Hunger will increase across America
Being a freelance writer, I have had my own financial ups and downs. My own experience with poverty, and with paying bills that you really lack the funds to pay, leaves me flabbergasted by the short-sightedness behind the massive budget package that passed the U.S House of Representatives.
Republicans and conservatives have been calling it 'a big beautiful bill,' but New Mexico's own The Food Depot, which services nine New Mexico counties, says the only result will be even greater challenges to access food and healthcare.'The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities writes that if the bill passes unchanged, it would be the first time in the modern history of the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Programs 'that the federal government would no longer ensure that the lowest-income families with children, older adults, and people with disabilities in every state have access to the food assistance they need.'
Local and national groups concur. And I believe them.
These organizations point out blatant inconsistencies in the bill's rationale, revealing its intent is not to lift spirits, or instill the down-on-their-luck with training and knowledge. It's to punish them.
The most talked about aspects are the additional work requirements for nutritional assistance and Medicaid recipients. The revisions display a grave misunderstanding that poverty is layered, complex and full of pitfalls. Able-bodied SNAP recipients already fulfill work requirements, with exemptions for those who are taking care of children, or over age 55. The provisions in the U.S. House bill eliminate most exemptions, like a clean slate that erases all familial differences, or capabilities. The new provision—which will heavily impact New Mexico, where 61% of SNAP recipients are families with children—orders that any parent with a child over six years old will have to meet work requirements.
The new requirements can easily undermine households already in tenuous situations. Obviously, people who qualify for nutritional assistance have even less ability to pay for child care. How much harm will forcing a parent to leave the house and systemically abandon a very young child do?
Furthermore if the family or single parent faces a set of circumstances that leaves them unable to meet the new work requirements, what happens? The household loses its SNAP benefits. The bottom line is that this means less food for the child. The proposal promises a drastic uptick in child hunger. What kind of society snatches food from families with children?
The bill would also impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients, forcing them to prove they're consistently working, which is basically an excuse for additional paperwork—additional red tape in a system that is already clogged with it. The overwhelming majority of Medicaid recipients already work. A 2023 analysis found that 71% of Medicaid enrollees were in school, or employed, and a significant number of the 'unemployed' were caregivers of some kind, staying at home for the sake of sick family members. Healthcare furthermore is a human right that should be available to all Americans, regardless of income or ability to make a regular paycheck.
GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson cavalierly claims the bill is harmless. 'What we're talking about, again, is able-bodied workers, many of whom are refusing to work because they're gaming the system,' he stated on the Face the Nation TV show, and opined, 'There's a moral component to what we are doing.'
Alas, Johnson's moral component is based on an obsessive zeal to stereotype the recipients of assistance with the lie that all people who aren't financially solvent are consequently lazy, shiftless or criminal. Like most distorted morality imposed by self-righteous groups, it's worsened by the refusal to examine the GOP''s own hypocrisy and self-interest. The 'big beautiful bill' includes a massive tax cut for the wealthy.
It's a matter of cutting services to the have-nots to provide benefits for the very rich. It's a matter of kicking one group off the rolls to afford tax cuts that bolster the other. The U.S. Senate can do better than this, and should reject this ' big beautiful bill' and its contemptuous elitist morality.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
42 minutes ago
- New York Post
RFK Jr. claims food stamps are fueling diabetes epidemic, wants to block their use for soda, candy
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claimed food stamps are fueling diabetes – as he called Sunday to block the taxpayer-funded welfare program for being used to buy soda and candies. 'Taxpayers should not be financing that,' Kennedy said on the 'Cats Roundtable' on WABC 770 AM radio. He said 18% of federal food stamps to poor families is spent 'on candy and sugared drinks' even as nearly 40% of children now have juvenile diabetes. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claimed that food stamps are fueling the rise in diabetes. Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images 'We are actually paying for people to get diabetes,' RFK told host John Catsimatidis. Sugary and fatty foods also contribute to obesity. American taxpayers are paying twice, RFK said — beginning with funding the purchase of food stamps, or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The program issues electronic benefits that can be used like cash to purchase food. 'We're paying again when they get [treated] through Medicaid and, ultimately, Medicare. We are poisoning them with sugars and ultra-processed food,' RFK said. Kennedy called on SNAP recipients to be barred from using it to pay for things like soda or candy. Christopher Sadowski SNAP helps low-income working people, senior citizens, the disabled and others feed their families. Eligibility and benefit levels are based on household size, income and other factors. Kennedy said the Trump administration is making headway, noting that 14 states have signed waivers that restrict the purchase of non-nutritious items like soda and candy. 'These waivers are a key step in ensuring that taxpayer dollars provide nutritious options that improve health outcomes within SNAP,' the US Dept. of Agriculture said.
Boston Globe
42 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump attacked California's congressional maps. Republicans want to save them.
'I would argue that independent redistricting benefits Republicans in California,' said Matt Rexroad, a Republican political consultant and redistricting expert. Advertisement The commission is receiving more scrutiny as a fierce tit-for-tat over redistricting ricochets across the country. At Trump's request, Texas lawmakers have drafted new maps to help Republicans win five additional seats in the US House of Representatives. Governor Gavin Newsom of California has vowed to respond in kind, by redrawing congressional districts in his state to create more seats that Democrats are likely to win. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Newsom's plan would toss the independent commission's maps through 2030 and replace them with intentionally partisan districts created by Democratic lawmakers. That has California Republicans working to preserve the maps Trump criticized as they try to block Newsom's attempt at a Democratic gerrymander. 'The California Republican Party will fight it in the courts, at the ballot box and in every community,' Corrin Rankin, the party chair, said in a statement. Advertisement She added that Democrats are 'trying to claw back power' that voters took from them when they created the commission. The Citizens Redistricting Commission is made up of five Democrats, five Republicans and four independents. They apply for their positions through a process run by the state auditor that screens out people who have run for office, made political donations or work for elected officials. After whittling down the pool of applicants from each party, the state auditor randomly draws names of the first eight commissioners, who then select the final six. Commissioners are not allowed to consider voters' parties or where incumbents live when determining district boundaries. Arizona, Colorado, and Michigan use a similar system. A few other states have commissions that are appointed by politicians. In most states, though, the party that controls the legislature has the power to draw political maps. Research shows that states with maps drawn by independent commissions or through court intervention are more representative than those in states where politicians control the process. But that does not mean they always wind up being perfectly balanced. An analysis by Planscore, a consortium of redistricting experts affiliated with the Election Law Clinic at Harvard Law School, found that California's system gives Democrats a slight advantage. The model rates maps based on four different measurements, two of which show that California's plan is balanced and two that show it skews in Democrats' favor. Some Republicans, including Vance, have criticized California's system because the share of seats Republicans hold in the House (17 percent) is less than the share of votes Trump won in California last year (38 percent). Steve Hilton, a Republican running for governor of California, said Newsom's proposal would take California 'from a 'rigged' to an 'ultra-rigged' electoral system.' Advertisement But such discrepancies between the share of seats one party holds and the share of votes it receives are not uncommon, experts said, even in states that are not gerrymandered. And the numbers alone do not prove that a system is intentionally biased. 'Partisan advantage is separate from intent,' said Eric McGhee, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, who worked on the Planscore analysis. 'It's not clear that there is purposeful bias in the California system,' he said. He pointed out that California's maps were approved by a unanimous vote of the redistricting commission, including the Republican members, and that commissioners drew the boundaries without looking at data on voters' party affiliation. A different analysis by the Gerrymandering Project, a research group at Princeton University, gave California a grade of B, saying its redistricting plan is 'better than average, with some bias.' The California electorate is heavily Democratic, with registered Democrats outnumbering registered Republicans by nearly 2-1. So giving both parties equal representation on the redistricting commission technically gives Republicans outsize influence, said Matt Barreto, a Democrat, who directs the Voting Rights Project at UCLA. Commissioners are laypeople, not political operatives, and they serve for one round of map-drawing at the start of each decade. They take input from the public in drawing boundaries, and must consider keeping communities together based on their shared interests, such as economic ties or languages spoken. From the perspective of Rexroad, a veteran Republican redistricting expert, California's system has actually been good for his party. Before voters approved the independent commission in 2008, California's maps were drawn by the legislature, with the process dominated by partisanship and politicians' desires to protect their seats. Advertisement And despite its flaws, Rexroad said, that's better than putting politicians in charge. California's commission created several congressional seats that Republicans won that would likely not exist if the state's Democratic-controlled legislature drew the maps, Rexroad said. Many will probably vanish if California enacts Newsom's proposal to counter Texas' Republican gerrymander with a similar move to help Democrats. The plan calls for a ballot measure asking voters to amend the state Constitution to allow the partisan mid-decade redistricting. Lawmakers are scheduled to consider Newsom's proposal the week of Aug. 18. If they approve it, the measure will likely go before voters in a Nov. 4 special election. Newsom has said he wants the state to return to independent redistricting after the 2030 census. The governor gathered Democratic lawmakers for a news conference in Sacramento on Friday to demonstrate their solidarity in favor the plan. On Saturday, he appealed for donations that could be used to fund the redistricting campaign. Meanwhile, the California Republican Party is sending emails requesting donations to fight what it says is Newsom's latest corrupt scheme. Charles Munger, a Republican donor whose father was a billionaire investor, funded campaigns for the 2008 and 2010 ballot measures that created California's independent redistricting system and has said he will back efforts to maintain it on the ballot and in court. This article originally appeared in Advertisement
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
US budget deficit has widened by $109B from a year ago despite influx of tariff revenue
The U.S. federal government's annual budget deficit has widened by $109 billion so far this fiscal year despite an influx of tariff revenue to the government's coffers. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on Friday released its monthly budget update for July, which found that the federal budget deficit totaled $1.6 trillion in the first 10 months of fiscal year 2025. That figure is $109 billion higher than it was for the same period in FY2024. Overall, federal tax receipts were up $263 billion, or 6%, while spending outpaced that gain, rising by $372 billion, or 7%, in the first 10 months of FY2025. Much of the rise in federal tax revenue was driven by the Trump administration's tariffs, which are taxes on imported goods that the White House has increased markedly on U.S. trading partners over the course of this year. National Debt Tracker: American Taxpayers (You) Are Now On The Hook For $36,950,459,859,111.56 As Of 8/7/25 The CBO said customs duties collected were up by $70 billion, or 112%, so far in FY2025 compared with the same period in the prior year as a result of the higher tariffs. Read On The Fox Business App Individual income and payroll tax receipts were up $214 billion, or 6%, from a year ago in the first 10 months of this fiscal year. Corporate income taxes are down $27 billion, or 7%, compared with the same 10-month period in FY2024. Ray Dalio Warns Of Looming Fiscal Crisis If Us Doesn't Address Deficit Spending: 'Economic Heart Attack' Federal spending is up $372 billion in the first 10 months of FY2025 compared with last year, much of which is due to higher outlays on mandatory spending programs. Spending on Social Security benefits increased by $102 billion, or 8%, from the same period last year. That increase was due to higher average benefits due to the annual cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) that boosts benefit amounts to account for inflation and the rising number of enrolled beneficiaries as America's population ages. Republicans Defy Fiscal Critics To Push Through Trump's Signature 'Beautiful' Tax Cuts Medicare spending is $58 billion higher in FY2025 so far compared with last year due to a greater number of enrollees and higher payment rates for services. Medicaid spending was up $47 billion from a year ago due to rising costs per enrollee. The cost of servicing America's nearly $37 trillion national debt also increased by $60 billion, or 8%, in the first 10 months of FY2025 compared to the prior year. That's due to the national debt being larger than it was in the same period in FY2024. For the month of July, the deficit amounted to $289 billion, $45 billion more than in July 2024, as spending increased by more than the rise in tax collections. The CBO also noted that the surplus in June 2025 was $27 billion, or $1 billion higher than the initial estimate a month article source: US budget deficit has widened by $109B from a year ago despite influx of tariff revenue
