Potential SNAP cuts could impact food banks in Siouxland
'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
Miami Herald
3 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Walmart gives employees a generous new perk
Walmart, the world's largest retailer, has long been criticized for paying its employees wages so low that many must rely on public assistance programs to make ends meet. A 2020 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report revealed that millions of full-time workers earning poverty-level wages qualify for federal benefits such as Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); Walmart was among the top employers of SNAP and Medicaid recipients in the states included in the report, according to the Los Angeles Times. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Of course, many other large retail and food businesses have been found to underpay their workers, shifting the burden of supporting low-wage employees onto taxpayers. Amazon (AMZN) and McDonald's (MCD) are big organizations with significant numbers of employees who depend on assistance programs. (The U.S. Military, while not a private corporation, is another massive organization with many members who rely on government assistance.) Critics point out that taxpayers effectively subsidize employees' wages at profitable corporations, allowing these companies to maintain low labor costs while raking in substantial profits. This situation raises questions about the fairness of a system where taxpayers support corporate profits through public assistance programs. Employees and worker advocates alike have criticized Walmart, and the company is trying to improve its employees' financial well-being. The company introduced initiatives like the "Live Better U" program, which offers employees affordable education and skills training. The latest Walmart (WMT) employee perk is a 10% discount on groceries, and it's meant to ease employees' financial strain. Walmart announced on LinkedIn changes to its Walmart Associate Discount Card and will offer all U.S. employees the discount on groceries, including meat and dairy. Previously the discount was offered only during the holidays. The program applies to both full- and part-time employees. It is intended to help with the rising costs of food and household essentials affecting nearly every U.S. citizen. Related: $4 Trader Joe's bags are going viral (again), so grab one while you can Additionally, Walmart has raised its starting wages in certain locations and implemented bonuses for long-term employees. However, some worker advocates argue that these measures are insufficient and that a more comprehensive approach, including higher base wages and improved benefits, is necessary to reduce workers' dependence on public assistance. The Walmart program has plenty of critics. They point out that perks and discounts are helpful but do not replace fair compensation. Walmart's starting wages in the U.S. currently range from $15 to $17 per hour; every state has a different minimum wage. This rate is well above the federal minimum of $7.25, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, but is still often insufficient to cover the cost of living in many parts of the country, especially for employees who are supporting families. Even full-time workers at the upper end of the hourly scale may struggle with rent, health care, and child care costs, forcing them to turn to government programs to fill the gap. More Retail: Walmart CEO sounds alarm on a big problem for customersTarget makes a change that might scare Walmart, CostcoTop investor takes firm stance on troubled retail brandWalmart and Costco making major change affecting all customers The new grocery discount may provide immediate relief for Walmart employees, but it does not solve the systemic challenge of inadequate pay. Inflation and the cost of living continue to rise, so every little bit helps, and some see Walmart's move as a potential model. Others point out that perks are no substitute for a living wage. Related: Trader Joe's quietly pulls popular product, confuses fans The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Miami Herald
9 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Gold analyst warns of 2011-style 'blow-off top'
Carley Garner is a long-time futures trader who has seen a thing or two over a career that has lasted over twenty years, including gold market rallies and sell-offs. The massive rally in gold stocks this year to north of $3,357 per ounce has caught her attention, and not in a good way. Gold prices are up over 28% year-to-date in 2025, and the size and speed of the move (and the reasons behind it) remind her of a similar rally 14 years ago in 2011. Back then, the outcome for gold bugs wasn't fun. "The 2011 top was met with a 45% haircut that took nearly a decade to recover," according to Garner. Gold has enjoyed a perfect storm this year as macro crosscurrents hamstring the Fed's monetary policy, GDP slips, and the US debt outlook worsens. Unemployment has risen to 4.2% from 3.4% in 2023, CPI inflation of 2.7% is stubbornly above the Fed's 2% inflation target, the World Bank says GDP is expected to fall to 1.4% from 2.8% last year, and debt experts say the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act passed this year will add $3.4 trillion to the US debt by 2034. Related: Analyst expects gold to fall off the 'Wall of Worry' The risks have hammered the US Dollar, causing the Dollar Index to tumble 10% in 2025. Since gold is priced in USD, the Dollar's struggles have made it more attractive to overseas buyers eager to diversify their holdings away from US Treasuries in protest of President Trump's tariff policy. The significant uncertainty has also made antsy investors far more interested in gold than Treasuries as a safe haven. "Safe haven dollars can purchase gold, an asset that doesn't produce income, at an all-time high without a risk parachute, or they can buy Treasuries at multi-decade lows with a yield of 4% to 5% to cushion downside price risk," said Garner in a TheStreet Pro post. "Ironically, the masses select the former and pass on the latter." Many are indeed giving up on Treasuries' relatively juicy yields, fearing the worst. That may not be the best move, though, for newer gold bugs, given that gold has already rocketed to all-time highs this summer. Troubling times always increase interest in gold, and this isn't the first time that gold has put on a show. In 2011, gold similarly rallied sharply to all-time highs amid uncertainty around major banks and the economy, and aftershocks following the Great Recession, which was still fresh on investors' minds. Related: Major analyst resets gold price target after shocking economic data Remember the S&P cut the US debt rating for the first time in history in August 2011 because of the growing deficit, prompting a massive 5.5% drop in the S&P 500 on Aug. 8. The situation was so bad that Warren Buffett famously back-stopped Bank of America on Aug. 25, providing a cash influx in exchange for preferred stocks and warrants that eventually made Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway a mint when risk assets found their footing and gold lost its luster. "Although gold is known as a safe-haven asset, it has a history of stunning corrections," reminded Garner. "For instance, the 2011 top was met with a 45% haircut that took nearly a decade to recover." Like most investments, momentum can drive assets higher and lower than logic may dictate, making betting against it a risky endeavor. Still, most money is made or lost by acting ahead of the turning points that mark tops and bottoms. Given that gold has already made a major move higher, investors are wise to consider whether we're closer to a top like 2011 than a bottom like a few years ago. More Experts Stocks & Markets Podcast: Sectors to Avoid With Jay WoodsTrader makes bold call with Boeing stock after defense workers strikeVeteran fund manager sends urgent 9-word message on stocks "Gold is an asset that should only be bought when nobody wants it. If everyone is buying it, it's probably too late for anyone with a time horizon of less than a decade or longer," said Garner. There's certainly an argument that gold bullishness is widespread, with many talking positively about it as a hedge worth owning. "If you are looking for bearish analyst calls or news, you won't find it," said Garner. "But don't let this detract you from being skeptical." Gold was panned as a "dead dog acting as a drag to portfolios" three years ago, says Garner. Today, she says, "it is considered a must-hold in those same portfolios." In other words, contrarian thinking, akin to buying when everyone is selling and selling when everyone is buying, may make more sense today regarding gold than three years ago. "Just as conventional thinking was misguided then, it might be wrong today," wrote Garner. Related: Stock market gets 'kick in the pants' from startling inflation report The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
The Hill
10 hours ago
- The Hill
Amid bitter partisanship, permitting reform is a golden opportunity for bipartisanship
With states now fighting over redistricting maps, America's two political parties will need an opportunity to work together again. Permitting reform is one issue that is just right for this, even amidst an apparent trifecta. Strengthening American energy production has long been a bipartisan issue, as it fosters economic growth, protects national security, and increases the energy supply to drive down or stabilize utility costs for U.S. households in the face of growing demand. There has never been a better time for it. Done right, it secures American global leadership for another century. While recent debates around tax credits have made this issue seem increasingly partisan, reforming our existing energy permitting process is something on which lawmakers on both sides of the aisle largely already agree. Congress should capitalize on consensus to pass comprehensive permitting reform legislation. Debates surrounding energy tax credits in the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, in particular, brought energy production back into the spotlight this year. Reconciliation can leave bitter feelings, but permitting reform has a chance to offer both parties something they dearly want — energy dominance, reduced emissions, fewer arcane rules, and less back and forth political games undermining the development of new energy projects. All energy production would benefit from permitting reform. America's permitting system should be a gateway for energy projects. Right now, it's a bottleneck. Unpredictable processes and delays in approval are bringing new developments to a grinding halt. With the rise of AI and a digital world that increasingly relies on data centers, global energy demand has spiked. Congress is now tasked with ensuring that American energy production can keep pace with this demand and not fall behind foreign adversaries vying for our position as the global leader in innovation and technology. But as of late, lawmakers have remained stagnant on addressing permitting reform. Yet, while demand for all energy production is on the rise, Democrats have a lot less to fear from loosening rules than they may think. The vast majority of projects stuck in grid connection queues are renewable — over 95 percent of proposed new generation capacity is solar or wind. Much-needed reform to the approval process could free up all new projects, strengthen American energy dominance and unleash clean energy all at once. Permitting reform has long been a bipartisan issue. Last year, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), then-ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and then-Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Joe Manchin ( introduced the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 aimed at streamlining and expediting the approvals process. While this legislation was not ultimately passed, it is a prime example of members reaching across the aisle to drive movement on this front. Most recently, a bipartisan group of governors made an urgent call for permitting reform. 'It shouldn't take longer to approve a project than it takes to build it,' said Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R). He also highlighted the bipartisan nature of the issue, 'Democrats and Republicans alike recognize permitting delays weaken U.S. economic growth, security and competitiveness. Governors from both parties are working together to inject some common sense into our permitting process.' Voters in both parties agree. Recent polling conducted by Cygnal found that two-thirds of respondents agree that Congress should modernize permitting rules to accelerate completion of energy projects and reduce long-term cost pressures. Some conservative stalwarts will never support anything they see as helping clean energy, while some environmental activists are more concerned with punishing fossil fuel companies than they are with actually addressing climate change. These short-sighted visions represent the horseshoe of scarcity, decline and pessimism that has plagued American energy politics for decades. They believe we can succeed only by taking from the other side. America cannot afford delay. A dangerous world requires energy dominance in all industries, including new ones like clean energy. Moreover, Americans deserve to know that they will have reliable, accessible energy needed to power their businesses and residences. Permitting reform will make energy access more reliable, more abundant, cheaper and much cleaner. All Americans, and our planet, will win. The only losers will be those profiteering from political polarization. With some energy tax credits phasing out sooner than originally planned, many energy producers want to act swiftly to get new projects up and running. The permitting process, as it stands, is their biggest obstacle. As we head into the fall, our lawmakers should keep the cross-partisan opportunity on permitting reform top of mind. Liam deClive-Lowe is the co-founder of American Policy Ventures, an organization that builds projects to help policymakers collaborate and get things done.
