SNAP cuts proposal endangers Texoma food security
The bill includes changes such as stricter benefits requirements, making refugees ineligible for SNAP, and mandating state payments of 5 to 25 percent for SNAP benefit amounts, which hurts the program's ability to meet increased need during natural disasters and economic crises.
Construction projects in Wichita Falls to boost economy
These measures would result in a decrease in benefit levels, fewer people eligible for food assistance and a significant reduction in the number of people participating in the program.
Wichita Falls Area Food Bank CEO David O'Neil said the SNAP cuts directly hurt the children and families on fixed incomes who are already struggling with hunger in our food bank's 12-county area.
'Out of almost 200 food banks, the Wichita Falls area food bank has the 15th highest hunger rate or food insecurity rate in the entire country. So we're at a point where it's already difficult for many, many of our neighbors to seek assistance and get help,' O'Neil said. 'But the change and the bill that's being presented, through the budget reconciliation, is going to make it even more difficult for our neighbors to be able to find food.'
According to the Urban Institute, the SNAP cost-sharing plan could push nearly 900,000 additional people into poverty during a recession.
The Feeding Texas Network is calling on members of the House Agriculture Committee and all members of the US House to reject these proposed snap cuts, which include the state cost-share plan.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Snap Stock Is Jumping Today -- Is It a Buy Right Now?
Key Points Snap stock is gaining ground following a new analyst research note. Bernstein raised its one-year price on Snap from $9 per share to $10 per share, citing encouraging trends in the broader digital ads market. Snap stock is still trading at beaten-down levels, but user engagement trends in the U.S. market are a challenge for the company. 10 stocks we like better than Snap › Despite some bearish valuation pressures for the broader tech sector today, Snap (NYSE: SNAP) stock is moving higher in Tuesday's trading. The company's share price was up 4.2% as of 1:30 p.m. ET. At the same point in the daily session, the S&P 500 had dipped 0.1%, and the Nasdaq Composite was down 0.4%. Snap is getting a boost from new analyst coverage from Bernstein. The investment firm published a note on the company this morning that maintained a market perform rating on the stock and increased its one-year price target from $9 per share to $10 per share. The firm's analysts said that it was becoming more difficult to identify likely underperformers in the internet sectors in light of current market conditions. They also indicated that they were seeing solid performance metrics in the digital-advertising space that is central to Snap's sales and earnings. Is Snap stock a buy right now? The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite index's level has risen roughly 8% across 2025's trading, and Snap stock has been a significant underperformer. Even with today's pop, the company's share price is still down roughly 4% this year. The company's sales increased 14% year over year to $1.36 billion in this year's first quarter, and the daily active users (DAUs) on its platforms increased 9% year over year to reach 460 million. While the business posted a net loss of $140 million in the period, it marked a significant improvement over the roughly $305 million loss recorded in the prior-year period. Unfortunately, Snap's user growth has largely been driven by additions outside the U.S. -- and its users in international markets typically monetize at lower levels. DAUs in the U.S. actually declined to roughly 99 million in Q1, down from 100 million in last year's fourth quarter. Compared to other leading players in the social media industry, the company also appears to have relatively weak positioning in artificial intelligence (AI). With the stock continuing to trade at beaten-down prices, it wouldn't be shocking to see its valuation bound above current levels -- but investors also have stronger players in the tech sector to choose from. Do the experts think Snap is a buy right now? The Motley Fool's expert analyst team, drawing on years of investing experience and deep analysis of thousands of stocks, leverages our proprietary Moneyball AI investing database to uncover top opportunities. They've just revealed their to buy now — did Snap make the list? When our Stock Advisor analyst team has a stock recommendation, it can pay to listen. After all, Stock Advisor's total average return is up 1,055% vs. just 180% for the S&P — that is beating the market by 874.27%!* Imagine if you were a Stock Advisor member when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $665,092!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,050,477!* The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 21, 2025 Keith Noonan has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Snap Stock Is Jumping Today -- Is It a Buy Right Now? was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
Business Upturn
8 hours ago
- Business Upturn
Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill' Sacrifices Coal Country for Politics
By GlobeNewswire Published on July 22, 2025, 21:41 IST Washington, D.C., July 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — On July 4, President Donald Trump signed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' (OBBBA) into law. This sweeping bill repeals clean energy and manufacturing investments and initiatives, and cuts funding for programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP). The bill includes several provisions that will negatively impact coal communities by cutting off access to programs designed to revitalize and diversify the economies of coal-dependent areas while creating good jobs. 'Donald Trump left coal communities out in the cold during his first term and he's doing it again now. He talks a big game about defending coal communities, but his words are empty and his actions tell the real story,' said BlueGreen Alliance Executive Director Jason Walsh. 'Trump isn't interested in policies that will help the workers and communities bearing the brunt of the energy transition. Instead, he's dismantling them and feeding families false hope just to help his rich friends get richer.' Contact If you have any questions, need additional information, or would like to set up an interview with one of our policy experts, please contact our Press Secretary, Justin Jackson at [email protected] or (951) 214-9108. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Background The 'Big Beautiful Bill Act' signed into law by Donald Trump is yet another part of his agenda that serves as a direct attack on coal workers and communities. This bill accelerates the administration's efforts to wipe out critical protections for miners, dismantle job-creating investments, and disrupt the economic future of coal communities across the country. OBBBA is a Direct Attack on Progress in Coal Communities The bill eliminates programs that have created union jobs, driven private investment, and safeguarded public and personal health. It includes deep cuts to the tax credits that support clean energy development and domestic manufacturing nationwide and essentially voids the tax bonus specifically targeted toward fossil fuel communities. In addition, it reverses the major progress already underway from the once-in-a-generation investments delivered through the Inflation Reduction Act—just as coal communities are beginning to feel the impact of those long-overdue benefits. The OBBBA could be devastating to coal communities. The bill: Butchered clean energy tax credits, nullifying the bonus that specifically incentivizes developing clean energy projects in energy communities. Killed remaining funds for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund putting the Green Bank for Rural America in jeopardy even if the courts unfreeze their illegally withheld funds. Turned the Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Financing loan program into the 'Energy Dominance' loan program, diverting the attention of the program from reinvesting in long-term clean energy solutions to propping up financially struggling coal and natural gas plants. Expanded the 45X Advanced Manufacturing Tax Credit to subsidize the production of metallurgical coal. Currently, the majority of metallurgical coal mined in the United States is exported. Companies will face no labor standards or requirements for the coal to be sold domestically to claim the full value of the tax credit. Other actions by the administration: Continues to withhold approximately $500 million from the Green Bank for Rural America, a recipient of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund awards that is dedicated to using its lending power to drive investments into rural communities and coal communities. Withheld grant funding for clean energy projects on mine lands, a program created by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Select projects have begun to move forward, though some still have not. Those projects face further headwinds due to the budget bill killing clean energy incentives. The BlueGreen Alliance Is Holding Trump and Congress Accountable The Trump administration and Congress don't want to create jobs, lower energy costs, and build a better future. If they did, they would listen to communities, not ignore them. Their actions don't just undercut progress—they undermine decades of work to secure legacy and hard-fought-for investments for coal communities. The BlueGreen Alliance is ringing the alarm. We're tracking every vote, flagging every broken promise, highlighting each investment, and calling out elected officials who put donors over workers. Coal communities deserve better and we're making sure to hold elected officials accountable. Disclaimer: The above press release comes to you under an arrangement with GlobeNewswire. Business Upturn takes no editorial responsibility for the same. Ahmedabad Plane Crash GlobeNewswire provides press release distribution services globally, with substantial operations in North America and Europe.
Vox
11 hours ago
- Vox
How Trump is making America hungrier
The Congressional Budget Office estimates more than 3 million people in the United States will likely be dropped from the accessing SNAP the next few years, states will have to decide how much of the SNAP costs to absorb, which totaled over $100 billion in 2024. The CBOe predicts that some states will scale back or drop SNAP benefits altogether. Food banks throughout the country are already raising the alarm that they won't be able to meet the food demands created by cuts to the program. In addition to shifting the cost to states, the legislation will change the enrollment requirements for SNAP, such as raising the working age to 64, and requiring able-bodied parents with children over 14 to work in order to receive benefits. Some critics of the bill argue the provision prevents SNAP from serving its purpose of feeding low-income Americans. On the Today, Explained podcast, co-host Sean Rameswaram dove into the history of SNAP, the program's controversies since its inception, and how the legislative bill will prevent the program from being able to deliver on its original goals with Tracy Roof, an associate professor of political science the University of Richmond who focuses on domestic policy who is writing a book about the history of food assistance in the United States. Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There's much more in the full episode, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. What's the history of food assistance in the United States of SNAP? Whose idea was this and why did we want to do it? In the 1950s, you got more attention to certain pockets of poverty in the United States. One of the areas that got the most attention was Appalachia with coal miners who were losing their jobs. You were starting to see more mechanization of coal mines, as well as competition from things like oil. And all of these coal miners were losing their jobs in the middle of areas that didn't have other economic opportunities. And because you had able-bodied workers in the household, a lot of these families didn't qualify for cash assistance. John F. Kennedy, when he was running for president in 1960, toured some of these areas and saw how widespread the problem of starvation was. At the same time, members of Congress made the argument that we were spending all of this money to store surplus grain, and we could not find enough places to sell that grain. So we started sending some of it abroad to starving people in other countries, but we had starving people in the United States who were not getting access to that food. And so the idea came about of trying to get some of these surplus commodities to people. When Kennedy came into office, his very first executive order was to create a pilot program. People were given coupons that looked like Monopoly money that they could take into grocery stores and use to buy any food within the grocery store. You couldn't get alcohol, you couldn't get cigarettes, but pretty much any consumable food you were able to purchase with it. Then during the mid- to late 1960s, you started to see more and more attention to the plight of tenant farmers in the South. A documentary from CBS called Hunger in America came out, and it showed starving children. When Nixon came in, there was a very famous speech where he pledged to end hunger. That ultimately led to the creation of a permanent program in 1964 that was expanded over the course of the late 1960s, and ultimately every jurisdiction was required to have it by 1974. It was set up such that the federal government would cover all the cost of the benefits, and the states would still be responsible for administering it, but a lot of the cost would be borne by the federal government. So that's the origins of the program. Epic. Yeah. This isn't the first time that people have wanted to cut or curtail or prevent certain people from accessing this program. That's been a long-established history as well. Pretty much from the beginning, there've been critics of the program. I mean, there were people in Congress that just didn't think it was necessary, or they thought that it should be treated as a welfare program and not as a nutrition or agricultural program because it was always put into the Farm Bill. But as inflation grew in the 1970s, enrollment really started to take off. And you saw people like Ronald Reagan in his run for the presidency become very critical of people becoming overly dependent on it. The argument was very similar to what we've just heard, that we needed to protect the program for the truly needy and get people that can fend for themselves off of it. Is this most recent cut to SNAP the most drastic cut we've ever seen? Yes, it's likely to be the biggest cut we've seen. But it isn't an elimination. It's saying, 'States, you gotta figure this out, your move.' Exactly. Is it going to affect Democrats, Republicans, white people, Black people, Asian people, poor people, tall people? A lot of that is gonna be up to the states. So rather than Congress coming in and saying, 'We're going to eliminate eligibility for these categories of people,' it's telling the states, 'You're going to have to bear a larger share of the benefits. And if you can't cover that, you're going to have to figure out how you reduce enrollment in the program or come up with ways to cover the additional cost.' You know, some of the bluer states are probably going to try to make up those differences and maintain assistance to people. Some of the poorer states are probably going to cut back. People will be hungry. Why let people go hungry? We're the richest country on Earth. Why do people want to cut food aid for the poor? You always have a number of people that could be getting something like SNAP, but they don't apply, either because of the stigma associated with it, or because they don't want to go through all the paperwork, or for whatever reason they don't know they're eligible. Back in the 1990s in the midst of welfare reform, the participation rate fell such that only 57 percent of eligible participants participated in SNAP. And then over the course of the George W. Bush administration, that number came up into the 70s. As they tried to make the program more accessible — and that took off during the Great Recession — what you saw was a steep increase in the percentage of people that were on SNAP. It went up to 15 percent of the population at the peak in 2013. But it remained pretty high, even as the economy started to recover. That was largely because it took a long time for the economic recovery to hit low-income workers, and partly because of the decline in stigma. And so that criticism became really loud in Congress once Republicans took control of Congress during the Obama years, and it carried over into the Trump administration. This isn't the first time that the Trump administration has tried to cut benefits. They tried to do it in the wake of the 2016 election as well, they just weren't successful. How much of a shakeup do you think this is of food aid in the United States ultimately? Most states have to have balanced budgets either because of their constitutions or because of state laws. They can't just sell more Treasury bonds the way the federal government does. That means that when we slip into a recession, states face really tough choices because they need to fund education, they need to fund Medicaid, and they need to fund all the other services that states provide. They're going to face some really tough choices about where they allocate their resources.
