Potential SNAP cuts could impact food banks in Siouxland
SIOUX CITY, Iowa (KCAU) — The Big, Beautiful Bill Act is proposing to cut $300 billion in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that could potentially impact local food banks.
'The biggest thing for Iowa is that it would be at least a $26 million cut to individuals in Iowa. In our service area around Siouxland, that would be upwards of $2 million cuts to local grocery stores and our economy,' said Jacob Wanderscheid, the executive director for the Food Bank of Siouxland.
Last year alone, the Food Bank of Siouxland gave away more than 61 million meals, but Wanderscheid said he's worried about that number increasing.
Sioux City schools' free summer meal program begins June 9
'Food is going out, about as fast as we can get it into the building. So, with SNAP, if we keep SNAP, we should see that those numbers fade over the summer. If it is cut in the mid-summer, then we would see those numbers spike, so that's our biggest concern,' Wanderscheid explained.
Proponents of the changes to SNAP argue they are merely trying to eliminate errors. According to the USDA, the national error rate for incorrect payments in 2023 was 12%. That's out of the 500 million payments issued that year. Iowa currently has the sixth-lowest SNAP error rate in the nation.
'We are improving and really are making sure that those dollars get to the people that it's intended to get to. So we're not seeing people stealing those funds, falsifying documents to get on that. Really, the people that are intended to get that program are in Iowa,' said Wanderscheid.
Those in rural areas would likely feel the greatest impact from the SNAP cuts.
'They have fewer food pantries to rely on in Sioux City. We have a fair amount, but when we get outside of Sioux City, having that card that they can just go to, to the local Walmart or their local grocery store, allows them to stay more self-sufficient and have less expenses,' stated Wanderscheid.
Story continues below
Top Story: Midwest Honor Flight still raising money for June 3 trip
Lights & Sirens: Officials searching for Monona County resident after going missing on Missouri River
Sports: Dell Rapids claims SDHSBA Class B title with 5-4 win over Dakota Valley in eight innings
Weather: Get the latest weather forecast here
Additionally, the bill would change exemptions for work requirements, meaning more parents of young children would have to work in order to receive food assistance.
'The food bank's position is that it is still a very young age to add that work requirement for that parent, especially when they might not be in full daycare yet or school yet, so we would like to see that not happen as well,' Wanderscheid expressed.
Wanderscheid is planning to speak with Senator Joni Ernst to make sure these cuts won't go into effect and encourages anybody to write to their local legislators to voice their opinions.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A New Working-Class GOP? If 'Working-Class' Means $4.3 Million a Year!
So much for a new, 'populist' Republican Party. So much for the GOP as a brave band of fiscally prudent, anti-deficit hawks. The 'Big, Beautiful Bill' is a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy, policy incoherence, and political vacuousness. That's its formal name, by the way, and you've already admitted a problem when you have to sell something that hard. It's no wonder that the only way the BBB passed the House was for one opponent to vote 'present' and for two others to miss the vote. One of the absent members fell asleep and missed the vote, an entirely appropriate response to an exercise in philosophical exhaustion. Defending the bill requires twisting facts into the 'alternative' variety and turning the plain meaning of words upside down. For example: The right wingers who demanded more cuts in programs for low-income people are regularly described as 'deficit hawks.' But even if they had gotten all the changes they sought, the bill would have massively increased the deficit. And most of them voted for a final product that will add close to $4 trillion to the nation's indebtedness. If these guys are hawks, I don't know what a dove looks like. Trump and his backers continue to insist that they are building a new working-class Republican coalition. But the astonishing thing about this bill is not only that it lavishes tax cuts on the very well-off; it also takes money away from Americans earning less than $51,000 a year once its cuts in Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, SNAP, and student loans are counted for. Republicans who rail against 'income redistribution' are doing an awful lot of redistribution themselves—to those who already have lots of money. The Penn Wharton budget model of the near-final version of the bill found that Americans earning less than $17,000 would lose $1,035 under its terms. Those earning between $17,000 and $50,999 would lose $705. But the small number of our fellow citizens who earn more than $4.3 million a year have a lot to cheer about: They pick up $389,280 annually. Please explain to me again why this is a 'populist' Republican Party. It's imperative not to miss what's obvious about this bill—that it ravages lower-income people to benefit the very privileged—and for progressives and Democrats to act on this. But it's also essential to notice what doesn't get enough attention: that so much of the commentary about how Trump has reinvented the GOP with a fresh set of ideas and commitments is poppycock. Trumpism is certainly dangerous and authoritarian in new ways. It is, well, innovative when it comes to a vast and unconstitutional expansion of presidential power. But it's also an ideological mess riddled with contradictions. When you look below the hood, it's primarily about the interests of people who can buy their way into Trump's golf clubs and private pay-for-play dinners—and, especially, about the enrichment of Trump and his family. On the phony populism side, Democrats in the House did a generally good job of highlighting the costs of provisions in the bill that hurt so many of Trump's voters, particularly the cuts in Medicaid and nutrition assistance, or SNAP. Senate Democrats have already ramped up similar efforts as that body's Republican leaders prepare to grapple with the steaming pile of incongruities the House has sent their way. You can tell that Republicans know how unpopular the Medicaid cuts in the bill are because they delayed their effectiveness date to minimize their electoral effect, repeatedly denied they are cutting Medicaid—and don't want to talk at all about how slashing subsidies within the Affordable Care Act would take health coverage away from millions more Americans. They are hiding the Medicaid cuts behind 'work requirements' that are really bureaucratic paperwork requirements that would make it much harder for people with every right to coverage to access it. They would make it more difficult for others to maintain continuous coverage. And if these rules were not about 'cutting' Medicaid, the GOP couldn't claim to be 'cutting' roughly $700 billion in Medicaid spending. But the GOP thinks it has a winner in its work argument. It's a tired but tested replay of a very old (and, yes, offensive) trope about alleged grifters among supposedly 'lazy' poor people. House Speaker Mike Johnson offered a remarkable version of this defense of the 'work' provisions: He said they were aimed at 'the young men who need to be out working instead of playing video games all day.' If ever there was a quote that should go viral, this is it. Young men, after all, shifted toward the Republicans in 2024. They should know what the party many of them voted for thinks of them. More important, progressives need to take the work argument on directly, not only by showing that the work provisions aren't really about work but also by offering amendments replacing the Medicaid cuts with provisions that actually would expand the availability of well-paying opportunities for greater self-sufficiency. Restoring the clean energy tax credits are important not only to battling climate change; they're also about preserving and creating well-paying jobs. A package of proposals on affordable housing, job training, and access to community colleges, particularly in economically depressed areas, would make a nice contrast to those who deny that government has the capacity to improve lives. What the Financial Times' economics columnist Martin Wolf nicely termed 'pluto-populism' when the GOP passed the 2017 tax cuts that this bill extends is alive and well. That populist rhetoric is being married to plutocratic policies is still not recognized widely enough. This is certainly a commentary on the rightward tilt of the media system the editor of this magazine has called out. But it also reflects a failure of Democrats to take the argument to the heart of Trump's base. It's political common sense that parties focus most of their energy on swing states and swing districts. Yet there will be no breaking the 50-50 deadlock in our politics without a concerted effort to change the minds of voters who have drifted to Trump out of frustration with their own economic circumstances and the condition of their regions. The fight over Medicaid and SNAP cuts directly implicates these voters and these places. And these voters pay more attention to these issues than either the Republicans who take them for granted or Democrats who have given up on them believe. When Andy Beshear won his first race for governor of Kentucky in 2019, he not only mobilized Democrats in urban areas; he also flipped many rural counties and cut the Republicans' margins in others. Typical was Carter County in eastern Kentucky. The county went for Beshear even though it had backed his GOP opponent and then-incumbent Republican Governor Matt Bevin four years earlier and gave Trump 73.8 percent of its ballots in 2016. Breathitt County in Appalachia also flipped, having gone for Bevin and voted 69.6 percent for Trump. Fred Cowan, a former Kentucky attorney general and a shrewd student of his state's politics, told me then that these voters understood where their interests lay. 'In a lot of these counties, the school systems or the hospitals—or both—are the biggest employers,' he said 'The Medicaid expansion helped a lot of people over there.' Sure, it's easier for Democrats like Beshear with strong local profiles to make their case. But the national party needs to learn from these politicians that giving up on whole swaths of voters is both an electoral and moral mistake. The emptiness of Republican populism speaks to the larger problem of mistaking Trump's ability to create a somewhat new electoral coalition with intellectual and policy innovation. Some conservative commentators are honest enough to admit how the BBB demonstrates that the 'old Republican Party is still powerful, the old ideas are still dominant,' as Ross Douthat observed in The New York Times. But even Douthat wants to cast the bill as an exception to a bolder transformation the president has engineered, particularly around immigration and a 'Trumpian culture war.' The problem here is that none of this is new, either. The GOP was moving right on immigration well before Trump—when, for example, it killed George W. Bush's immigration bill in 2007 as right-wing media cheered it on. The culture war and the battle against universities are old hat too. The real innovator here was the late Irving Kristol, whose columns in the 1970s introduced Wall Street Journal readers to the dangers posed to business interests by 'the new class' of Hollywood, media, and university types, along with activist lawyers. True, Trump is taking this fight to extreme places Kristol would never have gone. But, again, there's no new thinking here. And the attack on trans rights is just the latest front in the LGBTQ+ debates, now that the right has had to abandon its opposition to same-sex marriage because Americans have come to support it overwhelmingly. Even the contradictions aren't new. Since the Reagan years, Republicans have always talked about the dangers of deficits when Democrats were in power but cast those worries aside when they had the power to cut taxes. 'Reagan proved deficits don't matter' is the canonical Dick Cheney quote from 2002 when he was pushing for more tax cuts in W.'s administration. The exception proves the rule: George H.W. Bush made a deal with Democrats in 1991 that included tax increases because he really did care about deficits—and conservatives never forgave him for it. In an odd way, you have to admire Cheney's candor: At least he admitted what he was doing. The Freedom Caucus members have the gall to yell at the top of their lungs about how they care so very much about the debt—and then vote in overwhelming numbers to pile on billions more. As the debate over the BBB moves to the Senate, the immediate imperative is to expose the damage the bill does to millions of Trump's voters to benefit his Mar-a-Lago and crypto-wealthy friends. But it's also an occasion to shatter the illusion that Trump is some sort of brilliant policy innovator. Extremism and authoritarianism are not new ideas, and his legislative program would be familiar to Calvin Coolidge.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
SNAP cost-sharing jeopardizes food assistance program
Indiana could be on the hook for as much as $360 million a year in SNAP costs. (Getty Images) Most people are talking about work requirements for federal assistance like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). But it's another provision that could have a much bigger impact. More than 600,000 Hoosiers received $1.44 billion in financial assistance to buy food in fiscal year 2024, mostly families with children who can't make ends meet. That cost-sharing language for the federal program threatens to break Indiana's budget or take out the program altogether. A key provision in the federal reconciliation bill that passed the U.S. House and now is being vetted in the Senate would require states to have skin in the game for SNAP. Right now, the benefits are 100% covered by the federal government with the state picking up half of the administrative costs. But the proposal would require some states to cover as much as 25% of the benefits cost starting in 2028, depending on each state's error rate. States with the highest error rates would pay more as a 'state quality control incentive' to crack down on fraud and abuse. The seven states with error rates below 6% would only need to cover 5% of the tab under the current version of the bill. But Indiana's 10.5% error rate puts it into the highest tier for a match rate — even though it falls below the national average rate of 11.68%. That means Indiana could be on the hook for as much as $360 million a year. Coming off a budget session where state lawmakers had to cut higher education funding, child care aid and economic development programs, any new fiscal obligation will be a burden. But $360 million would be near impossible. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost-sharing component will save the federal government a little under $100 billion. 'CBO expects that some states would maintain current benefits and eligibility and others would modify benefits or eligibility or possibly leave the program altogether because of the increased costs,' the analysis found. Gov. Mike Braun's administration didn't provide a comment on the possible ramifications. It's important to remember the hungry Hoosiers at the heart of this debate. Despite the error rate — which includes underpayments as well as overpayments — most are desperate families in need of additional assistance to put food on the table. USDA research from fiscal year 2023 showed Indiana is among the lowest states in the percent of population receiving SNAP – between 8 and 10%. In comparison, six states and Washington D.C. were above 16% and all of Indiana's neighbors rank higher. To be eligible, you must have a monthly net income of less than $1,255 for a family of one; $1,704 for a couple and $2,600 for a family of four. That means if you live alone and make over $300 a week you are ineligible for SNAP. The amount you receive depends on your income but the average monthly payment per participant in April 2025 was $196. That is down slightly from April 2024. Indiana's enrollment went up during the pandemic when additional emergency aid was available. But generally, it has been stable and ranks about mid-pack nationally. For instance, in April 2025 281,112 households or 588,184 individuals. Those numbers are a few percentage points lower than April 2024 and slightly down from Fiscal Year 2023. Other changes being considered nationally include imposing work requirements on those receiving benefits. And some states, like Indiana, will ban using the benefits on candy and pop. I generally don't have a problem with those proposals. But the cost-sharing provision will undoubtedly take food from hungry adults and children, and I hope the U.S. Senate re-evaluates the pain it could cause. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Over 256,000 Pounds Of Canned Beef Stew Recalled Due To Wood Fragments
Hormel Foods Corporation is voltartarily recalling around 256,185 pounds of its Dinty Moore canned ... More beef stew product. (Photo: Getty) Three consumers had a beef about this stew. Apparently, they had found pieces of wood in their Dinty Moore Beef Stew and complained to the makers of the stew, Hormel Foods Corporation. Rather than have anyone else potentially stew over the situation, Hormel decided then to recall voluntarily around 256,185 pounds of its canned beef stew product, according to an announcement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service. The recall affects a specific lot of Dinty Moore Beef Stew that was packaged in 20 ounce cans on February 4, 2025. These cans were shipped across the U.S. If you want to determine whether your Dinty Moore Beef Stew is affected by the recall, the canned answer is look for a lot code of 'T02045', an establishment number of 'EST 199G' and a 'Best By' date of "FEB 2028.' If you find such things when you are on the can, naturally, your 'best by date' for that should be never. You should either safely discard the product or return it for a refund. Even though there haven't yet been any confirmed reports of injuries from consuming the product, you 'wood' not want to risk it yourself. In general, it's not a good idea to eat wood if you are a human or even if you are a woodchuck for that matter. Chewing on wood could end up damaging your teeth and gums. Plus, humans lack the digestive enzymes to break down wood. So if you swallow some wood, it's going to remain roughly the same shape and form straight through your gastrointestinal tract. This is similar to situation where glass was found in bread, leading to a recall, which I wrote about in Forbes earlier this month. Size (and shape) matter here. If the piece is small enough and not too sharp, it will likely just pass through your system until a few days later where poop there is. However, the risk is that the wood will get caught up somewhere in your GI tract, causing damage to the lining of your GI tract or blockage. This could lead to some type of infection as well. Therefore, if you are concerned about having ingested wood, contact a healthcare professional to get some guidance. You certainly want to seek medical advice if you have symptoms such as chest or abdominal pain, nausea or vomiting. Other possible symptoms of a potential problem could be changes in bowel movements or body temperature like a fever. Since another potential risk is an allergic reaction to something in the wood, be aware of any itching, rashes, difficulty breathing or any sign that you may be having such a reaction. Chew marks on a pencil may or may not be a sign of lignophagia (Photo: Getty) Now if you are thinking, 'wood fragments, yum,' there is something called lignophagia, where you actually like to chew on or eat wood. It comes from a combo of the Latin word 'lignum,' which stands for "wood", and the Greek word 'phago,' which means to 'to eat.' Another term for eating wood is 'xylophagia' when it occurs in human. Lignophagia is a type of pica disorder. Pica is where you want to chew or eat something that has no nutritional value. You may remember as a kid being handed pencils with bite marks all over them. That's assuming that you are old enough to know what a pencil is. Such bite marks may or may not have been a sign of lignophagia, depending on whether there was a specific preference for wood versus just chewing on something nervously or out of habit. Nevertheless, one should not be encouraged to chew on or eat wood at any time for all the aforementioned reasons. The recall notice didn't specify the size of the wood fragments that were found in the beef stew. Presumably they weren't like entire planks of wood, since those would have been tough to fit inside a can. So, this situation may end up not having any adverse health effects. But it's still a good idea to check your beef stew and the can from where it came.
