Proposed SNAP asset limit increase heads to Arkansas House after committee approval
An Arkansas House committee approved a bill Tuesday that would allow households receiving food stamps to save more of their income or own more assets.
Arkansas is one of 13 states with an asset limit for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients, and the state aligns with the federal limit of $3,000. House Bill 1915 would double the limit to $6,000 and require it to be adjusted for inflation every two years.
The House Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee passed the bill on a split voice vote. On Thursday, committee members said they were hesitant to vote without knowing how much the policy would cost the state.
The administrative cost to the Department of Human Services would be $87,500, according to the requested fiscal impact statement from the agency.
DHS Secretary Kristi Putnam told the committee she still opposed the bill, repeating her statement from Thursday that the state should let Act 675 of 2023 take effect first.
Act 675 kept the federal asset limit but authorized a USDA waiver request to allow exemptions for individual families with more assets. Those families would have a new asset limit of $5,500 and remain enrolled in SNAP as long as they receive an exemption within a year of exceeding the current limit, and they would only be allowed one exemption every five years.
Advocates for child well-being call for removal of barriers to Arkansas SNAP participation
Assets include cash on hand and in the bank, savings certificates and stocks and bonds, among other things. HB 1915 would repeal Act 675 and replace it with the $6,000 asset limit.
Sen. Jonathan Dismang, R-Searcy, sponsored Act 675 and is sponsoring HB 1915. He expressed frustration in January and again last week that DHS has not yet implemented Act 675. The Arkansas Legislative Council's Executive Subcommittee approved an emergency rule Thursday to enact the policy.
Earlier versions of Act 675 would have raised the asset limit to $12,500 and then to $6,000. Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders said at the time that she opposed making people more dependent on government benefits, a sentiment echoed Thursday by Opportunity Arkansas CEO Nicholas Horton and Tuesday by Nick Stehle, a visiting fellow at FGA Action.
Rep. Jon Eubanks, R-Paris, is HB 1915's House sponsor and told the Public Health committee that the bill will give SNAP recipients a path to no longer needing food stamps.
Rep. Aaron Pilkington, R-Knoxville, said he supported providing 'off-ramps' for Arkansans on government assistance, based on his past work with Section 8 housing assistance recipients.
'They would get a job, they're working, they're doing everything we want them to do, but then unfortunately they would get a promotion and potentially would lose their housing, so they wouldn't take the promotion,' Pilkington said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Three members of the public spoke in favor of HB 1915, with two saying they personally benefited from SNAP and saw the asset limit as a barrier to developing financial stability and food security.
Brittany Stockton told the committee she enrolled herself and her three daughters in public assistance a few years ago after leaving a dangerous situation.
'Had we had savings, we would have been better off, but I wouldn't have been eligible for the benefits that I had,' said Stockton, who added that she has worked two jobs for two years and no longer qualifies for benefits.
Holly Skipper said she also works two jobs and had to reduce her hours at one of them in order to receive SNAP benefits, which she received on Saturday, four months after applying. She is both a full-time student and a full-time caregiver for her husband and adult son, the latter of whom receives disability benefits, she said.
'Not only did I have to account for every dime that I was making in the two part-time jobs I had, plus school, plus my son's money, but I spent days and days crying, wondering which job I was going to have to quit so that I could afford to be able to feed my son and feed my partner,' Skipper said.
Because of the SNAP asset limit, DHS required Skipper to explain why she owns a vehicle before approving her application; she explained she needs it to get her husband to his medical appointments, she said.
'People aren't just out there trying to stay down,' Skipper said. 'We're trying to get some help, and we're trying to get a leg up so we can help other people.'
New report ranks Arkansas' food insecurity rate worst in the U.S.
The federal asset limit of $3,000 isn't even one month's worth of savings in case of an emergency, said Christin Harper, policy director for Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, the third person to speak for the bill. AACF called for the removal of the asset limit in a January report.
Harper reminded the committee that Arkansas has the nation's highest rate of food insecurity, at nearly 19% in 2023, according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report released in September. The report defines food insecurity as being unable, at some time during the year, to provide adequate food for one or more household members because of a lack of resources.
Food insecurity for Arkansas children is higher at 24.2%, which accounts for more than 168,000 children, according to Feeding America.
Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance Advocacy Director Lance Whitney expressed support for HB 1915 last week.
The full House is expected to vote on HB 1915 Wednesday.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Jeffries hammers Trump on Gaza, calls for increased aid
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) criticized President Trump over his handling of the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, calling for an immediate ceasefire, increased aid to the war-torn enclave and the release of all remaining hostages held by the Palestinian militant group. 'During the first six months of Donald Trump's time in office, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza has reached a breaking point, hostages are still being held by Hamas despite the President's promise they would be released and the pre-existing ceasefire the administration inherited has been breached,' Jeffries said in a statement on Friday. 'The starvation and death of Palestinian children and civilians in an ongoing war zone is unacceptable.' 'The Trump administration has the ability to bring an end to this humanitarian crisis. They must act now,' he added. Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff said on Thursday that the U.S. will step away from peace negotiations in the region and is now considering alternative ways to free the hostages taken by Hamas during the Oct. 7, 2023, surprise attack on Israel. 'We will now consider alternative options to bring the hostages home and try to create a more stable environment for the people of Gaza,' Witkoff said in a statement. 'It is a shame that Hamas has acted in this selfish way. We are resolute in seeking an end to this conflict and a permanent peace in Gaza.' The Hill has reached out to the White House spokesperson for comment. Dozens of aid groups have warned that the Gaza Strip is on the brink of starvation, with one in five children being malnourished in Gaza City, according to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Over 1,000 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military while waiting in food lines, according to the UN. Israel has argued that Hamas, which is a U.S.-designated terrorist group, 'operates every day to create a perception of crisis.' U.S. allies, including Australia, the United Kingdom and France, have similarly sounded the alarm over humanitarian conditions in the strip and have called for more aid. The House Democratic leader also reupped his calls for a two-state solution in the nearly two-year conflict. 'It is imperative that humanitarian aid be surged into Gaza immediately, the remaining Israeli hostages be released and the ceasefire negotiated by the Biden administration restored. We need a just and lasting peace,' Jeffries said in his statement. 'Ultimately, that will only occur through a two-state solution that facilitates a safe and secure Israel living side by side with a Palestinian state that provides dignity, self-determination and prosperity for its people,' the New York Democrat added. To help out the Palestinians, Israel is allowing Jordan and the United Arab Emirates to air-drop aid packages into Gaza. The 2023 terrorist attack left some 1,200 Israeli's dead and roughly 250 hostages were taken captive. Nearly two years later, the Israeli military has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, according to local health affiliates. That number does not distinguish between civilians and Hamas fighters.
New York Post
23 minutes ago
- New York Post
Democrats' approval rating craters to 35-year low: WSJ poll
Democrats' approval rating with registered voters has plunged to a 35-year low, while Republicans maintain an edge on most of the top issues Americans care about, a new poll found. A whopping 63% of registered voters view Democrats unfavorably, dramatically eclipsing the 33% who had a positive impression, marking the lowest rating they scored since 1990, according to a Wall Street Journal survey. That abysmal rating for Democrats comes against the backdrop of lackluster figures for President Trump and Republicans. Trump's approval rating sits at 46%, with 52% who disapprove of the commander in chief. The figure is higher than this point during his first term, which was 40%. Republicans' approval rating clocked in at a net seven points unfavorable. If congressional elections were held today, 46% of voters indicated they'd back a Democrat, compared to 43% who would support a Republican. 3 The poll suggests that House Democrats have their work cut out for them to ensure they can flip control of the lower chamber. AP 3 Democrats are also carefully eyeing pickup opportunities in Senate races. AP A majority, 51%, also said the change Trump is bringing has resulted in dysfunction and chaos, compared to 45% who agreed the president was making positive adjustments. Still, across the board, voters preferred the GOP approach over the Dem position on a range of key issues. Voters trusted Republicans over Democrats on inflation by about 10 points; on immigration by 17 points; and handling illegal immigrants by 17 points, the survey found. In one unique finding, respondents disapproved of Trump's tariffs by 17 points and Republicans still scored 7 points higher than Democrats on that issue. 'The Democratic brand is so bad that they don't have the credibility to be a critic of Trump or the Republican Party,' John Anzalone, a Democratic pollster who helped conduct the survey, told the outlet. 'Until they reconnect with real voters and working people on who they're for and what their economic message is, they're going to have problems.' Anzalone teamed up with Republican Tony Fabrizio, Trump's trusted pollster during the 2024 campaign cycle, to conduct the survey for the Wall Street Journal. 3 President Trump's approval rating was underwater but higher than at this point during his first term, the poll showed. REUTERS One area where congressional Democrats topped Republicans was vaccine policy and healthcare, per the poll. Democrats are still reeling from their 2024 election loss, and key figures within the party have openly vented that the party doesn't have a strong message or sense of direction. Typically, the party out of power in the White House is favored to have a strong performance in the midterm elections, which is why many observers believe the Democrats are well-positioned heading into 2026. However, the Wall Street Journal poll shows Democrats are still remarkably anemic as the party struggles to find its footing. Around this time in 2017, voters called themselves Democrats over Republicans by 6 percentage points, per the poll. Democrats later went on to flip 40 House seats in the 2018 midterm elections. This go-around, Republicans have a 1-point edge in party identification over Democrats. Republicans have a threadbare 219 to 212 House majority and are scrambling to defy history by retaining control during the 2026 midterms. The Wall Street Journal poll sampled 1,500 registered voters between July 16–20 with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
How redistricting in Texas and other states could change the game for US House elections
WASHINGTON — Redistricting usually happens after the once-a-decade population count by the U.S. Census Bureau or in response to a court ruling. Now, Texas Republicans want to break that tradition — and other states could follow suit. President Trump has asked the Texas Legislature to create districts, in time for next year's midterm elections, that will send five more Republicans to Washington and make it harder for Democrats to regain the majority and blunt his agenda. The state has 38 seats in the House. Republicans now hold 25 and Democrats 12, with one seat vacant after the death of a Democrat. 'There's been a lot more efforts by the parties and political actors to push the boundaries – literally and figuratively – to reconfigure what the game is,' said Doug Spencer, Rothgerber Jr. Chair in Constitutional Law at the University of Colorado. Other states are waiting to see what Texas does and whether to follow suit. The rules of redistricting can be vague and variable; each state has its own set of rules and procedures. Politicians are gauging what voters will tolerate when it comes to politically motivated mapmaking. Here's what to know about the rules of congressional redistricting: Every decade, the Census Bureau collects population data used to divide the 435 House seats among the 50 states based on the updated head count. It's a process known as reapportionment. States that grew relative to others might gain a seat at the expense of those whose populations stagnated or declined. States use their own procedures to draw lines for the assigned number of districts. The smallest states receive just one representative, which means the entire state is a single congressional district. Some state constitutions require independent commissions to devise the political boundaries or to advise the legislature. When legislatures take the lead, lawmakers can risk drawing lines that end up challenged in court, usually for violating the Voting Rights Act. Mapmakers can get another chance to resubmit new maps. Sometimes, judges draw the maps on their own. By the first midterm elections after the latest population count, each state is ready with its maps, but those districts do not always stick. Courts can find that the political lines are unconstitutional. There is no national impediment to a state trying to redraw districts in the middle of the decade and to do it for political reasons, such as increasing representation by the party in power. 'The laws about redistricting just say you have to redistrict after every census,' Spencer said. 'And then some state legislatures got a little clever and said, well it doesn't say we can't do it more.' Some states do have laws that would prevent midcycle redistricting or make it difficult to do so in a way that benefits one party. Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., has threatened to retaliate against the GOP push in Texas by drawing more favorable Democratic seats in his state. That goal, however, is complicated by a constitutional amendment that requires an independent commission to lead the process. Texas has done it before. When the Legislature failed to agree on a redistricting plan after the 2000 census, a federal court stepped in with its own map. Republican Tom DeLay of Texas, who was then the U.S. House majority leader, thought his state should have five more districts friendly to his party. 'I'm the majority leader and we want more seats,′′ he said at the time. Statehouse Democrats protested by fleeing to Oklahoma, depriving the Legislature of enough votes to officially conduct any business. But DeLay eventually got his way, and Republicans replaced Democrats in five seats in 2004. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts should not get involved in debates over political gerrymandering, the practice of drawing districts for partisan gain. In that decision, Chief Justice John Roberts said redistricting is 'highly partisan by any measure.' But courts may demand new maps if they believe the congressional boundaries dilute the votes of a racial minority group, in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Washington Rep. Suzan DelBene, who leads House Democrats' campaign arm, indicated at a Christian Science Monitor event that if Texas follows through on passing new maps, Democratic-led states would look at their own political lines. 'If they go down this path, absolutely folks are going to respond across the country,' DelBene said. 'We're not going to be sitting back with one hand tied behind our back while Republicans try to undermine voices of the American people.' In New York, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul recently joined Newsom in expressing openness to taking up mid-decade redistricting. But state laws mandating independent commissions or blunting the ability to gerrymander would come into play. Among Republican-led states, Ohio could try to further expand the 10-5 edge that the GOP holds in the House delegation; a quirk in state law requires Ohio to redraw its maps before the 2026 midterms. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he was considering early redistricting and 'working through what that would look like.'
