How proposed federal SNAP cuts would harm New Hampshire
Advertisement
Right now, the federal government pays for 100 percent of the state's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, formerly known as 'food stamps' – $154 million in fiscal year 2024, according to the
Get N.H. Morning Report
A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox.
Enter Email
Sign Up
People with low income who are eligible get a benefits card, and they can use money loaded onto the card toward the cost of groceries each month.
The bill would require states to pay 5 percent to 25 percent of those benefits, and states that made more errors, such as overpayments or underpayments, would have to pay a higher percentage.
Advertisement
In 2023, New Hampshire's error rate was 12.53, according to the
But Laura Milliken, executive director at New Hampshire Hunger Solutions, said it's very unlikely New Hampshire would be able to come up with that kind of money.
'There's no question that there would be cuts,' she said.
Milliken's organization estimates that tens of thousands of Granite Staters would lose access to SNAP if the federal proposal is approved.
The federal spending bill would also require states to pay 75 percent of the administrative costs of SNAP, up from 50 percent. In 2023, the overall cost of administering SNAP in New Hampshire was $22 million, according to the
'It's just so disturbing at a time when the cost of living is squeezing us all,' Milliken said of the proposed federal cuts. 'SNAP has been our country's first line of defense against hunger for 60 years. We should be strengthening those programs, not taking them away.'
This article first appeared in Globe NH | Morning Report, our free newsletter focused on the news you need to know about New Hampshire, including great coverage from the Boston Globe and links to interesting articles from other places. If you'd like to receive it via e-mail Monday through Friday,
Amanda Gokee can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ottawa County Farmers Market aims to help fight off food insecurity
MIAMI, Okla — The Ottawa County Farmers Market Association is extending a helping hand even farther this year to help with food challenges for individuals who fall into the gap of making too much money for public assistance. Kris Woodruff, board president, said an Integris Community Give Fund grant is allowing the organization to increase its matching funds from $25 to $50 for people who use food stamps. This is the group's 10th year in operation. Around 366 people visit each week to buy tomatoes, corn, peaches, greens, zucchini, potatoes, and snow peas, as well as other produce. 'We want to start where SNAP leaves off,' said Woodruff, referring to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. 'The increase can be used to buy produce, eggs, and meat or plants that grow food,' said Woodruff. There are income parameters, but the organizers are trying to target the group of people who are overqualified for food stamps but still have some food insecurity, she said. The Farmers Market is held at the Miami Fairgrounds from 3 to 7 p.m. every Thursday until the last week of August. The market participates in SNAP, Double Up Oklahoma, OCFM FRESH, and the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
SC may have to come up with $100M or more for food assistance under federal GOP proposal
SC could face costs upwards of $100 million annually under proposed changes to the country's largest federal food assistance program. (File photo by Getty Images) Continuing to provide grocery assistance to more than half a million South Carolinians could cost the state upwards of $100 million annually under proposed changes to the federal program. For the last half-century, the federal government has fully funded benefits provided through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps. But Republicans' massive bill on taxes and spending, as passed by the U.S. House, would require states to pay a portion of those benefits starting in 2028, plus a greater share of what it costs to administer the program. While the U.S. Senate is likely to make changes to what's dubbed the 'big, beautiful bill,' advocates worry about major cuts to the 61-year program and what that would mean to the families who rely on it. U.S. House Republican plan would force states to pay for a portion of SNAP benefits 'I can't imagine the state is even closely prepared for all this,' said Sue Berkowitz, director of the Appleseed Legal Justice Center. If the House plan holds, the Palmetto State's total cost could triple, or in the worst-case scenario, increase elevenfold to $370 million. That's because it bases states' share of the cost on how well they distribute benefits correctly: States with an error rate of 6% or less would be responsible for paying 5%. Those with an error rate higher than 10% would have to pay one-quarter of the cost. And the latest data puts South Carolina in the latter category. In 2023, the state's error rate was a whopping 22.6%, the fourth-worst in the nation, overwhelmingly due to overpayments. State officials say that's an anomaly. Prior to the coronavirus pandemic, South Carolina's error rate was historically in the lowest category. That changed in 2022, when the state's error rate went to 9% amid changes to the SNAP program during the global pandemic. Then it shot up in 2023. After a re-training of staff, the state Department of Social Services expects a big drop in the 2024 error rate, which should be released next month. The chief budget writer of the South Carolina House said the state has the money to continue the program, as long as the error rate returns to pre-pandemic levels. Ways and Means Chairman Bruce Bannister pointed to hefty surpluses in tax collections in recent years as an example of the state's fiscal health. SC legislators get extra $1B to spend as budget negotiations begin The budget that takes effect July 1 includes $1.2 billion placed in reserves. About $500 million more is unspent and available following an update in revenue estimates last month. The question is whether funding for the food program will stand up against other budget priorities in the years to come, said Bannister, R-Greenville. Rep. Bill Herbkersman was less certain of South Carolina's ability to pay. The Bluffton Republican chaired the subcommittee that oversees the budget for South Carolina's child welfare and social services agency for many years. He does not think the state can guarantee it will have the funding every year to keep the program going on a recurring basis. In total, the federal government provides South Carolinians $1.3 billion in annual benefits for groceries, according to the latest figures. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which heads the SNAP program, and the state split the $66 million bill for administrative costs. What frustrates Herbkersman the most are the overhead costs just to operate the program — three-quarters of which South Carolina will have to pay under the proposed changes. 'As a taxpayer, I'm incensed by that,' he said. As for payment errors, those can occur from miscalculations in a household's expenses and families struggling to provide the necessary documents updating their income in the case of a job change or loss, according to the USDA. According to state officials, the federal government calculates the error rate by checking a small sample of beneficiaries. DSS also has struggled to process applications for benefits within the 30-day window allowed under federal regulations. The USDA put the state on notice last year, both for timeliness and for not properly informing people of denied benefits. As millions wait on food stamp approvals, feds tell states to speed it up To address that, DSS started making much-needed upgrades to its technology. The agency has set aside about half of the $74 million it needs to replace equipment that's as much as five decades old. Those upgrades 'will significantly improve the state's ability to process applications in a timely manner,' according to an agency statement. But the fundamental issue is a rise in the need, according to DSS. South Carolina, like many other states, has seen the weekly application volume for SNAP benefits rise substantially — 7,000 applications for benefits each week on average, a nearly 50% increase over pre-COVID numbers. As of last September, one in nine South Carolinians were receiving SNAP benefits. More than half went to families with children, while more than one-third went to families with an elderly or disabled adult, according to the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Lee Patterson has seen that firsthand as Richland County Library's social work director who helps people fill out applications. She's not sure why more people are applying for aid, but she suspects it's closely tied to the rising cost of housing. 'The first bill people usually pay is the rent,' she said. 'When the price of housing goes up, then the ability to pay for food goes down.' Applicants who aren't elderly or disabled can deduct only $672 from their income when calculating whether they qualify for food benefits. Meanwhile, the median cost of rent and utilities in South Carolina is nearly double that, according to U.S. Census data. Patterson and her team have the experience to help smooth the way for people seeking aid. But for those applying on their own, especially for the first time, it can be tricky. For example, when it comes to proving income changes, applicants often have to go back to a former employer and ask for documentation that shows they no longer work for that company. Those employers don't always respond, and in some cases may have closed entirely, Patterson said. A second pain point for applicants can be waiting for a phone interview with DSS staff, which the federal government requires for benefits. South Carolina was allowed to waive those interviews during the pandemic, likely contributing to the state's increased error rate, but they resumed in July 2023. The call volume for these interviews is often high, and it's not uncommon for an applicant to wait on hold for an hour. The library has a phone available for applicants to use. If they don't get through, they may have to return multiple days in a row to complete their interview, Patterson said. Advocates expect changes to the U.S. House proposal, as several key Republicans in the Senate have publicly opposed shifting food benefit costs to states. Negotiations are expected to continue into next week, Politico reported, with the goal of passing the bill by July 4. The final plan remains to be seen. The executive director of Foodshare South Carolina is concerned about what might ultimately happen to other SNAP-related programs. Omme-Salma Rahemtullah said she relies heavily on the state-funded program known as Healthy Bucks, which provides additional money for SNAP recipients to purchase fruits and vegetables. They can use these benefits at farmers markets. Or they can get a box of produce worth $20 from Foodshare. Rahemtullah worries that if the state has to spend more on general SNAP benefits, there may be less available to keep Healthy Bucks operating. Healthy Bucks began as a pilot in six counties in 2014. It's since expanded to all 46 counties, according to the state Department of Social Services. In 2023, the Legislature provided an additional $5 million to the agency to further expand the program. Beyond upping the cost to states, the federal proposal also expands requirements for SNAP recipients. Under existing rules, people under 55 who can work — what the government calls 'able-bodied adults' — are limited to three months of food benefits over a three-year period unless they can prove they work, volunteer or attend job training at least 80 hours each month, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The proposal would expand those rules by a decade — to people under 65 and, for parents of school-age children, they would be exempt if their children are younger than 8, rather than 18. 'As less money comes into the state from the federal level, the state will have to find ways to make that up for a lot of things,' said Berkowitz, the Appleseed advocate. 'I just hope feeding people will be a priority.'
Axios
29 minutes ago
- Axios
Senators warn big bill would make credit harder to get for low-income families
Buried in the " big, beautiful bill" is a provision that would require low-income Americans to pre-certify to get the Earned Income Tax Credit, a half-century old benefit that keeps millions of families out of poverty. Why it matters: Those hurdles would make the credit harder to get, or potentially even dissuade people from filing, say tax experts and Democrats who oppose the bill. State of play: The provision hasn't gotten a lot of attention, compared to changes to Medicaid and SNAP. Now some Democrats, led by Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, are demanding Republicans cut it from the final bill. In a letter Thursday, addressed to Senate Majority Leader John Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson, the Dems note that 20% of eligible recipients already miss out on the credit because they're unaware it exists or believe it's too complicated. The new changes, "only exacerbate the EITC's existing shortcomings by creating more red tape and complexity for workers hoping to claim the credit," they write. "This will lead to fewer eligible workers claiming the EITC, resulting in an effective tax increase on America's working families." Senators Michael Bennet (Colo.), Cory Booker (NJ), Tim Kaine (Va.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.) and a few others signed on. The big picture: The provision is one of a handful in the bill that would impose more administrative hurdles for low-income Americans. There are new and expanded work requirements for Medicaid and SNAP, and a requirement that some adults re-certify for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act twice a year. Tax breaks for higher-income individuals and businesses do not appear to include any such requirements, which impose what some call a "time tax" on working people that ultimately winds up discouraging them from using benefits. How it works: The bill directs the Treasury Department to establish a process for taxpayers to obtain a "qualifying certificate" for each child they're claiming under the deduction. It's not clear how the IRS — already struggling after staffing cuts under DOGE — would do this. The requirement would take effect in 2028. If taxpayers don't have such a certificate, they'd be denied the refundable portion of the tax credit i.e., the money they get back in their refunds. By the numbers: On average, eligible taxpayers got a $2,743 from the credit in 2023, per IRS data, the most recent available. For tax year 2024, it was worth a maximum of $7,830 for families with three or more children. What they're saying: "The IRS will need to handle potentially tens of millions of qualifying child applications, which will likely trigger a deluge of phone calls and requests for assistance," per a report from the Tax Law Center at NYU. "Taxpayers who fail to navigate the system successfully will not receive their credit, even if eligible." The provision is effectively a "backdoor cut" to the EITC, writes the author of the NYU analysis in a Substack post. "[The] bill would increase scrutiny and burden for low-income taxpayers even as its tax cuts for the wealthy have no similar requirements," writes Greg Leiserson, who previously was a senior economist in the Biden Council of Economic Advisers. The other side:"Basic eligibility checks for government programs are not only a reasonable ask of beneficiaries, but a commonsense check against waste, fraud, and abuse," White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. "It's both condescending and out-of-touch for so-called 'experts' to automatically assume that everyday Americans are either too stupid or too lazy to verify their income – as they do every day for a loan, credit card, or new lease application – when thousands of dollars' worth of government benefits are on the line." Flashback: A provision like this was tried decades ago and was later abandoned because it deterred eligible workers from claiming the credit and was costly to implement relative to any savings.
