Democrats pick fight over how GOP's SNAP change hits states
Legislation passed out of the GOP-led Congress on Thursday that could see some states pay a share of benefit costs for SNAP, also known as the food stamps program, for the first time.
The federal government currently covers the cost of benefits, but under the plan that's been tossed around by congressional Republicans over the past few months, some states would have to cover anywhere between 5 percent and 15 percent of the benefits costs if they have a payment error rate above 6 percent — which factors in over-and-underpayments.
However, changes were made to the text that allowed delayed implementation for the cost-share requirements for states with the highest error rates shortly before its passage in the Senate this week. GOP leadership sought to lock down support from Alaska Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, whose state had the highest payment error rate in the country in fiscal year 2024.
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said Republicans made the change to comply with chamber rules.
'You have to give those states time to adjust because about all they're going to do is get down to that midrange, and then they're still going to have to pay a penalty because they're so high,' he said. 'So, it's about giving states a fair chance to adjust.'
Under the plan that was greenlit by Congress on Thursday, some states would begin contributing a share of benefit costs in fiscal year 2028, depending on their payment error rate. But the plan also allows for delayed implementation for two years for states with payment error rates if they reach around 13.34 percent or higher — an effort Republicans say is aimed at providing states like Alaska with much higher rates to bring them down.
Hoeven said the GOP-led agriculture committee, which crafted the SNAP pitch, 'came up with a lot of proposals' trying to comply with restrictive rules governing a special process that Republicans used to approve the plan in the upper chamber without Democratic support. Under the rules, Hoeven said, 'they always said you got to give states time to adjust in order to meet the test.'
Republicans say the overall proposal is aimed at incentivizing states to reduce erroneous payments. But Democrats have sharply criticized the plan, arguing it would encourage states with higher error rates to continue making erroneous payments.
'The most absurd example of the hypocrisy of the Republican bill: they have now proposed delaying SNAP cuts FOR TWO YEARS ONLY FOR STATES with the highest error rates just to bury their help for Alaska: AK, DC, FL, GA, MD, MA, NJ, NM, NY, OR. They are rewarding errors,' Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee, wrote this week as she sounded off in a series of posts on X over the plan.
In another swipe at the plan, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) wrote on X that he had to text his state's governor that 10 states with 'the MOST ERRORS in administering the program' are 'exempt from food assistance cuts,' at that Hawaii is not exempt because the governor has done 'good work in reducing the error rate by 15 percent.'
The comments come as Democrats and advocates have argued the measure could lead to states having to cut benefits because of the shift in cost burden.
Recent figures unveiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) showed Alaska's payment error rate hit 24.66 percent in fiscal year 2024. The national average was 10.93 percent.
Murkowski said after the vote that she didn't 'like' the bill but sought to 'to take care of Alaska's interests.' But she also said she knew 'that, in many parts of the country, there are Americans that are not going to be advantaged by this bill.'
'I don't like the fact that we moved through an artificial deadline, an artificial timeline to produce something, to meet a deadline, rather than to actually try to produce the best bill for the country,' she said. 'But when I saw the direction that this is going, you can either say, 'I don't like it and not try to help my state,' or you can roll up your sleeves.'
Republicans also criticized Democrats for challenging a previous GOP-crafted SNAP provision that sought to provide more targeted help to Alaska, as GOP leadership sought to win Murkowski's support for the bill, which ultimately passed the Senate in a tie-breaking vote. However, Democrats opposed previously proposed waivers for the noncontiguous states of Alaska and Hawaii, decrying 'special treatment.'
In remarks on Wednesday, House Agriculture Chairman Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.) the Senate 'had to add something to get to address that challenge that Alaska has.'
'The goal is, from a functionality perspective, they need to get their error rate down as soon as possible, because when the time comes, and they have to start to pay, they don't want to be that high error rate that you're coming in now,' he said.
'In most states, Alaska would be a challenge, I think, but most states have been under 6 percent at one time in past years,' he said.
However, he also wasn't 'crazy about' work requirements exemptions for some Indigenous populations in the Senate's version of Trump's megabill that didn't appear in the House bill, as Republicans seek to tighten work requirements.
'It's what the Senate had to do,' he said, though he noted that 'economic conditions are challenging on those sovereign lands and in high unemployment, high poverty.'
It's unclear whether the carve-outs were the result of talks Alaska senators had with GOP leadership around SNAP in the days leading up to the Senate passage. The Hill has reached out to their offices for comment.
The Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development said Alaska has 'one of the largest indigenous populations in the nation,' with Alaska Natives representing 17 percent of the state in 2010.
At the same time, the Senate bill nixed temporary exemptions that had been preserved in the House bill for former foster youth, homeless individuals and veterans.
Despite being preserved in the House plan, Thompson criticized the carve-outs, which were secured as part of a previous bipartisan deal in 2023.
'It cheats all those individuals from having access to that to us funding their SNAP Employment and career and technical education, because the whole goal here is to raise these people out of poverty if they're struggling in poverty, because that's how you qualify for SNAP,' he said. 'And the fact is, they were made ineligible for the really great benefits.'
Other proposals in the party's SNAP plan seek to limit the federal government's ability to increase monthly benefits in the future, changes to work requirements and include a chunk of farm provisions.
The plan comes as Republicans sought to find ways to generate north of $1 trillion in savings of federal dollars over the next decade as part of a major package that also advances President Trump's tax agenda, which is estimated to add trillions of dollars to the nation's deficits.
Republicans say the proposed spending reductions, which are achieved also through changes to programs like Medicaid, are aimed at rooting out 'waste, fraud and abuse' in the federal government.
But preliminary research released this week by the Urban Institute found that just the SNAP changes could affect about 22 million families, who researchers said could be at risk of 'losing some or all of their SNAP benefits' under the plan.
Asked if last-minute changes to the plan to help other states and not his bothered him, Sen. Jim Justice (R-W.Va.), who ultimately voted for the plan, told reporters this week, 'Yes and no.'
'But at the same time, I think they probably had more severe need and so I think it'll be fine,' Justice, a former governor, said Tuesday.
'If it's like any business deal that I've ever seen in my life, you know, the parties of a good business deal walk away after they get something done, and they walk away, and they're probably holding their nose a little bit, and they're probably regretting certain things and saying, 'Doggone, we didn't do good on this and that and everything,' That's a good deal.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
34 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Legendary fund manager has blunt message on ‘Big Beautiful Bill'
It's official. The Big Beautiful Bill is law. President Donald Trump successfully arm-wrestled support in the House and Senate to get his signature tax cut and spending bill across the legislative finish line on July 4. It wasn't easy. The House only passed the bill initially after blue-state Congressmen successfully increased the State and Local Tax (SALT) Deduction substantially, providing much-hoped-for relief to homeowners in high-tax communities. The Senate was even more contentious. Some senators recoiled at the bill's size, forcing steep cuts to energy tax credits and Medicaid. Still, even with those offsets, the bill carries a staggering price tag. Ultimately, the bill squeaked through, with Vice President Vance's vote resulting in a 51-50 final vote tally. Related: Goldman Sachs revamps Fed interest rate cut forecast for 2025 That cost captured the attention of longtime Wall Street icon Ray Dalio. Dalio founded Bridgewater Associates, a hedge fund now managing more than $112 billion of assets. He's featured in the popular "Market Wizards" series of books, and his prescient economic and stock market predictions have made him a billionaire worth $16 billion, good enough to rank him 156th on Bloomberg's Billionaires Index. Over his 50-year investment career, Dalio has navigated his share of good and bad economic times, and many consider him among the most successful in predicting what could happen next to markets. Lately, he's focused on the U.S. debt level as a major crisis looms. Perhaps unsurprisingly, that's led to him offering a pretty blunt take on the Big Beautiful Bill Act. Image source:One of the biggest features of the law is that it extends tax cuts provided in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which was passed in 2017 during President Trump's first term in office. That's not all it does, though. Related: Veteran analyst sets eye-popping S&P 500 target On the campaign trail, President Trump made a series of promises, including more tax breaks for Americans and rolling back much of former President Biden's green energy initiatives. The over 900-page One Big Beautiful Bill Act makes good on promises to reduce taxes on Social Security and tips. However, it falls short of entirely removing taxes on them. For example, rather than eliminating income taxes on Social Security, the act provides a Social Security bonus deduction by increasing the deduction to $6,000 from $2,000 previously. Tips are also excluded from Federal income taxes; however, there is a $25,000 deduction limit. The act also eliminates tax credits for electric vehicles, energy-efficient heating and cooling, and other green energy breaks on solar and wind power. To reduce the cost of income tax cuts, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act makes steep cuts to Medicaid, including expanding work requirements. It also shifts the cost of SNAP benefits to states with an error rate above 6%. Those moves have proven highly controversial. The CBO estimates that changes to Medicaid will result in 11.8 million people losing health insurance over the next decade. Dalio has focused much of his time researching the rise and fall of economies. This research has led him to a worrisome prediction for America. Specifically, Dalio believes that our substantial and growing debt pile has us on a collision course with an economic Armageddon. He predicts that as our spending increases, people and governments will balk at buying our debt, causing a spiral that could result in either Treasury debt defaults or restructuring. Unfortunately, Dalio sees little political will in Washington, D.C., to cut the spending cord, as evidenced by Congress passing the One Big Beautiful Bill. "After spending time in Washington, D.C., discussing the budget deficit with senior people on both sides of the aisle, it's clear to me that we are unlikely to change the debt trajectory we're on and avoid the painful consequences," wrote Dalio on X. The toll taken by passing the One Big Beautiful Bill is a stiff one. The CBO estimates that the bill adds a whopping $7 trillion a year in spending and only generates about $5 trillion in revenue. As a result, debt relative to GDP will surge, adding more pressure to the economy. "The debt, which is now about 6x of the money taken in, 100 percent of GDP, and about $230,000 per American family, will rise over 10 years to about 7.5x the money taken in, 130 percent of GDP, and $425,000 per family," noted Dalio. "That will increase interest and principal payments on the debt from about $10 trillion ($1 trillion in interest, $9 trillion in principal) to about $18 trillion (of which $2 trillion is interest payments)." That's a lot of money. And Dalio thinks it will require some pretty uncomfortable fixes down the road. "[It] will lead to either a big squeezing out (and cutting off) of spending and/or unimaginable tax increases, or a lot of printing and devaluing of money and pushing interest rates to unattractively low levels. This printing and devaluing is not good for those holding bonds as a storehold of wealth, and what's bad for bonds and U.S. credit markets is bad for everyone," said Dalio. "Unless this path is soon rectified to bring the budget deficit from roughly 7% of GDP to about 3% by making adjustments to spending, taxes, and interest rates, big, painful disruptions will likely occur." The challenge, however, will remain business as usual in D.C. Politicians eager to continue to win elections will continue to make big promises, and cash-strapped Americans can't be faulted for wanting relief. However, kicking the can down the road on our debt may create a bigger problem that will be harder to fix. "While virtually everyone agrees on the need to address our debt problem in a balanced way that includes tax increases and cuts to benefits, they also agree that they cannot speak up because politics have become absolutist," wrote Dalio. "We must find a solution around absolutist pledges like, 'I will not raise taxes,' or 'I will not reduce benefits,' when they are desperately needed." Related: Legendary fund manager issues stock market prediction as S&P 500 tests all-time highs The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
New York Post
42 minutes ago
- New York Post
New York's special interests will eat Zohran Mamdani for lunch
For all his radicalism, Zohran Mamdani's program is often as vaporous as steam wafting from a Midtown manhole. It's a lot more about vibes than about delivering real change. His city-owned grocery store scheme, for starters, is almost entirely symbolic — not any real answer to the price-gouging he and his fans pretends is common at privately owned markets. The initial plan is only for one city store in each borough: That literally can't make any difference for most New Yorkers. And those five stores can't even be a meaningful test because it'd be a disaster for the new mayor if any of the stores failed. Tellingly, Mamdani brags that Chicago has already done a 'feasibility study' for city-owned groceries. Problem is, no one can read the Chicago analysis, because city leaders shelved it — almost certainly because they discovered that municipal-owned supermarkets have no chance of success. Contrary to what the hipster socialists imagine, groceries' profit margins are not rich but as thin as deli-sliced ham: Keeping the store going requires obsessive management — not the casual oversight that's given the world the phrase 'good enough for government work.' Of course, even Mamdani's plans to finance his stores is as airy as coffee-cart bagels: He said he'd tap the $140 million that the city already gives away to corporate grocery chains as a subsidy — except his crack crew misread the facts on the city's 'Food Retail Expansion to Support Health' program. That $140 million, it turns out, is how how much private store owners invested in the local economy after getting much smaller tax breaks, not city outlays a mayor could redirect. The socialist's confusion here recalls fellow DSAer Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's celebration when Amazon pulled out of the plan to build a major headquarters in Queens: This freed up $3 billion that New York could spend on schools instead of a corporate giveaway, she exulted. But no: The massive e-tailer had simply been promised (just like many other companies) tax breaks if it created so many jobs; with the deal dead, Amazon wouldn't generate any income for the state to hold off on taxing. Zeroed-out Zohran must have the same math tutor as AOC, because zilch is how much the city has on hand to pay for his food pantries posing as groceries. Of course, Mamdani actually got the funding for another of his pilot-project schemes — then lost it because he couldn't even cooperate with fellow Democrats. Ending fares on MTA buses is one of his big ideas for making NYC 'affordable'; he helped author a one-year experiment in fare-free buses on five routes in 2024 — only to see Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie quietly can the next year's funding after Mamdani refused to vote to pass the state budget. Reminder: Much of Mamdani's program — starting with getting $10 billion to cover many initiatives by hiking taxes on the rich — depends on getting Albany's OK, and he's going to need Heastie's enthusiastic support since Gov. Kathy Hochul has already said 'no go!' How will Heastie fight for a guy he already sees as a lightweight? Look: New York politics, state and city, is packed with deeply connected special interests — with public-sector outfits (unions, massive nonprofits) often more ruthless than the real-estate lobby and other private-sector players. Voters' revulsion at that corruption is a big reason Mamdani won the primary, but this crew will eat the pretty boy for lunch while he's busy filming his next viral YouTube.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Greene to introduce ‘weather modification' bill
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said Saturday she plans to introduce a bill aimed at tackling 'weather modification.' 'I am introducing a bill that prohibits the injection, release, or dispersion of chemicals or substances into the atmosphere for the express purpose of altering weather, temperature, climate, or sunlight intensity. It will be a felony offense,' she wrote in a Saturday post on X. 'I have been researching weather modification and working with the legislative counsel for months writing this bill,' Greene added. The Georgia lawmaker said the legislation would resemble Florida's Senate Bill 56, which was signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) in late June. The text makes it illegal for individuals to practice geoengineering and weather modification by imposing a $100,000 fine and a five-year prison sentence. The punishment would apply to cloud seeding, an 80-year-old technology that adds tiny particles—usually silver iodide crystals—to clouds to trigger rain or snow, as defined by the Government Accountability Office. Some states have practiced the measure, but it's rarely been undertaken by federal jurisdictions. 'We must end the dangerous and deadly practice of weather modification and geoengineering,' Greene said of the forthcoming bill. However, lawmakers in the Sunshine State said cloud seeding is a safe practice that has been undermined by conspiracy theories about weather alteration, as contrails, condensation trails left in the air by planes, are sometimes confused as chemtrails. '[They are] kind of two different things, and I think people have got them mixed up, because they think that they've heard that this chemtrail conspiracy theory is about geoengineering and weather modification,' Mick West, a science writer and fellow for the Committee of Skeptical Inquiry, told 12News. 'Then, they discover that there's this thing called cloud seeding, which actually is weather modification. And then they kind of put two and two together and make 17.' Greene made headlines last year when she suggested Democrats were able to 'control the weather' in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene, prompting then-President Biden to condemn what he called 'irresponsible' and 'beyond ridiculous' falsehoods. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) poked fun at Greene's bill in a post online. 'I'm introducing a bill that prohibits the injection, release or dispersion of stupidity into Congress,' he wrote in a Saturday post, quoting Greene's original announcement. But one of her Republican colleagues has already signaled he'll back her efforts. 'Let's roll Chairlady!' Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) wrote online. Greene's office did not immediately respond to additional requests for comment on the bill and potential federal penalties outlined in the text.
