Demand Congress save SNAP from extreme budget cuts
Republicans in the House and Senate are proposing to slash more than $230 billion from SNAP and school nutrition programs in order to fund more tax handouts for the wealthy and billion-dollar corporations. But it’s far from a done deal.
SNAP is not only our most effective anti-hunger program, it plays a crucial role in reducing poverty and improving health and economic outcomes. It’s also linked to better education outcomes and self-sufficiency, and plays an important role in supporting rural communities.
SNAP is one of the most cost-effective government programs in existence. Every dollar spent on SNAP generates $1.80 in local communities. Cuts to SNAP and school nutrition programs will have devastating consequences for generations to come.
Individual states currently pay a portion of the cost of administering SNAP, while the federal government pays the actual benefits. Implementing a $230 billion cut could force states to take on a portion of the cost of nutrition benefits for the first time, a radical change in the program that could lead to drastic cuts, increasing wait times for approval for benefits, or put a huge squeeze on states leading to slashed investments in other programs.
Cutting SNAP (and Medicaid, another right-wing target) also makes it harder for eligible families to obtain free or reduced-price school meals, summer food assistance for school-aged children (Summer EBT), and WIC benefits. School meal programs and Summer EBT automatically enroll eligible children using SNAP and Medicaid, while WIC agencies use automated systems to check for SNAP or Medicaid eligibility. In addition, the House Budget Committee has put forth numerous specific budget-cutting proposals, including a $12 billion cut to free school breakfast and lunch programs, affecting 24,000 schools nationwide.
Cutting funding for nutrition programs in order to pay for some of Trump’s $4.5 trillion tax handout―mostly to the wealthy and corporations―is an abomination.
On Monday, CHN sent a letter to all 100 U.S. Senators demanding that the next round of COVID-19 legislation include policies that protect low- and moderate-income people from economic disaster. The letter critiques a Republican proposal that was released on Thursday. “The bill either excludes or provides much less in direct cash payments to low-income people,” the letter states. “Specifically, some people with little income, who need help the most, would be limited to a $600 payment, instead of the $1,200 amount provided to others; some people would be excluded altogether.”
When we consider where coronavirus most likely might incubate, certain venues come to mind: cruise ships. Nursing homes. Locker rooms and big sports arenas. Airport security and boarding lines. Schools and day care centers. Even restaurants and bars, which is why so many across the U.S. have been shuttered. Health officials warn that jails, prisons, and other types of detention centers must be added to this list – and if we fail to take the necessary precautions, not only will it place those incarcerated at inhumane and unconstitutional risk – it will also endanger our families and communities, overwhelm our hospitals and make it even more difficult to “flatten the curve” of the spreading coronavirus.
Nearly two months ago, I was packing my bags for the Spring semester of my junior year. I remember checking items off my early-January to-do list like every college student. I had heard of coronavirus, but it still felt distant. Its relevance drifted in and out of my life through the occasional news headline, chat with a friend, or meme on Twitter. Fast forward to this week, and 157 countries, including the United States, have reported confirmed cases of COVID-19. There have been over 218,631 confirmed cases globally and around 84,113 people have recovered. Over 9,345 of these are in the U.S. The outbreak is a topic of daily conversation, I wince a little bit upon hearing a particularly phlegmy cough on the Metro, and my school is telling me to go home.
On Wednesday, the Senate passed and President Trump signed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which will provide immediate paid sick leave and paid family leave to millions of people, expanded unemployment insurance, vital nutrition aid, more Medicaid funds for states, and free COVID-19 testing. But more action is needed. The next round of legislation must include direct payments to families and individuals amongst other critical services.
Update: On Wednesday, March 18, the Senate passed and President Trump signed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. On Friday, March 13, the Coalition on Human Needs sent a letter to all 100 Senators urging passage of comprehensive legislation to address the COVID-19 disease outbreak. In a related move, CHN also urged its supporters to call their senators and demand passage. The letter, signed by CHN Executive Director Deborah Weinstein, states that passage of the legislation “will be a step towards putting the needs of low-income and vulnerable people first.” But it warns that even with swift passage of pending legislation, a more “fully adequate response” will be needed very soon.
The Decennial Census occurs once every ten years and babies count on us to get it right. Overlooking and undercounting young children has serious consequences. The population most likely to be missed in the Census is the same group of children most likely to live in poverty, experience homelessness, and live in stress. These babies can’t afford to be missed.
In Connecticut, child advocates are engaging in a variety of approaches to make sure that young children, especially young children under the age of five, are counted in the 2020 Census. The efforts are crucial because in 2010, there was a net undercount of an estimated 3.3 percent of Connecticut’s young children. About 22 percent of the state’s residents – 804,000 people – live in hard-to-count tracts. About 12.4 percent of children (23,075) live in households where they are not the child of the householder, and nearly one in ten (9 percent) live with a grandparent – factors that make it even more difficult to ensure an accurate count. So what are child advocates doing? Lots! Here’s a rundown – and, quite possibly, some ideas that advocates in other states will want to try.
The coronavirus does not discriminate based on income or class. Just ask the more than 700 passengers aboard the Diamond Princess who became ill. One could probably surmise that most passengers aboard that cruise ship boasted above-average wealth (and the crew members, generally in the opposite income category, also were affected). But for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the virus itself, we know that even a moderate pandemic could hurt lower-income people more than others. This fact was borne out in recent days by news articles reported by three major publications.
Seven-year-old Biar Atem was in a field helping tend his father’s cattle when the explosions began. The second civil war had come to his South Sudan village. Two million people would die; millions more would be displaced, including Atem, who became part of the roughly 30,000 “Lost Boys of South Sudan,” who walked barefoot for 1,000 miles to reach refugee camps in Ethiopia and Kenya. After living in camps for well over a decade, Atem was allowed to settle in the U.S. in 2001. The law that allowed them to come here is known as the Refugee Act of 1980. On Tuesday of this week, this legislation marked its 40th birthday
Susan Rees passed away on February 1. At this sad moment, we at CHN celebrate Susan’s vision and strength, and to rededicate ourselves to further her work. Susan helped to build the Coalition on Human Needs into an organization that has endured, committed to reducing economic injustice and poverty. As Executive Director from 1983 to 1991, Susan strengthened a coalition of faith groups, labor, policy experts, service providers and civil rights groups to fight against the Reagan Administration’s efforts to weaken the federal role in helping low-income people and protecting against racial discrimination.
Monday’s 1,031-point stock market plunge certainly brought panic to financiers, traders, policymakers and investors. But did the long stock market rise parallel the fortunes of America’s real economy? “Journalists are obsessed with the stock market,” says Jacob Hacker, director of the Institution for Social and Policy Studies at Yale University. “But for most Americans, it’s a side show in their economic lives. What really matters to them is the security of their jobs and health care, and the amount they have to pay for big-ticket items like housing and education.”
When I turned my attention to President Trump’s new budget, my Euphemism Radar was engaged. And there’s a lot. The Trump Administration wants to do a lot of modernizing, modifying, reallocating, reforming, and improving program or payment integrity. A common theme emerges: they’re all about cutting.
