Latest news with #KatieBergh
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Senate GOP aims to pare back proposed food stamp work requirements for parents in Trump megabill
The Senate Agriculture Committee is proposing some notable changes to the controversial food stamp provisions in the House-approved version of Republicans' megabill. The committee, which unveiled its proposal on Wednesday, would dial back the introduction of work requirements for parents of dependent children in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, the formal name for food stamps. The Senate version would mandate that parents of children ages 10 and older work to maintain their benefits, while the House package would impose that requirement on parents of children ages 7 and older. Currently, parents of dependent children are exempt from the program's work mandate. (A summary released by the committee said that the work requirement would apply to parents of children over age 10, which conflicts with the text of the proposal. A committee spokeswoman confirmed to CNN that the provision would apply to parents of 10-year-olds and older children.) The Senate committee also drops the exemptions for veterans, people experiencing homelessness and young adults who have aged out of foster care, according to Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy House version includes the exemptions but ends them in 2030. Like the House version, the Senate would expand the food stamp program's existing work requirements to able-bodied adults ages 55 through 64 and would curtail states' ability to receive work requirement waivers in difficult economic times, limiting them only to areas with unemployment rates above 10%. Both versions would also bar refugees, those granted asylum and certain survivors of domestic violence or labor or sex trafficking, among other immigrants with legal status, from receiving food stamps. Currently, adults ages 18 to 54 without dependent children can only receive food stamps for three months over a 36-month period unless they work 20 hours a week or are eligible for an exemption. The Senate measure aims at 'helping recipients transition to self-sufficiency through work and training. It's about being good stewards of taxpayer dollars while giving folks the tools to succeed,' Arkansas Sen. John Boozman, the committee's chair, said in a statement. But advocates lashed out at the Senate plan, saying it would worsen hunger in the US. Some 42 million people receive food stamps. 'The proposal would also take food assistance away from millions of parents and grandparents who are working but get tangled in red tape, have a health condition but fall through the cracks and don't get an exemption, or are between jobs and need temporary help,' Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said in a statement. Senators in multiple committees are currently negotiating pieces of the House's sweeping tax and spending cuts bill, which aims to fulfill President Donald Trump's agenda. The House, which passed the package last month, would enact the deepest cuts to food stamps in the program's history – reducing federal spending by nearly $300 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The work requirement provision would result in 3.2 million fewer people receiving benefits in an average month between 2025 and 2034, according to a preliminary CBO estimate of the House bill. That includes 800,000 adults who live with dependent children. Both the Senate and House versions would require that states start covering part of the cost of food stamp benefits for the first time, though the Senate committee is calling for a smaller share. States' tab would depend on their payment error rate in the program. In the Senate version, states with error rates below 6% would not have to contribute to the cost of benefits. The amount would then ratchet up in stages, with states that have error rates of 10% or more paying a 15% share. The House version would require all states to shoulder at least 5% of the cost and as much as 25% for those with error rates of at least 10%. Both versions would increase states' share of the program's administrative costs to 75%, from 50%. Advocates and state officials have warned that asking states to pick up more of the costs would have dire consequences. 'Shifting the financial burden of SNAP onto states is fiscally unsustainable and risks harming the very individuals and families the program is designed to support,' Tim Storey, CEO of the National Conference of State Legislatures, wrote to House Agriculture Committee leaders last month. State agencies are 'already underfunded and understaffed,' said Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center, in a statement Wednesday. Shifting more of the cost to states would leave 'strained state budgets unable to absorb the added burden without raising taxes, cutting programs, or reducing access.' How states would respond to having to pay for a share of the food stamp benefits would vary, but some 'would modify benefits or eligibility and possibly leave the program altogether because of the increased costs,' according to a preliminary CBO analysis of the House bill. The provision would lead states to reduce or eliminate food stamp benefits for about 1.3 million people in an average month over the decade, CBO estimates.
CNN
2 days ago
- Politics
- CNN
Senate GOP aims to pare back proposed food stamp work requirements for parents in Trump megabill
The Senate Agriculture Committee is proposing some notable changes to the controversial food stamp provisions in the House-approved version of Republicans' megabill. The committee, which unveiled its proposal on Wednesday, would dial back the introduction of work requirements for parents of dependent children in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, the formal name for food stamps. The Senate version would mandate that parents of children ages 10 and older work to maintain their benefits, while the House package would impose that requirement on parents of children ages 7 and older. Currently, parents of dependent children are exempt from the program's work mandate. (A summary released by the committee said that the work requirement would apply to parents of children over age 10, which conflicts with the text of the proposal. A committee spokeswoman confirmed to CNN that the provision would apply to parents of 10-year-olds and older children.) The Senate committee also drops the exemptions for veterans, people experiencing homelessness and young adults who have aged out of foster care, according to Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy House version includes the exemptions but ends them in 2030. Like the House version, the Senate would expand the food stamp program's existing work requirements to able-bodied adults ages 55 through 64 and would curtail states' ability to receive work requirement waivers in difficult economic times, limiting them only to areas with unemployment rates above 10%. Both versions would also bar refugees, those granted asylum and certain survivors of domestic violence or labor or sex trafficking, among other immigrants with legal status, from receiving food stamps. Currently, adults ages 18 to 54 without dependent children can only receive food stamps for three months over a 36-month period unless they work 20 hours a week or are eligible for an exemption. The Senate measure aims at 'helping recipients transition to self-sufficiency through work and training. It's about being good stewards of taxpayer dollars while giving folks the tools to succeed,' Arkansas Sen. John Boozman, the committee's chair, said in a statement. But advocates lashed out at the Senate plan, saying it would worsen hunger in the US. Some 42 million people receive food stamps. 'The proposal would also take food assistance away from millions of parents and grandparents who are working but get tangled in red tape, have a health condition but fall through the cracks and don't get an exemption, or are between jobs and need temporary help,' Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said in a statement. Senators in multiple committees are currently negotiating pieces of the House's sweeping tax and spending cuts bill, which aims to fulfill President Donald Trump's agenda. The House, which passed the package last month, would enact the deepest cuts to food stamps in the program's history – reducing federal spending by nearly $300 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The work requirement provision would result in 3.2 million fewer people receiving benefits in an average month between 2025 and 2034, according to a preliminary CBO estimate of the House bill. That includes 800,000 adults who live with dependent children. Both the Senate and House versions would require that states start covering part of the cost of food stamp benefits for the first time, though the Senate committee is calling for a smaller share. States' tab would depend on their payment error rate in the program. In the Senate version, states with error rates below 6% would not have to contribute to the cost of benefits. The amount would then ratchet up in stages, with states that have error rates of 10% or more paying a 15% share. The House version would require all states to shoulder at least 5% of the cost and as much as 25% for those with error rates of at least 10%. Both versions would increase states' share of the program's administrative costs to 75%, from 50%. Advocates and state officials have warned that asking states to pick up more of the costs would have dire consequences. 'Shifting the financial burden of SNAP onto states is fiscally unsustainable and risks harming the very individuals and families the program is designed to support,' Tim Storey, CEO of the National Conference of State Legislatures, wrote to House Agriculture Committee leaders last month. State agencies are 'already underfunded and understaffed,' said Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center, in a statement Wednesday. Shifting more of the cost to states would leave 'strained state budgets unable to absorb the added burden without raising taxes, cutting programs, or reducing access.' How states would respond to having to pay for a share of the food stamp benefits would vary, but some 'would modify benefits or eligibility and possibly leave the program altogether because of the increased costs,' according to a preliminary CBO analysis of the House bill. The provision would lead states to reduce or eliminate food stamp benefits for about 1.3 million people in an average month over the decade, CBO estimates.
CNN
2 days ago
- Politics
- CNN
Senate GOP aims to pare back proposed food stamp work requirements for parents in Trump megabill
The Senate Agriculture Committee is proposing some notable changes to the controversial food stamp provisions in the House-approved version of Republicans' megabill. The committee, which unveiled its proposal on Wednesday, would dial back the introduction of work requirements for parents of dependent children in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, the formal name for food stamps. The Senate version would mandate that parents of children ages 10 and older work to maintain their benefits, while the House package would impose that requirement on parents of children ages 7 and older. Currently, parents of dependent children are exempt from the program's work mandate. (A summary released by the committee said that the work requirement would apply to parents of children over age 10, which conflicts with the text of the proposal. A committee spokeswoman confirmed to CNN that the provision would apply to parents of 10-year-olds and older children.) The Senate committee also drops the exemptions for veterans, people experiencing homelessness and young adults who have aged out of foster care, according to Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy House version includes the exemptions but ends them in 2030. Like the House version, the Senate would expand the food stamp program's existing work requirements to able-bodied adults ages 55 through 64 and would curtail states' ability to receive work requirement waivers in difficult economic times, limiting them only to areas with unemployment rates above 10%. Both versions would also bar refugees, those granted asylum and certain survivors of domestic violence or labor or sex trafficking, among other immigrants with legal status, from receiving food stamps. Currently, adults ages 18 to 54 without dependent children can only receive food stamps for three months over a 36-month period unless they work 20 hours a week or are eligible for an exemption. The Senate measure aims at 'helping recipients transition to self-sufficiency through work and training. It's about being good stewards of taxpayer dollars while giving folks the tools to succeed,' Arkansas Sen. John Boozman, the committee's chair, said in a statement. But advocates lashed out at the Senate plan, saying it would worsen hunger in the US. Some 42 million people receive food stamps. 'The proposal would also take food assistance away from millions of parents and grandparents who are working but get tangled in red tape, have a health condition but fall through the cracks and don't get an exemption, or are between jobs and need temporary help,' Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said in a statement. Senators in multiple committees are currently negotiating pieces of the House's sweeping tax and spending cuts bill, which aims to fulfill President Donald Trump's agenda. The House, which passed the package last month, would enact the deepest cuts to food stamps in the program's history – reducing federal spending by nearly $300 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The work requirement provision would result in 3.2 million fewer people receiving benefits in an average month between 2025 and 2034, according to a preliminary CBO estimate of the House bill. That includes 800,000 adults who live with dependent children. Both the Senate and House versions would require that states start covering part of the cost of food stamp benefits for the first time, though the Senate committee is calling for a smaller share. States' tab would depend on their payment error rate in the program. In the Senate version, states with error rates below 6% would not have to contribute to the cost of benefits. The amount would then ratchet up in stages, with states that have error rates of 10% or more paying a 15% share. The House version would require all states to shoulder at least 5% of the cost and as much as 25% for those with error rates of at least 10%. Both versions would increase states' share of the program's administrative costs to 75%, from 50%. Advocates and state officials have warned that asking states to pick up more of the costs would have dire consequences. 'Shifting the financial burden of SNAP onto states is fiscally unsustainable and risks harming the very individuals and families the program is designed to support,' Tim Storey, CEO of the National Conference of State Legislatures, wrote to House Agriculture Committee leaders last month. State agencies are 'already underfunded and understaffed,' said Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center, in a statement Wednesday. Shifting more of the cost to states would leave 'strained state budgets unable to absorb the added burden without raising taxes, cutting programs, or reducing access.' How states would respond to having to pay for a share of the food stamp benefits would vary, but some 'would modify benefits or eligibility and possibly leave the program altogether because of the increased costs,' according to a preliminary CBO analysis of the House bill. The provision would lead states to reduce or eliminate food stamp benefits for about 1.3 million people in an average month over the decade, CBO estimates.
Newsweek
29-04-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
Trump Administration Could Make States Pay Billions for SNAP Benefits
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. The Trump administration could shift a considerable burden for funding Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits from the federal government to state agencies. Why It Matters SNAP benefits are paid to low- and no-income households across the United States that would otherwise struggle to afford groceries. The program reached some 41 million Americans in 2024. Benefits are funded entirely by the federal government, with states required to pay 50 percent of the administrative costs. What To Know GOP lawmakers are considering making states take on more of the cost of the anti-poverty program, Politico reported. It comes as the House Agriculture Committee, which oversees SNAP, weighs a House-approved budget plan that instructs a $230 billion cut in federal spending over the next decade. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the USDA oversees SNAP at the federal level. In 2023, total federal spending on the program was $112.8 billion. At the local level, state agencies manage the program by determining household eligibility and distributing benefits accordingly. Stock image of a person paying at a grocery store checkout counter. Stock image of a person paying at a grocery store checkout counter. GETTY One proposal under consideration would gradually require states to cover 22.5 percent of SNAP food benefit costs over the next 10 years. However, talks are still ongoing, with the committee expected to deliver its mark-up of the budget in early May. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a left-leaning think tank, has estimated that once fully phased in by 2034, this cost-sharing requirement would add approximately $23.65 billion in new expenses across state budgets for that year alone. "States are required to balance their budgets each year, so taking on any additional costs would require them to raise an equal amount of revenue or cut funding for other programs and services that people rely on," Katie Bergh, senior policy analyst at CBPP, said. What People Are Saying Ben Goldey, a spokesperson for Agriculture Committee Chair Glenn "GT" Thompson, told Newsweek: "The Chairman is doing his due diligence to leave no stone unturned in finding reforms that will curb wasteful spending and that includes looking at how states administer SNAP, which spends over $13 billion per year in erroneous payments. All options to rein in that waste and incentivize better state administration of the program are on the table." CBPP analyst Katie Bergh: "Because states likely wouldn't be able to fully fill in the dramatic hole in federal SNAP funding this proposal would create, they would need to take away some or all of people's food assistance, leaving many low-income households unable to afford groceries." What Happens Next The House Agriculture Committee is still considering the budget resolution. According to Politico, a markup of the spending is expected around May 7-8.
Axios
09-03-2025
- Health
- Axios
What cutting junk foods from SNAP could mean for millions of recipients
Some Trump administration officials citing health concerns are looking to remove "junk food" from a federal food assistance program serving more than 41 million Americans. The big picture: A ban on any foods in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program could be particularly paramount for recipients living in food deserts who don't have access to nutritious foods nearby. A ban would require action through Congress. Late last month, House Republicans voted to pass a budget resolution that sets the stage for $230 billion or more in cuts to agriculture programs, with a large chunk expected to come from SNAP. State of play: The Food and Nutrition Act defines food for SNAP purposes as any food or food product for home consumption, with some limited exceptions like alcoholic beverages or hot foods for immediate consumption. In order to narrow that definition, either Congress would need to change the law or a state would need to propose and get approval for a demonstration project to test that, Katie Bergh, senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told Axios. "This is something that we've seen a handful of states request in the past, where they essentially are asking the Department of Agriculture to approve a request to restrict the foods that SNAP participants within their state can purchase in some form," she said. But no such requests has ever been approved under either Republican or Democratic presidents, including under the first Trump administration. Catch up quick: Newly-confirmed Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins have indicated they're in favor of removing sugary drinks and processed foods from SNAP. "The one place that I would say that we need to really change policy is the SNAP program and food stamps and in school lunches," Kennedy said on Fox News last month. "There, the federal government in many cases is paying for it. And we shouldn't be subsidizing people to eat poison." Rollins echoed the sentiment, telling reporters at the White House, "When a taxpayer is putting money into SNAP, are they OK with us using their tax dollars to feed really bad food and sugary drinks to children who perhaps need something more nutritious?" By the numbers: More than 41 million people in the U.S. received SNAP benefits in 2024. The average SNAP benefit per person in fiscal year 2025 is $6.16 per day, according to estimates from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Zoom in: There are a number of risks with the proposal to cut foods from SNAP, including logistical and cost concerns, access in food desserts, equity issues and questions over how to measure success and behavioral changes among consumers. Anything that increases administrative burden affects other parts of the program at the state level, Gina Plata-Nino, SNAP Deputy Director at the Food Research & Action Center, told Axios. Case in point: There would be a large impact on retailers. Those that are not large scale like Walmart, with resources to change markings on SNAP-approved foods, could decide not to operate the program at their stores at all. Deciding which foods to cut also presents questions on how to define and measure junk foods, Plata-Nino said, questioning whether it'll be through sodium or sugar content. Orange juice, for example, has a lot of sugar but is important for diabetics having medical issues, she noted. Cheese has a higher content of sodium than some chips, and milk has a higher fat content than other drinks. "Are we going to ban milk and cheese?" she questioned. Food deserts are areas where residents have limited access to affordable and healthy food, particularly fresh fruits and vegetables. In such areas, individuals may be driving two hours each way to a grocery store and so they're unable to go as often, Gina Plata-Nino said. Because fresh produce doesn't last a month until they're able to go again, people there may buy food in bulk, processed items that last longer or opt for frozen options — foods that could potentially be cut under the proposal. Between the lines: The diets of Americans across income levels are falling short of what experts recommend. Bergh said aside from feasibility and cost concerns, the premise of the junk food cutting effort is "fundamentally misguided." "Contrary to some of the claims that proponents of these efforts have been making, there's actually pretty extensive research linking SNAP participation to better health outcomes and lower medical costs," Bergh said, noting limited data on what SNAP participants buy. What she's saying: The data available shows there's no meaningful difference in the types of foods people are purchasing with SNAP versus other payment methods. "So it's pretty troubling that the solutions being proposed here are ones that really only single out the lowest income Americans in a way that's really stigmatizing and burdensome for them," Bergh said. "Just as a basic principle, everyone should have the same ability to choose the foods that best meet their needs regardless of how I'm paying at the checkout line." Go deeper: America's food aid gap, mapped
