Latest news with #CenteronBudgetandPolicyPriorities
Miami Herald
5 hours ago
- Business
- Miami Herald
Trump's ‘big, beautiful' tax bill risks food assistance for tens of thousands of Coloradans, think tanks estimate
DENVER - President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful" tax bill would jeopardize food assistance for tens of thousands of low-income Coloradans, while requiring the state to pick up tens of millions of dollars in new spending, according to analyses from two think tanks. Trump and House Republicans' bill, which passed the U.S. House on May 22, would seek to offset $4.5 trillion in tax cuts in part by cutting nearly $286 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - or SNAP - by 2034. The reductions would include new work requirements, capping a program that provides dietary planning, shifting more costs to the state, and barring non-permanent residents - including people in the U.S. legally - from accessing the program. The bill also proposes $700 billion in cuts to Medicaid, which has drawn significant criticism from Democrats and health care providers. But the impacts to SNAP have received less attention. Republicans have cast the changes as necessary to ensure the program accomplished its goal. U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, who represents the Eastern Plains, said Friday that she supported stricter work requirements to ensure "able-bodied adults without dependents" are working. She said the bill's requirements would curb federal spending, which she argued had "exploded" within SNAP in recent years. "If you're able to work, then you should go to work," she said. "Even the Bible says if you don't work, you don't eat. There's a lot of pride that comes with earning a living and going out and being a part of the workforce." But Democrats and advocates warn that the bill will instead endanger food access for vulnerable Coloradans, and they point to research showing that work requirements are effective at stripping people of benefits - but not at boosting employment. Roughly 131,000 low-income Coloradans - nearly 20% of the people who receive SNAP - could lose access to the program under the bill's work requirements, according to the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. That's among roughly 3.2 million people at risk nationwide. The bill is "going to increase hunger, I think it's going to increase hardship," said Anya Rose, the director of public policy at Hunger Free Colorado. "This is slashing support for 1 in 10 Coloradans who rely on SNAP. And then it's shifting billions in costs to the states." Filling the hole left by Congress, she continued, "would be incredibly difficult." 10% of state uses SNAP The program provides money for low-income people to buy food. In Colorado, a family of four making a maximum of $62,400 a year would qualify. Qualifying households receive benefits on a monthly basis, ranging from a maximum of $292 for a single-person household to $1,756 for an eight-person home. The benefits can be spent on a variety of foods but not alcohol, hot foods or other household items. More than 615,000 Coloradans have used SNAP benefits this fiscal year, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That amounts to just over 10% of the state. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 64% of SNAP recipients in Colorado are families with children, and 46% of them are in working families. But under the tax bill, benefits would be at risk for more than 20% of those residents, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' estimates. Simultaneously, the legislation would add as much as $259 million in new annual costs to a cash-strapped Colorado in the coming years, The proposal is now in the Senate, where it's likely to undergo additional changes. All four of Colorado's House Republicans voted for the bill, while its four Democratic lawmakers voted against it. Senate Republicans have already expressed some concern about the depth of the SNAP cuts, according to The Hill. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnston has asked his Senate colleagues to leave the bill largely unchanged, while Trump has said he expects "fairly significant" alterations. The Colorado Department of Human Services, which oversees SNAP in the state, declined interview requests, and spokespeople would not say if the agency had estimated how many Coloradans could lose access to food benefits under the bill. Spokeswoman AnneMarie Harper said the state "can't speculate on what impacts (the bill) could have on Colorado and the people (the department) is honored to serve." Outside groups have provided such estimates. Under the proposal passed by one vote in the House, work requirements would be expanded to include adults up to retirement age who either don't live with children or who have kids over the age of 7. The Urban Institute estimates that 22,000 Colorado families in the state would lose some or all of their SNAP benefits under the new work requirements, while the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities puts the number at 131,000 people at risk of losing benefits. The two think tanks rely on different datasets: CBPP uses SNAP data, while the Urban Institute uses a model based on Census Bureau information, said Dottie Rosenbaum, CBPP's director of federal SNAP policy. CBPP's estimates are also based on individuals, while Urban's projections are for families. Harper did not respond when asked about the groups' estimates. 'Responsibly reforming SNAP benefits' Other than Boebert, Colorado's House Republicans - U.S. Reps. Gabe Evans, Jeff Crank and Jeff Hurd - either declined or did not respond to interview requests Thursday. In statements and prior interviews, all four heralded the advancement of the tax bill as a win for the state. At a news conference Thursday, Evans said that "fearmongering" had obscured the benefits delivered by the tax bill, which included increased border security. The SNAP changes represent "another example of a common-sense reform that Congress is implementing through this legislation, making sure that SNAP benefits go to the most needy, that we're not wasting federal resources, and that states have incentives to utilize these SNAP benefits effectively," Hurd told the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. While the work requirement changes will create new barriers for entry to the program, other proposals would undercut SNAP's funding. Under current law, the federal government pays 100% of the cost of SNAP benefits, while it evenly splits administrative costs with the states. But House Republicans' bill would require states to begin paying at least 5% of the cost of the benefits by 2028, plus 75% of the administrative costs. While the new administrative toll would shift more than $40 million in new spending to Colorado's coffers, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the new benefit cost would require the state to pay another $259 million more starting in fiscal year 2028. That's driven in large part because the tax bill would require the state to pay higher amounts depending on its error rate, which is based on the accuracy of eligibility requirements and payment. Colorado's error rate was 8.6% in fiscal year 2023, according to USDA data. If that were the error rate in 2028, when this change would come into effect, that would mean the state would have to assume 20% of the program's cost going forward. Harper confirmed the 2023 error rate but declined to comment on it. It's impossible to forecast the state's fiscal outlook three years from now. But adding roughly $300 million in new costs would be a significant addition to the state's budget. What's more, a decline in SNAP and Medicaid enrollment would mean fewer children receiving federally funded school meals, Rose said, which will place additional costs on the state's meals program. Colorado's current budget situation is grim: Lawmakers had to scale back roughly $1.2 billion in spending this year and have warned that next year will be even worse. That bleak outlook doesn't include steep cuts to SNAP and Medicaid that are part of Congressional Republicans' tax and budget discussions. The scale of those reductions could require lawmakers to return to the Capitol for a special session in the coming months. "I look to this as being something potentially catastrophic to many families," Rep. Shannon Bird, a Westminster Democrat and the vice-chair of the state's Joint Budget Committee, told reporters of the SNAP cuts Thursday. "And something the state will have significant challenges backfilling." _____ Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
CNBC
a day ago
- Business
- CNBC
See where seniors face the longest travel times to get to their local Social Security offices
A new Social Security Administration policy will require nearly 2 million additional beneficiaries to visit the agency's offices each year to change their direct deposit information, according to agency estimates. That's often not a quick trip: Nearly one-quarter of seniors live more than an hour away from their local Social Security field office, according to a new analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Meanwhile, half of seniors need to drive for at least 33 minutes without traffic to get to their Social Security office. The policy change will lead to more than 1 million hours of travel per year, according to the nonpartisan policy and research institute. The Social Security Administration said the new direct deposit requirements would curb fraud, which it said it's been working to root out in coordination with the Trump administration's so-called Department of Government Efficiency. Since 2023, the agency has experienced a "marked increase" in allegations of direct deposit fraud, a Social Security Administration official said via email. In March, SSA implemented enhanced fraud protection for direct deposit changes. Between March 29 and April 26, the enhanced fraud protection flagged more than 20,000 Social Security numbers where phone direct deposit requests failed security measures that check for multiple fraud indicators. Of the direct deposit transactions flagged, 61% to 72% of individuals never resubmitted their requests, a "strong indicator" that many of those attempts may not have been legitimate, according to the SSA official. The agency estimates $19.9 million in losses were avoided as a result of the enhanced safety measures. However, advocates say the change is an overreaction, given the scale of such fraud. The Social Security Administration has said about 40% of direct deposit fraud comes from phone calls attempting to change direct deposit information. In early 2024, anti-fraud officials at the agency told The New York Times that about 2,000 beneficiaries had their direct deposits redirected over the prior year. By those estimates, that would mean just 800 of those people experienced direct deposit fraud by phone, according to Kathleen Romig, director of Social Security and disability policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Yet the agency is now requiring about 2 million elderly and disabled individuals to visit its offices to prevent such fraud, she said. More from Personal Finance:What the House GOP budget bill means for your moneyTrump tariffs create the 'perfect storm' for scamsSocial Security COLA for 2026 projected to be lowest in years To help ensure benefit payments are not misdirected, the Social Security Administration has tightened beneficiaries' ability to change their bank information over the phone. As of April 28, individuals who want to change their direct deposit information will need to log into or create a personal My Social Security online account and obtain a one-time code before they call the agency's 800 number. Individuals who cannot use online or automatic enrollment services will need to visit a local field office to verify their identity in person. While the agency encourages those individuals to make an appointment, it is also possible to walk in for direct deposit changes. Individuals who want to change their direct deposit information may also use automatic enrollment services through their bank. To do so, individuals need to contact their bank directly. Not all financial institutions participate in this process, according to SSA. Because many seniors or disabled individuals do not have internet service, computers or smart phones — or if they do, may not know how to use those resources — many will likely have to make an in-person visit to their local Social Security office. About 6 million seniors don't drive, while almost 8 million older Americans have a medical condition or disability that makes it difficult for them to travel, according to CBPP research. In-person appointments may be burdensome for beneficiaries who face long travel times to get to their nearest Social Security office, according to the CBPP analysis. In 31 states, more than 25% of seniors face travel times of more than an hour to get to their local field office. In certain less-populated states, more than 40% of seniors would need to drive more than an hour. Those include Arkansas, Iowa, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming. In other states, around 25% to 39% of seniors would need to travel over an hour. That includes Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Virginia. Residents of other states may also face a burden if they do not live near their closest Social Security field office. The analysis is a conservative estimate to help assess how much time it may cost individuals who are affected by the policy, according to Devin O'Connor, senior fellow at the CBPP. For example, it doesn't take into account the time spent getting an appointment to visit a Social Security office and the time spent waiting for the appointment, he said. The CBPP's analysis was created with information from multiple sources including the 2022 National Household Travel Survey, SSA field office location data, the OpenTimes travel time database and the Census Bureau's 2023 American Community Survey. The Social Security Administration has not independently validated the data, the agency said via email in response to a request for comment. Notably, the new direct deposit requirements come as the Social Security Administration has moved to cut its work force by about 7,000 employees, reductions that have led some of the agency's field offices to be "understaffed," O'Connor said. However, while it had been reported that DOGE planned to close Social Security field offices to help curb spending, thus far that has largely not happened, he said. The Social Security Administration has denied it plans to close local field offices. Individuals who need to visit a Social Security field office will also be confronted by long wait times for appointments. Currently, just 43% of individuals are able to get a benefit appointment within 28 days, Social Security Administration data shows. The agency's new policy to limit phone transactions has been scaled back. The agency had proposed limiting the ability to apply for benefits over the phone, but after it received pushback from organizations including the AARP, the agency changed that policy to limit only direct deposit transactions.
USA Today
6 days ago
- Business
- USA Today
Average Social Security check to break $2,000 for the first time ever in June 2025
Sean Williams The Motley Fool When the Social Security Act was signed into law in 1935, its purpose was to provide a financial foundation for America's aging workforce. Nine decades later, this mission is still being fulfilled, with the added bonus of also providing protections for workers with disabilities and survivors of deceased workers. Based on an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Social Security was responsible for pulling 22 million people out of poverty in 2023, which is more than any other social program. Nearly three-quarters of these 22 million people were aged 65 and above. For most retired-worker beneficiaries, their monthly payout is more than just income — it's a necessity. According to 23 years of annual surveys by Gallup, Social Security income helps between eight and nine out of every 10 retirees cover at least some portion of their expenses. Next week, when the calendar officially flips to June, Social Security retired-worker benefits will do something that's never been seen in the program's 90-year history. Who's ready for Social Security history to be made? Every month, the Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a "Monthly Statistical Snapshot" that intricately breaks down where benefits paid in the previous month ended up. For example, the April statistical snapshot shows that $128.736 billion in traditional Social Security benefits were doled out to 69.378 million people. Retired workers account for nearly 76% of all beneficiaries (52.587 million), with disabled workers (7.156 million) and survivor beneficiaries (5.841 million) comprising much of the remainder. If you're wondering why these three numbers don't add up to 69.378 million, it's because spouses, children and other direct relatives may qualify for benefits on behalf of a retired, disabled or deceased worker. In addition to breaking out how many beneficiaries received a payment, Social Security's monthly snapshot provides the average monthly benefit for each category. Spanning all beneficiaries, the average payout was $1,855.57 in April. But it's the average monthly benefit for retired workers that's just a week away from making history. Last month, retired-worker beneficiaries took home an average check of $1,999.97. However, this average monthly payout isn't static. Every month, new beneficiaries are entering the pool to receive their first monthly Social Security check, and some beneficiaries pass away. Additionally, higher nominal wages paid to working Americans over time, coupled with the impact of near-annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs), directly affect the average monthly take-home pay for retired-worker beneficiaries. Due to these factors, the average retired-worker benefit has always risen on a month-to-month basis, based on more than a decade of published SSA statistical snapshots. Sometimes, these increases are pronounced, such as the jump from an average payout of $1,980.86 for retired workers in February 2025 to $1,999.97 just two months later. This $19.11 increase spanning just two months potentially signals a big uptick in workers filing for benefits. More often, the average retired-worker payout grows by $1 to $2 on a month-to-month basis, not including the one month each year when COLAs are implemented. With the expectation that this trend remains intact, the average Social Security retired-worker benefit in May, based on the soon-to-be-reported June statistical snapshot, will surpass $2,000 for the first time in history. It's a psychologically important figure for a program that serves as a financial foundation for many aging workers. A Social Security dollar simply isn't what it once was But uncorking the champagne isn't advisable just because Social Security is making history. While nominal monthly payouts for retirees continue to climb, they've been doing so at a considerably slower rate than the inflationary pressures retirees have been contending with for a quarter of a century. Beginning in 1975, the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) became Social Security's inflationary measure for doling out annual cost-of-living adjustments. With over 200 spending categories, all of which have their own respective weightings, this index can be whittled down to a single figure at month's end, which makes for easy year-over-year comparisons to see whether collective prices are rising (inflation) or falling (deflation). Though everything sounds kosher on paper, the CPI-W has done retirees no favors. As its full name implies, the CPI-W is focused on the spending habits of "urban wage earners and clerical workers." These are typically working-age people who aren't currently receiving a Social Security benefit. More importantly, working-age folks and retirees tend to spend their money very differently. Whereas the former spends more on education, apparel and transportation, seniors spend a higher percentage of their monthly budget on shelter and medical care services than the typical working American. Even though an overwhelming majority of Social Security beneficiaries are aged 62 and above, the inflationary index used to calculate annual COLAs isn't properly weighting shelter and medical care services to their needs. The result? According to a May 2023 analysis from nonpartisan senior advocacy group The Senior Citizens League (TSCL), the purchasing power of a Social Security dollar dropped by 36% from January 2000 to February 2023. A more recent analysis from TSCL points to a 20% loss of buying power for Social Security income between 2010 and July 2024. Even though Social Security retired-worker benefits are breaking above psychological barriers, retirees are more often than not witnessing the buying power of their Social Security income dwindle over time — and that's nothing to celebrate. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook Offer from the Motley Fool: If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets"could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. JoinStock Advisorto learn more about these strategies. View the "Social Security secrets" »
NDTV
6 days ago
- Politics
- NDTV
How Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" Discriminates Against Single Parents
Quick Read Summary is AI generated, newsroom reviewed. The House passed Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" with a narrow 215-214 vote. The bill includes stricter SNAP work requirements, raising concerns about fairness, especially for single parents. Critics argue it may exacerbate food insecurity for families. In a nail-biting 215-214 vote, the House passed US President Donald Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill last week. All but two Republicans backed the massive budget package, named the "One Big Beautiful Bill". The over 1,000-page bill, aimed at solidifying Trump's economic and fiscal agenda, now moves to the Senate where further debates and amendments are expected. A contentious provision in the bill introduces stricter work requirements for SNAP recipients, mandating parents of children aged 7 to 17 to work 80 hours a month. However, married couples with children in the same age group are only required to have one parent work, sparking concerns about fairness and equity. Single parents, predominantly mothers, who account for 80% of single-parent households according to US census data, may struggle to balance work and childcare responsibilities. Homeless people, veterans, pregnant women and those under 18 or over 64 are also exempt from the work requirements. "Subjecting a single mom to having to go work while the mom who's married down the street doesn't have to, really shines the light on how inequitable and unfair this is," said Ed Bolen, a senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, according to a report by Axios. Carolyn Vega, associate director of policy at nonprofit Share Our Strength, is of the opinion that it is understood that some parents cannot work while taking care of their school-age kids, however the leniency is only extended to a certain type of parent. The bottomline here is that the White House is trying to encourage more people to stay at home to raise children and the vast majority of that segment is women. In a Mother's Day message, President Trump said he would work "to ensure that families can enjoy the highest standard of living on Earth on a single income." The particular vulnerability in the SNAP system is that even if children are guaranteed SNAP benefits, the overall household's food security can be significantly impacted when an adult loses SNAP benefits. This means the resources needed to purchase food, including SNAP benefits, might decrease for the entire family, leading to food insecurity despite children technically remaining eligible.
Axios
6 days ago
- General
- Axios
The "big beautiful bill" treats single parents differently
A buried provision in the " big beautiful bill" effectively penalizes single parents who receive SNAP, or food stamps, as compared to households headed by married couples. Why it matters: The provision is part of new stricter SNAP work requirements included in the bill, which are the first of their kind. Advocates for the disadvantaged say these proposed changes to the program will result in millions of Americans losing vital assistance. How it works: Basically, parents of children ages 7 to 17 must work 80 hours a month in order to qualify for SNAP benefits. But in households where parents are married, only one has to work. That means single parents with kids as young as 8 must work, while people who are married to a working adult don't have to. 80% of single-parent households are headed by mothers, per census data. Homeless people, veterans, pregnant women and those under 18 or over 64 are also exempt from the work requirements. What they're saying:" Subjecting a single mom to having to go work while the mom who's married down the street doesn't have to, really shines the light on how inequitable and unfair this is," says Ed Bolen, a senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The provision seems to acknowledge that some parents are not able to work while taking care of school-age kids, says Carolyn Vega, associate director of policy at nonprofit Share Our Strength, but only extends that understanding to a certain type of parent. "If you're married, then you could have one person in the couple as a stay-at-home parent, and only one person has to work," she says. "But if you're in any other kind of household arrangement, then everyone needs to be meeting the work requirements." Zoom out: If a parent loses food benefits, their children still would receive SNAP, but that doesn't mean kids escape unscathed from this provision. If an adult loses SNAP, food benefits still drop for their entire household. Between the lines: The White House is trying to find ways to encourage more parents to stay home to raise children. The vast majority of parents who stay home are women.
