Latest news with #CenterforBudgetandPolicyPriorities
Newsweek
05-08-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
Map Shows How Each State Could Lose SNAP Benefits Under New Requirements
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Millions of Americans could lose some or all of their SNAP benefits due to newly approved work requirements, a think tank has found. Why It Matters SNAP benefits, also known as "food stamps," are paid to more than 40 million low- and no-income Americans across the U.S. to help with purchasing groceries. Under the recently passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), expanded work requirements to be eligible for the benefits will cover a larger group of Americans than before. Under the new requirements, millions of previously eligible SNAP recipients could become ineligible. What To Know To continue receiving benefits, more individuals will be required to work or volunteer for at least 20 hours a week, or take part in training programs. Many who were previously exempt from these provisions could now be required to prove they meet these conditions or face the possibility of losing their SNAP benefits. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a left-leaning think tank, more than 5 million SNAP recipients could be at risk of losing some or all of their benefits under the new OBBBA rules. Beneficiaries in high population states with large numbers of SNAP claimants, like California, New York, Texas and Florida, would likely see the most people impacted. In these states alone, an estimated 1.2 million could be at risk of losing some or all of their benefits. In every U.S. state, between 5 percent and 12 percent of current SNAP recipients are at risk, according to the study. In California, the nation's most populous state, 368,000 individuals—6.84 percent of the state's 5.38 million SNAP recipients—are considered at risk, according to the study. Florida shows a similar trend, with 253,000 at risk out of nearly 3 million beneficiaries. In Texas, 276,000 SNAP participants face potential loss—8.64 percent of the state's total recipients. New York reports 318,000 people at risk—10.87 percent of its 2.93 million beneficiaries—making it one of the highest possible total impacts in the country, according to the report. Illinois follows closely with 205,000 at risk out of 1.9 million, or 10.59 percent. Overall, the group found 26 states have over 8 percent of their SNAP populations at risk of part or all of their benefits. What Are the New SNAP Work Requirements? The new rules have introduced age-based changes to SNAP work requirements. Able-bodied adults between the ages of 55 and 64 who do not have dependent children, as well as parents of children aged 14 and older, must now work or volunteer at least 20 hours per week or participate in training programs to receive their benefits. Previously, these requirements only applied to individuals up to age 54. Veterans, individuals experiencing homelessness and former foster youth could now also be subject to work requirements. Parents with teenage children will also be affected. If their youngest dependent child is 14 or older, these parents will now have to meet the work requirements. However, children will still continue receiving benefits even if their caregivers lose eligibility. It could also become more difficult for states to waive these requirements, as waivers will only eligible in areas with unemployment rates above 10 percent. What People Are Saying The Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA), a right-wing think-tank based in Naples, Florida, wrote in a May 16 report: "Most able-bodied adults on the program are exempt from work requirements and bureaucratic loopholes have allowed states to skirt them even further—waiving them for as many able-adults as possible. Even worse, the Obama and Biden administrations actively pressured states to continue this trend, leaving millions of able-bodied adults trapped in a cycle of dependency. With millions of open jobs nationwide and labor force participation rates behind pre-pandemic levels, it is more critical than ever to move able-bodied adults from welfare to work." The CBPP in its report: "More than 5 million people will be at risk of losing at least some of their food assistance, including 800,000 children, under a significant expansion of SNAP's already harsh, ineffective, and red tape-laden work requirements to parents and other caregivers of children aged 14 and up and adults aged 55 to 64." What Happens Next The start date for expanded work requirements is not clear and was not included in the OBBBA text.
The Hill
21-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Senate parliamentarian strikes key SNAP spending cuts from GOP megabill
The Senate parliamentarian on Friday ruled against several more Republican provisions in President Trump's megabill, including language to bar immigrants who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents from receiving food assistance under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, also ruled against a key Republican pay-for in the bill, a proposal requiring states to pay for a certain percentage of food assistance under SNAP depending on those states' error rates in delivering aid. The proposal to shift SNAP costs onto the states was a sticking point with Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine). The parliamentarian's ruling could make it easier for Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) to pick up Murkowski's and Collins's support as the SNAP-related pay-for will now need to be stripped from the legislation. The Senate bill as drafted would have required states to pay between 5 and 15 percent of food benefits in 2028 on their rate of error in paying out food benefits. Almost every state in the country has had error rates of 6 percent or higher, which would have shifted a significant percentage of the cost for delivering food assistance onto the states. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that the Senate language would have cost North Carolina, for example, to pay up to $438 million for food aid in 2028. MacDonough struck another blow against the GOP leadership's agenda by ruling against a section to extend the suspension of permanent price support authority, something that traditionally has been part of the farm bill. Congress passed a one-year extension of the farm bill in December after Democrats and Republicans failed to reach a deal on a multi-year extension of the law due to disagreements over SNAP funding. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, applauded the parliamentarian's decision on Friday. 'The Senate parliamentarian has begun providing guidance that certain provisions in the Republicans' One Big, Beautiful Betrayal will be subject to the Byrd Rule — ultimately meaning they will need to be stripped from the bill or altered to comply with the rules of reconciliation,' Merkley said in a statement. 'As much as Senate Republicans would prefer to throw out the rule book at advance their conservative families lose and billionaires win agenda, this process has rules and Democrats are making sure those rules are enforced,' he added. 'We will be fighting this bill every single day until Republicans bring it to the floor.' Provisions of the reconciliation package that the parliamentarian decides violate the Senate's Byrd Rule are not eligible to pass with a simple-majority vote. If Thune and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) don't remove provisions found to be in violation of the Byrd Rule, the Republican package would need to muster 60 votes to advance. The parliamentarian ruled against several provisions of the bill under the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction, including a section that appropriated $250 million to Coast Guard stations on South Padre Island, Texas, damaged by fire in 2025. She also ruled that language allocating $85 million to transfer the space shuttle on display at the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum to a non-profit group in Texas would not be eligible for the budget reconciliation fast track. Provisions found not to comply with the Byrd Rule would need at least 60 votes to overcome a point-of-order objection.
Axios
23-05-2025
- Business
- Axios
Child tax benefit increase leaves out millions of kids, analysis says
The poorest kids in the country miss out on the full benefits of the expanded child tax credit in the " big beautiful bill." Why it matters: The bill now making its way to the Senate provides more tax breaks to higher earners than those at the bottom. By the numbers: The Republican bill raises the maximum child tax credit to $2,500 per child from $2,000 for three years. 20 million children would not fully benefit from the increase, according to an analysis from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), since their parents don't earn enough income to get the maximum amount. "A majority of those children get nothing from the proposed expansion," says Kris Cox, director of federal tax policy at the CBPP. 17 million children as of now do not receive the full benefit from this tax credit, per the CBPP. None of them will get anything from the expansion. How it works: Under current law, families need upward of $30,000 a year to receive the full tax credit amount, explains Joe Hughes, senior analyst at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Parents who are poor and don't owe income taxes can only claim up to $1,700 per child, known as the "refundability cap." It's a number which adjusts annually for inflation. The new bill didn't raise the refundability cap. Instead, it only increases the maximum that parents, earning less $400,000 a year, can claim. A married couple filing jointly would need to earn $48,550 to receive the full tax credit under the new bill, per CBPP estimates. Under current law, a married couple has to earn $36,800. Zoom out: The new bill widens the gap between what's available to kids in higher income families and those who need help most. For example: A married couple with two children earning $400,000 a year, the max income allowed to claim the credit, would get an additional $1,000 tax credit. A single parent with two children, earning $24,000 a year, would get nothing, Cox explains in a recent Bluesky post. The parents who miss out on the full benefit are those working in low-paying jobs like cashiers, home health aids and housekeepers. Presumably a few of these parents are tipped employees who could benefit from the no-tax-on-tips provision of the bill. However, just as with this the child tax credit, many earn too small an income to benefit. The other side: The standard defense here is that low-income Americans don't pay very much in taxes. Their tax burden is low, so they shouldn't get the full credit because they don't need the tax relief. White House spokesman Kush Desai says wealth inequality decreased after the 2017 tax bill, and the new bill would lock that success in place. He adds that it builds on that success "by eliminating taxes on tips and overtime in addition to rewarding American manufacturing with full equipment and factory expensing to turbocharge America's economic resurgence." Between the lines: This big bill faces big hurdles ahead in the Senate — and the bond market — and it's not clear what will eventually make it through. The intrigue: The legislation also blocks another 4.5 million children from benefiting from the child tax credit because now to claim it, both parents, if they are filing jointly, must have their own Social Security numbers. Under current law, parents who don't have Social Security numbers can claim the credit if their child has one. So, for instance, a parent who is a non-citizen immigrant and files taxes with an ITIN number can claim it. Before 2017, any parent filing taxes could claim the credit. But when Congress changed the law in the first Trump tax bill, 1 million citizen children lost out, Cox says. State of play: The child tax credit provisions are a stark 180 for the House.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Working for welfare benefits is not punishment
One of the longtime dividing lines between conservatives and liberals or progressives is whether those receiving welfare benefits should be required to work. Conservatives see the requirement as a way to reduce costs; liberals see it as punishment for being poor. But its real benefit is to help individuals regain the dignity and self-respect that comes from having a job. The Republicans' budget bill will reportedly require states to enforce a work requirement for able-bodied individuals on Medicaid between the ages of 19 and 64. (They can also satisfy the requirement by looking for work or receiving job training.) Exceptions are made for those who are disabled, pregnant women, incarcerated or in a rehabilitation program. Like the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (also known as food stamps), Medicaid is a means-tested welfare program. Under the bill, an estimated 5 million people are expected to lose their Medicaid coverage, saving the government an estimated $300 billion over seven years. Any time Republicans propose a work requirement for welfare benefits, liberals and progressives whine and moan and claim the heartless Republicans are trying to punish people just for being poor. For example, the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities complains, 'Taking assistance away from people who don't show they are complying with a work requirement punishes them for the racial and gender inequities of our nation's labor market.' When the Biden administration removed Republican-led work requirements for Medicaid, the pro-labor group On Labor wrote, 'This welcome change is a recognition of the fact that work requirements unfairly punish people living in poverty and are out of sync with workers' needs in the modern economy.' But it cannot be emphasized strongly enough: Requiring able-bodied people to work for their taxpayer-funded benefits — whether its food, housing, Medicaid or any other means-tested assistance program — is not punishment. About 165 million Americans under age 65 and their dependents — about 60 percent of the population — currently have employer-provided health insurance. They work for their health insurance. It is a benefit, not a punishment. When the pandemic started in February 2020, there were 71.4 million people enrolled in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Plan. Due to the Biden administration's Medicaid expansion, that number went up, peaking at 94.6 million in April 2023. Since then, the numbers have slowly declined to 78.5 million. So even if the work requirement reduced the number of Medicaid participants by an estimated 5 million, that's still 2 million more people than were in the program at the beginning of the pandemic. In short, the proposal does not at all obliterate Medicaid. But any time a work requirement is proposed on any means-tested welfare program, liberals claim there is no need for it, because most recipients are already working. For example, the Kaiser Family Foundation says that in 2023, 64 percent of Medicaid participants were working full or part-time, and the rest weren't working because they fell into one of the exemptions. But this misses the point. If able-bodied recipients are already working, then why complain about requiring them to work to receive Medicaid? Perhaps most hypocritically, liberals and progressives often claim that even if a work requirement increases employment, it doesn't last long. What they don't tell you is that liberal politicians and bureaucrats at all levels of government work relentlessly to reduce, moderate or water down imposed work requirements over time. Progressives think they are doing welfare recipients a favor, but they're not. People who have been out of the workforce for months or even years begin to lose needed work habits and skills. They begin to lose respect for themselves, and they may turn to alcohol or drugs or other ways to ease the pain. Some welfare reform groups have demonstrated that employers are willing to take a chance on these individuals, if the state will let the welfare benefits (including Medicaid) continue during a trial working period, offsetting part of the cost to the employer. The employer gets a partially subsidized employee for a limited time, and potentially a full-time employee if it works out. I have talked to some of these individuals who were required to work for their benefits. They have very encouraging stories to tell of how they regained their dignity by once again providing for themselves and their families. They discover that work is empowering. They just needed a little push to get started. Merrill Matthews is a public policy and political analyst and the co-author of 'On the Edge: America Faces the Entitlements Cliff.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
20-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Working for welfare benefits is not punishment
One of the longtime dividing lines between conservatives and liberals or progressives is whether those receiving welfare benefits should be required to work. Conservatives see the requirement as a way to reduce costs; liberals see it as punishment for being poor. But its real benefit is to help individuals regain the dignity and self-respect that comes from having a job. The Republicans' budget bill will reportedly require states to enforce a work requirement for able-bodied individuals on Medicaid between the ages of 19 and 64. (They can also satisfy the requirement by looking for work or receiving job training.) Exceptions are made for those who are disabled, pregnant women, incarcerated or in a rehabilitation program. Like the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (also known as food stamps), Medicaid is a means-tested welfare program. Under the bill, an estimated 5 million people are expected to lose their Medicaid coverage, saving the government an estimated $300 billion over seven years. Any time Republicans propose a work requirement for welfare benefits, liberals and progressives whine and moan and claim the heartless Republicans are trying to punish people just for being poor. For example, the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities complains, 'Taking assistance away from people who don't show they are complying with a work requirement punishes them for the racial and gender inequities of our nation's labor market.' When the Biden administration removed Republican-led work requirements for Medicaid, the pro-labor group On Labor wrote, 'This welcome change is a recognition of the fact that work requirements unfairly punish people living in poverty and are out of sync with workers' needs in the modern economy.' But it cannot be emphasized strongly enough: Requiring able-bodied people to work for their taxpayer-funded benefits — whether its food, housing, Medicaid or any other means-tested assistance program — is not punishment. About 165 million Americans under age 65 and their dependents — about 60 percent of the population — currently have employer-provided health insurance. They work for their health insurance. It is a benefit, not a punishment. When the pandemic started in February 2020, there were 71.4 million people enrolled in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Plan. Due to the Biden administration's Medicaid expansion, that number went up, peaking at 94.6 million in April 2023. Since then, the numbers have slowly declined to 78.5 million. So even if the work requirement reduced the number of Medicaid participants by an estimated 5 million, that's still 2 million more people than were in the program at the beginning of the pandemic. In short, the proposal does not at all obliterate Medicaid. But any time a work requirement is proposed on any means-tested welfare program, liberals claim there is no need for it, because most recipients are already working. For example, the Kaiser Family Foundation says that in 2023, 64 percent of Medicaid participants were working full or part-time, and the rest weren't working because they fell into one of the exemptions. But this misses the point. If able-bodied recipients are already working, then why complain about requiring them to work to receive Medicaid? Perhaps most hypocritically, liberals and progressives often claim that even if a work requirement increases employment, it doesn't last long. What they don't tell you is that liberal politicians and bureaucrats at all levels of government work relentlessly to reduce, moderate or water down imposed work requirements over time. Progressives think they are doing welfare recipients a favor, but they're not. People who have been out of the workforce for months or even years begin to lose needed work habits and skills. They begin to lose respect for themselves, and they may turn to alcohol or drugs or other ways to ease the pain. Some welfare reform groups have demonstrated that employers are willing to take a chance on these individuals, if the state will let the welfare benefits (including Medicaid) continue during a trial working period, offsetting part of the cost to the employer. The employer gets a partially subsidized employee for a limited time, and potentially a full-time employee if it works out. I have talked to some of these individuals who were required to work for their benefits. They have very encouraging stories to tell of how they regained their dignity by once again providing for themselves and their families. They discover that work is empowering. They just needed a little push to get started. Merrill Matthews is a public policy and political analyst and the co-author of 'On the Edge: America Faces the Entitlements Cliff.'
