Hunger will increase across America
A new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office says 3.2 million people would lose food assistance benefits under the tax and spending bill recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. (Photo by Lance Cheung/USDA).
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
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans and Economists at Odds Over Whether Megabill Will Spur Growth Boom
WASHINGTON—Republicans see a golden age of prosperity ahead, driven by the tax-and-spending megabill they are trying to push through Congress by July 4. Nonpartisan experts project far more modest effects, forecasting a slight near-term economic expansion and larger federal budget deficits. The growth debate is at the core of this summer's fiscal fight. Republicans are trying to focus public attention on growth—from tax cuts, deregulation and fossil-fuel production—and play down the Congressional Budget Office estimate that the bill would increase budget deficits by $2.4 trillion through 2034. The White House highlights growth to bolster congressional support, countering claims from Elon Musk and others that the package irresponsibly darkens America's fiscal picture. 'Sextortion' Scams Involving Apple Messages Ended in Tragedy for These Boys The U.S. Economy Is Headed Toward an Uncomfortable Summer I Got Burned by the 401(k) 'Hierarchy Trap' Test Yourself Against These Teen Personal-Finance Whizzes, Round 2 Republicans and outside economists agree on the basic direction: tax cuts increase consumer spending and business investment, accelerating short-term growth. But they differ vastly on how large and meaningful that jump would be. The bill, according to public- and private-sector economists, would fall far short of Republicans' hoped-for boom. 'We would expect some dynamic revenue, some revenue feedback in that larger economy,' said Garrett Watson, director of policy analysis at the Tax Foundation, which favors lower tax rates and a simpler system. 'But it wouldn't come close to paying for itself.' President Trump said in a social-media post last month that the U.S. annual growth rate would triple or even quintuple the 1.8% in CBO's January forecast, which doesn't incorporate the effects of any GOP policies. Since 2005, real U.S. gross domestic product growth hit or exceeded 3% twice: in 2018 after the 2017 tax cuts, and in 2021 during the recovery from the pandemic. House Republicans assume a 2.6% growth rate, yielding enough revenue to cover the megabill's deficits. 'The economy is going to explode in capital formation. Jobs will increase. Wages will increase,' Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R., Idaho) said after meeting with Trump last week. 'We're going to see the kind of growth and strength that this country wants.' Broadly, economists across the political spectrum discount elected officials' predictions. Tax Foundation: The conservative-leaning group estimates that the bill would boost long-term GDP by 0.8%, generating enough revenue to cover about one-third of its costs. That is compared with doing nothing and letting tax cuts expire Dec. 31. The gain is like adding an average of 0.1 percentage point to the annual growth rate; reaching 3% would require much larger changes, Watson said. Penn Wharton: Its budget model projects a 0.4% increase in GDP over the first decade. That is equivalent to raising the annual growth rate to 1.85% from 1.8%. 'Basically, I would call this flat,' said Kent Smetters, who runs the Penn model. 'We all know this is all going to get swamped by all the randomness.' Joint Committee on Taxation: The nonpartisan congressional scorekeeper projected that the bill's tax components would produce short-run growth through increased labor supply and capital stock. That would be counteracted by rising budget deficits, with a net effect of taking 1.83% annual growth to 1.86%. JCT estimates that the bill's tax provisions would cover less than 3% of their costs with revenue from economic growth. Yale Budget Lab: The think tank says the bill would bump the growth rate roughly to 2% from 1.8% through 2027, before the drag of federal debt weakens and reverses that effect. Those all contrast with the view of the White House's Council of Economic Advisers, which has a far rosier scenario. It projects a 4.2% to 5.2% increase in short-term GDP and a long-term gain of 2.9% to 3.5%. That gain would be three to four times the Tax Foundation estimate, which itself is larger than Penn Wharton, Yale or JCT. Economists caution that tax policy can't move the needle much in the U.S. economy, particularly given higher costs and uncertainty caused by tariffs. Still, putting money in taxpayers' pockets could increase demand for goods and services. Lower business taxes—especially faster write-offs for equipment and factories—encourage investment and have the biggest bang for the buck. Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Stephen Miran said growth after 2017 demonstrates that the Republican formula can work. The economy and incomes grew solidly in 2018 and 2019 before the Covid-19 pandemic scrambled everything. 'When Americans elected President Trump, they did so knowing that he was a pro-growth president,' Miran said. 'The bill is going to create a vibrant, dynamic economy.' Miran added that federal taxes as a share of GDP was barely unchanged from fiscal 2017 to fiscal 2024. According to CBO, revenue was 17.3% of GDP in 2017 and 17.1% in 2024. 'There was no long-term hole in revenues,' Miran said. But before the tax cuts passed, CBO forecast revenue increasing to 18.3% in 2024, and the law changed that trajectory. One of the most thorough academic studies found that the 2017 law increased domestic business investment but didn't come close to paying for itself. The Tax Foundation's Watson said policymakers should expect a more muted response from extending the 2017 tax cuts than from creating them. The bill includes new and revived business incentives but schedules them to expire. 'It's pro-growth,' Watson said. 'The more you add in some of these gimmicks and temporary changes, the more watered-down it gets.' Senators including James Lankford (R., Okla.) and Steve Daines (R., Mont.) are seeking changes to encourage growth. They are particularly focused on making permanent some business-tax provisions such as immediate deductions for equipment purchases. 'If you have an expiration, you just don't get predictability,' Lankford said. Capital-investment incentives would be muted because tariff uncertainty complicates business planning, said Seth Carpenter, global chief economist at Morgan Stanley, which estimates that the bill would boost growth in 2026 before turning neutral and then negative. Some projects might make sense with high tariffs but not lower ones. Even with the bill's new deduction for factory expenses, without tariff certainty, Carpenter said, 'I don't think you're going to be in any sort of hurry to start breaking ground.' Kimberly Clausing, a former Biden administration economist now at the University of California, Los Angeles, said she worries about the drag from budget deficits. 'If they failed,' she said, 'I actually think that would be the best possible macroeconomic outcome.' Write to Richard Rubin at How Hydrogen, the Fuel of the Future, Got Bogged Down in the Bayou Chinese-Owned Company Halts Work on Factory to Make Batteries in U.S. It's the Republicans, Not Musk, Who Are Serious About Cutting Spending Trump's New Steel Tariffs Look Vulnerable to a Courtroom Challenge Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Atlantic
33 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Musk and Trump Still Agree on One Thing
Far be it from me to judge anyone enjoying the feud between Donald Trump and his benefactor Elon Musk over Trump's signature legislation, the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act. But in the conflict between the president and the world's richest man, the public is the most likely loser. Four days ago, Musk described the bill as 'disgusting,' 'pork-filled,' and an 'abomination.' He also suggested that Trump was ungrateful, claiming that Republicans would have lost the 2024 election without all the money he had spent supporting GOP candidates. Trump fired back in a post on his network, Truth Social, saying, 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.' Musk then accused Trump of being in 'the Epstein files,' referring to the late financier and sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein, whom both men have ties to. Musk later deleted that post, as well as another calling for Trump's impeachment. If all this seems painfully stupid, it is, and it was all made possible by the erosion of American democracy. The underlying issues, however, are significant despite the surreal nature of the exchange. As it happens, Trump and Musk's dueling criticisms are each, in their own ways, at least partially valid. The bill is an abomination, although not because it's 'pork-filled.' And much of Musk's wealth does come from the federal government, which he has spent the past few months trying to dismantle while preserving his own subsidies. According to Axios, among other things, Musk was angry that the bill cuts the electric-vehicle tax credit, which will hurt the bottom line of his electric-car company, Tesla. But neither billionaire—one the president of the United States and the other a major financial benefactor to the president's party—opposes the bill for what makes it a monstrosity: that it redistributes taxpayer dollars to the richest people in the country by slashing benefits for the middle class, the poor, and everyone in between. The ability of a few wealthy people to manipulate the system to this extent—leaving two tycoons who possess the emotional register of toddlers with the power to impoverish most of the country, to their own benefit, speaks ill of the health of American democracy, regardless of the outcome. Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' would make the largest cuts to food assistance for the poor in history, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, eliminating $300 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program at a time when inflation is still straining family budgets. Some 15 million Americans would become uninsured because of the bill's cuts to Medicaid, also the largest reductions to that program in history, and because of cuts to the Affordable Care Act. The CBPP estimates that about '22 million people, including 3 million small business owners and self-employed workers, will see their health coverage costs skyrocket or lose coverage altogether.' Not everyone would suffer, however, as the bill does offer significant tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America while adding trillions of dollars to the national debt. Whatever meager benefits there are to everyone else would likely be eaten up by the increase in the cost of food and health care caused by the benefit cuts. Charlie Warzel: The Super Bowl of internet beefs For all the insults flying between Trump and Musk, they are both fine with taking from those who have little and giving generously to those who have more than they could ever need. For years, commentators have talked about how Trump reshaped the Republican Party in the populist mold. Indeed, Trumpism has seen Republicans abandon many of their publicly held commitments. The GOP says it champions fiscal discipline while growing the debt at every opportunity. It talks about individual merit while endorsing discrimination against groups based on gender, race, national origin, and sexual orientation. It blathers about free speech while using state power to engage in the most sweeping national-censorship campaign since the Red Scare. Republicans warn us about the 'weaponization' of the legal system while seeking to prosecute critics for political crimes and deporting apparently innocent people to Gulags without a shred of due process. The GOP venerates Christianity while engaging in the kind of performative cruelty early Christians associated with paganism. It preaches family values while destroying families it refuses to recognize as such.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Foul-mouthed, frustrated Democrats seek a spine
ANAHEIM — California Democrats have learned one lesson from last November's national loss to Republicans: Voters want to see them fight. Especially for the working class. Their next challenge is actually doing it. And California Democrats have a prime opportunity to do so in an upcoming budget fight in Sacramento. Part of Donald Trump's appeal is that voters at least feel that he's 'fighting' for them even if it is largely performative. (Exhibit A: Trump's tax plan gives a $300 tax break to families earning $50,000 and $90,000 to a filer making $1 million, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. So the word 'fight' was omnipresent in every speech, often in profane ways, at the California Democratic Party's three-day convention that ended Sunday. Speaking of his Republican opponents, California Sen. Adam Schiff told attendees: 'We do not capitulate. We do not concede. California does not cower, not now, not ever. We say to bullies, 'You can go f— yourself.'' Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the 2024 Democratic vice presidential nominee and a keynote convention speaker, told delegates Saturday, 'We gotta be honest. We're in this mess because some of it is our own doing.' Walz acknowledged that as half of the losing presidential ticket, he may be 'the last person to lecture on this topic, but I'm going to tell you, none of us can afford to shy away from having hard conversations about what it's going to take to win elections.' 'We didn't just lose the working class to just anybody. We lost to a grifter billionaire giving tax cuts to his grifter billionaire buddies. That last election was a primal scream on so many fronts: 'Do something! Do something! Stand up and make a difference.'' America is dubious that Democrats can do something. A CNN poll released Sunday found that 16% of respondents felt Democrats are the party that could 'get things done.' More than twice as many respondents (36%) felt that way about Republicans. 'If you ask people today what a Democrat is, they say it is 'a deer in the headlights,'' Walz said. 'We've got to find some goddamn guts to fight for working people. … Nobody votes for roadkill.' 'That means having the guts to break down the power structures that are there. We know who's strangling our politics.' Lorena Gonzalez, president of the 2.3 million-member California Labor Federation, warned that Democrats shouldn't become 'Republican lite' by adopting their positions. She invoked the Depression-era song written by Florence Patton Reece, 'Which Side Are You On?' 'Are you on the side of the billionaires and the tech bros and Elon Musk and the Republican Lites?' Gonzalez said. 'Or are you on the side of working people, men and women who make this state work, who continue to go to work every day, hardworking people. Are you on the side of unions?' Case in point: It sounds hollow to hear California Democrats rail on Trump and congressional Republicans for their budget that would cut health coverage for 8.6 million Americans (according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office) when California is considering cuts to its most vulnerable citizens to close a $12 billion budget deficit. Gov. Gavin Newsom's May revised budget proposal i ncluded cuts to the In-Home Supportive Services program, which provides care to low-income elderly and disabled people. Those providers, who are predominantly women of color, earn about $17 an hour. The typical provider would lose about $20,000 in pay annually under the proposal, according to union leaders. These are the 500,000 workers who bathe, dress and take care of 850,000 frail Californians — our parents, children and siblings. Many providers are one paycheck away from homelessness, union organizers say. Such a pay cut 'would be devastating,' Cynthia Williams, an Orange County in-home provider since 2008, told me. If the cuts were passed, her family would likely have to move and use the local food bank even more. She cares for her disabled-veteran sister and her daughter, who is blind and disabled and has a gastric condition that requires her to have four or five small meals a day. 'So that (salary reduction) would cut down on what I would be able to do. Providing four or five meals a day would not be an option,' Williams told me. 'We don't need to keep milking the poor to give to the rich,' she said. 'We need to make sure that Democrats care for the people that are the most vulnerable.' Union leaders, whose members are the lifeblood of Democratic campaigns, say they are watching how Democrats handle this proposed cut. At a rally Saturday outside the Anaheim Convention Center where Democrats were meeting, United Domestic Workers Executive Director Doug Moore directed a message 'to our Democratic lawmakers. This rally is not just a protest. It's a warning. 'Balancing the budget on the backs of low-income children, seniors, people with disabilities and the caregivers who support them is not leadership, it's shortsighted cowardice,' Moore told rallygoers. 'Every Democrat inside this convention hall, this is your moment. Your integrity matters now more than ever. You can't claim to stand for justice, equity, working families in your speeches, then turn around and vote for budget cuts that hurt the very people who make this state function. 'It is time for you to have the courage to stand with us — or else. We are watching. We are the people who got you in the office.' California Democrats are looking for ways to stave off those cuts. Behind closed doors, Senate Democrats are considering several plans that would raise revenue from wealthy corporations to plug the budget deficit. One idea is to tax large corporations that do business in California but do not provide adequate or affordable health coverage to their employees and pay their workers so little that they must rely on Medi-Cal. It would require employers to pay a tax for each worker; details on the proposal are still being crafted. Other Democrats in the Legislature are privately discussing a proposal that would close the 'water's edge loophole' that would require corporations to report all their worldwide profits, not just the profits they claim were earned in the U.S. This proposal could enable California to collect taxes on its rightful share (an estimated $3 billion) of those total profits. Now, the percentage of national sales that occur in the state is the percentage of profit subject to corporate tax in California. Twenty-eight states plus Washington, D.C., require a version of water's edge reporting, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Polic y, The short-term question: Will Gov. Newsom veto this because he is concerned about being tagged as someone who 'raised taxes' — even if it is on wealthy corporations — if he runs for president in 2028 when his term ends? The long-term question: Whose side are Democrats on?
