Latest news with #SNAP
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Federal bill brings changes, uncertainty to Mower Health and Human Services
Jul. 11—SNAP and medical assistance will be impacted by sweeping changes of One Big Beautiful Bill Act Named by the Trump administration as the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," the 2025 budget reconciliation bill is creating concern as effects reverberate down the pipeline for governmental entities like Mower County. On Tuesday morning, during the Mower County Board of Commissioners meeting, Health and Human Services Director Crystal Peterson laid out a stark picture of how the act could cast a shadow over the county in the coming years. In particular, Peterson warned the board of impending impacts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and medical assistance programming that could have significant effects for both the department and those it serves. Adding to the pall being cast by the bill is the amount of unknown currently coming along with the changes. "It's terribly confusing for us as professionals so I can't imagine how confusing it is for the public," Peterson said Wednesday afternoon. While the bill makes wide-ranging changes to a variety of areas, the areas that would impact the county's HHS come primarily to the SNAP benefits and medical assistance programming. In regard to SNAP, which acts as a supplemental food income for families, the bill would affect the reimbursement scale of the department. In the past, the department received around 50% reimbursement federally, however, with the bill's signing by President Donald Trump, that will be cut in half down to 25% representing a significant reduction in revenue. This part will be effective on Oct. 1, 2026. "That's an automatic cost shift to our local levy because there are no other payments for that sort of thing and that's just to administer the SNAP program," Peterson said. "Our piece of the pie is going to get larger." A year down the line, starting on Oct. 1, 2027 (fiscal year 2028 for the federal government), counties will have to start paying for a share of the benefits administered at the county level, which Peterson believes Mower will have to pay around 10%. "Again, a big hit," Peterson said. "We're hovering right around $500,000, $600,000 a month in benefits that we're administering." On the medical assistance side, those participating in the program will have to now register twice a year where in the past it required renewal just once a year, which would create an additional work load for current employees. On top of all of this is a tiered implementation by the federal government with few known details currently, something the State of Minnesota is having to deal with as well. "From a policy procedural standpoint, as far as what the workers can do with these changes, it's all directed to us from the state," said Jennie Crews, financial assistant supervisors for HHS. "At times they are scrambling to figure it out as much as we are. It's kind of last minute and our systems are not updated quite the way we want them to be." What that means for the HHS is that the department will have to begin looking ahead with vision. Even though there is a tiered approach over the next three years, there are still questions HHS and the county in general will have to keep a close eye including any possible impacts this could cause in the coming year. "I think first of all, we need to spend some time just reviewing exactly what we're looking at," Peterson said. "Get a feel for the implementation dates and kind of work backwards. What do we need to look at for next budget year? We're just in the planning for 2026 right now. Are any of these going to impact 2026?" The notion of what the impacts could entail is a sobering reality as it's likely that because of these cuts from the federal bill, it's likely that less people will be served through these two programs. The effects on SNAP in particular are unfortunate in the wake of efforts of programs like the Hometown Food Security Project, which is putting a renewed and group focus on lessening the impact of food insecurity in the county. "Our community really invested in trying to get people all the resources they need for food," Peterson said. "Are we going to be serving less people? Probably. Our fear is we're going to start serving them through other venues like perhaps child protection or adult protection because SNAP was the glue that held the household together. That extra income or extra food allowed that family to be self-sufficient." Another factor is the impact on HHS itself as it seeks not only answers to questions of revenue, but staffing questions as well. Already, the department has put a hold on filling positions where people have left in an effort to make up for any potential lost revenue. The positions themselves, however, are not being eliminated and when they are filled, Peterson said that steps will be taken to ensure that "we've tried every creative solution and we're filling it in the most cost effective way to still meet the needs of the public." What's not being considered is the laying off of staff. "That's not something we're even considering at all," Peterson said. "Again, that's why we're being so mindful of when we have a natural opening holding or not filling it until we're absolutely certain there is no additional solution." Still, there is reason for optimism as Peterson said that HHS is backed by a supportive board and a department with employees that are all in to making any changes work. "That's everything," Peterson said. "We have heard directly from commissioners that there are so many other things we can do besides lay people off. That's the last thing they want to do as well." "We see staff already invested in trying to figure out how to provide services at the lowest cost possible," Peterson added. In the meantime, both Peterson and Crews said that HHS will continue looking ahead as much as possible, adapting and relaying information to the public as soon as it's available to make sure the situation is as clear as possible. "There will definitely be communications coming, probably by mail," Crews said. "The state has taken a proactive approach by texting and emails. There will be a lot of communication."
The Hill
21 hours ago
- Health
- The Hill
Senate panel clears FDA appropriations
The Big Story The Senate Appropriations Committee voted to advance its agricultural funding bill Thursday, which, if approved, could curtail the impact of some of President Trump's more controversial provisions in his sweeping tax and spending package. © AP The bill provides the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with $27.1 billion in discretionary funding in fiscal year 2026. It essentially maintains FDA funding at its FY 2025 levels. The FDA would be funded at $7 billion, with $3.6 billion coming from taxpayer funds and $3.4 billion in user fee revenues. The House version of the bill came in slightly under the Senate's, at $6.8 billion. Buried in the committee's report is a request for FDA to provide a briefing on how it's combating the ever-worsening drug shortages and potential recommendations for improving supply chain resilience. The committee report also raised concerns about hiring restrictions in place at the FDA for scientists, product reviewers and inspectors, which could lead to a showdown with the Trump administration. The bill calls for allocating $8.2 billion for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for low-income women and children and $425 million for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program to help low-income seniors. The bill also sets aside funds for some international food assistance, including $1.5 billion for Food for Peace Title II grants. Welcome to The Hill's Health Care newsletter, we're Nathaniel Weixel, Joseph Choi and Alejandra O'Connell-Domenech — every week we follow the latest moves on how Washington impacts your health. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here. Essential Reads How policy will be impacting the health care sector this week and beyond: Almost 1 in 3 adolescents have prediabetes: CDC More than 30 percent of American teenagers were considered prediabetic in 2023, according to recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC calculated there were 8.4 million children between the ages of 12 and 17 who were labeled prediabetic — or those whose blood sugar level may be higher than normal — that year, putting them at risk of developing Type 2 diabetes or other health problems like … Schumer presses RFK Jr. to declare measles emergency Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) called on Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to immediately declare a public health emergency for measles, blaming the senior Trump administration official for failing to respond to the rapid resurgence of the disease. Schumer accused Kennedy in a bluntly worded letter Friday of walking 'our country into the nation's largest measles outbreak in 33 years, … DOJ subpoenas clinics that provide trans care to minors The Department of Justice (DOJ) says it sent more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics 'involved in performing transgender medical procedures on children,' furthering a Trump administration goal of banning gender-affirming health care for minors. In Other News Branch out with a different read from The Hill: Missouri repeals voter-approved paid sick leave law Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe (R) signed a measure Thursday that repeals the state's guaranteed paid sick leave law, less than a year after nearly 58 percent of voters approved it. Around the Nation Local and state headlines on health care: What We're Reading Health news we've flagged from other outlets: What Others are Reading Most read stories on The Hill right now: New poll delivers troubling signs for Democrats The Democratic Party's credibility with voters has plummeted even further since the 2024 election, raising alarm bells as the party looks to … Read more Dan Bongino fumes over Justice Department handling of Epstein files Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino is at the center of internal fighting in the Trump administration about the handling of files related to disgraced … Read more Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here
Washington Post
a day ago
- Politics
- Washington Post
School meals are a lifeline. Soup kitchens can't fill the gaps alone.
Regarding Dan Balz's July 6 news analysis, 'A battle brews over defining Trump's legislative package for voters,' and Natasha Sarin's July 3 online op-ed, '6 things you probably didn't know were in Trump's mega-bill': Every weekday from September through June, I start work the same way. I stand near my classroom door in a middle school outside D.C., welcoming students and making sure they grab breakfast. I watch as they chat with friends over cereal, breakfast bars and boxes of orange juice as they get ready for the day. But that morning routine is in jeopardy, given changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program included in the One Big Beautiful Bill that President Donald Trump recently signed into law. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that 16 million children will be affected by the cuts to SNAP. How can students learn and grow if they are hungry? They can't. School breakfast and lunch programs are supposed to make sure hunger isn't an obstacle to any child's education. And the SNAP program is meant to eliminate bureaucratic hurdles: Any child who gets SNAP benefits is also automatically qualified for food assistance at school. But this new law cuts federal funding for SNAP and forces states to choose between replacing that funding, tightening eligibility for the program or simply opting out of SNAP altogether. If SNAP shrinks, students could lose access to both lifelines. By the end of 2012, the year most of my students were born, the Agriculture Department estimated that the average weekly cost of groceries for a family of four shopping on a 'thrifty plan' was $145.70. Now, that same family would spend $229.70 for the same groceries. For families pressured by these costs, schools are a vital safety net. At my school, more than 85 percent of the students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch. Before school breaks, we send bags of food home with students who need them, and our student support team coordinates with a local food bank to host monthly food giveaways right in our bus loop for any family to access. We do this because the link between food and learning is clear. But we are only able to do this because of federal funding and SNAP benefits. When the school year starts in just a few weeks, I want my morning routine to remain the same. I want to know my students are getting what every child deserves: a healthy start to the day, a fair chance and an acknowledgment from their government that they are a priority. Nan Boyle, Alexandria Story continues below advertisement Advertisement I work for an organization that parks a bus-turned-mobile soup kitchen in the streets of New York City and New Jersey every week. We set up tables on the sidewalk, and we offer anyone who is interested a free hot meal and emergency supplies. Our guests include those experiencing homelessness as well as low-income residents struggling to make ends meet. My team knows how to estimate the number of people we will serve at each pop-up outreach. One of the most important factors is how close we are to the end of the month on any given week. Attendance spikes when our guests' monthly SNAP benefits run out. Federal funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program will be cut sharply under the president's signature law. SNAP recipients get far less than most people realize: an average of $188 per month, or roughly $2 per meal. Still, even that meager amount creates worlds of difference for the 41 million Americans who received it in 2024, lifting millions out of poverty, helping children learn, and improving health care outcomes and costs. President Donald Trump's new law slashes SNAP benefits by at least $230 billion over the next 10 years. The price of food, however, is probably not going down any time soon. As a result, we won't just see more people in the streets; we'll see them sooner each month and in deeper crisis. My team will have to prioritize helping folks find their next meal over more of their other needs, such as housing and employment. Slashing the SNAP lifeline will deepen the desperation of millions of our neighbors who quietly rely on food pantries and soup kitchens just to get by. Though food banks and soup kitchens play a key role in mitigating food insecurity, I have yet to speak to a nonprofit leader who believes private generosity can carry the full weight of America's food insecurity. As Houston Food Bank CEO Brian Greene put it, a 10 percent cut to SNAP is the 'equivalent of wiping out every food bank in the U.S.' These cuts come when charitable giving is strained by economic and geopolitical uncertainty and the federal government is cutting other support for school lunch programs, food banks and programs such as Meals on Wheels. We should fix waste in the SNAP program, which is due to errors in government calculations, and target the widespread theft of SNAP money from recipients themselves. But the real targets for reform ought to be the simple logistical and bureaucratic stumbling blocks to SNAP access, such as lack of a permanent address or a working phone. Whether or not you support budget cuts as an ideological matter, the reality is that too many people are already slipping through the cracks. This law will inevitably open those cracks further. Organizations such as ours risk being truly overwhelmed, and we are going to need all the help we can get. We will keep showing up for our neighbors in need, but I am concerned that our work will be more expensive and less effective as we are forced to narrow our focus to our guests' next meals, instead of working on stabilizing their lives. Josiah Haken, New York The writer is chief executive of City Relief, which operates in New York City and New Jersey. As major federal spending legislation worked its way through Congress, we had hoped children from families with limited incomes would be spared. Unfortunately, cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program pose a considerable negative impact. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found more than 1.5 million Washington-area residents risk losing some or all of their benefits, 137,500 of them in D.C., 693,500 in Maryland and 827,800 in Virginia. Particularly at risk are students who do not live in states with universal free school meals programs and who could also lose access to school breakfast and lunch if they lose SNAP. During the summer months, the kids who normally rely on school meals are at risk of going hungry. Our organization is trying to prevent that crisis by partnering with organizations around the country to administer summer nutrition programs. While we believe it's helpful, we also know a more effective strategy would be to have a federal solution to fighting child hunger. The patchwork approach of charitable organizations can only go so far. Ahmed Shehata, Alexandria The writer is chief executive at Islamic Relief USA. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement It's alarming that children will lose access to school meals as part of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill. But that decision is also part of a pattern of policies adopted by this administration that are taking school meals away from hungry children, not just in the United States. Trump's shutdown of the U.S. Agency for International Development and budget cuts have taken away school meals from starving children overseas. In May, Catholic Relief Services said 11 of its 13 school lunch programs, which operated as part of the Agriculture Department's McGovern-Dole Food for Education initiative, were suspended by the Trump administration. More than 780,000 children were served by that program, and for some of them, the meal it provided was the only food they had to eat all day. Trump also proposed eliminating the McGovern-Dole school lunch program in his latest budget proposal. And these are not the only food security programs put at risk by the administration. We need to do better. We should be supporting school meals at home and overseas. School meals fight hunger but also improve children's health and ability to learn. There are big returns on school meals for all of society. There is enough food and wealth in the world to provide every child with a school lunch. During and after World War II, amid all the challenges of that very hard time, the U.S. still supported programs to provide school meals at home and overseas. The school meals improved children's health and were a foundation of war recovery in Europe and Asia. We should remember the power of these programs — and of investments in our children and the future they represent. William Lambers, Cincinnati The writer partnered with the U.N. World Food Program on the book 'Ending World Hunger.'
Gulf Today
a day ago
- Politics
- Gulf Today
Lisa Murkowski's not good after 'Big Beautiful' vote
Lisa Murkowski does not seem to be enjoying the summer. Perhaps it's the insane heat and humidity. She is from Alaska, after all. But judging from the Republican's responses to questions on the Senate's passage of President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" last week — where she once again was a pivotal holdout ... until she wasn't — Murkowski's demeanor of late has more to do with the 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' position her independent streak has fated for her. Asked by The Independent Thursday about her keen hope that the House of Representatives would fix what troubled her about the bill she voted to pass — which extends the 2017 tax cuts that Trump signed while also significantly slashing welfare programs like Medicaid and forcing states to shoulder more of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps — Murkowski bristled. "Yeah, and they didn't do it," she said of the House's unchanged passage of the bill in time for Trump to sign it into law on July 4. When pressed about it, Murkowski sniped back, "You know what happened today? A whole new crisis." "And so I wish I had the luxury of time to regret things, but we just got to keep moving forward," Murkowski concluded in her brush off of the question. She didn't elaborate on what that new crisis might be. "That's it," she snapped. "You got one." And then she walked away from the gaggle. Republican leaders finally swayed Murkowski on July 1 with a deal that created a carve-out for work requirements for Medicaid and SNAP and, in a direct appeal, increased the amount that Alaska whaling captains can deduct from their expenses as charitable contributions from $10,000 to $50,000. She insisted she wasn't pleased with the final bill, despite voting yes and creating a 50-50 tie that Vice President JD Vance was able to break, rationalising that the House might make final changes before ratifying it and sending it to the White House for Trump's signature. Those changes never came as the lower chamber passed the same bill that the Senate had sent back to it, in large measure to meet Trump's deadline of July 4 for passage. Murkowski said she is now trying to move forward the 12 appropriations spending bills that Congress needs to pass by the end of September to keep the government open. If the Senate does not pass these, then it would need to either pass a stopgap spending bill or the government would shut down. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, Murkowski has immense authority in the decisionmaking for the spending bills alongside her fellow moderate, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who voted against Trump's tax and spending bill out of concerns it would endanger rural hospitals in her home state. Murkowski has long expressed frustration at having to answer questions about the news of the day since Trump returned to office. Ahead of the vote-a-rama, Murkowski dodged when asked about the fact the bill would phase out renewable energy credits she wanted to preserve. "I haven't decided whether to share comments with reporters this morning or not," she told The Independent. "You're the first one to ask me a question this morning, so you win the bonus round." She later offered a brief response about the actual policy. "I don't want to see us backslide on clean energy," Murkowski said. In Februrary, Murkowski avoided reporters asking her about Trump's comments about the United States taking a "long-term ownership position" of the Gaza Strip by hiding behind a crate of boxes being wheeled in the Senate basement. She later offered a tepid response to The Independent. "I think they've seen enough turmoil in that region," she told The Independent. "I don't think that we need to contribute with a proposal." After she voted to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has spent decades promoting the debunked theory that vaccines cause autism, to be Health and Human Services Secretary despite her concerns about him, she said the Senate would have a way to handle him.
CNBC
a day ago
- Business
- CNBC
Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' could deliver 45.5% ‘SALT torpedo' for high earners, tax pro says
President Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill' delivers a temporary higher limit on the federal deduction for state and local taxes, known as SALT. But the phaseout, or income-based benefit reduction, could trigger a tax surprise for some higher earners, experts say. If you itemize tax breaks, you can claim the SALT deduction, which includes state and local income taxes and property taxes. Trump's legislation raises the SALT deduction limit to $40,000 starting in 2025, with a 1% yearly increase through 2029, before reverting to $10,000 in 2030. However, the $40,000 SALT cap starts to phase out once modified adjusted gross income, or MAGI, exceeds $500,000. The SALT limit drops to $10,000 once MAGI reaches $600,000. MAGI is adjusted gross income with some tax breaks added back in. This phaseout can create a "SALT torpedo" — an artificially high tax rate — when MAGI falls between $500,000 and $600,000, certified public accountant Jeff Levine said in a LinkedIn post this week. In some cases, you could pay a 45.5% federal tax rate on earnings between those thresholds, experts say. More from Personal Finance:Tax changes under Trump's 'big beautiful bill' — in one chart'YOLO'-buying EVs: As $7,500 tax credit ends, consumers may rush to cash inTrump's 'big beautiful bill' cuts SNAP for millions of families: Report Here's how the "SALT torpedo" works and who could be impacted, according to tax experts. Under Trump's legislation, the SALT deduction limit for 2025 is now $30,000 higher. But a 30% phaseout kicks in once MAGI exceeds $500,000 for 2025. Between $500,000 and $600,000, "you're losing 30% for every dollar" of benefit between those thresholds, said certified financial planner Jim Guarino, managing director at Baker Newman Noyes in Woburn, Massachusetts. He is also a CPA. At $600,000, if you multiply the extra $100,000 of income by 30%, that's a $30,000 benefit reduction, which drops the $40,000 SALT cap back to $10,000. With the 30% SALT deduction phaseout between $500,000 and $600,000 MAGI, some individuals could pay higher-than-expected tax on earnings between those thresholds, according to Robert Keebler, a CPA with tax advisory firm Keebler & Associates in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Between $500,000 to $600,000, you're increasing taxable income while losing part of the SALT deduction, which raises your effective tax rate — the percent of taxable income you pay. If taxable income rises while the SALT deduction falls, your effective tax rate on income between $500,000 to $600,000 could far exceed your regular income tax rate, Keebler said in a LinkedIn post last week. "It's definitely a quirky little phaseout provision," Andy Whitehair, a CPA and a director with Baker Tilly's Washington tax council practice, told CNBC. "When people start actually crunching numbers, they might be in for some surprises." Whitehair also shared a basic example of the phaseout on LinkedIn this week. If your income is $500,000 and you subtract $75,000 of itemized deductions (including $40,000 for SALT), your taxable income is $425,000. By contrast, $600,000 of income would drop the SALT deduction to $10,000, which reduces itemized deductions to $45,000, and raises taxable income to $555,000. In this simplified example, there is $45,500 more federal tax owed by earning $100,000 more, which is 45.5%, Whitehair said. If your 2025 earnings could be near $500,000, you should run projections with a tax advisor and weigh strategies to reduce MAGI, experts say. With the steep tax penalty between $500,000 and $600,000, you may reconsider Roth individual retirement conversions, incurring large capital gains or other moves that could boost your income, according to Keebler.
