts mostly for the already-rich. In reality, means testing can wind up costing more money than before restrictions were added, since it involves creating new bureaucratic steps. In 2016, more than a dozen states had passed legislation requiring drug tests for people applying for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), a cash-assistance program for the poorest people in the country. Collectively, those states spent $1.3 million in a single year for the drug testing, and the only turned up 369 people who tested positive. On top of that, there's evidence that the additional requirements actually deter people from trying to access the benefits, even if they meet all the qualifications.

The opposition to universal programs isn't unique to Republicans, and since the Carter administration establishment Democrats have been major players in cutting the legs out of social welfare programs. In 1995, Bill Clinton backed and signed into law reforms meant to "end welfare as we know it," making programs harder to access and more temporary. And means testing is popular even among the people vying in the Democratic presidential primaries. Take heath care as an example. Vermont senator Bernie Sanders is behind Medicare for All, a universal, government-funded health-care system. Former vice president Joe Biden is staunchly opposed to anything that would upend the Affordable Care Act, the signature achievement of the Obama administration. But while the ACA has gone a long way toward getting more people insured, it still awards subsidies based on income, a process that confuses and frustrates people applying for them and is also easily exploited by wealthy people living off assets.