Bill to ban SNAP coverage for candy, soda heads to Idaho Senate
A sign noting the acceptance of electronic benefit transfer, or EBT, cards that are used by states to issue benefits is displayed at a convenience store on Dec. 4, 2019, in Richmond, California. ()
A bill to ban a food assistance program from covering candy and soda is headed to the Idaho Senate.
The Idaho Senate Health and Welfare Committee on Tuesday advanced the bill to the full Senate, which could be the bill's last legislative hurdle before potentially becoming law.
Idaho needs federal approval for the proposed ban.
House Bill 109, cosponsored by Rep. Jordan Redman, R-Coeur d'Alene, would require the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare to seek federal approval to exclude candy and soda from foods eligible for coverage by the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
Idaho's bill is part of the national movement coined 'Make America Healthy Again,' or MAHA, promoted by U.S. health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Redman has told lawmakers. And, he said, soda is the 'number one commodity spent on SNAP.'
'Since many of the same households utilize Medicaid, taxpayers end up paying for the harmful cause and effect of this poor public policy,' the bill's senate cosponsor Sen. Ben Toews, R-Coeur d'Alene, told the Senate committee on Tuesday.
Business industry representatives oppose the bill. Arguing the bill wouldn't be workable, Idaho House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel, D-Boise has said it would cause grocery stores to stop accepting SNAP.
In Tuesday's Senate committee hearing, Toews was skeptical the bill would be unworkable.
'When there's profits involved, industry finds a way. They have, and they will continue to,' he said, adding that the bill's candy definition is used by 24 states in tax laws.
Public testimony was mixed. Two supporters of the bill were affiliated with FGA Action, a Florida-based think tank that worked with Redman on his bill that would've likely repealed Idaho Medicaid expansion.
The Idaho House narrowly passed the bill earlier this month. If the bill passes the Senate, it would need to avoid the governor's veto to become law.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Pushback has largely focused on the bill's broad candy definition, which critics say would also ban granola bars and power bars.
The bill defines candy as 'a preparation of sugar, honey, or other natural or artificial sweeteners combined with chocolate, fruit, nuts or other ingredients or flavorings' in several forms. Under the bill, candy would not include items that need refrigeration or have more than 10% flour by weight.
But the bill's soda definition also appears to be broad.
Under the bill, soda includes nonalcoholic beverages with sweeteners, artificial or natural. But the bill doesn't consider soda to be drinks with more than 50% juice, contain milk or milk substitutes, or that need preparation, such as powders or concentrates.
Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow, D-Boise, said the bill is poorly written and felt like a 'nanny state' approach.
'I'm just begging us, please, let's not be a nanny state, and micromanage this little bit of money and tell people what they should eat when we have the biggest obesity problem in the United States — and it's not because of poor people eating Chips Ahoy,' Wintrow said.
Sen. Brian Lenney, R-Nampa, said he didn't struggle with the bill.
'I'm not confused with it. I see lobbyists who represent big corporations coming in here, trying to protect profits for their clients — which is their job. But that's not my job,' Lenney said.
Sen. Glenneda Zuiderveld, R-Twin Falls, said she thought the issue was worth looking into more, but she said she'd oppose it for now
'Being a taxpayer, I don't like that my money is being used for something that will make somebody unhealthy, you know. But when you look at obesity, it's not just about the calorie intake. It's also about the exercise. So maybe we can … require the SNAP recipients to have to walk a mile to the grocery store before using their card. I — I don't know,' Zuiderveld told lawmakers.
The Senate committee's vote on the bill was unclear, with lawmakers only voting by voice.
Almost 131,000 Idahoans are enrolled in SNAP, according to Idaho Department of Health and Welfare figures, receiving an average of $177 in monthly program benefits.
If the federal U.S. Department of Agriculture, or USDA, doesn't grant Idaho's candy/soda SNAP ban waiver, the bill says Health and Welfare 'shall request such a waiver annually until such a waiver is granted.'
The bill's fiscal note estimates it would not have a fiscal impact.
Republican legislators in Arizona, Kansas, Utah and Wyoming introduced similar bills, Stateline reported.
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
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Don't overlook the Big Labor funding behind the LA protests
The left in general and labor leaders in particular continue to misread the will of the people. Case in point: Among the dozens of lessons both seem incapable of learning from last November's electoral drubbing is that Americans are solidly in favor of enforcing the nation's sovereign borders and expelling as many as possible of the millions of lawbreakers who breached them thanks to the calculated apathy of the previous administration. Apparently unfazed by facts, however, David Huerta, president of the California chapter of Service Employees International Union, last Friday, traded on the full faith and credit of his position to join those violently protesting a legal raid at a Los Angeles worksite by officials from the U.S. Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He was subsequently arrested for trying to physically block a vehicle trying to enter the property. Again, Huerta made no attempt to distance himself and his actions from his role as SEIU's California director. To the contrary, he first made sure to don his purple SEIU T-shirt in order to make clear to everyone that he considers obstructing law enforcement one of his legitimate job responsibilities. Even more brazenly, his own SEIU affiliates in California have used member dues to support at least one group spearheading the protests — the Coalition for Humane Immigration Rights — and to finance the informal 'immigration rapid response' network that has been equally at the center, and in which SEIU itself also participates. And rather than disavow Huerta's irresponsible, illegal behavior, state and national leftists quickly circled the wagons around Huerta. After all, SEIU California is a major funder of liberal causes and candidates in California. Syndicated columnist Kurt Schlicter, shrewdly noted this week that the scenario 'provides (the Trump administration) an opportunity to defund the government support to (non-governmental organizations) that launder government money to fund this kind of violence.' They could start with Huerta's union. SEIU California and its affiliates siphon millions of dollars a year from Medicaid by confiscating dues from thousands of Californians participating in a federal program that pays a modest subsidy in exchange for providing in-home care for an elderly or low-income client. Because they work at home, usually looking after a loved one, the union representing the caregivers — many of whom don't even realize they are union members — has relatively little to do. But that doesn't stop Huerta's organization from seizing 3 percent of their annual wages — among the highest dues rates in the country. In a very real sense, Medicaid is therefore bankrolling the protests in Los Angeles. Here's a thought: Instead of arresting Huerta and the other lawbreaking protestors, why not just cut off their source of funding by prohibiting unions from plundering Medicaid? Hundreds of thousands of government employees all over the country have exercised their First Amendment right to opt out of union membership and dues since it was affirmed in 2018 by the U.S. Supreme Court. One of the primary factors behind this movement is widespread anger over unions that use confiscated dues money to promote a radical political agenda instead of representing the legitimate workplace concerns of their members. SEIU-affiliated care providers in the Golden State need to ask themselves how Huerta's embarrassing spectacle helps enhance their pay, benefits and working conditions. It doesn't. It simply reinforces what's been obvious for years: The welfare of their rank and file hasn't been a priority for public employee unions in decades, assuming it ever was. Modern government-employee unions like SEIU exist almost exclusively to fund the failed policies of the left with workers' hard-earned dues dollars; workers who are increasingly fed up with it. It isn't just worksites overrun by violent agitators that are burning while labor icons like Huerta fiddle. It is also their fading hopes of ever being taken seriously or being handed political power again. Aaron Withe is CEO of the Freedom Foundation, a national nonprofit government union watchdog organization.
Washington Post
26 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Senate GOP plan would sell millions of acres of Western public land
Senate Republicans have proposed selling off up to 3.3 million acres of federally owned land in 11 Western states, according to a draft legislative text offered as part of their spending and tax cut bill, prompting an outcry from conservationists and Democratic lawmakers. According to a budget blueprint released Wednesday evening by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the federal government would be required to sell off between 2.2 and 3.3 million acres of land owned by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service over the next five years. The proposal stipulates that the sold land will have to be used to develop housing or 'community development needs,' which it said could be defined by the secretaries of the Interior or Agriculture departments. The 11 states that would be affected by the proposal are Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in a statement Wednesday that the draft legislative text would turn 'federal liabilities into taxpayer value, while making housing more affordable for hardworking American families.' Current law allows BLM to sell off land in some instances, such as in a specific ring around Las Vegas, at a discount if it's developed for affordable housing. But the push to scale up these land sales has spurred pushback from not just Democratic lawmakers and environmentalists but also some House Republicans, who managed to block a similar provision from being included last month in the House's tax and spending bill. Democrats and several conservation groups sharply criticized the Senate blueprint, warning that it could deprive future generations of public access to public land and suggesting much of the land sold might not be used for affordable housing. Sen. Martin Heinrich (New Mexico), the panel's top Democrat, accused Republicans of 'taking up a sledgehammer' in a 'fire sale' of public lands, in a statement Wednesday. 'We all lose access to public lands forever, jeopardizing our local economies and who we are as a nation.' In a statement, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership said it opposed the proposed forced sale, arguing that the budget reconciliation bill was not the right process for public-land sales of this scale. 'The Senate proposal sets an arbitrary acreage target and calls for the disposal of up to six times more land than was proposed in early versions of the House budget reconciliation bill,' said Joel Pedersen, the group's president and CEO. 'If passed, sportsmen and women would lose access to large tracts of public land.' If enacted into law, the draft text would require the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service to sell between 0.5 and 0.75 percent of the 438 million acres of land that they own collectively. It does not include the sale of land with existing grazing rights, along with federally protected lands such as national parks, monuments and wildlife refuges. The committee projected that the land sales would generate between $5 billion and $10 billion of income between fiscal years 2025 and 2034, citing an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Michigan GOP school spending plan spends more while axing free breakfast and lunch
LANSING — House Republicans would outspend Democrats under a $21.9-billion budget for K-12 schools they passed June 11. But there are major differences in how school money would be spent, with more of it going to wealthier Michigan districts, cyber schools and even private schools under the GOP plan. House Bill 4577, approved in a 56-53 mostly party line vote, is sure to see significant changes before the K-12 budget is finalized for the 2026 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. It is a markedly different plan from the $21.8 billion plan approved by the Democratic-controlled Senate and the $21.2-billion proposal unveiled in February by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, also a Democrat. In the coming weeks or months, leaders from both legislative chambers will attempt to reach a consensus on a school spending plan, as well as a broader state government budget that both chambers can pass in identical form, and that Whitmer is willing to sign into law. House Republicans passed the record K-12 spending plan after repeatedly criticizing Whitmer for what they described as bloated budgets and after using their social media platform on X June 11 to taunt Whitmer for saying in her February State of the State address that Michigan spends more per pupil than most other states but gets less in terms of academic results. "Gov. Whitmer admitted Republicans are right," the Michigan House GOP posted, with a clip of that portion of Whitmer's speech, just before proposing even higher per-pupil spending than Whitmer did. In 2024, House Republicans made an election issue of the Democratic K-12 budget for reducing line-item spending on student mental health and school safety. The plan the GOP passed June 11 eliminates that $107.8-million line item altogether, according to a House Fiscal Agency analysis, rolling mental health and school safety into broader chunks of funding that Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, said gives school districts more flexibility in how they spend. Districts would be required to certify that their budgets support at least one school resource officer and one mental health support staff member, according to the fiscal analysis. The GOP plan sets a school foundation allowance of $10,025 per pupil, up from $9,608 this year. That's higher than the $10,000 per-pupil grant proposed by Whitmer and the $10,008 per-pupil grant in the Senate Democrat plan. But in eliminating many line items and earmarks, the Republican school budget also provides for an additional $3.1 billion in per-pupil payments, with about $2,200 per pupil going to school districts and intermediate school districts and $40.8 million to private schools. The Michigan Constitution prohibits public funding of private schools, so that part of the Republican plan would likely face a court challenge if it ended up in the final version of the school budget. The GOP school budget eliminates Whitmer's signature policy of providing free breakfast and lunch to all public school students. Instead, it leaves participation in such a program up to individual school districts, regardless of how wealthy the families in that school district are. Also eliminated in the House GOP plan are proposed spending increases for at-risk students, who are defined as economically disadvantaged. Whitmer proposed a $42.3-million increase from the School Aid Fund, while Senate Democrats proposed an extra $258.7 million. The Republican plan holds at risk spending at 2025 levels. "We're building a stronger model by putting trust where it belongs — in the hands of local school boards, parents, and educators who know their communities best," said state Rep. Ann Bollin, R-Brighton Township, who chairs the House Appropriations Committee. "Every district is different, and the people closest to the students should be the ones making the decisions.' But Curtis Hertel, chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party, said the plan will force many children to go hungry while doing nothing to improve academic performance. 'This education budget kills the school breakfast and lunch programs, cuts funding for school safety and mental health programs, and will reduce the actual dollars going into the classroom,' Hertel said in a news release. Under the Republican plan, public cyber schools, which have lower building and transportation costs, would receive the same foundation allowances as brick-and-mortal schools do. Whitmer's plan and the Senate plan would give cyber schools a per-pupil grant that is 20% lower, saving around $30 million, according to the House Fiscal Agency analysis. Two of the most conservative House Republicans, Rep. Steve Carra, R-Three Rivers, and Rep. Josh Schriver, R-Oxford, were the only GOP members to join all House Democrats in voting against the plan. Contact Paul Egan: 517-372-8660 or pegan@ This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Michigan GOP school spending plan bigger, axes free breakfast, lunch
