Get ready for hunger to skyrocket in North Carolina
It's hard to fathom in a proposal that includes billions upon billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, but one of the most significant changes included in the massive budget bill approved by the U.S. House late last month was this: big cuts to the nation's main anti-hunger program.
Under the legislation, millions of people would lose SNAP food assistance benefits. Meanwhile, states would be saddled with 14 billion dollars in new costs.
And the impacts will be felt in the stomachs of families across the nation.
As Raleigh-area Congresswoman Deborah Ross explained last week, in her district – one of the state's more affluent ones – 20,000 of her adult constituents will lose all of their SNAP benefits.
Statewide, a total of almost half a million people will lose benefits and the cuts will ripple through grocery stores and the economy as a whole.
The bottom line: Rep. Ross is right. The Republican budget will cause irreparable harm to the people of our state. All caring and thinking North Carolinians should support her effort to push back.
For NC Newsline, I'm Rob Schofield.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
10 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Nation's capital awaits Trump's next move as federal takeover threat looms
WASHINGTON — Around 2 a.m., noisy revelers emerging from clubs and bars packed the sidewalks of U Street in Washington, many of them seeking a late-night slice or falafel. A robust but not unusual contingent of city police cruisers lingered around the edges of the crowds. At other late-night hot spots, nearly identical scenes unfolded. What wasn't apparent in Friday's earliest hours: any sort of security lockdown by a multiagency flood of uniformed federal law enforcement officers. That's what President Trump had promised Thursday, starting at midnight, in the administration's latest move to impose its will on the nation's capital. In short, that law enforcement surge to take control of the District of Columbia's streets did not appear to unfold on schedule. A two-hour city tour, starting around 1 a.m. Friday, revealed no overt or visible law enforcement presence other than members of the Metropolitan Police Department, the city's police force. That might change in the coming evenings as Trump puts into action his long-standing plans to 'take over' a capital city he has repeatedly slammed as unsafe, filthy and badly run. According to his declaration last week, the security lockdown will run for seven days, 'with the option to extend as needed.' In an online post Saturday, the Republican president said the Democratic-led city would soon be one of the country's safest and he announced a White House news conference for Monday, though he offered no details. On Friday night, a White House official said Thursday night's operations included arrests for possession of two stolen firearms, suspected fentanyl and marijuana. The official was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. The official said more than 120 members of various federal agencies — the Secret Service, the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service — were to be on duty Friday night, upping the complement of federal officers involved. 'This is the first step in stopping the violent crime that has been plaguing the streets of Washington, D.C.,' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who publicly faced off against Trump in 2020 when he called in a massive federal law enforcement response to disperse crowds of protesters denouncing police brutality and racial profiling, has not said a public word since Trump's declaration. The Metropolitan Police Department has gone similarly silent. The catalyst for this latest round of takeover drama was an assault Aug. 3 during an attempted carjacking on a high-profile member of the White House's government-slashing team known as the Department of Government Efficiency, formerly headed by Elon Musk. Police arrested two 15-year-olds and were seeking others. Trump quickly renewed his calls for the federal government to seize control. 'If D.C. doesn't get its act together, and quickly, we will have no choice but to take Federal control of the City, and run this City how it should be run, and put criminals on notice that they're not going to get away with it anymore,' Trump wrote in a post on his social media site. He later told reporters he was considering a range of alternatives, including repealing Washington's limited 'home rule' autonomy and 'bringing in the National Guard, maybe very quickly,' as he did in Los Angeles in response to protests over his administration's immigration crackdown. The threats come at a time when Bowser's government can tout a reduction in the number of homicides and carjackings, both of which surged in 2023. The number of carjackings overall dropped significantly in 2024, from 957 to just under 500, and is on track to decline again this year, with fewer than 200 recorded so far. The proportion of juveniles arrested on suspicion of carjacking, though, has remained above 50%, and Bowser's government has taken steps to rein in a recent phenomenon of rowdy teenagers causing disarray and disturbances in public spaces. Emergency legislation passed by the D.C. Council this summer imposed tighter youth curfew restrictions and empowered Police Chief Pamela Smith to declare temporary juvenile curfew zones for four days at a time. In those areas, a gathering of nine or more people younger than 18 is unlawful after 8 p.m. Trump is within his powers in deploying federal law enforcement assets on D.C. streets. He could deploy the National Guard, although that is not one of the dozen participating agencies listed in his declaration. The first Trump administration called in the National Guard during Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 and again on Jan. 6, 2021, when his supporters overran the Capitol in a failed attempt to overturn his election defeat. Further steps, including taking over the Police Department, would require a declaration of emergency. Legal experts believe that would most likely be challenged in court. Such an approach would fit the general pattern of Trump's second term in office, when he has declared states of emergency on issues ranging from border protection to economic tariffs. In many cases, he moved forward while the courts sorted it out. Imposing a full federal takeover of Washington would require a congressional repeal of the Home Rule Act of 1973. It's a step that Trump said his administration's lawyers are examining. That law was specific to Washington, not other communities in the United States that have their own home rule powers but generally retain representation in their state legislatures, said Monica Hopkins, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia. Signed into law by President Nixon, the measure allowed D.C. residents to elect their own mayor, council and local commissioners. The district had been previously run by federally appointed commissioners and members of Congress, some of whom balked at having to deal with potholes and other details of running a city of 700,000 residents. So far, Trump's criticisms of Washington can be felt most directly in the actions of the National Park Service, which controls large pieces of land throughout the capital. In Trump's current administration, the agency has stepped up its clearing of homeless encampments on Park Service land and recently carried out a series of arrests of people smoking marijuana in public parks. The agency said last week that a statue of a Confederate military leader that was toppled by protesters in 2020 would be restored and replaced, in line with an executive order. Khalil and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mike Pesoli, Michael Kunzelman and Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.
Black America Web
40 minutes ago
- Black America Web
Trump Moves Obama and Bush Portraits to Hidden White House Hallway
Source: STAN HONDA / Getty The White House isn't just a seat of power—it's a stage for American history and a canvas reflecting the nation's leaders. Once, presidential portraits, including those of President Barack Obama and President George W. Bush, occupied celebrated public spaces where millions could appreciate their legacies. That changed during Donald Trump's presidency, when both portraits were quietly moved to a discreet, staff-only hallway—an act that resonated especially strongly with communities close to both leaders, and provoked a broader conversation about respect, representation, and the power of symbols. Presidential portraits have always carried weight—especially Obama's, as the first Black president and a powerful symbol of breaking barriers for African-Americans and all Americans who value representation. His portrait's removal from the Grand Staircase, a place where history breathes and visitors reflect on leadership, was far more than a simple change in décor. But Obama's wasn't the only portrait to be relocated. George W. Bush's was also moved out of public view—a decision that raised questions, given Bush's notable relationship with the Obamas. Over the years, Presidents Bush and Obama, and their families, have demonstrated deep mutual respect and even genuine friendship at public events—sending a message of unity and civility across the political aisle RELATED STORY: Daughter of George W. Bush Endorses Harris What Michelle Obama Said About Trump's 1st Inauguration Could Be Why She's Skipping His 2nd We care about your data. See our privacy policy. Why was Bush's portrait moved too? One clear factor is that President Bush notably never endorsed or supported Donald Trump, choosing to be a rare Republican voice who, along with the Obamas, represented a vision of leadership distinct from Trump's. Their visible friendship highlighted a different standard for presidential behavior—one grounded in decency and common ground, traits that many saw as starkly contrasting with the Trump years. By relocating the portraits of both Obama and Bush, Trump didn't just alter the visual landscape of the White House; he signaled a sharp departure from the legacy—and alliances—these two men represented. It's impossible to ignore the political tensions influencing these moves. Trump's infamous clashes with Obama and the public 'birther' claims are well known, but Bush, too, had a complicated relationship with Trump, marked by a lack of support and public silence during Trump's campaigns. Moving both men's portraits has been widely interpreted as an attempt to minimize their presence and legacy in the nation's house, especially for visitors. For the African-American community, and Americans who value unity, this act raises real questions: Whose stories do we honor? Whose images deserve to inspire the next generation when they walk the halls of history? For Black Americans, the very presence of Obama's portrait is deeply meaningful—but the message is amplified when paired with Bush's, given their visible friendship and mutual respect. Together, those portraits once reflected a rare and hopeful moment of bipartisanship and inclusion. Removing them is more than a symbolic sidelining; it's a reshaping of the narrative about whose leadership belongs at the forefront. The decision to relocate Obama's and Bush's portraits, in the context of their legacies and their relationship, makes it clear that vigilance is necessary—not just to preserve the legacy of the first Black president, but to protect a more inclusive, honest story of America's leadership. As history continues to unfold, it's up to all of us to insist on a White House—and a nation—that honors the full truth and diversity of its past and present. LIKE US ON FACEBOOK . FOLLOW US ON INSTAGRAM & TWITTER . SUBSCRIBE TO OUR YOUTUBE . STAY INFORMED! CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER! HEAD TO THE HOMEPAGE SEE ALSO
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Dave Ramsey sends major message to Americans on 401(k)s, IRAs
As household budgets continue to feel squeezed, many Americans find it harder to juggle everyday expenses with long-term financial goals. Rising grocery store and gas pump costs are forcing tough choices, and for many, retirement savings are slipping down the priority list. Popular personal finance author and podcaster Dave Ramsey shares key ideas about how 401(k)s and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) are useful tools workers can use to help relieve their sense of nervousness about the future. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter This growing anxiety is compounded by uncertainty in the stock market that leaves investors questioning whether their portfolios are truly prepared to support them in their later years. In addition to that, there are looming concerns about Social Security. Projections suggest its trust funds may be depleted by 2034, potentially slashing benefits to only about 80% of what retirees currently expect. Health care costs are another major stressor. Even with Medicare, premiums and out-of-pocket expenses can add up quickly, making it difficult for retirees to feel financially secure. In light of these challenges, Ramsey offers his views on 401(k)s, IRAs and how they compare to Roth 401(k)s and Roth IRAs. Related: Dave Ramsey warns Americans on Social Security Ramsey emphasizes the fact that many workers are not saving or investing enough for retirement - and that this shortfall stems from entrenched habits. The only way to break these patterns is to take deliberate action and make meaningful changes to how one manages their money today, he says, and a great place to start is with 401(k) plans and IRAs. A 401(k) is a retirement savings program offered through an employer. It enables workers to automatically set aside a portion of their earnings for retirement, with contributions conveniently deducted from their paychecks. And many 401(k) plans feature matching contributions from the employer, essentially offering free money to invest in retirement savings. The amount individuals can contribute to their 401(k) plans in 2025 has increased to $23,500, up from $23,000 for 2024, according to the IRS. An IRA is a type of savings account designed to help workers prepare for retirement while offering valuable tax benefits. Depending on the type of IRA, a person can either reduce their taxable income now and let their investments grow tax-deferred, or enjoy tax-free growth and withdrawals later when they retire. The limit on annual contributions to an IRA remains $7,000. The catch-up contribution limit for employees aged 50 and over remains $7,500. Getty Images Ramsey explains that when one contributes to a traditional 401(k), they are getting a tax benefit up front. The money goes in before taxes, which lowers taxable income for the year and reduces what is owed to the IRS. It's a solid deal for now, Ramsey writes - but when one retires, they will pay taxes on everything: their contributions, the employer's match, and any investment gains. More on personal finance: Dave Ramsey has blunt words for Americans on Medicare, MedicaidJean Chatzky sends strong message on major 401(k) changesFinance expert has blunt words for car buyers A Roth 401(k) works differently. An individual contributes after-tax dollars, so there is no immediate tax break. But the payoff comes later - one's money grows tax-free, and they will not owe anything when they withdraw it in retirement. "Both types of tax advantages are great, but if your employer offers a Roth 401(k), we always recommend taking that option," Ramsey wrote. "Allowing your money to grow tax-free for decades and then not having to worry about taxes when you're living out your retirement dreams? Sign us up!" Related: Dave Ramsey has blunt words for Americans on Medicare, Medicaid Ramsey emphasizes the fact that traditional IRAs offer a tax break up front - an individual contributes with pretax dollars, which can lower taxable income and reduce their tax bill for the year. However, because they didn't pay taxes going in, they will owe taxes later when when they withdraw the money in retirement, including any growth. Traditional IRAs are open to anyone with taxable income, regardless of how much they earn, and they can contribute the full amount. But starting at age 73, people are required to begin taking withdrawals - called required minimum distributions - because the government wants its share eventually. Roth IRAs use a different plan. A person contributes after-tax dollars, meaning they have already paid taxes on the money. The benefit? Investments grow tax-free, and people can withdraw them tax-free in retirement. In 2025, one can contribute to a Roth IRA if their income is below $153,000 as a single filer, or $241,000 for married couples filing jointly. If one earns more than that, Ramsey suggests using a backdoor Roth IRA strategy to still take advantage of its long-term benefits. Related: Tony Robbins sends warning message to Americans on IRAs, 401(k)s The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
