Latest news with #BobDole
The Hill
28-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Republicans' mega-bill could make Americans hungry again
This is a large country, and people in different states embrace different customs, cultural preferences and political beliefs. But for all our diversity, every person in every state needs to eat. In recognition of this, America has long treated hunger as a national concern. Unfortunately, a little-understood provision in the budget reconciliation legislation speeding through Congress would change that. Within a few years of its passage, we would likely see a significant number of states with no family food assistance program at all for Americans unable to buy enough food. In the middle of the 20th century, the U.S. Department of Agriculture purchased surplus commodities from farms and distributed them to people in need, wherever they were. When this became unworkable, Congress began converting commodity distributions into food stamps that low-income households could spend in regular supermarkets to buy food for their families. President Richard Nixon saw the benefits of this program and pushed through legislation that made the Food Stamp Program nationwide. In the following decades, the Food Stamp Program was expanded to help more of the working poor and reduced when Congress was trying to cut the deficit. Some of its biggest supporters were Republicans like Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) as well as Rep. Bill Emerson (R-Mo.). As technology advanced, electronic debit cards replaced the old paper food stamps and the program changed its name to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. But even when Congress has felt the need to cut back on food stamps, it has never departed from the principle that hunger is a national concern. Budget cuts that took effect in New York also took effect in Arkansas. The pending reconciliation bill, however, would change that, making it likely that some of the states that most need food assistance would drop out completely. Both the House-passed bill and the one pending in the Senate would, for the first time, require states to contribute to the cost of food assistance benefits. The percentages in the two versions vary, but the hit would be large. If the final legislation requires states to pay 10 percent, the 10-year cost to states would be almost $90 billion. Poorer states would be especially hard-hit: Alabama would have to pay $1.64 billion, Arkansas would need to come up with $521 million and West Virginia would have to find $536 million in its budget. Because the provision prohibits the federal government from paying its share unless the state pays the required amount, states that are unwilling or unable to produce the required match would have to drop out of SNAP altogether. This is a real possibility. The Federal Reserve and many private forecasters are seeing signs that economic growth is slowing, with a full recession a distinct possibility. Even if we avoid a recession, a slowing economy will reduce states' revenues and drive up the number of people losing their jobs and needing food assistance. At a time when states will be cutting important programs and contemplating unwelcome tax increases just to keep their heads above water, few will have room to absorb tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of new costs to maintain existing food assistance programs. Once food assistance ceases to be available in some states for families regardless of need, we will have lost something important about what makes us a country. The consequences will be severe indeed. Copious research shows that children growing up with inadequate diets do worse in school and have lower lifetime earnings. As some states terminate federal food assistance, voices in neighboring states will advocate for dropping the program as well. Members of Congress from states lacking federal family food assistance will have little reason to support funding for a program operating only in other states. The effects will extend well beyond food assistance. SNAP, along with unemployment insurance, is one of our most important 'automatic stabilizers' that puts more money into the economy as the nation tips into a recession. This is crucial because Congress often takes months to enact stimulus legislation — or fails altogether. A shrunken SNAP will mean less effective stimulus to pull the country out of a downturn, and a SNAP that operates only in some states could contribute to an uneven recovery across the country. Indeed, because all states must balance their budgets even in recessions, declining revenues may force some states to drop out of SNAP at the very moment when families most need help and when the economy most needs a boost. No good reason exists for shifting the costs of SNAP benefits to states. States already spend large amounts to meet human needs ignored by the federal government and even more matching federal contributions for efforts such as Medicaid and child care subsidies. States' revenue streams are less efficient and far more vulnerable to regional and national economic downturns. Suddenly increasing states' costs in federal-state programs is precisely the kind of 'unfunded mandate' that prompted congressional Republicans to enact the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in 1995 and that led Republicans to criticize the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion. Dumping federal fiscal shortfalls on the states is antithetical to the values of federalism. It is a shameful practice contemplated by policymakers lacking the courage to get the federal government's own fiscal house in order. Congress should drop this cost-shifting provision altogether. At a very minimum, it should ensure that the federal share of food assistance benefits remain available even in states that are unwilling or unable to put up hundreds of millions of dollars of their own. David A. Super teaches at Georgetown Law.
Yahoo
17-06-2025
- Yahoo
KSN Summer Road Trip visits Russell
WICHITA, Kan. (KSNW) – Russell is the third stop on Tuesday, June 17, on the 2025 KSN Summer Road Trip. It is the third time the Summer Road Trip has been to Russell. The last time KSN visited was in 2021 and 2019. KSN's Jeff Herndon, Julia Thatcher, Zach Martin, Alexis Padilla, and Meteorologist Ronelle Williams, and several of our behind-the-scenes crew members will be at the Dream Theatre, 629 N. Main, from 3:30 to 6:30 p.m. for KSN News at 4, 5 and 6 p.m. On Wednesday, KSN will broadcast the 'Kansas Today' from Meridy's Restaurant and Lounge, 1220 S. Fossil St., from 6 to 7 a.m. According to the U.S. Census, Russell has a population of 4,401, with a median household income of $51,347. Russell was founded in April 1861 and was originally named Fossil Station by the railroad. Russell is just off of Interstate 70 and a bustling downtown. There is a variety of retail, lodging and dining options. The town is most well-known for its native son, Senator Bob Dole, who died in 2021, and Senator Arlen Specter, who died in 2012. Russell County ranks in the top 10 for oil production in the state. Things to do and places to visit in Russell: Post Rock Scenic Byway Wilson Lake Deines Cultural Center Fossil Station Museum Grassroots Arts Center Oil Patch Museum Russell Co. Historical Society & Genealogy Society Community & Government: City of Russell Russell County Russell USD 407 Sponsor: PHP Law Firm: Kansas Personal Injury Trial Lawyers Southwind Bank Russell County Economic Development/Convention & Visitor's Bureau Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
01-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Eddie Murphy recalls playing dejected wife in 'Nutty Professor 2' erectile dysfunction scene: 'Strange place to be in'
Count Eddie Murphy as one of the many fans of his Nutty Professor movies, in which he plays multiple characters, thanks to his funny impressions and some serious movie magic. "You know what I like in Nutty Professor 2?" Murphy asked Thursday on The Jennifer Hudson Show. "The relationship between his parents, cause his father is impotent. He can't get there. So I have that whole thing where she's like, 'Why don't you take some Viagra?'" Released in 2000, Nutty Professor 2: The Klumps again starred Murphy as several family members, including the titular professor and, yes, his parents. The sequel to the 1996 hit The Nutty Professor, a remake of the 1963 Jerry Lewis title, was released less than two years after the new drug Viagra caused a buzz with its ads featuring retired politician Bob Dole. "When I was doing that scene," Murphy continued, "I had to sit on the bed and look dejected, because my husband couldn't get an erection. I was like, 'This is a strange place to be in right now.'" Even so, the Nutty Professor movies, about a shy, portly professor who discovers a chemical that transforms him into a handsome but obnoxious alter ago, were box office gold. The Klumps alone earned $166 million globally, according to Box Office Mojo. The movies are special to Murphy for another reason, too. "I think if I could only take one movie to represent me, I would take Nutty Professor," said the star of movie franchises including Beverly Hills Cop, Shrek, and Doctor Dolittle. Keke Palmer, who was a guest on the same episode as Murphy, agreed. "Cause he was covering all bases: drama, comedy, family — even some trauma," Palmer said. "I mean, Nutty Professor was trying to get over some stuff."In the first film, Sherman is publicly shamed for his appearance on an especially humiliating night out. The comedy chameleon also shared some particularly happy news during his visit to his former Dreamgirls costar. He confirmed that his son, Eric, had officially married Jasmin Lawrence, the daughter of his fellow comedian and sometimes costar Martin Lawrence. "Yeah, we're in-laws," he said. Watch Murphy's full interview above. Read the original article on Entertainment Weekly
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Kansas advocacy group marks HOPE Act anniversary by calling attention to food insecurity
Jami Reever, executive director for Kansas Appleseed, said on the 10-year anniversary of a state law restricting access to food program benefits that Kansas ought to honor the legacy of the late U.S. Sen. Robert Dole, R-Kansas, by aligning policy with programs demonstrated to reduce hunger. (Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector) TOPEKA — The advocacy organization Kansas Appleseed marked the 10th anniversary of the HOPE Act by denouncing the legacy of a state law blamed for undermining food security and work of the late U.S. Sen. Robert Dole to aid malnourished people. The HOPE Act, formally known as the Kansas Hope, Opportunity and Prosperity for Everyone Act, was signed into law in April 2015 by then-Gov. Sam Brownback. The measure significantly increased barriers to participation among Kansans in SNAP, previously known as the food stamp program. In the subsequent decade, Republican leadership in the Kansas Legislature has continued to seek expansion of restrictions on SNAP beyond minimum requirements in federal law. 'As a born-and-raised Kansan, living just 30 miles from Bob Dole's hometown, I knew from a young age that if Bob Dole fought for something, it was the right thing to do.' said Jami Reever, executive director for Kansas Appleseed. 'His fight to end hunger became Kansas' fight to end hunger, and to see that legacy stripped away year after year is contrary to Kansas values.' On Wednesday, Kansas Appleseed released a report on the 10-year anniversary of the HOPE Act that outlined political history of anti-hunger initiatives tied to Kansas, challenged criticism of SNAP and recommended the state embrace policies to better meet food needs of families. The report said Kansas ranked 48th among the states and District of Columbia in terms of SNAP access. The state ranked fifth-lowest in terms of the rate of eligible people enrolled in SNAP, Kansas Appleseed said. 'This report highlights the sharp contrast between our state's regressive approach to SNAP and the compassionate, bipartisan legacy of feeding people that Kansas forefather Bob Dole left our state,' said Haley Kottler of Kansas Appleseed. 'Because of these regressive approaches, Kansas has gone from leading the nation on anti-hunger efforts to becoming one of the hardest places to access SNAP. That is not who we are, and it is not who we have to be.' Kansas Appleseed proposed enhancing access to SNAP to mirror 'real needs of everyday, hardworking Kansans.' Research showed participation in SNAP improved dietary intake, supported mental health, reduced poverty and promoted economic self-sufficiency, Kansas Appleseed said. In 2015, Brownback took on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program borne of bipartisan advocacy by Republican U.S. Sen. Dole of Kansas and the late Democratic U.S. Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota. Brownback signed the HOPE Act to limit adults without children to three months on SNAP during any 36-month period in which the person wasn't employed part-time or enrolled in job training. In addition, individuals with a felony drug conviction were given a lifetime ban from SNAP in Kansas. People without authority to legally live in the United States were excluded from calculations of household size when determining SNAP eligibility, but earnings of those immigrants was counted when assessing whether a household qualified in terms of overall income. The law also forbid use of federal or state funding to inform the public about available food assistance. Brownback also banned use of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families cash assistance to buy alcohol, cigarettes or lottery, concert or sports event tickets. TANF cash couldn't be expended in a movie theater, swimming pool, theme park or video arcade. Brownback said the idea was to implement state laws that could compel people to lift themselves out of poverty. 'The primary focus of the bill is to get people back to work,' Brownback said at the time. 'Because that's where the real benefit is — getting people off public assistance and back into the marketplace with the dignity.' Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly, who voted against the HOPE Act in 2015 while a member of the Kansas Senate, said state laws undermining the potential of SNAP and TANF were a mistake. 'The HOPE Act was wrong then, and it remains wrong now,' Kelly said. 'Now, more than ever, the Legislature should look for ways to support working Kansas families rather than further shredding the safety net that gives Kansans a bridge back to self-sufficiency.' Research by a University of Kansas professor indicated state policy or law limiting enrollment in SNAP made it more difficult to prevent child abuse or neglect as well as prevent entry of children into foster care. In aftermath of the HOPE Act, the number of Kansas children in foster care reached a record level. Hunger Free America reported U.S. Department of Agriculture data indicated 15.3% of Kansas residents lived in food insecure households between 2021 to 2023. That included 13.6% of children, 8.4% of working adults and 6.6% of elderly residents in Kansas. House Speaker Dan Hawkins, a Wichita Republican, created in 2022 the House Welfare Reform Committee to advance the welfare agenda started by Brownback. In a speech, Hawkins said the state should focus on shrinking government rather than 'growing the welfare state and dependency.' He said tax dollars ought to be reserved for 'the truly needy instead of siphoning them away to able-bodied adults who don't want to work.' That point of emphasis led to House Bill 2140, which was advanced in 2023 to further limit eligibility for SNAP. Existing law at that time blocked SNAP benefits to able-bodied adults 18 to 49 without dependents and not employed at least 30 hours per week unless they were in a job training program. The bill, which died in the Senate, would have extended the prohibition to Kansans 50 to 59 years of age. Another piece of legislation in 2023, endorsed by the Florida think tank Opportunity Solutions Project, would cut SNAP benefits to noncustodial parents who fell behind in child support payments. GOP advocates of the concept said the legislation would withhold food aid from families as leverage to extract cash from 'deadbeat' parents. Sen. Oletha Faust Goudeau, a Wichita Democrat, said the bill would have made it less likely parents could support their children and more likely people went hungry. 'Reducing access to food for Kansans who are already struggling financially is unnecessarily harsh and ineffective,' Faust Goudeau said. In the 2025 session, the House and Senate approved a bill requiring the state to seek permission from USDA to exclude candy and soft drinks from Kansas' list of products eligible to be bought with SNAP benefits. Kelly vetoed the bill. The Senate voted to override the governor, but the House didn't challenge the veto. 'Restricting assistance under the guise of making sure low-income individuals are 'healthy' strips them of their dignity,' said Sen. Pat Pettey, a Democrat from Kansas City, Kansas. 'Families in poverty face enough challenges, but what they chose to eat should not be legislated.'
Bloomberg
27-02-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
We're Turning Down Free Money by Firing IRS Workers
In 1982, a year after shepherding President Ronald Reagan's tax cut — the biggest ever — through the US Senate, Republican Bob Dole decided something had to be done about the resulting increase in the federal deficit. That something was the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, which closed income-tax loopholes and increased excise taxes on cigarettes and phone service. It also provided billions of dollars in new funding for 'improved enforcement' by the Internal Revenue Service. 'As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, my obligation is to make certain that everybody pays the tax they owe before we go back and ask people to pay more tax,' Dole explained at the time. Give the IRS enough resources, his reasoning went, and you could collect more taxes without increasing the burden on law-abiding taxpayers. This philosophy was to hold sway for the rest of the Reagan years, with the number of IRS employees increasing 39% from 1982 to 1988.
