logo
Food stamps face 'biggest cut in the program's history' under GOP tax bill

Food stamps face 'biggest cut in the program's history' under GOP tax bill

CNBC21-05-2025
As Republicans push forward with the "big, beautiful" tax bill, federal food assistance may see big cuts.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, may be cut about 30% under the terms of the bill, which would be the "biggest cut in the program's history," according to Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, currently provides food assistance to more than 40 million individuals including children, seniors and adults with disabilities.
Yet cuts to the program proposed by the House — which would shrink the program's funding by about $300 billion through 2034 — would put those benefits at risk.
"The House Republican plan would take away food assistance for millions who struggle to afford the high cost of groceries, including families with children and other vulnerable people with low incomes," Cox said during a Tuesday webinar hosted by the CBPP, a progressive think tank.
The SNAP reform efforts come amid a broader effort to reduce waste and fraud in government programs. SNAP, like other government benefits, can be susceptible to improper or fraudulent payments.
The "one big, beautiful bill restores integrity to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program," House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn "GT" Thompson, R-Pa., said in a May 14 statement, through "long-overdue accountability incentives to control costs and end executive and state overreach."
More from Personal Finance:What the Senate's 'no tax on tips' bill means for workers Who would benefit from bigger child tax credit in House GOP billMedicaid work requirements kick hardworking people off health coverage: Senator
Many Americans cite high food costs as a top economic concern, according to an April Pew Research Center survey. If new tariff policies are put into effect, that could prompt food prices to go higher.
Moreover, the proposed SNAP cuts come as some experts say the U.S. is facing higher recession risks. In previous downturns, every additional dollar spent on SNAP generates about $1.54 in returns to the economy, according to Elaine Waxman, senior fellow at the Urban Institute's tax and income support division.
"People spend SNAP dollars right away, and they spend them locally," Waxman said.
The proposed SNAP cuts would largely happen by expanding work requirements to qualify for benefits and by cutting federal funding for food benefits and administration and leaving it up to states to make up the difference.
The largest cut to SNAP would come from federal funding cuts to basic SNAP benefits ranging from 5% to 25% starting in 2028, according to CBPP.
It would then be up to states to find ways to make up for that benefit shortfall, which could include making it more difficult to enroll in the program or finding other localized cuts to the program, according to CBPP.
"The change in the bill that is most dramatic is asking states to share part of the benefit cost," Waxman said. "That's new; since SNAP was originated, the federal government has always paid the full cost of the benefits."
Notably, it would also mark the first time in the history of SNAP that the federal government would no longer ensure children in every state have access to food benefits, according to CBPP.
In addition, the proposal also seeks to make it so states pay a larger portion of the program's administrative costs.
How states may react to the changes may vary. In worst-case scenarios, some states could even opt out of the program altogether, according to CBPP.
However, Waxman said most states will likely try to protect benefits because they're "so critical," even though they are not legally obligated to offer the program.
"The vast majority, if not all, will try to do something," Waxman said.
In addition to the benefits SNAP provides to individuals and families, it also provides an "integral" part of economies, Waxman said. In lower-income rural areas, for example, rural grocery stores that rely on SNAP customers would see food spending go down.
"It has all these ripples that will hurt a lot of people other than just the people who are on the program," Waxman said.
Work requirements for SNAP already make it so certain individuals must work at least 80 hours per month to qualify for the program's benefits. That includes individuals ages 18 to 54 who are able to work and who have no dependents. Current policy also limits SNAP benefits for certain individuals to three months within a 36-month period unless work requirements are met.
The proposed legislation would expand that those work requirements, according to the Urban Institute, by:
Expanded work requirements would affect 2.7 million families and 5.4 million individuals, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.
That includes 1.5 million families who would lose benefits entirely and 1.2 million families who would receive lower benefits. It also includes 1.8 million people, including 48,000 children, who would lose benefits entirely; and 3.6 million people, including 1.5 million children, who would receive lower benefits, according to the Urban Institute.
Families that lose some or all their benefits would lose $254 per month on average, according to the research. Meanwhile, families with children would lose $229 per month on average, the Urban Institute found.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

We follow the money in politics, and the trail just keeps getting longer
We follow the money in politics, and the trail just keeps getting longer

The Hill

time11 minutes ago

  • The Hill

We follow the money in politics, and the trail just keeps getting longer

According to the nature of our economy, it's typical that costs increase over time (hello, inflation). But what we're seeing in elections cannot be considered normal. The Pew Research Center recently asked Americans to list which issues are the biggest problems facing the economy right now. Seventy-two percent said the role of money in politics is a 'very big problem' — landing it the foremost spot above health care costs, inflation, the federal deficit, poverty and every other issue. This is significant. While candidates for Congress and the presidency quibble over who gets access to power, moneyed interests continue to creep into the system, making elections costlier than ever. Sometimes it starts to feel like a contest just for the contest's sake. Let's take a look at the numbers. Just three presidential cycles ago, in 2016, the total cost of all federal elections rang in at $6.5 billion, a (relatively) modest increase from 2012. But four years later, the total cost more than doubled to $15.1 billion and, in 2024, nearly matched that total ($14.8 billion). The U.S. vastly outspends all other nations on elections. The source of money has also changed. Twenty-five years ago, the vast majority of candidates who raised more than $200,000 for general election campaigns collected that money from within their districts from people they would ultimately represent if they won (79 percent of House candidates, 62 percent of Senate candidates). As my organization has reported, congressional elections truly have now become national campaigns, with just 17.6 percent local money in House races and only 27.5 percent in Senate races for 2024. So, while more money is pouring into the U.S. election system than ever before, the traditional relationship between elected officials and those they represent has fallen apart. Thanks to the research done by Unite America, we know that nearly all congressional elections are decided by less than 10 percent of voters. Put those low voter participation rates together with low local fundraising rates, and you end up with elected officials who no longer represent the people. And if our officials are not beholden to their constituents, but rather to partisan forces, we end up with a dysfunctional government. We shouldn't be surprised that the American people have had enough. Amid a more politicized landscape in which partisans are moving increasingly toward the extremes, money in politics is one of the few issues that both sides of the aisle can agree on — with 66 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Democrats citing it as a very big problem. And yet, our leaders appear uninterested in changing a system that helps them stay in power. In every Congress, a handful of lawmakers have introduced legislation to reform the role of money in politics, but none of those bills have any chance at becoming law. In fact, a meaningful campaign finance law has not been enacted since the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was signed in 2002 — nearly a quarter-century ago. Since then, the courts have eaten away at the restrictions created by the law, clearing the way for super PACs and the untraceable ' dark money ' funds that support them. And then there's the Federal Election Commission, which is tasked with regulating campaign fundraising and expenditures in line with current law, enforcing the rules and punishing those who break the law. But even in the best of times, the FEC rarely takes action. When fully staffed, it has three Republican and three Democratic commissioners, leading to partisan gridlock. But deadlocked votes would be a welcome change from what we are facing now. In order to take action, the FEC requires a quorum of four commissioners. Right now it only has three, so it cannot complete most of its core functions. That leaves the judiciary as the only branch of government considering changes to campaign finance laws. All eyes are on Maine, where voters overwhelmingly approved a 2024 ballot measure setting caps on contributions to super PACs. Opponents have sued to overturn the measure, and the case has been teed up for a federal district court's review. It is likely to end up before the Supreme Court in the next couple years, in what will likely be the most significant ruling on money in politics since Citizens United. Before that case makes it to the high court, the justices may consider another campaign finance case. Current law limits how much money party committees can spend in coordination with candidates' campaign committees. That law is being challenged and the case could be heard this fall. While all this is happening (or, at the FEC, not happening), political operatives are already gearing up for the next elections and strategizing how to raise as much money as possible. If nothing changes, the dollars will only get bigger, and voters will be even more dissatisfied. We deserve better.

Texas Rep. staying in House chamber after rejecting DPS monitoring
Texas Rep. staying in House chamber after rejecting DPS monitoring

The Hill

time11 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Texas Rep. staying in House chamber after rejecting DPS monitoring

AUSTIN (Nexstar) — The Texas House is adjourned until Wednesday morning. But one State Rep. is staying in the chamber, staging a protest that's gaining attention. Before the House adjourned Monday, House Speaker Dustin Burrows, R-Lubbock, ordered the doors to the chamber to be locked. He said that members needed written permission to leave the chamber. But he added an extra step for Democrats who broke quorum and had arrest warrants issued. The Speaker said those members would be granted written permission to leave only after agreeing to be released into the custody of a designated Department of Public Safety officer who will ensure they return to the House on Wednesday at 10 a.m. State Rep. Nicole Collier, D-Fort Worth, refused and was not allowed to leave. 'I refuse to sign away my dignity as a duly elected representative just so Republicans can control my movements and monitor me with police escorts,' Collier stated in a news release. Texas Democrats highlighted her protest, sending out a news release stating that Collier was locked in the chamber, 'detained as political prisoner.' The Texas House Democratic Caucus set up a live stream of Collier remaining on the House floor and offered reporters live interviews with the representative. At one point, supporters gathered outside the chamber chanting, 'Let her go!' A social media post by the Texas House Democrats showed video a group of activists appearing to be arrested outside the House chamber. Other Texas Democrats have taken to social media, posting pictures and videos with Collier to show support. Late Monday, NBC News reporter Ryan Chandler reported that Collier had been told she can leave the House floor to go to her office, which is located in another part of the Capitol. She reportedly cannot leave the building without a DPS escort. Early into Collier's protest, the Texas House committee on redistricting voted out of committee a new version of a bill with proposed new congressional maps. The committee vote sets the stage for the full House to consider the redistricting legislation, where it is expected to pass. The maps are designed to boost Republican representation in the Texas congressional delegation. The push for the redistricting legislation comes after President Donald Trump called on Texas leaders to redraw voting lines to gain five Republican seats in Congress during the mid-term elections. State Rep. Todd Hunter, R-Corpus Christi, defended the plan to boost Republican representation. 'The U.S. Supreme Court … says that jurisdictions may engage in constitutional political gerrymandering, recognizing that politics and political considerations are inseparable from districting and apportionment,' Hunter said before Monday's committee vote. 2024 Election Coverage The maps will likely push out Congressman Marc Veasey, a Democrat who represents the area that includes much of Collier's state house district. Collier believes the maps will have a negative impact on her constituents. 'My community is majority-minority, and they expect me to stand up for their representation. When I press that button to vote, I know these maps will harm my constituents,' Collier stated in a news release. 'My constituents sent me to Austin to protect their voices and rights,' Collier added.

The Spectrum: Bipartisanship in Congress; job interview registry
The Spectrum: Bipartisanship in Congress; job interview registry

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

The Spectrum: Bipartisanship in Congress; job interview registry

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) – This week on The Spectrum: Three Ohio congressmen appear to have cracked the code for bipartisanship. 'I want the tax code to work for people, and this is one example where people need additional help,' Rep. Greg Landsman (D-District 1) said. 'I do not believe that a family should be limited to have a child based on their geography or socioeconomic background,' Rep. Max Miller (R-District 7) said. Learn about the tax credit they're pushing for that could help thousands of couples struggling with infertility. Some lawmakers at the Ohio Statehouse want to create a new registry for people who skip job interviews. 'It just modernizes the hiring process and it holds applicants accountable,' Ohio Rep. Bill Lorenz (R-Powell) said. 'This bill is another answer looking for a question,' Ohio Rep. Bill DeMora (D-Columbus) said. Hear from both sides of the issue. Helping members of the LGBTQ+ community tell their stories: why the Human Rights Campaign picked Columbus to kickstart a national effort. President Donald Trump openly called for lawmakers in Texas to redraw congressional districts to favor Republicans. Is it a preview of what we can expect in Ohio's redistricting battle this fall? Democratic strategist Spencir Dirrig and Republican strategist Matt Dole join the roundtable to weigh in. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store