Idaho House narrowly passes bill to ban SNAP coverage for candy, soda
The Idaho bill would require the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare to request federal approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, or USDA, through a waiver to ban SNAP coverage for candy and soda. (Photo by)
The Idaho House narrowly passed a bill to ban a nutritional assistance program formerly known as food stamps from covering candy and soda.
House Bill 109, by Rep. Jordan Redman, R-Coeur d'Alene, would require the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare to seek federal approval to exclude candy and soda from foods eligible for coverage by the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
Idaho's bill is part of the national movement coined 'Make America Healthy Again,' or MAHA, promoted by U.S. health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Redman told the House lawmakers.
Redman told Idaho House lawmakers soda is the 'number one commodity spent on SNAP.'
After little debate, the Idaho House passed the bill on a 38-32 vote Monday. Twenty-three Republican House lawmakers joined all nine House Democrats in opposing the bill.
The bill now heads to the Idaho Senate for consideration. To become law, Idaho bills must pass the House and Senate, and avoid the governor's veto.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Last week, the Idaho House Health and Welfare Committee narrowly advanced the bill to the full House — on an 8-7 vote.
Redman also defended the bill against critiques over its definition and concerns by business industry groups who have said the bill would be difficult to implement. He said the bill uses a definition said is used in state tax laws, and modern technology eases the process for businesses to exclude foods ineligible under the bill.
'SNAP is not a mandatory program. If it's too difficult, they're not required to accept SNAP. They don't have to be involved in the program,' he said. 'However, I do think with point-of-sales systems today, that the ease of use is actually a lot easier.'
The bill defines candy as 'a preparation of sugar, honey, or other natural or artificial sweeteners combined with chocolate, fruit, nuts or other ingredients or flavorings in the form of confections, bars, drops or pieces.' Under the bill, candy would not include 'any item that contains more than' 10% flour 'by weight or requires refrigeration.'
Idaho House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel, D-Boise, was the only lawmaker to debate the bill on the House floor. Repeating concerns she raised in committee, she said the bill wouldn't just ban Twix bars — it would also ban granola bars and power bars.
She told House lawmakers the bill was opposed by many Idaho business groups, including the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry, a powerful lobbying group.
The bill won't be workable, she argued, and would prompt grocery stores to stop accepting SNAP.
'If we put this incredibly vague and un-administrable definition in front of them, we will simply see grocery stores not accepting this and low-income families unable to get food at all,' Rubel said.
Almost 131,000 Idahoans are enrolled in SNAP, according to figures released last month. On average, an Idahoan on SNAP receives $177 in program benefits monthly, data from Health and Welfare shows.
Rubel argued Idaho should wait to see how the federal government tackles the issue, referencing the 'Healthy SNAP Act' in Congress.
The Idaho bill would require the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare to request federal approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, or USDA, through a waiver to ban SNAP coverage for candy and soda. If the federal government doesn't grant that waiver for Idaho, the bill says the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare 'shall request such a waiver annually until such a waiver is granted.'
The bill's fiscal note estimates it would not have a fiscal impact. Applying for the waiver wouldn't cost Idaho money, Redman told House lawmakers, saying it would only require an email from the Department of Health and Welfare director to the federal USDA.
Republican legislators in Arizona, Kansas, Utah and Wyoming have introduced similar bills to request federal approval to ban SNAP coverage for candy and soda, Stateline reported.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Political fights put spotlight on leader of Washington's largest public employee union
Mike Yestramski, president of the Washington Federation of State Employees, could not get a meeting with Gov. Bob Ferguson so he "called" during a March protest in the governor's office. (Photo by Jacquelyn Jimenez Romero) Mike Yestramski has enjoyed a low profile through much of his six years leading Washington state's largest public sector union. Not anymore. His very public clashes with the governor during a contentious 2025 legislative session put a political spotlight on the president of the Washington Federation of State Employees. The union represents 54,000 state government, higher education and public service workers. Ferguson and Democratic state senators — longtime union allies — wanted to furlough workers and make them pay more for health care coverage. They also called for curtailing programs and closing Rainier School, a rehabilitation center in Pierce County for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, moves certain to trigger layoffs. Yestramski and legions of fellow union members turned out in force to oppose these moves. Clad in the union's green t-shirts, they rallied on the Capitol steps, demonstrated at the governor's office and patrolled the hallways outside the House and Senate chambers to pigeonhole lawmakers through the final hours of session. The muscular, pony-tailed labor leader was ubiquitous, rebellious and, in the end, victorious in some of the most pitched political battles of the session. And he didn't hold back with rhetorical slights against the new governor, calling Ferguson a 'pseudo Democrat' at rallies and 'Ratfink Robbie Ferguson' on Facebook. The swipes further brightened the exposure of the union's demands. Yestramski said in a recent interview in the union's Olympia headquarters that he prefers 'adult conversations' to resolve differences, though he realizes what occurred in the legislative session 'may have painted a slightly different impression.' But the gravity of the situation demanded a strong retort, he said. 'I generally believe that collaboration tends to be more successful than aggression,' he said. 'But that takes all of the parties involved to do that.' Yestramski, 45, was elected to a two-year term as federation president in 2019. Then 39, Yestramski said he was reportedly the federation's youngest ever president. Yestramski was reelected in 2021 and 2023. He plans to seek a fourth term this fall. He started his public service career as a homeless outreach social worker in Baltimore. He came to Washington in 2013, taking a job as a psychiatric social worker at Western State Hospital. An active union member, Yestramski said he pursued the leadership post because he was 'just getting really sick of seeing my friends and co-workers getting beat up, really, really bad.' 'People ended up in ICUs. People lost digits,' he said. Jobs at the hospital can still be dangerous, but Yestramski credited CEO Charlie Southerland for working collaboratively with the union to come up with solutions to bolster worker safety. The following interview was lightly edited for clarity and length. Have you had a chance to chat with or meet face-to-face with the governor? I have not. You've called him a few names. How do you feel about him now? While his rhetoric during the session I didn't love, he did ultimately sign the budget that funds our contracts and did not contain furloughs. As far as what he actually did, he didn't harm us, which was the fear based on statements that were coming out. For that, I'm thankful. You did say you felt scammed and that workers were lied to because Ferguson's proposals didn't align with his pledges to labor leaders in the 2024 campaign. Do you think WFSE members now feel they can trust him to have their backs? As a social worker — this is going to be related, I promise — the therapeutic school that I was brought up in was behaviorism. One of its basic tenets is, 'I don't really care what your motivations are, as long as you do the right thing.' To that end, whether it was genuinely in his heart or whether it was due to the political pressure of our members, whatever reason it was that got that outcome, the outcome is what was important. As far as our members trusting him, obviously, folks are going to be a little bit hesitant. This isn't just the governor. This is any elected official where we have to continue to make it known that we're paying attention, that we'll show up and that we have expectations of our elected officials. When we do that in large enough crowds, they listen and they do the right thing. In the end, did Ferguson do the right thing enough to secure the union's backing for reelection? That's three-and-a-half years away. In sports terms, there's going to be a lot more game film to review by the time that decision comes up. Enough time for a reconciliation? As far as he and I, personally, I can't say. My door is always open, even if it's to say I don't like you, right? I don't care if it's me. I believe the narrative got a little bit into a personal thing between me and Bob. I need to know that there are people in the governor's office that he will listen to, who can make sure that our main issues are being heard and addressed. Do you feel that way today? I feel that now more than I did two months ago. Would I like to have a better relationship with the governor? I don't want to be in a feud with our governor. You're probably not going to call him a 'ratfink' again. Probably not.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House GOP slashes university operational funding, penalizes U of M and MSU for large endowments
University of Michigan students walking near the Diag on Oct. 3, 2022 | Ken Coleman Cuts to DEI programming, slashed operational funding for the state's most prestigious universities with large endowments and penalties for race-based admission systems were among the items proposed in higher education budgets advanced by Michigan House Republicans on Wednesday. The GOP-controlled House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday reported its version of the school aid budget for K-12 schools, universities, community colleges, the Michigan Department of Education and the Michigan Department of Lifelong Education, Advancement and Potential. House Republicans set university funding at $2.4 billion with $461.3 million coming from the state's general fund, which would be an overall increase of $76.4 million or 3.3%. However, overall funding for university operations would see a decrease of $828.1 million. State Rep. Ann Bollin (R-Brighton), chair of the committee, said Republicans were trying to support Michigan high school graduates as they transition to adult life and encourage them to stay in the state to attend one of several public universities. State Rep. Gregg Markkanen (R-Hancock), chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Higher Education and Community Colleges, said in a statement issued after the bills were reported that the budget corrected the imbalance of the state funding poured into Michigan State University and the University of Michigan's Ann Arbor campus. 'Michigan's largest universities have been getting way more than their fair share for far too long,' Markkanen said. 'Our plan sets things right by trimming the fat off MSU and U of M and distributing that funding amongst our 13 other remarkable universities.' But, much like its counterpart in the K-12 budget, the university budget has a series of cuts to operational grants and aims to restrict university diversity, equity and inclusion programs. The budget raised questions for universities who stand to see their funding reduced if they do not obey certain requirements spelled out in boilerplate language, and the inconsistency of billions in one-time funding without a plan for years later. Universities with an endowment fund between $1 billion and $5 billion would lose 50% of those funds, impacting Michigan State University, in particular. Those with endowments of $5 billion to $10 billion would lose 65% of their funds, and universities with endowments of $10 billion would lose 75% of their funds, which would affect the University of Michigan. The sum total of campus investment funds, support payments and ending tuition waiver payments would be subject to a 31% cap on increases above what was appropriated to universities last year. When paired with estimated new Michigan Achievement Scholarship payments, the appropriations to universities would be conditioned on holding back undergraduate tuition and fee increases to 3% or $489, whichever is greater. Projected funding decreases in that case could range from 5.1% to 91.6%. New boilerplate language would require universities to report on information related to the current university president, provide a list of the number of out-of-state students by state origin, provide a list of the number of international students categorized by citizenship, certify that all enrolled students are lawful residents, and provide the contact information of students who are not lawful residents to the director of Michigan Department of Lifelong Education, Advancement and Potential. Universities would have 5% of their campus investment funds withheld for disobeying those requirements, the same penalty if they allow transgender women to participate in women's sports. Vamping on a theme, the House also added language that restricts public universities from having any common area spaces that are restricted by sex or race, and restricts institutions from having any public ceremonies or gatherings restricted by sex or race and authorizes the state budget director to withhold 5% of monthly campus investment funds payments until an institution complies. The House plan also mandates universities abide by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that held Harvard University's limited race-based affirmative action program violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Michigan House Republicans' university budget includes language that states 25% of campus investment funds would be taken from any institution that violates the court's holding. State Rep. Matt Madodock (R-Milford) extolled the budget as making cuts to the 'woke' universities and giving the money to 'non-woke' universities. In an interview with Michigan Advance, Dan Hurley, CEO of the Michigan Association of State Universities, said the association was still analyzing the budget, but said it was 'certainly comprehensive in its approach to reframing how the state funds its public universities and the students they enroll.' 'There are a lot of provisions that are not minor in their potential impact on allocations to universities and their long-term implications,' Hurley said. Hurley noted as Markkanen did during the committee that attention will now go toward negotiating with the House, Senate and the governor's office. He said the goal was, as a set of 15 public universities, to improve and to allow students the ability to afford a university degree. 'I think the litmus test on a final budget is how it will affect the universities' abilities to produce a talent pipeline that the state desperately needs at this moment,' Hurley said. One of his top-line observations is the more than a billion dollars in one-time funding monies to support the overall budget framework. As huge enterprises that have been around for hundreds of years, Hurley said they need predicability and sustainability. 'We need to have a much better understanding of what the thinking is, what the plan is to maintain a healthy, vibrant public university ecosystem,' Hurley said. 'In year two, in year three and year four down the road. To me, that is not clear at the moment.' Bollin said the House was providing a roughly flat investment in higher education, which she said would make universities compete for the students they have. Although the move was characterized during the committee meeting as positively impacting some universities' bottom lines over others, Bollin later said it was a move to support students wherever they end up going to attain a higher education. When it was noted that the budget changes the way some universities would receive money from the state, Bollin doubled down and said universities will have the same opportunity to receive funding. 'Maybe they ought to mind their budgets just like the rest of us. Everybody's budget is getting tighter,' Bollin said. Bollin was asked about the DEI cuts and more specifically the language targeting transgender women in women's sports. It was noted that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender were tenants of the state's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. Bollin was asked how the various budgets' boilerplate language were not blatant violations of the state's civil rights law. Bollin said she didn't see it that way, using language that essentially denies the very nature of transgender individuals. 'Frankly, I want to get away from focusing on those parts in the bill and in our policy statements. We are talking about educating and we want everybody to feel welcome; to come in and get a good education. And, frankly, we don't want to see boys in girls' sports. That's universal. I don't want to go into the restroom with a man,' Bollin said.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Michigan GOP school spending plan spends more while axing free breakfast and lunch
LANSING — House Republicans would outspend Democrats under a $21.9-billion budget for K-12 schools they passed June 11. But there are major differences in how school money would be spent, with more of it going to wealthier Michigan districts, cyber schools and even private schools under the GOP plan. House Bill 4577, approved in a 56-53 mostly party line vote, is sure to see significant changes before the K-12 budget is finalized for the 2026 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. It is a markedly different plan from the $21.8 billion plan approved by the Democratic-controlled Senate and the $21.2-billion proposal unveiled in February by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, also a Democrat. In the coming weeks or months, leaders from both legislative chambers will attempt to reach a consensus on a school spending plan, as well as a broader state government budget that both chambers can pass in identical form, and that Whitmer is willing to sign into law. House Republicans passed the record K-12 spending plan after repeatedly criticizing Whitmer for what they described as bloated budgets and after using their social media platform on X June 11 to taunt Whitmer for saying in her February State of the State address that Michigan spends more per pupil than most other states but gets less in terms of academic results. "Gov. Whitmer admitted Republicans are right," the Michigan House GOP posted, with a clip of that portion of Whitmer's speech, just before proposing even higher per-pupil spending than Whitmer did. In 2024, House Republicans made an election issue of the Democratic K-12 budget for reducing line-item spending on student mental health and school safety. The plan the GOP passed June 11 eliminates that $107.8-million line item altogether, according to a House Fiscal Agency analysis, rolling mental health and school safety into broader chunks of funding that Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, said gives school districts more flexibility in how they spend. Districts would be required to certify that their budgets support at least one school resource officer and one mental health support staff member, according to the fiscal analysis. The GOP plan sets a school foundation allowance of $10,025 per pupil, up from $9,608 this year. That's higher than the $10,000 per-pupil grant proposed by Whitmer and the $10,008 per-pupil grant in the Senate Democrat plan. But in eliminating many line items and earmarks, the Republican school budget also provides for an additional $3.1 billion in per-pupil payments, with about $2,200 per pupil going to school districts and intermediate school districts and $40.8 million to private schools. The Michigan Constitution prohibits public funding of private schools, so that part of the Republican plan would likely face a court challenge if it ended up in the final version of the school budget. The GOP school budget eliminates Whitmer's signature policy of providing free breakfast and lunch to all public school students. Instead, it leaves participation in such a program up to individual school districts, regardless of how wealthy the families in that school district are. Also eliminated in the House GOP plan are proposed spending increases for at-risk students, who are defined as economically disadvantaged. Whitmer proposed a $42.3-million increase from the School Aid Fund, while Senate Democrats proposed an extra $258.7 million. The Republican plan holds at risk spending at 2025 levels. "We're building a stronger model by putting trust where it belongs — in the hands of local school boards, parents, and educators who know their communities best," said state Rep. Ann Bollin, R-Brighton Township, who chairs the House Appropriations Committee. "Every district is different, and the people closest to the students should be the ones making the decisions.' But Curtis Hertel, chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party, said the plan will force many children to go hungry while doing nothing to improve academic performance. 'This education budget kills the school breakfast and lunch programs, cuts funding for school safety and mental health programs, and will reduce the actual dollars going into the classroom,' Hertel said in a news release. Under the Republican plan, public cyber schools, which have lower building and transportation costs, would receive the same foundation allowances as brick-and-mortal schools do. Whitmer's plan and the Senate plan would give cyber schools a per-pupil grant that is 20% lower, saving around $30 million, according to the House Fiscal Agency analysis. Two of the most conservative House Republicans, Rep. Steve Carra, R-Three Rivers, and Rep. Josh Schriver, R-Oxford, were the only GOP members to join all House Democrats in voting against the plan. Contact Paul Egan: 517-372-8660 or pegan@ This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Michigan GOP school spending plan bigger, axes free breakfast, lunch
