Cuts to federal food assistance would devastate Ohioans, food banks that help supplement
A budget resolution being considered by Congress would set funding targets for the next decade, and proposals have called for at least $880 billion in cuts from programs covered by the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Agriculture Committee, including the nutrition program, SNAP.
'The principal entitlement programs under these committees are Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program … which indicates that these two programs are the principal targets for budget cutbacks,' researchers at The Commonwealth Fund said in a new report released Tuesday laying out the impacts of those cuts on state economies.
A separate analysis released in February by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities stated that, of the at least $230 billion in federal cuts proposed through 2034 from programs in the jurisdiction of the House Agriculture Committee, reductions are 'expected to come largely or entirely from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and to be used to help pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest business owners and households.'
'Lawmakers cannot cut $230 billion – or anything close to that amount – from SNAP without slashing benefits, restricting eligibility, or some combination of both,' the center analysis stated.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The population to be impacted the most by these cuts is one that's already fighting to afford food and supplementing their SNAP benefits with visits to strained food banks.
'I can't imagine, in our current state environment, what the state would do if they had to take on any other burden for the SNAP program,' said Hope Lane-Gavin, director of nutrition policy and programs for the Ohio Association of Food Banks.
County job and family services agencies are understaffed and underfunded, struggling for help from the state to stay afloat as it is, Lane-Gavin said. And that's to say nothing of the food banks that are trying to weather the onslaught of Ohioans who need help.
'We continue to break records in numbers of people served, in first-time people served, in amount of food served,' she told the Capital Journal.
As of last month, the Ohio Department of Job & Family Services reported nearly 1.5 million SNAP recipients in Ohio, accounting for more than $258 million in regular funding allotments to the recipients.
Broken down by federal congressional district, the 11th U.S. House District in Northeast Ohio has the largest amount of recipients in the state, with more than 20% of the district's population receiving assistance from SNAP. The 2nd U.S. House District in Southeast Ohio has the second most recipients, with nearly 16% of its population participating in the program.
With the average SNAP benefit in Ohio sitting at $5.92 per person per day, Lane-Gavin said supplements from food banks are necessary to keep food on the table for many Ohioans, and a cut to funding for SNAP and other assistance would be devastating.
'We can't afford it; we don't have the food,' Lane-Gavin said.
The cuts are just proposals at this point, and congressional leaders haven't laid out specific plans, but a House Budget Committee document gave options for cuts, including a dozen to the SNAP program, according to the Commonwealth Fund research.
Those options included reducing SNAP benefits by eliminating an update to the Thrifty Food Plan, a USDA-developed food plan that estimates the cost of a healthy diet. There are several food plans, but the Thrifty Food Plan develops diet plans based on the lowest cost, representing a 'nutritious, practical, cost-effective diet prepared at home for a 'reference' family,' defined as a male and female with two children between the ages of 6 and 11.
Other options included in the committee document included expanding a SNAP work requirement.
A proposed budget reduction for SNAP represents a nearly 21% cut in benefits, the Commonwealth Fund found, with $22 billion lost in 2026 alone.
'State economies would be seriously harmed by SNAP cutbacks,' the fund stated. 'Their aggregate (gross domestic products) would be nearly $18 billion lower, and total economic output would be $30 billion lower.'
Ohio-level numbers from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities forecast a nearly $8 billion cut from Ohio's SNAP program between 2026 and 2034, with more than 10,000 SNAP-authorized retailers at risk of losing revenue.
The Commonwealth Fund anticipates about 143,000 jobs lost in the country, including 78,000 'direct job losses in food-related sectors such as agriculture, retail grocery and food processing.'
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
NBC News
43 minutes ago
- NBC News
Texas Democrats leave state to fight Republican redistricting effort
In a move to counter Republican redistricting in Texas, dozens of Democrats in the State House of Representatives are heading to Illinois on Sunday to deny a necessary quorum for the GOP to move forward with those efforts to add more Republican House seats in Congress. NBC News' Ryan Chandler has the latest.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
The billionaire behind mysterious immigration ads targeting Miami Republicans
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'We are seeing a replay of what I saw when I was 12 years old and left Cuba,' said Fernández, 73, who is known as Mike. 'It is beyond troubling. It is scary.' Advertisement Fernández is a former Republican who left the party more than a decade ago to register without party affiliation. The ad campaign, run by a political group called Keep Them Honest, has made Fernández something of an outlier in Florida, which has moved decidedly to the political right. That trend has occurred throughout Miami-Dade County, where several cities have some of the country's highest levels of foreign-born residents, most of them Hispanic. Republicans have defended President Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration as necessary to ensure the rule of law after the number of migrants crossing the southern border surged in recent years. Advertisement Fernández's immediate goal is to help oust in next year's midterm elections at least one of the state's three Cuban American Republican members of Congress: Representatives Mario Diaz-Balart, Carlos A. Gimenez, and Maria Elvira Salazar. The three Republicans, however, have not entirely supported the White House's immigration crackdown. They have pushed back against the administration's move to strip deportation protections from hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans, a rare instance of dissent between congressional Republicans and Trump. Salazar has also noted that she filed legislation to provide some immigrants a path to legal status, though the effort has not gained much traction. When a local Spanish-language television station asked Diaz-Balart recently about the ads, he said that it was a point of 'much pride' for 'the extreme left to criticize me.' 'Congressman — it's not them,' Fernández wrote, referring to the 'extreme left,' in a letter that he plans to publish soon to reveal his campaign involvement. 'It's us.' It was not previously known that Fernández has led the ad campaign, but he has excoriated the three Republicans before. In May, he wrote a letter urging them to stand up to Trump. He also took out full-page ads against them in the Times and The Wall Street Journal decrying their 'complicity and cowardice.' Fernández knows his campaign to unseat any of the three representatives might fail: They are well known, none of their districts are very competitive and, Fernández said, there does not appear to be strong prospective Democratic candidates to challenge them. Advertisement As much as he is pouring his money into the ads, Fernández acknowledged that just spending his fortune may not be enough to reach his goal. 'It cannot just be cash on the table,' he said. By putting his name to the campaign, Fernández said he would like to initiate a 'movement' of like-minded donors, activists, and voters to commit to robustly challenging congressional Republicans in the midterms, who he says have not done enough to challenge the Trump administration's immigration policies. Fernández said he had privately persuaded more than 30 donors, about a third of them Republicans, to contribute since April to Keep Them Honest. As a 'dark money' group, Keep Them Honest can fund issue ads and does not have to disclose its donors. He would like more of them to speak publicly but is not sure if they will for fear of retaliation. Fernández said he had received threats and lost investors, friends, and close contact with some family members as a result of his political involvement. By his estimation, Fernández donated more than $30 million to Republican candidates over the years, including small contributions in the past to Salazar, whom he is now targeting. He also served as finance cochair of the 2014 reelection campaign of former governor Rick Scott, a Republican, and donated millions to Jeb Bush's Republican presidential campaign in 2016. After Trump won that year's primary, Fernández endorsed Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, in the general election. Fernández's family arrived in New York in 1965. He remembered how other immigrants in the city, from Mexico and Ireland, gave him snow boots and a coat. He later served as a paratrooper in the US Army. Advertisement He recently rescinded a $10 million donation to Miami Dade College and a $1 million donation to Florida International University, both public institutions. It was a response to state lawmakers and Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican, repealing legislation from 2014 that allowed certain immigrants who were brought into the country illegally as children to pay in-state tuition rates. Fernández had forcefully lobbied for the original law, which hangs framed on his office wall. He said he was redirecting some of that money to a nonprofit that provides students lacking permanent legal status with scholarships to private schools. 'I have to leave a mark,' he said, 'an example to my family and my children.' This article originally appeared in
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
How Trump's EPA is giving up the role of US protector
Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, last week proposed to repeal the landmark scientific finding that enables the federal government to regulate the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet. In effect, the EPA will eliminate its authority to combat climate change. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Speaking at a truck dealership in Indianapolis, Zeldin said the EPA would reverse a 2009 scientific conclusion, known as the endangerment finding, that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to public health. He said the agency would also rescind Biden-era regulations designed to reduce planet-warming emissions from automobile tailpipes. Advertisement While few people have heard of the endangerment finding, it has had a profound effect on society. Its establishment cleared the way for the Obama administration to set the country's first limits on greenhouse gases from cars and power plants, with the goal of putting more electric vehicles on the roads and adding more renewable energy to the electric grid. Advertisement But Zeldin's announcement was only the latest in a rapid-fire series of actions to weaken or eliminate protections against climate change. In April, the Trump administration dismissed hundreds of scientists and experts who had been compiling the federal government's flagship analysis of how climate change is affecting the country. In May, President Trump proposed to stop collecting key measurements of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as part of his 2026 budget plan. And since January, he has called for eliminating or overhauling the Federal Emergency Management Agency to shift disaster response to the states. Joe Aldy, a professor of environmental policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, said that by repealing the endangerment finding, the Trump administration was relinquishing the country's historical role as a protector of public health. 'The concern here isn't just the attack on regulation,' he said. 'There is this much bigger question of what does it mean to promote the general welfare?' In response to questions, an EPA spokesperson, Brigit Hirsch, said in an email, referring to the 2009 endangerment finding: 'How does a partisan policy from the mid-2000s qualify as a 'time-honored American tradition'? EPA is bound by the laws established by Congress and Congress never explicitly gave EPA authority to impose greenhouse gas regulations for cars and trucks.' Taylor Rogers, a White House spokesperson, said that the endangerment finding had been misused to justify excessive regulation and that the administration was 'putting everyday Americans First by restoring consumer choice and sidestepping the left's out-of-touch climate policies.' Governments have taken steps to protect citizens from environmental hazards for centuries. After cholera outbreaks in the mid-1800s, England worked to improve sanitation and water quality. In the United States, research into contaminated drinking water in the early 20th century led to investments in sanitation. And the Clean Air Act, enacted in 1963 and amended in 1990, helped solve issues including smog in Los Angeles, acid rain in New England, and the depletion of the ozone layer high in the atmosphere. Advertisement 'This is a real retreat from the social compact that I think has been dominant in the US for some time,' said Margaret Levi, a professor of political science at Stanford University. 'Part of government's responsibility is to protect the health and well-being of its citizens to the extent that it can, and that does require some regulation.' The Trump administration's approach has supporters. Several conservative scholars and politicians applauded the imminent end of the endangerment finding, saying it had empowered the EPA to restrict Americans' choices of how to heat their homes and what kinds of cars to drive. 'The endangerment finding became a pretext for the agency, without congressional authorization, to impose centralized economic planning on the US transportation and electric power sectors,' said Marlo Lewis Jr., a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a right-wing research organization. After the proposal to repeal the endangerment finding is published in the Federal Register, the EPA will solicit public comments for 45 days. The agency will then finalize the rule, most likely within the next year. The debate over the proper use of the government's regulatory hand has been going on for centuries. Adam Smith, an 18th-century philosopher and economist, argued that governments should play a limited role, emphasizing the importance of free markets and individual rights. A century later, philosopher John Stuart Mill contended that governments should promote the common good. Advertisement 'What this government is doing is going outside the frame of that debate,' Levi said. 'It's not talking about what are the cost to citizens. It's only really focusing on what are the costs to business, and denying the science that demonstrates there is a cost to the public.' This article originally appeared in
