Kansas families with SNAP can still buy soda, candy, but new law adds red tape to assistance
Rep. Suzanne Wikle raised concerns that House Bill 2240 will slow down state agency processes by requiring legislative approval for state assistance changes, among other things. (Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)
TOPEKA — A bill barring Kansans who use food benefits from buying soda and candy failed to move forward last week, while another bill passed that opponents said would stall stage agencies' ability to react to changes in assistance programs and intellectual or developmental disability services.
Senate Bill 79, which would have stopped anyone using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits from purchasing soda and candy, died when the House failed to take up the bill to override Gov. Laura Kelly's veto. The Senate voted to overturn the veto, 29 – 11.
Both chambers, however, voted along party lines to override the governor's veto on House Bill 2240. Opponents expressed concerns that it would create obstacles for state agencies to move quickly in making needed changes in Medicaid, SNAP and other assistance programs. The bill requires legislative approval for any changes expanding eligibility for public assistance programs, increasing state costs or making certain changes for individuals receiving IDD services. If the Legislature isn't in session, decisions will be made by the Legislative Coordinating Council, which has 14 days to act.
'Just the Medicaid ones, every single administration that we've had since I've been an adult has over 100 things that would have had to go before a legislative body,' said Rep. Suzanne Wikle, a Lawrence Democrat, during a March debate. 'I don't think we understand how many things we're talking about. This bill requires that all changes — simple, mundane changes that all states make to programs all the time to keep in compliance with federal regs, update certain things for Medicaid, for SNAP, for child care assistance, for TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) — those are all going to have to go before some sort of legislative body now.'
Sen. Cindy Holscher, a Democrat from Overland Park, echoed those concerns before the Senate override vote last week.
'It shifts power away from actual experts in our agencies, and this will hurt our response time for critical programs and cause bottlenecks in our processes,' she said, adding that there are appropriate processes in place for oversight of spending.
Sen. Renee Erickson, a Wichita Republican, said this bill puts the responsibility for spending where it should be.
'The reason for this is that the Legislature, not bureaucrats, should be overseeing the allocation of funds and making those decisions,' she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
36 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Mikie Sherrill's Chances of Beating Jack Ciattarelli in New Jersey: Polls
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Democratic New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Mikie Sherrill is set to beat her Republican rival Jack Ciattarelli in the upcoming election for governor, according to a poll. According to a SurveyUSA poll, released the day after Ciattarelli and Sherrill secured their respective nominations on Wednesday, the Democrat led his GOP rival by 13 percentage points. The Context Along with Virginia, New Jersey is one of the two states holding gubernatorial elections this year to replace New Jersey's incumbent Democratic governor, Phil Murphy, who has a term-limit. The Republicans have not won a gubernatorial election in New Jersey since 2013 and has voted for a Democrat in every presidential election since 1988. But the GOP has seen increasing success in the state in recent years, with Trump increasing his vote share by 10 points in 2024. This was the best showing by a GOP presidential nominee in two decades. Split image of Democratic Representative Mikie Sherrill, left, and former Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli, right, who will face Sherrill in New Jersey's gubernatorial contest. Split image of Democratic Representative Mikie Sherrill, left, and former Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli, right, who will face Sherrill in New Jersey's gubernatorial contest. AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib, Mike Catalini, file What To Know Ciattarelli is a former New Jersey state representative who has said he would end any sanctuary policies protecting immigrants without permanent legal status. Sherrill is a United States representative who worked in the navy and as a federal prosecutor. According to the SurveyUSA poll of 785 adults, 51 percent of likely voters said they'd support Sherrill in the November general election, compared to 38 percent who said they'd back Ciattarelli. The poll was conducted between May 28 and May 30. However, a previous survey by the same pollster found that 40 percent of Garden State voters have a favorable view of Ciattarelli, while 41 percent had the same view of Sherrill. There was a larger gap between the two candidates when it comes to their negative ratings, with 29 percent of voters having an unfavorable view of Sherrill, compared to 36 percent who have an unfavorable opinion of the Republican. What People Are Saying Micah Rasmussen, director of the Rebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics at Rider University, previously told Newsweek that while Democrats are the majority party in the state. "It is certainly possible that New Jersey could elect a Republican governor in November. [Incumbent] Governor [Phil] Murphy was the first Democrat to be reelected in more than 40 years, and in that same span, three Republican governors were elected and reelected. President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social: "The Great State of New Jersey has a very important Primary coming up on Tuesday. Get Out and Vote for Jack Ciattarelli, who has my Complete and Total Endorsement! His Opponents are going around saying they have my Endorsement, which is not true, I don't even know who they are! We can't play games when it comes to Elections, and New Jersey is a very important State that we must WIN. The whole World is watching. Vote for Jack Ciattarelli to, MAKE NEW JERSEY GREAT AGAIN!" What Happens Next The election takes place on November 4. Five third-party or independent candidates are also running for the seat.
Miami Herald
40 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Senate Republicans want to trim some of Trump's populist tax cuts
WASHINGTON -- Even before the House passed the sweeping bill carrying President Donald Trump's domestic policy agenda, Senate Republicans made it clear that they hoped to make major changes to the legislation before the GOP was done muscling it through Congress. Several have wanted to pare back the cuts to Medicaid, the health care program for the poor, that House Republicans envisioned in the version of the legislation that they approved late last month. A handful have sought to salvage tax credits incentivizing clean energy projects that the House measure would repeal. Many have pushed to grant companies prized tax breaks for the long run, not just for a few years, as their colleagues across the Capitol opted to do. The problem senators face is that each of these changes would be expensive. At $2.4 trillion, the cost of the legislation that barely passed the House is already huge. So Senate Republicans are now hunting for ways to save money, a hazardous task that could involve shaving the ambitions of their colleagues in the House or the White House. On the chopping block are some of Trump's favorite parts of the bill, like not taxing overtime. Republican lawmakers have long been skeptical of some of the president's tax ideas, with the view that the populist policies will not spur the economy like traditional supply-side conservatism can. 'I think it all comes down to what we've got to pay for,' Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said. 'At the end of the day, we've got to pay for pro-growth policies.' The debate is in some ways a classic one on Capitol Hill, where throughout history and without regard to political party, senators have been reluctant to defer to their colleagues in the House, and vice versa. 'It's the Senate, so the Senate is going to do what it damn well wants to do, and that's a good process,' Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said at a Punchbowl News event Wednesday, where he warned that his chamber would pass a bill 'markedly different' from the House measure, pushing enactment of the package well past his party's July 4 deadline. To top Senate Republicans, the most economically powerful tax cuts incentivize companies to make new investments and conduct research. Accelerated depreciation schedules, though, do not grab political attention the way Trump's promises for 'no tax on tips' did, so the House version of the bill only included the business tax breaks through 2029. Senate Republicans want to make the business write-offs a permanent feature of the tax code, a change that they and some economists believe would help encourage more companies to expand. As one way to cover that cost, Senate Republicans are looking at ways to further curb eligibility for a tax cut for overtime pay, including by setting a lower income ceiling for the break and by more strictly defining what counts as overtime, lawmakers said. 'Obviously, there's a lot of dials, whether you're talking about no tax on tips, overtime, any of those,' said Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan. 'How many years did they go? At what level do they stop?' Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, a former car dealer, wants to tighten the House plan for allowing Americans to deduct up to $10,000 in interest on car loans, which would apply to vehicles made in the United States, including used and new cars, as well as all-terrain vehicles and recreational vehicles. Moreno is proposing to limit the tax break, one of Trump's campaign promises, just to loans for new cars. 'We save a lot of money. An RV? Motorcycles? ATVs?' he said. 'That's not the idea; the idea is to help working Americans be able to afford a car.' Senate Republicans are searching for cuts because of growing concern among some conservatives, as well as on Wall Street, about the bill's impact on the country's fiscal situation. While paring back some of Trump's campaign promises could help keep the cost of the legislation near what it was in the House, some lawmakers are calling for much deeper spending cuts. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., has been loudly calling for the legislation, which already includes roughly $1.8 trillion in spending reductions, to slash trillions more. His complaints won him a meeting with top White House officials, including Vice President JD Vance, at the Capitol this week. Johnson's pitch is to remove all of Trump's new tax priorities from the bill and instead focus the legislation exclusively on extending expiring tax cuts from 2017, cutting spending and raising the debt ceiling. Republicans could then tackle White House priorities, and further spending cuts, in a second piece of legislation, Johnson argues. 'You can't do it in one fell swoop. I don't want to criticize what has been done; I want to support what's been done,' he said. 'But I absolutely -- I can't accept that this is the new norm. We need another bite of the apple in this Congress.' Of course, jettisoning much of the president's agenda from the legislation is a tall order, and White House officials have been making the case for the House measures to cut taxes on tips and overtime and for older Americans. 'No Tax on Overtime and No Tax on Tips are presidential priorities that 80 million Americans voted for in November,' Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement. 'They will remain in this historic piece of legislation in order to deliver the largest tax cut in history.' There are other sources of money tempting Senate Republicans. Some are considering cuts to Medicare, though changes to the health care program for older Americans comes with substantial political risks. Then there is the state and local tax deduction, often called SALT. In the House, a small group of Republicans from New York, New Jersey and California demanded that the legislation include an increase to the $10,000 cap on the deduction. They ultimately won an agreement to set the new limit at $40,000, an expensive change that would largely benefit homeowners in areas with high taxes. While the change was necessary to win the support of blue-state Republicans in the House, senators are less committed to the policy. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., the majority leader, recently remarked at the White House that 'there really isn't a single Republican senator who cares much about the SALT issue.' At the same time, House Republicans committed to more SALT relief have warned that changing the House agreement could scuttle the entire package. But some Republican senators cannot help but think that money earmarked for a higher SALT cap could have a better use. 'There's a lot of things we could do with that,' said Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
41 minutes ago
Trump's deployment of troops to LA prompts host of legal questions -- and a challenge from California
Remarkable images are emerging of Marines training and National Guardsmen armed with rifles accompanying ICE agents on raids in Los Angeles. It's a scene President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth say can be replicated in any other American city where there are protests against the administration's immigration crackdown. It's also raising a host of legal questions regarding what Trump can and can't do with regards to the military on U.S. soil, and whether he's crossing the line. A first hearing on some of these issues is set for Thursday as California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, challenges the federal deployment and seeks emergency relief. How Trump mobilized the troops To send thousands of National Guardsmen to Los Angeles, Trump invoked Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code. The statute allows the president to call on federal service members when there "is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States" or when "the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." In his order, Trump said the troops would protect federal property and federal personnel who are performing their functions. Trump, however, did not invoke the Insurrection Act -- a clear exception to the mandates of the Posse Comitatus Act, the law that limits the military from being involved in civilian law enforcement. "Instead, he's using authorities in a very novel way," Elizabeth Goitein, a senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center, said on ABC News Live. Goitein noted how broad Trump's memorandum is in nature, saying it's not limited to Los Angeles and allows for troops to be sent anywhere protests "are likely to occur." "This is a preemptive, nationwide, potentially, deployment of the federal military to effectively police protests. It is unheard of in this country," Goitein said. California seeks emergency relief California leaders claim Trump inflamed the protests by sending in the military when it was not necessary, and did so illegally. Newsom argues the situation, which has been relatively confined to a few square blocks in downtown Los Angeles, doesn't justify the use of Section 12406 in Title 10. "To put it bluntly, there is no invasion or rebellion in Los Angeles; there is civil unrest that is no different from episodes that regularly occur in communities throughout the country, and that is capable of being contained by state and local authorities working together. And nothing is stopping the President from enforcing the laws through use of ordinary, civilian mechanisms available to federal officers," the state contended in an emergency motion. The state's lawsuit also lambasts Trump for bypassing the governor and local leaders who objected to the mobilization of the National Guard and active duty Marines. However, some legal experts say Section 12406 in Title 10 does not on its face require a request from the governor. There is also precedent for the president sending in the National Guard without governor support: in 1965 President Lyndon B. Johnson sent the National Guard to deal with civil unrest in the South without cooperation from state leaders. Immigration raids raise more questions "If this ultimately gets to the Supreme Court, I don't think they're going to find that the president unlawfully federalized the National Guard troops," said Rachel VanLandingham, a professor at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles and a former active duty judge advocate in the U.S. Air Force. "A different issue is if these federalized troops, either National Guard or Marines, cross the line into law enforcement and therefore violate Posse Comitatus," she said. National Guard members joining ICE on raids marks a significant escalation, she said. "It's getting dangerously close to law enforcement," VanLandingham said. California made that argument in its emergency motion. "Defendants intend to use unlawfully federalized National Guard troops and Marines to accompany federal immigration enforcement officers on raids throughout Los Angeles," the motion states. "They will work in active concert with law enforcement, in support of a law enforcement mission, and will physically interact with or detain civilians." The Trump administration has steadfastly defended the moves and is urging a federal judge to block California's request for a temporary restraining order. "The extraordinary relief Plaintiffs request would judicially countermand the Commander in Chief's military directives -- and would do so in the posture of a temporary restraining order, no less. That would be unprecedented. It would be constitutionally anathema. And it would be dangerous," lawyers with the Department of Justice said in a court filing. The DOJ lawyers argued that California should not "second-guess the President's judgment that federal reinforcements were necessary" and that a federal court should defer to the president's discretion on military matters.
