Latest news with #SupplementalNutritionAssistanceProgram
The Hill
an hour ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Republicans' mega-bill could make Americans hungry again
This is a large country, and people in different states embrace different customs, cultural preferences and political beliefs. But for all our diversity, every person in every state needs to eat. In recognition of this, America has long treated hunger as a national concern. Unfortunately, a little-understood provision in the budget reconciliation legislation speeding through Congress would change that. Within a few years of its passage, we would likely see a significant number of states with no family food assistance program at all for Americans unable to buy enough food. In the middle of the 20th century, the U.S. Department of Agriculture purchased surplus commodities from farms and distributed them to people in need, wherever they were. When this became unworkable, Congress began converting commodity distributions into food stamps that low-income households could spend in regular supermarkets to buy food for their families. President Richard Nixon saw the benefits of this program and pushed through legislation that made the Food Stamp Program nationwide. In the following decades, the Food Stamp Program was expanded to help more of the working poor and reduced when Congress was trying to cut the deficit. Some of its biggest supporters were Republicans like Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) as well as Rep. Bill Emerson (R-Mo.). As technology advanced, electronic debit cards replaced the old paper food stamps and the program changed its name to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. But even when Congress has felt the need to cut back on food stamps, it has never departed from the principle that hunger is a national concern. Budget cuts that took effect in New York also took effect in Arkansas. The pending reconciliation bill, however, would change that, making it likely that some of the states that most need food assistance would drop out completely. Both the House-passed bill and the one pending in the Senate would, for the first time, require states to contribute to the cost of food assistance benefits. The percentages in the two versions vary, but the hit would be large. If the final legislation requires states to pay 10 percent, the 10-year cost to states would be almost $90 billion. Poorer states would be especially hard-hit: Alabama would have to pay $1.64 billion, Arkansas would need to come up with $521 million and West Virginia would have to find $536 million in its budget. Because the provision prohibits the federal government from paying its share unless the state pays the required amount, states that are unwilling or unable to produce the required match would have to drop out of SNAP altogether. This is a real possibility. The Federal Reserve and many private forecasters are seeing signs that economic growth is slowing, with a full recession a distinct possibility. Even if we avoid a recession, a slowing economy will reduce states' revenues and drive up the number of people losing their jobs and needing food assistance. At a time when states will be cutting important programs and contemplating unwelcome tax increases just to keep their heads above water, few will have room to absorb tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of new costs to maintain existing food assistance programs. Once food assistance ceases to be available in some states for families regardless of need, we will have lost something important about what makes us a country. The consequences will be severe indeed. Copious research shows that children growing up with inadequate diets do worse in school and have lower lifetime earnings. As some states terminate federal food assistance, voices in neighboring states will advocate for dropping the program as well. Members of Congress from states lacking federal family food assistance will have little reason to support funding for a program operating only in other states. The effects will extend well beyond food assistance. SNAP, along with unemployment insurance, is one of our most important 'automatic stabilizers' that puts more money into the economy as the nation tips into a recession. This is crucial because Congress often takes months to enact stimulus legislation — or fails altogether. A shrunken SNAP will mean less effective stimulus to pull the country out of a downturn, and a SNAP that operates only in some states could contribute to an uneven recovery across the country. Indeed, because all states must balance their budgets even in recessions, declining revenues may force some states to drop out of SNAP at the very moment when families most need help and when the economy most needs a boost. No good reason exists for shifting the costs of SNAP benefits to states. States already spend large amounts to meet human needs ignored by the federal government and even more matching federal contributions for efforts such as Medicaid and child care subsidies. States' revenue streams are less efficient and far more vulnerable to regional and national economic downturns. Suddenly increasing states' costs in federal-state programs is precisely the kind of 'unfunded mandate' that prompted congressional Republicans to enact the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in 1995 and that led Republicans to criticize the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion. Dumping federal fiscal shortfalls on the states is antithetical to the values of federalism. It is a shameful practice contemplated by policymakers lacking the courage to get the federal government's own fiscal house in order. Congress should drop this cost-shifting provision altogether. At a very minimum, it should ensure that the federal share of food assistance benefits remain available even in states that are unwilling or unable to put up hundreds of millions of dollars of their own. David A. Super teaches at Georgetown Law.
The Hill
13 hours ago
- Business
- The Hill
Senate Republicans' new SNAP proposal prompts GOP concern
A GOP-backed proposal that would shift some of the cost of food assistance to states for the first time is drawing renewed concern in the party, as critics argue the effort could lead to states cutting benefits on their own. Republicans are pushing to pass the proposal — which could see states with higher payment error rates covering a greater share of benefit costs — as a part of the broader spending cuts and tax package in the coming days. But that doesn't mean some Republicans aren't concerned about the measure. 'Our big thing is the data to be used, the data to be used on the error rate,' Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska.) told The Hill on Friday. 'So, that's important to make sure that the data is as accurate and reflective of the year you're judging as possible.' Numbers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture showed Alaska's payment error rate — which factors in overpayment and underpayment error rates — hit above 60 percent in fiscal year 2023. The national average hit at 11.68 percent. Sullivan noted the state has seen much lower payment error rates prior to the pandemic and is on a path to improving those figures, noting new numbers are expected soon. But he added, 'It's still higher than our traditional error rate, and as you know, the cost share is based in part on that.' According to the Alaska Beacon, the state's error rate hiked after state officials said they violated federal rules in order to continue feeding people amid a significant backlog in applications. Under the initial plan crafted by the Senate Agriculture Committee, Republicans sought to require states to cover some of the cost of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits if they have a payment error rate above 6 percent beginning in fiscal 2028. The proposal in the megabill would also allow states with rates below that level to continue paying zero percent. It also proposes states with higher payment error rates cover a greater share of benefit costs. If the error rate is 6 percent or higher, states would be subject to a sliding scale that could see their share of allotments rise to a range of between 5 percent and 15 percent. However, Senate Republicans tweaked the plan after facing a setback when their 'state cost-share' proposal was rejected by the chamber's rules referee as part of a megabill the party hopes to pass in the coming days. A release from the agriculture committee said the updated plan would allow states to choose the payment error either fiscal year 2025 or 2026 to 'calculate their state match requirement that begins in Fiscal Year 2028.' For the following fiscal year, the 'state match will be calculated using the payment error rate from three fiscal years prior,' the committee said, adding a 'state must contribute a set percentage of the cost of its SNAP benefits if its payment error rate exceeds six percent.' Asked about further potential changes to the plan, Agriculture chairman Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) said Friday that negotiators 'worked really hard to try and get a situation that worked for as many people as we could, and I think we've achieved that.' 'Alaska is a unique state, unique situation, so I know that everybody's trying to work hard to accommodate situations that don't fit,' Boozman said Friday afternoon. 'So, I haven't heard of any changes, and I'm sure that, you know, [Senate Majority Leader John] Thune [(R-S.D.)] will grab me if that comes about.' Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Ala.) also expressed concerns about the proposal, telling reporters earlier on Friday that she's raised them with others in the party, according to Politico. Asked briefly about the party's SNAP proposal later, Murkowski told The Hill, 'We're still in trouble on SNAP.' 'The implementation is still next to impossible for us,' she said. Republicans say the states' cost-share proposal would incentivize states to improve their error rates. But Sullivan and Murkowski aren't the only Republicans who have voiced concerns about the effort in recent weeks. Originally, the House plan called for all states to cover 5 percent of the cost of allotments in its initial version of Trump's megabill, with states that had higher payment error rates having to pay anywhere between 15 percent and 25 percent. However, the proposal was dialed back after concerns from other Republicans, including Sens. Tommy Tuberville (Ala.) and Jim Justice (W. Va.) over the measure. Asked if he's meeting with Boozman or Thune on the matter, Sullivan also told The Hill on Friday evening that he's 'meeting with everybody.' 'For me, it's just important to get the data as close to the date that you're judging,' Sullivan said, adding that he expects Alaska to see a notable drop in its error rate in a coming report.
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Scarlett Johansson, Sheryl Crow, Zayn Malik Urge Congress Not to Cut Food-Assistance Programs
Scarlett Johansson, Zayn Malik, and Sheryl Crow have signed an open letter urging Congress not to decimate funding for food and medical assistance programs that help millions 'live more healthily and with dignity.' The letter, spearheaded by Feeding America, specifically addresses massive cuts to programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) baked into Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Act. The bill has already passed the House of Representatives, and it's expected to be voted on in the Senate soon. More from Rolling Stone Scarlett Johansson Responds to Viral Red Carpet Kisses With Jonathan Bailey: 'We're Friendly People' Trump Lashes Out Over Leaked Report Finding Iran Strikes Weren't Totally Effective 'The Onion' CEO on That Brutal 'New York Times' Op-Ed: 'Expect Us in Weird Places' Feeding America's letter noted that if the BBB is approved by the Senate and signed into law as is, it could take '9.5 billions of meals a year through SNAP off the table' and boot 'hundreds of thousands of people off Medicaid and into food insecurity.' The letter continues, 'This is unacceptable and wrong. It is not how people in this country treat each other when facing hard times. We call on Congress to reject cuts to these vital programs that help millions put food on their tables and provide access to health care.' The House version of the BBB, which passed in May, directly cuts $128 billion in state funding for SNAP, and could potentially trim another $92 billion through the implementation of red tape and work requirements that would knock people out of eligibility. Additionally, the nearly $880 billion in cuts to Medicaid could deprive more than 10 million Americans of health insurance and regular access to doctors. In their letter, Feeding America said that an estimated 15.5 million children and 7.2 million seniors rely on SNAP and Medicaid to 'make ends meet.' (These cuts are part of the BBB's larger efforts to cover the cost of $4.5 trillion in tax breaks, primarily for the wealthy, while more money is pumped to things like the military-industrial complex, Big Tech, immigration enforcement, and private prisons.) 'Food is a beautiful way humans show care, compassion and love to those around us,' Feeding America said. 'It's a fundamental part of the human experience and a basic right we all deserve. Ongoing high grocery costs mean food is out of reach for so many families, and many of our neighbors simply do not have enough to eat. They don't know where their next meal is coming from or if that meal will be enough to nourish and sustain them.' Along with Johansson, Malik, and Crow, the letter was signed by Matt Damon, Michelle Williams, Liev Schreiber, Kristin Chenoweth, Don Johnson, David Arquette, Connie Britton, Alan Cumming, Liza Colón-Zayas, Rosario Dawson, and Minka Kelly. Best of Rolling Stone Sly and the Family Stone: 20 Essential Songs The 50 Greatest Eminem Songs All 274 of Taylor Swift's Songs, Ranked
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Senate referee appears open to revised GOP proposal to cut federal food assistance spending
A spokesperson for the Senate Agriculture Committee said Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough appears open to a revised Republican proposal to shift some costs for food assistance to states after rejecting the initial draft of it over the weekend. The Senate Republican plan would require states for the first time to pay a sizeable share of food benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) unless they reduce the error rate for delivering benefits to below 6 percent. Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) said earlier Tuesday that MacDonough had accepted the revised language, but a committee spokesperson clarified that she has been 'responsive to the revised language' but hasn't made a ruling. Republican staff reworked the proposal to give states more 'flexibility' and 'information' about implementing the program. He said the revised language would achieve roughly the same level of savings as the proposal the parliamentarian ruled against over the weekend. 'It's intact. It's very little change. Just gives the states more information to work with, but as far as affecting the program or how the program works, it's the same. Again, it just gives [states] a little bit more flexibility and a little bit more information,' Boozman told The Hill. 'It's all done and it's intact. The savings are almost identical. So we're pleased by the outcome,' he added. It's a welcome piece of news for Republicans who have watched the parliamentarian reject a variety of proposals in the bill for violating the Senate's Byrd Rule, which governs what legislation is eligible to pass the Senate with a simple-majority vote on the budget reconciliation fast track. MacDonough had dealt Republicans a setback by ruling that the section of the GOP megabill mandating that states cover a portion of SNAP benefits depending on their error rates in delivering assistance would violate the Byrd Rule. Boozman told The Hill on Monday that the parliamentarian was primarily concerned that the legislation did not provide enough time and flexibility for states to adapt to the proposed changes. 'They were concerned that [states] wouldn't have enough time with the data that they received in order to adjust for the payment errors. Our answer to that is to come up with a fix to provide them the data sooner,' he said. 'That was the parliamentarian's concern.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Senate referee greenlights GOP's updated SNAP proposal in ‘big, beautiful bill'
A Republican effort to require states to cover a share of food benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for the first time can now move forward after a recent decision from the Senate's parliamentarian. Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled a revised proposal from the Senate complied with the chamber's Byrd Rule, days after she rejected the GOP's previous 'state cost-share' proposal. As part of a sweeping plan to advance President Trump's tax agenda and reduce some federal spending, Republicans sought to require states to cover some of the cost of SNAP benefits — which are currently completely funded by the federal government — if they have a payment error rate above 6 percent beginning in fiscal 2028. The proposal in the megabill would also allow states with rates below that level to continue paying zero percent. Under the updated proposal approved by the parliamentarian, Republicans say states would be allowed to 'choose either the Fiscal Year 2025 or Fiscal Year 2026 payment error rate to calculate their state match requirement that begins in Fiscal Year 2028.' 'For Fiscal Year 2029 and following, the state match will be calculated using the payment error rate from three fiscal years prior,' the lawmakers added in a statement from the GOP-led Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee. 'A state must contribute a set percentage of the cost of its SNAP benefits if its payment error rate exceeds six percent.' Republicans also noted the proposal will help incentivize states to get their payment error rates down. 'This paves the way for important reforms that improve efficiency and management of SNAP while encouraging responsible use of taxpayer dollars,' Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) said in a statement. 'In 2023 alone, over $10 billion was misspent when administering this program – underscoring the need for stronger accountability,' Boozman continued. 'Our commonsense approach encourages states to adopt better practices, reduce error rates, be better stewards of taxpayer dollars, and prioritize the resources for those who truly need it.' In discussing the revised plan earlier this week, the Arkansas senator argued the updated proposal 'just gives the states more information to work with.' 'But as far as affecting the program or how the program works, it's the same,' he told The Hill. 'Again, it just gives them a little bit more flexibility and a little bit more information.' 'The savings are almost identical,' Boozman added. However, Democrats have leveled sharp criticism against the effort, which some argue could lead to states cutting benefits on their own by shifting billions of dollars in costs to states. 'Congressional Republicans have chosen to cut food assistance for millions of Americans to give tax breaks to billionaires,' Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), the top Democrat on the Agriculture Committee, said in a statement Friday. 'Instead of working with Democrats to lower costs for Americans, Congressional Republicans are doubling-down on shifting costs to states that they simply cannot bear,' she added. 'We'll keep fighting these proposals that raise grocery costs and take food away from millions of people, including seniors, children, and veterans.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
