Latest news with #KansasAppleseed
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
House Republicans Want to Force States to Cut SNAP for Them
House Republicans are pressing forward with a plan to cut billions of dollars from a critical nutrition program by forcing states to shoulder more of the cost, threatening benefits for roughly 42 million low-income Americans in red and blue states alike. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, has traditionally been fully funded by the federal government and administered by states. But this week, the House Agriculture Committee approved along party lines a measure that would slash more than $290 billion from SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. These cuts would be achieved in part by pushing a portion of benefit costs onto states, as well as requiring individual states to shoulder more of the administrative expenses. Haley Kottler, campaign director at Kansas Appleseed, an anti-hunger advocacy organization, described the potential changes as 'the most outlandish policy that I've seen on SNAP, maybe ever.' According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, requiring Kansas to pay for 25 percent of SNAP benefits would cost more than $100 million over six years. 'If these go through, it absolutely will wreak havoc on the program overall,' said Kottler. 'For one, we don't have that in our state budget right now, and two, lawmakers in Kansas do not have the political will to put any more money forth for SNAP.' If the bill passes both chambers of Congress, beginning in 2028, states would be forced to pay between 5 percent and 25 percent of SNAP benefits based on payment error rates. In 2023, more than half of all states had an error rate of higher than 10 percent, meaning that they would shoulder a quarter of the cost of SNAP. Kansas, for example, had an error rate of more than 12 percent in 2023. Kottler said that she was disheartened but 'not surprised' by the efforts to cut SNAP, as they echoed recent bills in her state's legislature to expand work requirements and shave program costs. She was skeptical of House Republican assertions that states would understand the shift in cost and would be able to pick up the slack. 'I'm a fifth-generation Kansan, and I've been working with our state legislature for six years now, and I've never heard them being interested in something like that,' said Kottler. Elaine Waxman, senior fellow in the Tax and Income Supports Division at the Urban Institute, noted that SNAP payment error rates increased amid the upheaval of the coronavirus pandemic and that the state offices administering the program remain understaffed and underfunded. Historically, states and the federal government have split the cost of administering SNAP evenly. Under this bill, states would now be responsible for 75 percent of administrative costs, which would make it even more difficult for them to balance supervising the program and providing benefits themselves. The bill would also lower a 'tolerance level' for SNAP error payments from $37 to $0, which would likely increase error rates across the board. 'You're [between] a rock and a hard place in that, OK, you have a higher error rate—in order to get your error rate down, or to implement other things that will reduce your costs, you need more administrative investment, probably. But where will that be coming from?' she said. 'You had an atypical situation the last few years, and so you're predicating the program on an atypical situation, but without diagnosing why things are the way they are, and what would be required to make them better.' As nearly every state has some form of balanced budget requirement, they may not have the leeway to expend greater funds on providing SNAP benefits. 'What states cannot do, that the federal government can, is they cannot infinitely borrow to run an entitlement program,' said Lauren Bauer, associate director of the Hamilton Project. 'Pushing things off onto states who do not have the capacities that the federal government does is a way to push responsibility onto people who don't have every tool that they would need to to prevent the shrinking of these programs.' States would have limited options for finding the funds to cover increased SNAP costs that Republicans are proposing. One potential route states might take would be eliminating 'broad-based categorical eligibility,' a policy that allows households to participate in the program if they qualify for certain other benefits. Eliminating this policy would increase bureaucratic red tape for families who would suddenly be dealing with a more complicated application process and potentially result in people losing their benefits. This, in turn, would affect access to other programs—for example, children would no longer be automatically enrolled in free school meals or immediately qualify for early childhood nutrition programs. 'Should this cost shift go through, states would have to pull back on this SNAP expansion, and leave people who need the program without a recourse,' said Salaam Bhatti, SNAP director at the Food Research and Action Center. 'It's not just a ripple effect that these proposals have. It's a shock wave.' SNAP can be considered an 'automatic stabilizer' during times of economic hardship because it allows for the rapid enrollment of people who are newly eligible due to job loss or other financial struggles. During the Great Recession and the coronavirus pandemic—which saw significant expansions in program benefits—SNAP was a key resource for Americans suddenly floundering in an unstable economic environment. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has estimated that every $1 spent on SNAP during a recession generates $1.50 in economic returns. 'Let's say that you're in a place where a lot of people have lost their jobs because a recession is starting, but more people go onto SNAP to help buffer that income decline. And so what does that mean? Well, they can still go to the grocery store and buy food. So what does that mean? Well, it means that the grocery store doesn't need to lay off one of their checkout people, or one of their shelf stockers,' said Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, an economist at Northwestern University who studies policies addressing child poverty. 'There's a multiplier effect.' With economists warning of a potential recession on the horizon—with uncertainty surrounding tariff policy simultaneously heightening and lessening worries of an economic downturn—cuts to SNAP would mean losing that automatic stabilization. A recent report co-authored by Waxman estimated that, should the U.S. enter a recession, states subject to a 10 percent cost share would need to spend an additional $980 million in the first year of the economic downturn to cover increased benefit costs. The report also found that if states did not increase spending, but instead reduced benefit amounts, all SNAP participants would face an average reduction in benefits by $327. Given that these changes would be implemented beginning in fiscal year 2028—crucially, after the 2026 midterm elections that will be a referendum on Republican guardianship of Congress—it's uncertain where the economy will be at that point. The potential changes to SNAP are not happening in a vacuum—the cuts are part of a massive package to slash federal spending and extend tax breaks that Republicans are currently trying to muscle through both chambers of Congress, through an arcane process known as 'budget reconciliation.' The bill also includes cuts to Medicaid that could result in millions of low-income people losing their coverage at the same time that they see changes to SNAP benefits, even as losses in SNAP benefits are associated with poorer health outcomes. 'Ironically, if you're cutting SNAP, you may push that pressure over onto the Medicaid program … at the same time that you're looking at cutting Medicaid,' said Waxman. While shifting more costs onto states would comprise roughly half of the $290 billion in proposed cuts to SNAP, tightening work requirements would slash an additional $92 billion in spending. Currently, able-bodied adults without children under age 54 can receive SNAP benefits for only three months over a three-year period unless they are able to prove that they are fulfilling a 20-hour-per-week work requirement or are disabled. The Republican plan would lift that cap to able-bodied adults without dependents up to age 64. It would also tighten work requirements for parents; instead of allowing parents with children under age 18 to be exempt from work requirements, those exemptions would only apply to parents with children under age 7. Research by Bauer has shown that SNAP work requirements do not meaningfully increase employment, and lead to a decrease in program participation. It's uncertain whether the cuts to SNAP will pass as is, given that the reconciliation bill still needs to pass the House, and some senators have appeared skeptical about changes to federal benefit programs. Efforts to address some issues in the reconciliation bill that would normally be part of the farm bill—the massive legislation that oversees nutrition, agriculture, and conservation policy—may also run afoul of Senate rules. Still, even with changes to the bill on the horizon, the proposal to slash SNAP spending indicates where Republican priorities lie. Bauer argued that the intention of the cuts to SNAP did not fulfill the program's purpose of assisting low-income Americans but that instead they were merely concerned with cutting the federal deficit. 'This program right now is about reducing human suffering, getting people back on their feet, improving nutrition and food security outcomes, preventing hunger, stimulating local economies, helping rural economies, helping rural grocery stores, helping all grocery stores,' said Bauer. 'All of the proposals that are in this bill are cost-cutting. That's why they're there.'
Yahoo
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lawsuit challenges ‘unconstitutional' Kansas law cutting grace period for mail-in ballots
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways A lawsuit filed May 5, 2025, is challenging a Senate Bill 4 that eliminated the 3-day grace period for mail-in ballots. (Maya Smith for Kansas Reflector) TOPEKA — Three advocacy organizations filed a lawsuit Monday in Douglas County District Court challenging the Kansas Legislature's attempt to 'arbitrarily' reject advance ballots of voters if the mail system fails to deliver them by Election Day. Kansas Appleseed, Loud Light and Disability Rights Center of Kansas are asking the court to find Senate Bill 4 unconstitutional. Defendants are Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab and Douglas County Clerk Jamie Shew. SB 4, which the Legislature passed this year, disqualifies any mail-in ballots not received by 7 p.m. on Election Day. Previously, mail-in ballots were counted if they were postmarked by Election Day and arrived within three days later. Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed SB4 but that veto was overturned in both chambers, with votes falling along party lines. In a statement, the three advocacy organizations called SB 4 a 'deliberate and unconstitutional assault on Kansans' fundamental right to vote.' 'This reckless law carelessly disregards the realities of postal delivery delays, which will disproportionately harm rural, elderly, and disabled voters,' the statement said. 'Furthermore, this law deliberately undermines the will of Kansas voters who have increasingly chosen to vote by mail in recent election cycles.' In the lawsuit, the advocacy organizations make a point that Kansans have been voting by mail ever since the Civil War. In 2017, the Legislature recognized that mail-in ballots arriving late deprived voters of their right to vote, and they instituted the three-day grace period. During legislative debate on SB4, former Rep. Ann Mah, a Topeka Democrat, called the bill 'pure partisan politics.' Statistics show far more Democrats than Republicans use mail-in ballots, and she noted the bill's lack of funding for an education program that would inform citizens of the change. More Democratic votes would be rejected than Republican votes, Mah said. 'If you make this change and do not fund an education program, you're intentionally causing thousands of votes to be thrown out,' she said. 'That's voter suppression.' The lawsuit said 32,000 mail-in ballots were received after Election Day in the 2020 general election during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the 2024 general election, 2,110 ballots arrived during the grace period. In Douglas County, Shew said he rejected more than 200 ballots in the Aug. 6, 2024, primary for arriving after the grace period, even though they were postmarked in July, the lawsuit said. 'SB 4's threat of disenfranchisement is particularly acute for some of Kansas's most vulnerable populations,' the lawsuit said. 'The elderly and Kansans with disabilities often have little to no choice but to vote by mail. And rural voters and voters who are temporarily out-of-state, such as many college students, will also be disproportionately affected because their mail is less likely to be delivered in a timely manner.' The lawsuit said the state of Kansas mails its ballots just 20 days before elections, unlike other states that send them out 30-45 days in advance. Kansas ties with Iowa as the two states with the shortest turnaround time, the filing said. SB4 is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause that bans the state from arbitrarily rejecting voters' ballots based on their geography and whether the post office did its job effectively, the lawsuit said. 'Its due process clause requires that Kansas establish adequate procedures to ensure that voters have a reliable, fair, and effective method to cast their ballots,' it said.
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.'
Yahoo
28-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Group homes could make a comeback in Kansas
WICHITA, Kan. (KSNW) – State-funded group homes for juvenile offenders could be making a comeback. Some Sedgwick County leaders are pushing for the change. The district attorney and some county commissioners say the foster care system is overwhelmed. For years, there have been reports of kids having to sleep overnight in offices. It's something Sedgwick County Commissioner Jim Howell says is particularly affecting juvenile offenders. 'There is not a group home placement for these kids,' Howell said. 'They cannot be placed in foster care reasonably or safely, they can't really go home, then where do we put these kids?' '(We need to be) giving judges another option other than sending them home or sending them to the functional equivalent of a juvenile prison,' said Sedgwick County District Attorney Marc Bennett. Howell and Bennett say bringing back group homes would be a solution. A 2016 bill got rid of existing state-funded group homes. A new bill in the legislature, HB 2329, would bring them back on a smaller scale. 'Create beds where appropriate in some parts of our state, surely some of those would go to Sedgwick County,' Howell said. I'm not asking to go back to 300 beds in our state.' It would use $10 million of the funds the state saved up from shutting down the old group homes to create at least 40 group home beds. Some say that funding has successfully paid for community alternatives in some areas. 'That money really is specifically supposed to be used for evidence-based community alternatives to detention,' said Mike Fonkert with Kansas Appleseed. 'My understanding is what they're kind of proposing here is not evidence-based.' Bennett and Howell say the way the money is currently being used hasn't been effective. 'I know this: If we don't do something and then the years pass, there will be no such options,' said Fonkert. He says he could get behind the bill if there were more parameters, like a limit on the number of group home beds that could be created. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
