Texas moves to ban sodas and candy from SNAP purchases as restrictions grow
Terri Langford
The Texas Tribune
For years, Texas lawmakers have tried to stop food stamp recipients from purchasing snack food.
With support from the federal government, Texas' first step to root out unhealthy foods from the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program, or SNAP, will become reality after Senate Bill 379 from state Sen. Mayes Middleton, R-Galveston, made it through in the last week of the legislative session. It comes just four months after fellow Texan and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins signaled to states that the agency would green light measures that prohibit SNAP recipients from using their subsidies to buy certain foods.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
6 Nobel Prize-Winning Economists Have ‘Grave Concerns' About Trump's Bill — Should You Be Worried?
Six Nobel Prize-winning economists issued a public warning about President Donald Trump's proposed budget bill, calling its priorities harmful to the U.S. economy. In their joint statement made via nonpartisan think tank the Economic Policy Institute, they cited 'grave concerns' over how the bill would affect U.S. households. Learn More: Check Out: Their criticism focused on two things: tax cuts for corporations and high earners, and cuts to essential assistance programs. Their concern is that the bill would shift wealth upward while reducing economic stability for everyone else — but should Americans be concerned? According to the economists, this bill includes tax cuts that are 'overwhelmingly tilted toward the highest-income households.' It also cited the preservation of a corporate income tax cut. Supporters argue this would fuel business investment and wage growth, according to The White House, but the economists disagree. They said these tax cuts, along with other factors in the bill, would lead to higher public debt and deficits. The Tax Foundation, on the other hand, cited both pros and cons to the tax provisions in the bill, claiming that it includes some 'smart tax cuts,' but also noting that some tax cuts were chosen over 'more effective measures to grow the economy.' Read Next: More damaging than the tax cuts, the economists said, are the proposed cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), both services that millions of Americans depend on — especially those living paycheck to paycheck. They described the Medicaid cuts as 'a sad step backward in the nation's commitment to providing access to health care for all' and emphasized that the impact would extend well beyond those targeted by proposed work requirements. These cuts, they wrote, threaten not only low-income households but also the stability of state budgets and particularly rural hospital systems that rely heavily on Medicaid funding. The White House, on the other hand, claimed that the bill 'makes permanent fixes' to these programs, which would save taxpayers money. Although inflation has eased in recent months, the economists argue that this budget could increase financial strain in the future, causing 'acute and immediate damage' to millions of families. Safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP support low-income households, and the proposed cuts could hit them hardest. Additionally, the bottom 40% of households would face 'absolute losses,' according to the economists. Their message is clear that this isn't just about fiscal policy; it's about day-to-day economic stability. The White House, on the other hands, has said this bill would 'supercharge' the economy, citing wage increases, tax credits and tax cuts. There are many differing opinions on what the impacts of this bill would be for Americans if it were to pass. The economists in the open letter explained that this bill fails to address many economic challenges the U.S. is facing, while proponents of the bill think it would boost the economy and save Americans money. It remains to be seen what the outcome of the bill will be. Some congressional leaders want to pass the bill, while others are pushing back, so Americans will have to wait and see whether the bill will pass and what its impacts will be. In the meantime, Americans can practice good financial management, like paying down debt and sticking to a budget, to ensure their finances are in order in the event of any impacts this bill could have on their wallets. Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Tells Americans To Stock Up on Consumables as Trump's Tariffs Hit -- Here's What To Buy This article originally appeared on 6 Nobel Prize-Winning Economists Have 'Grave Concerns' About Trump's Bill — Should You Be Worried?
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump's Medicaid and SNAP red tape will devastate millions of Americans
Extending President Trump's 2017 tax cuts is a centerpiece of what the president calls his 'big, beautiful' spending bill that was passed late last month by House Republicans by a single vote. Now it is the Senate's turn to weigh in, but that chamber's narrow Republican majority needs to take a hard look at the facts before pressing the yay button. Trump's legislation may truly be enormous, but it is far from pretty — it stigmatizes the wrong people, slashes the wrong programs and will hurt far more Americans than it helps. For starters, those tax cuts will disproportionately go to the wealthy while adding trillions to the deficit. Meanwhile, the punitive work requirements and layers of paperwork for Medicaid and SNAP (formerly food stamps) recipients are still visible beneath the flimsy camouflage of reducing welfare fraud. Academic research, including my own, shows that the vast majority of Americans who are working, are disabled or are providing caregiving already meet these requirements for state and federal aid. Even the independent Congressional Budget Office reports that work requirements for Medicaid and SNAP do not accomplish their stated goal of increasing employment. Millions of Americans rely on Medicaid and SNAP, essential programs that have lasting benefits beyond health care and healthy eating. In 2023, nearly 83 million children and adults — 24 percent of Americans — relied on Medicaid. Medicaid supports care from the cradle to the grave: Medicaid pays for more than 4 in 10 births in the U.S., and is the largest funder of long-term care, supporting the long-term services and supports needed by almost 6 million Americans in 2021. In 2023, SNAP provided food assistance to an average of 42 million Americans each month. SNAP is important across the age spectrum, too: Nearly half of all children in the U.S. participate in SNAP before their 20th birthday, and more than 4 million seniors 60 or older receive SNAP. The CBO estimates that if the Senate passes the bill in its current form, nearly 15 million Americans will lose their health coverage by 2034 because of Medicaid work requirements and other cuts. The reconciliation bill includes the largest SNAP cut in history. It will eliminate food benefits for more than 3 million adults (about 1 million adults over 55) and roughly 1 million children each month. Still, that doesn't keep Republicans from continually trying to portray recipients as lazy cheaters who need to lace up their boots and get back to the factory. They've been making the same mistake for years. Arkansas in 2018 and Georgia in 2023 implemented Medicaid work requirements. Those moves merely caused thousands to lose insurance coverage, had no effect on employment and did not protect these states from fraud. In Arkansas, they were halted after one year. The punitive requirements in the House Republicans' bill will not only fail to force millions of people into low-paying jobs, but they will also increase Americans' medical debt, creating a further, unnecessary strain on our economy and health care system. If Republicans really think that work requirements and paperwork reduce fraud, they are wrong. Medicaid fraud, for example, is relatively rare and more often committed by health care providers, not beneficiaries. Further, these work requirements will bury Americans in mounds of paperwork and cost millions to administer. Instead, they should try to limit the sophisticated tax evasion strategies used by the top 1 percent, which are rarely detected but very expensive for the country. If Trump's complaisant members of Congress really wanted to increase employment, expansions in public preschool and child care would be much more effective and economical. It's somewhat ironic that an administration that supposedly is taking a chainsaw to the federal bureaucracy is moving to wrap ordinary Americans in red tape. But the reality is the Trump administration seeks to break down barriers for millionaires, while building them up around the rest of us. Taryn Morrissey is a professor and chair of American University's Department of Public Administration and Policy, and associate dean of research at the School of Public Affairs.
Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
Arkansas will ban candy and sugary drinks from SNAP
Low-income Arkansans who rely on the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) will soon not be able to use the program to purchase candy or sugary drinks, including soda. The big picture: Arkansas is among at least six states seeking to reform the program at the state level. The U.S. Department of Agriculture approved Arkansas' waiver request this week and has also recently approved waivers in Utah, Indiana, Iowa, Idaho and Nebraska. What is specifically excluded in each state varies, with Nebraska specifically banning SNAP dollars from going toward energy drinks and soda, for example. How it works: Arkansas will exclude "soda, low and no-calorie soda, fruit and vegetable drinks with less than 50% natural juice, unhealthy drinks, and candy," according to the waiver. Candy includes "confectionary products with flour and artificially sweetened candy." What they're saying: "One-third of Arkansans have diabetes or pre-diabetes," a news release from Sanders' office states. "Studies have consistently shown the link between the overconsumption of sugary, highly processed foods like soft drinks and candy and chronic diseases like obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension." Yes, but: The request to add rotisserie chicken as an eligible item to be purchased with SNAP is still pending, Arkansas Department of Human Services spokesperson Keith Metz told Axios. Sanders announced she would pursue that change in April and said the affordable, healthy protein should be an exception to the rule that excludes prepared foods from the program. She will continue pursing the addition of rotisserie chicken through a separate waiver and ongoing discussions with USDA, Sanders' spokesperson Sam Dubke told Axios. USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins said during an announcement about the waiver that the department was working through the technicalities of being able to make that change. By the numbers: As of April, 122,708 households in Arkansas were on SNAP. The state received about $40.8 million per month in federal SNAP benefits in the past year, Arkansas DHS spokesperson Gavin Lesnick told Axios this spring. Data specific to the state regarding how much of the benefits go toward the types of items Sanders sought to exclude was unavailable. However, Sanders has said about 23% of SNAP spending nationally goes toward soft drinks, unhealthy snacks, candy and desserts.
