Federal cuts could impact SNAP in Georgia
ATLANTA (WJBF) – Federal lawmakers in the House of Representatives want to cut the budget for programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps.
The cuts could impact low income Georgia families who rely on the benefits and make it harder for them to buy groceries.
The Department of Agriculture says around 13 percent of Georgia's population, or 1.4 million people receive snap benefits every month.
The Georgia budget and policy institute says the average SNAP benefit is about $6.20 per day.
The bill would require starts to share the cost of the program and also cut staff which could mean state lawmakers could axe the program altogether and that could impact students from low-income families.
'These children and their most nutritious meals come from school breakfast and school breakfast and school lunch. This summer they are not receiving any of that and if those benefits are cut our children will receive less nutrition because their families will not have the resources and we know that nutrition directly impacts our students ability to learn,' said Lisa Morgan, President of The Georgia Association of Educators.
The federal legislation proposes that states like Georgia pay a 5 percent share or about $162 million dollars starting in January 2028. Data shows that Georgia ranks 20th in the country based on its population of receiving SNAP benefits.
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Thomas Massie and Warren Davidson: Two Republican profiles in courage
The passage of the budget reconciliation bill by the House of Representatives in the early hours of May 22 demonstrated once again President Trump's ability to win the votes of Republican members of Congress. But there were two noteworthy exceptions. Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) were the only Republicans to resist Trump's pressure and vote against his so-called 'big, beautiful bill.' Both men deserve the country's gratitude, even from those on the political left who would struggle to find much in common with these far-right conservatives. Both men are comfortable with Trump's MAGA-world and both have voting records that put them at odds with Democrats. But in voting to oppose the tax bill, they demonstrated that their convictions are real and lived up to the ideal of an independent legislative branch capable of acting without a president's direction. Alongside a Republican party unwilling to balance the power of the presidency, Democrats have demonstrated an equally unproductive tendency to place loyalty to a party leader above their constituents and the country. The aggressive efforts to downplay, dismiss and cover up former President Joe Biden's declining faculties in 2024 offers a prime example of this type of misplaced loyalty. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) went so far as to explain his support for Biden after the June 2024 presidential debate by saying simply, 'I don't do disloyalty.' This sentiment was indicative of a Democratic Party wholly unwilling to call out the obvious — whose leaders and members chose instead to misinform the American people. With their votes in favor of Trump's tax bill, too many Republican members of Congress have done something similar. Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) took a middle path, voting 'present' rather than for or against the bill. But the effect of that meek decision pales in comparison to the clarity offered by Massie and Davidson. Both opposed the bill because they know it massively increases the size of the federal government's annual deficit and relies on future members of Congress to address a problem that needs to be resolved now. Their unwillingness to kick the can further down the road is in keeping with the character it takes to stand up to a president who is willing to threaten the political future of Republicans who oppose his will. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) was courageous enough to admit publicly what most Republicans understand in private: 'We are all afraid.' Republican politicians are intimidated by Trump and his allies. Murkowski has consistently demonstrated uncommon fortitude by her principled opposition to Trump when she disagrees with him or believes his policies will harm her constituents. Massie and Davidson have earned their place as the most principled Republicans in the House by sticking with their beliefs when faced with political consequences. They exemplify the idea that it is better to lose with your principles intact than to win after sacrificing them to political pressure and conformity. In recent decades, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have abdicated their proper constitutional role in favor of powerful chief executives from their respective parties. At the same time, the judiciary has replaced Congress as the primary check on presidential power — a development that perhaps encourages courts to overstep their intended role. The rebalancing of power in the federal government will start only when members of Congress are willing to assert their independence. A more confident legislative branch would take pressure off the courts and allow them to return to a less activist role. Neither Massie nor Davidson is likely to earn plaudits from Democrats, who have demonstrated their own willingness to put party loyalty over country and are quick to dismiss the value of political independence. They showed this by their shoddy treatment of Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.) after he challenged Biden for the nomination in 2024, and by their growing criticism of Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) for deviating slightly from the ideology of the far left. Democrats have done and are doing exactly what they now accuse Republicans of doing by mindlessly supporting the president's tax bill. Massie and Davidson showed us something better. We might make real progress if more of their colleagues were willing to follow. Colin Pascal is a retired Army lieutenant colonel, a registered Democrat and a graduate student in the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, D.C. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump's Medicaid and SNAP red tape will devastate millions of Americans
Extending President Trump's 2017 tax cuts is a centerpiece of what the president calls his 'big, beautiful' spending bill that was passed late last month by House Republicans by a single vote. Now it is the Senate's turn to weigh in, but that chamber's narrow Republican majority needs to take a hard look at the facts before pressing the yay button. Trump's legislation may truly be enormous, but it is far from pretty — it stigmatizes the wrong people, slashes the wrong programs and will hurt far more Americans than it helps. For starters, those tax cuts will disproportionately go to the wealthy while adding trillions to the deficit. Meanwhile, the punitive work requirements and layers of paperwork for Medicaid and SNAP (formerly food stamps) recipients are still visible beneath the flimsy camouflage of reducing welfare fraud. Academic research, including my own, shows that the vast majority of Americans who are working, are disabled or are providing caregiving already meet these requirements for state and federal aid. Even the independent Congressional Budget Office reports that work requirements for Medicaid and SNAP do not accomplish their stated goal of increasing employment. Millions of Americans rely on Medicaid and SNAP, essential programs that have lasting benefits beyond health care and healthy eating. In 2023, nearly 83 million children and adults — 24 percent of Americans — relied on Medicaid. Medicaid supports care from the cradle to the grave: Medicaid pays for more than 4 in 10 births in the U.S., and is the largest funder of long-term care, supporting the long-term services and supports needed by almost 6 million Americans in 2021. In 2023, SNAP provided food assistance to an average of 42 million Americans each month. SNAP is important across the age spectrum, too: Nearly half of all children in the U.S. participate in SNAP before their 20th birthday, and more than 4 million seniors 60 or older receive SNAP. The CBO estimates that if the Senate passes the bill in its current form, nearly 15 million Americans will lose their health coverage by 2034 because of Medicaid work requirements and other cuts. The reconciliation bill includes the largest SNAP cut in history. It will eliminate food benefits for more than 3 million adults (about 1 million adults over 55) and roughly 1 million children each month. Still, that doesn't keep Republicans from continually trying to portray recipients as lazy cheaters who need to lace up their boots and get back to the factory. They've been making the same mistake for years. Arkansas in 2018 and Georgia in 2023 implemented Medicaid work requirements. Those moves merely caused thousands to lose insurance coverage, had no effect on employment and did not protect these states from fraud. In Arkansas, they were halted after one year. The punitive requirements in the House Republicans' bill will not only fail to force millions of people into low-paying jobs, but they will also increase Americans' medical debt, creating a further, unnecessary strain on our economy and health care system. If Republicans really think that work requirements and paperwork reduce fraud, they are wrong. Medicaid fraud, for example, is relatively rare and more often committed by health care providers, not beneficiaries. Further, these work requirements will bury Americans in mounds of paperwork and cost millions to administer. Instead, they should try to limit the sophisticated tax evasion strategies used by the top 1 percent, which are rarely detected but very expensive for the country. If Trump's complaisant members of Congress really wanted to increase employment, expansions in public preschool and child care would be much more effective and economical. It's somewhat ironic that an administration that supposedly is taking a chainsaw to the federal bureaucracy is moving to wrap ordinary Americans in red tape. But the reality is the Trump administration seeks to break down barriers for millionaires, while building them up around the rest of us. Taryn Morrissey is a professor and chair of American University's Department of Public Administration and Policy, and associate dean of research at the School of Public Affairs.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Rep. Lauren Boebert seeking $5m in federal funds to remove ‘toxic black sludge' from drinking water in tiny Colorado community
Colorado Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert visited a small community in Morgan County, in the eastern part of her state, promising to address a long-standing issue that has left locals with 'toxic black sludge' in place of clean drinking water. Boebert this week toured the Prairie View Ranch Water District, which lies 50 miles north of Denver, and told the residents: 'This is something that certainly needs to be addressed. I'm sorry it's been ignored for two decades. 'This is something that should upset and appall every single Coloradan.' To remedy the situation, she has pledged to ask the House Appropriations Committee for a $5 million grant to help overhaul the local water supply. Her request will be put before the committee later this month and, if it is approved, will then likely be folded into a larger appropriations bill that would have to pass through the House of Representatives and Senate before reaching President Donald Trump's desk for signing off. Boebert's office believes that could happen before the end of September, according to CBS News. Boebert has been notable in recent months over her outspoken support for Trump and Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has slashed federal budgets in a bid to reduce 'waste' expenditure and fraud. The Independent has reached out to Boebert's office for further comment. The water crisis in eastern Colorado has been in the making for almost 20 years, with the area's 150 residents saying they have been repeatedly let down by the people elected to protect them and left with houses that are worthless without reliable water. CBS reports that the Morgan County Board of County Commissioners allowed the district to be run as a for-profit private company for 16 years, a period during which the Colorado Division of Housing allegedly failed to stop unscrupulous developers from using an unregistered installer, using false credentials and faked signatures, to assemble houses and infrastructure on the cheap. The network adds that the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Water Quality Control Division failed to act for a decade after learning that the homes had been erected without valid state approval or proper regulatory oversight, resulting in contaminated water and widespread discontent. 'We have systems. We have policies. We have regulations that should never allow this, and it went by blind eyes and deaf ears,' resident Sam Belmonte told CBS. He challenged Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a gubernatorial candidate, to follow Boebert's example and said he found her visit 'invigorating' after years of feeling ignored. 'It gave us some sense of hope that Congresswoman Boebert actually came,' Belmonte said. The representative left the site with a sample of the water, which she said she hopes to use to present to the House committee to persuade its members to hand over the funding. 'I'm happy to be here doing this but the state of Colorado should have stepped in years and years ago,' she said. 'Every Coloradan, every American, every person deserves clean drinking water. This is unacceptable.'
