Latest news with #TANF
Politico
2 days ago
- Politics
- Politico
OMB director flatly denies megabill represents an attack on the social safety net
President Donald Trump's top budget officer is playing down concerns among Republican senators that the administration's sweeping megabill will add to the budget deficit and result in politically punishing Medicaid cuts. 'We continue to work with people in the Senate as to working them through the specifics of the bill, what it does and what it doesn't do,' Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought told CNN's Dana Bash on Sunday on 'State of the Union.' 'We'll continue to do that. And I think at the end of the day, the Senate will have a resounding vote in favor of a substantially similar bill. Trump's domestic policy package, which passed the House by a single vote in May, faces a rocky road in the Senate. One obstacle: Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, as well as Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), have all signaled discomfort in the face of potential cuts to Medicaid. Despite Trump's insistence in April that there would be no cuts to the critical health program, a Congressional Budget Office report last month estimated 10.3 million people would lose coverage if the Medicaid portions of the megabill see daylight. Vought, who previously served as one of the chief architects of the much-maligned Project 2025 initiative, flatly denied that the bill represented an attack on social safety net programs. 'I think they're totally ridiculous. This is astroturf. This bill will preserve and protect the programs, the social safety net, but it will make it much more common sense,' Vought told Bash. 'Look, one out of every $5 or $6 in Medicaid is improper. We have illegal immigrants on the program. We have able-bodied working adults that don't have a work requirement that they would have in TANF or even SNAP. And those are something that's very important to institute. That's what this bill does. No one will lose coverage as a result of this bill.' Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock represents the only state with a work requirement program for Medicaid eligibility. Less than 7,000 people were enrolled in the first 18 months of Georgia's Pathways to Coverage initiative, vastly fewer than the state's initial expectations. And the project has been beset by administrative costs. 'The data clearly shows that if you want to get people to work, the way to do that is to provide them just basic health care so that they don't get sick,' Warnock, a Democrat, told Kristen Welker on NBC's 'Meet the Press,' also on Sunday. 'And what they're trying to do now is take this terrible experiment in Georgia, force it on the whole nation. And what we will see as a result of that is a workforce that is sicker and poorer and an economy that's weaker.' Deficit hawks, including Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson and Elon Musk, have also played up concerns about the bill's impact on the debt. 'I think that's the Titanic,' Johnson said in May. Johnson has said he has enough allies in the Senate to stop the process absent what he sees as adequate spending reductions. Musk told CBS he thinks the bill would increase the deficit and 'undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing.' 'I love Elon, this bill doesn't increase the deficit or hurt the debt,' Vought told Bash on Sunday. 'In fact, it lowers it by $1.4 trillion.'
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Social Services explains Medicaid work proposal
PIERRE, S.D. (KELO) — South Dakota's proposal to place work, training and education requirements on some of the adults who receive Medicaid benefits might not be submitted for federal approval, according to several of the state government officials who have overseen its design. South Dakota Social Services Secretary Matt Althoff and state Medicaid director Heather Petermann outlined the proposal called SD Career Link on Friday, first to an advisory board, and later at a general public meeting. SFPD: 7 confirmed overdose deaths so far in 2025 They said Congress is considering a variety of stricter Medicaid work requirements that recently received approval from the U.S. House of Representatives as part of the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' and now await formal action in the U.S. Senate. South Dakota's possible changes would affect only those men and women who became eligible for Medicaid benefits after South Dakota voters in 2022 approved expanding the maximum household income to qualify. What had been 100% of the federal poverty level was raised to 138%. In April, South Dakota provided Medicaid benefits to 147,234 women, men and children. Those include 30,542 men and women who became eligible as a result of the expanded income threshold. The proposed work, training and education requirements would apply only to those in the expansion group. Althoff said South Dakota already has work, training and education requirements for adults whose households receive SNAP, TANF and child-assistance benefits. He said work is a component for many of the department's programs. 'Some of what we're doing today has become an exercise in futility,' Althoff acknowledged to the state Board of Social Services on Friday morning. He said South Dakota's proposal would continue to go forward on a contingent basis because of uncertainty about the federal legislation at the congressional level and the Trump White House. South Dakota's proposal would need approval from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Board member Howard Grinager of Sioux Falls asked whether South Dakota could still submit its plan as a variation that works best for South Dakota, even if Congress passes its legislation. Althoff replied that he doesn't know what will happen in Congress or whether President Donald Trump would sign Medicaid-related legislation into federal law. 'So everything is entirely speculative,' Althoff said. 'It's premature for me to answer that question.' South Dakota's proposal wouldn't require applicants to provide any proof of work, training or education up front. Their compliance would be checked when they apply for renewals each year. The federal legislation as passed by the U.S. House, on the other hand, would require applicants to show right away that they are working at least 80 hours per month, or spending at least 80 hours per month in community service, or attending work training at least 80 hours per month, or taking education courses on at least a half-time basis, or some combination totaling at least 80 hours per month. The federal legislation also more aggressively calls for renewals twice a year, while South Dakota currently requires annual renewals. The federal legislation exempts all people who are Indian Health Service beneficiaries, as well as people who have recently been released from incarceration in prisons and jails, while South Dakota's proposal doesn't at this point. Medicaid director Petermann said approximately 80% of the roughly 30,000 adults currently enrolled under the expanded income threshold would already meet South Dakota's proposed work, training and education requirement or would be specifically exempt. She said South Dakota's proposed exemptions would include adults with mental and physical disabilities, pregnant and postpartum women, and people living in a geographic area with high unemployment rates. There also would be what Petermann described as 'good cause exemptions' that would be reviewed internally for acceptance. As to the proposal's potential impact, Petermann said that is difficult to estimate. She said the expectation is a 5 to 10% reduction after the first year, and the numbers would stabilize in subsequent years. Added Althoff, 'There are a lot of assumptions the department has no control over.' South Dakota currently is in the middle of a public-comment period on the proposal. A second public session is scheduled for June 12 in Sioux Falls. Written public comments will be accepted through June 18. Althoff said South Dakota's three members of Congress have been in 'active dialogue' with Gov. Larry Rhoden's administration. Board member Colleen Winter of Pierre, a former state Department of Health employee, asked about administrative costs for monitoring. Petermann said there would be some costs for system upgrades. 'We don't know for sure how much those things would cost at this point, especially because you have to have approval first,' Petermann said. Althoff added, 'The voters voted on something that didn't have a cost component to it.' He said the Medicaid expansion benefits have been running less than two calendar years and state government is still watching and learning about how much the expansion beneficiaries are costing and how frequently they're using the services. The department would need to administer the work, training and education portion within the existing budget, according to Althoff. 'Not having new funds and new money for that is an important wrinkle to our process,' he said. Board member Grinager said the message behind the proposal is that work has a beneficial part in people's lives. 'It's not just a requirement for requirement's sake. We're going to start gently and let people work into it,' he said. 'So I really appreciate the approach that you, our department, has taken in putting this together.' Said Winter, 'It's very respectful of the individuals that we serve and are in need of services.' The public information session that followed was offered primarily by teleconference. It drew only a handful of people to the call and the only ones in the meeting room were DSS officials and a news reporter. One person spoke during the public comment period. Nathaniel Amdur-Clark, a lawyer representing the Great Plains Tribal Chairmen's Association, said the department wasn't following the federal pattern of government to government consultations with each tribe. Amdur-Clark said the proposal as currently written would have 'serious and deleterious effects' on tribal populations. He called for a specific exemption for Indian Health Service beneficiaries and pointed out a variety of other issues with the proposal, including a lack of follow-up with people who lost Medicaid coverage as a result of work, training and education requirements. Althoff said there was a tribal consultation meeting last week. He said there is a convention in South Dakota that there are quarterly meetings that rotate locations. 'There's also ways to arrive at a convention colloquially,' Althoff said. He said there was 'some very robust exchange and outstanding feedback received from that group last week.' When no one else responded to several prompts for comments, Althoff gave a closing summary. He stated, 'There's been no final determinations made.' He added that the department was responding to the wishes of South Dakota voters who last year approved allowing state government to pursue additional requirements. Althoff described the proposal as 'a very light touch approach to the requirement aspect' and 'a hope-filled approach,' noting that people would be allowed to seek medical care and have a year to find work or training or education. That, he said, is intended to offer 'a lift up' rather than be 'a hammer or lever.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Refinery29
5 days ago
- Politics
- Refinery29
America Must Remember That We All Belong
The first Trump administration unleashed a relentless assault on immigrant communities. Then came the pandemic, hitting communities of color and immigrant families the hardest. We spent years rebuilding — each moment testing us, threatening the safety of those we serve. But the past few weeks feel different. Just as we began to find our footing five years on, we've been thrust back into a crisis like no other. At the core of this fight is a fundamental question: Who belongs in America? The policies being enacted right now tell us that we who build and sustain this country do not belong. That immigrants do not belong. That queer people, people of color, children, and women do not belong. That our communities, which have been here for generations, that have built families, businesses, and movements on this soil — are here under sufferance, and that our freedom disrupts the white, patriarchal order of things. As executive directors and leaders of 10 immigrant rights organizations in New York City — spanning advocacy, social and health services, and critical community programs — we are witnessing a systematic dismantling of the protections and supports that have long been lifelines for our communities. With funding cuts threatening these essential services and increasing threats against our communities, the situation has become dire. Just outside our office doors, ICE agents walk the streets, deterring our community members from seeking the help they desperately need. They are increasingly met with walls — both literal and figurative. ' We refuse to accept policies that strip our communities of their dignity and their rights to freedom and security. ' A new brand of dehumanization is spreading across America, and it is terrifying. A wave of executive orders is directly targeting all members of our beloved communities — not just those who are undocumented or have limited documentation status, but also those who are living in poverty, queer people, people of color, women, and children. Federal policy changes — including executive orders on immigration enforcement, on gender ideology, and those terminating DEI programs — are chipping away at hard-won rights and resources for immigrant communities. Orders like executive Order 14159, which denies public benefits like Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and housing assistance to undocumented individuals, leaving survivors with nowhere to turn for basic necessities. But, in 2025, we refuse to accept this vision. We refuse to accept policies that strip our communities of their dignity and their rights to freedom and security. We are alarmed not only by what our organizations are facing but by the broader trajectory of our country. Though we write this anonymously, aware of the scrutiny and risks our organizations may face, we believe it is imperative to speak out. With the stroke of a pen, decades of progress in protecting immigrant communities, people of color, LGBTQIA+ individuals, survivors of gender-based violence, those with diverse abilities, women and children are being swiftly unraveled. ICE raids are sweeping across New York City, targeting those who have fled harm, many of whom are living in temporary housing. Caregivers are afraid to send their children to school because they might be targeted by ICE. Food pantries and community healthcare centers are seeing a sudden drop in participants because people would rather go hungry and risk their health than risk deportation. Because one's immigration status can be weaponized against them, survivors of gender-based violence will go into further hiding, forced to make an impossible choice: endure abuse or face deportation. The Laken Riley Act mandates detention for undocumented individuals charged with theft-related crimes, a policy that disproportionately impacts immigrant survivors by providing abusers and landlords with yet another tool to threaten and control them through the fear of ICE involvement and deportation. As we continue to fight, we feel deeply abandoned by philanthropy and government alike. Many foundations are taking a "wait and see" approach, hesitant to make investments in organizations that work on diversity, equity, and inclusion. Individual donors tell us they appreciate our work but fear being placed on a government watch list if they make a gift. Without solid investments from philanthropy — whether institutional or individual — our work will cease to exist. ' Let us move toward an America that lives up to the promise that all of us belong — not one we've necessarily known, but one we've long fought for. ' Let us move toward an America that lives up to the promise that all of us belong — not one we've necessarily known, but one we've long fought for. An America where policy is no longer wielded as a weapon against its people, but shaped by the values of liberation and justice. The America that acknowledges the trauma our communities have carried for generations and seeks to break cycles of violence instead of reinforcing them. To get there, we need action. We need sanctuary policies that truly keep people safe. We need funding for organizations like ours, who are doing the frontline work to ensure that communities can thrive. The exhaustion so many of us feel right now is real but we as leaders cannot afford to retreat into fatigue. We cannot blindly believe that because we survived the first Trump administration, we will survive this one. This time, the policies are more strategic, more ruthless, and more systematically implemented. This time, they are designed to eliminate the very organizations that have fought to protect the fabric of America. And we need all of us to show up — to fight against these policies, to protect one another, and to refuse to be silenced.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
There's no evidence work requirements for Medicaid recipients will boost employment, but they are a key piece of Republican spending bill
Republicans in the U.S. Senate are sparring over their version of the multitrillion-dollar budget and immigration bill the House of Representatives passed on May 22, 2025. Some GOP senators are insisting on shrinking the budget deficit, which the House version would increase by about US$3.8 trillion over a decade. Others are saying they oppose the House's cost-cutting provisions for Medicaid, the government's health insurance program for people who are low income or have disabilities. Despite the calls from U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri and a few other Republican senators to protect Medicaid, as a scholar of American social policy I'm expecting to see the Senate embrace the introduction of work requirements for many adults under 65 who get health insurance through the program. The House version calls for the states, which administer Medicaid within their borders and help pay for the program, to adopt work requirements by the end of 2026. The effect of this policy, animated by the conviction that coverage is too generous and too easy to obtain, will be to deny Medicaid eligibility to millions of those currently covered – leaving them without access to basic health services, including preventive care and the management of ongoing conditions such as asthma or diabetes. The notion that people who get government benefits should prove that they deserve them, ideally through paid labor, is now centuries old. This conviction underlay the Victorian workhouses in 19th-century England that Charles Dickens critiqued through his novels. U.S. Rep. Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., put it bluntly earlier this month: Medicaid is 'subsidizing capable adults who choose not to work,' he said. This idea also animated the development of the American welfare state, from its origins in the 1930s organized around the goals of maintaining civil order and compelling paid labor. Enforcing work obligations ensured the ready availability of low-wage labor and supported the growing assumption that only paid labor could redeem the lives and aspirations of the poor. 'We started offering hope and opportunity along with the welfare check,' Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson argued in the early 1990s, 'and expecting certain responsibilities in return.' This concept also was at the heart of the U.S. government's bid to end 'welfare as we know it.' In 1996, the Democratic Clinton administration replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children, or AFDC, a long-standing entitlement to cash assistance for low-income families, with Temporary Aid for Needy Families, known commonly as TANF. The TANF program, as its name indicates, was limited to short-term support, with the expectation that most people getting these benefits would soon gain long-term employment. Since 1996, Republicans serving at the state and federal levels of government have pressed to extend this principle to other programs that help low-income people. They've insisted, as President Donald Trump put it halfway through his first term, that unconditional benefits have 'delayed economic independence, perpetuated poverty, and weakened family bonds.' Such claims are unsupported. There is no evidence to suggest that work requirements have ever galvanized independence or lifted low-income people out of poverty. Instead, they have punished low-income people by denying them the benefits or assistance they require. Work requirements have consistently failed as a spur to employment. The transition from the AFDC to TANF required low-income families to meet work requirements, new administrative burdens and punitive sanctions. The new work expectations, rolled out in 1997, were not accompanied by supporting policies, especially the child care subsidies that many low-income parents with young children require to hold a job. They were also at odds with the very low-paying and unstable jobs available to those transitioning from welfare. Scholars found that TANF did less to lift families out of poverty than it did to shuffle its burden, helping the nearly poor at the expense of the very poor. The program took an especially large toll on low-income Black women, as work requirements exposed recipients to long-standing patterns of racial and gender discrimination in private labor markets. Work requirements tied to other government programs have similar track records. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which helps millions of Americans buy groceries, adopted work requirements for able-bodied adults in 1996. Researchers have found that SNAP's work requirements have pared back eligibility without any measurable increase in labor force participation. As happens with TANF, most people with SNAP benefits who have to comply with SNAP work requirements are already working to the degree their personal circumstances and local labor markets allow. The requirements don't encourage SNAP recipients to work more hours; they simply lead people to be overwhelmed by red tape and stop renewing their SNAP benefits. The logic of work requirements collapses entirely when extended to Medicaid. Red states have been pressing for years for waivers that would allow them to experiment with work requirements – especially for the abled-bodied, working-age adults who gained coverage under the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion. The first Trump administration granted 13 such waivers for what it saw as 'meritorious innovations,' building 'on the human dignity that comes with training, employment and independence.' Arkansas got the furthest with adding work requirements to Medicaid at that time. The results were disappointing. 'We found no evidence that the policy succeeded in its stated goal of promoting work,' as one research team concluded, 'and instead found substantial evidence of harm to health care coverage and access.' The Biden administration slowed down the implementation of these waivers by directing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to suspend or stem any state programs that eroded coverage. Meanwhile, state courts consistently ruled against the use of Medicaid work requirements. In Trump's second term, Iowa, Arizona and at least a dozen other states have proposed 'work requirement' waivers for federal approval. The waiver process is meant to allow state experiments to further the statutory objectives of the Medicaid program, which is to furnish 'medical assistance on behalf of families with dependent children and of aged, blind, or disabled individuals, whose income and resources are insufficient to meet the costs of necessary medical services.' On these grounds, the courts have consistently held that state waivers imposing work requirements not only fail to promote Medicaid's objectives but amount to an arbitrary and capricious effort to undermine those objectives. 'The text of the statute includes one primary purpose,' the D.C. Circuit ruled in 2020, 'which is providing health care coverage without any restriction geared to healthy outcomes, financial independence or transition to commercial coverage.' The House spending bill includes a work requirement that would require all able-bodied, childless adults under 65 to demonstrate that they had worked, volunteered or participated in job training for 80 hours in the month before enrollment. It would also allow states to extend such work requirements to six months and apply the new requirements not just to Medicaid recipients but to people who get subsidized health insurance through an Affordable Care Act exchange. If passed in some form by the Senate, the House spending bill would transform the landscape of Medicaid work requirements, pushing an estimated 4.8 million Americans into the ranks of the uninsured. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Colin Gordon, University of Iowa Read more: US safety net helps protect children from abuse and neglect, and some of those programs are threatened by proposed budget cuts Why do cuts to Medicaid matter for Americans over 65? 2 experts on aging explain why lives are at stake Social Security's trust fund could run out of money sooner than expected due to changes in taxes and benefits Colin Gordon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Who is running in Watertown in the June 17 election?
The City of Watertown is gearing up to hold its 2025 Municipal and School Board Elections. These occur on June 17, and the city believes this is your opportunity to help shape the future of our community. Below are key dates and details for voters and candidates. Open positions and candidates include: ‣ Mayor: Ried Holien, is running unopposed‣ City Council – Ward A: Brent Mohrmann, Byron I. Callies‣ City Council – Ward D: Doug Allen, Randy Tupper, Josh Weyh‣ City Council – At-Large Seat: Jason Redemske, Michael Heuer School board candidates are: Jean Moulton - IncumbentCraig BussJanelle HarmsBailey Raml While the deadline to file completed petitions passed in early May, the voter registration deadline comes on June 2 at 5 p.m. You can register to vote in person at Watertown City Hall or the Codington County Courthouse. Starting on June 2 and running two weeks until the day before Election Day, are early voting opportunities. Business hours are from Monday through Thursday, 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Friday from 8 a.m. to noon. Absentee voting is available at Watertown City Hall Finance Office during regular business hours. On June 17, which is Election Day, vote from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. at Watertown Civic Arena, located at 200 9th St NE. Be certain to bring a valid photo ID or sign a personal identification affidavit. Other registration options: register with the Secretary of State's Office, locations which provide driver's licenses, SNAP, TANF, WIC, military recruitment and assistance to the disabled as provided by the Department of Human Services. According to the city, mail-in registration forms can be located online via the South Dakota Secretary of State's website. To confirm that you are registered, visit In order to cast a vote this year, you must be a U.S. citizen; turn 18 years old by Election Day and be a resident of Watertown. For questions or assistance, contact the Finance Office at (605) 882-6200. This article originally appeared on Watertown Public Opinion: Watertown elections are June 17, 2025
