America Faces No Greater Threat Than Joe Biden and the Democrat Party. Their Assault to Our Borders Is As Great As Their Assault to Free Speech and Free Elections
Wednesday, March 1, 2023
SQUANDERING AMERICA - PENTAGON SAYS CUT S.N.A.P. FOR THE POOR AND EXPAND THE WAR MACHINE'S LOOTING - GOP Hawks Say the Only Thing Cut From the Pentagon Will Be 'Wokeness'
GOP Hawks Say the Only Thing Cut From the Pentagon Will Be 'Wokeness'
'I can't think of a worse time to cut defense spending than now,' Rep. Mike Gallagher says
Congressional defense hawks say the only cuts to the defense budget that will be considered will be to "woke" programs, saying cuts to the Pentagon would be disastrous as the United States faces down a Russian war in Ukraine and Chinese threats to invade Taiwan.
"As Russia wages war on Ukraine and China eyes a similar move on Taiwan, I can't think of a worse time to cut defense spending than now," Rep. Mike Gallagher (R., Wis.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, which oversees America's $400 billion defense budget, told the Washington Free Beacon. Gallagher and other Armed Services Committee leaders, including chairman Mike Rogers (R., Ala.), told the Washington Free Beacon there is zero appetite among the majority of House Republicans to roll back the Pentagon's budget.
As part of concessions to a small group of Republican holdouts during the House speakership fight, Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) reportedly agreed to some $130 billion in spending cuts that are expected to impact even traditionally insulated agencies like the Defense Department. The agreement has given rise to concerns the Pentagon's budget could be frozen in place, preventing it from expanding war-fighting priorities amid rising demands due to the war in Ukraine.
McCarthy has said he would only cut the Defense Department's spending on "wokeism" and other projects not impacting war-fighting capabilities. Others, such as Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio), said "everything has to be on the table" as the 2023 budget is made. But those with the most power over the Pentagon's budget said they will prevent any cuts that negatively impact an already strained fighting force.
The Biden administration's push to foster a more sensitive environment across the U.S. military has been under Republican scrutiny since the president took office. Hawks have pilloried the introduction of critical race theory books in the Navy as well as mandated gender identity trainings implemented by the Army and Navy.
Republican defense leaders who spoke to the Free Beacon said they see a pathway to compromise with far-right budget hawks. As McCarthy recently proposed, military programs seen as promoting a "woke" agenda, such as diversity and inclusion training, could provide a pathway to satiate members advocating defense cuts as well as those trying to keep the military well equipped to face down Russia, China, and Iran.
"On the House Armed Services Committee—we are laser-focused on the threats we face and the capabilities we need to defeat them," Rogers told the Free Beacon. "We are examining programs to determine if they actually provide the capabilities we need to defeat the threats we face. If they don't, they'll be cut. However, maintaining overmatch with China requires modernizing our military, and we cannot shy away from that investment."
Rep. Jim Banks (R., Ind.), also an Armed Services Committee member, offered a similar analysis. Banks, like other GOP hawks, said wide-ranging defense cuts will embolden China and other U.S. enemies.
Chinese leader Xi Jinping "is now planning a visit to Moscow," Banks said, pointing to increased ties between China and Russia. U.S. president Joe Biden "has fomented chaos around the globe," Banks said, "and House Republicans need to be laser-focused on investing in our military and disentangling our defense industrial base from our greatest adversary."
Banks said he "will never vote to cut defense spending, and a large majority of Republicans are in the same boat." But the congressman also said there "are plenty of budget cuts I support that would strengthen our military, like defunding Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at the [Defense Department]."
"Wokeness is weakness, and defunding these far-left ideologies will boost cohesion, retention, and morale and make our military stronger," Banks said.
There are concerns that with a slim Republican majority in the House, Republican defectors could team up with dovish Democrats to force defense cuts. "There are places I may actually agree with Republicans on defense cuts," Rep. Ro Khanna (D., Calif.) said last month. "If they're going to look at that and make certain cuts, then let's have that conversation."
"What we saw in the speaker fight was that a relatively small number of Republicans are willing to hold the process hostage out of the desire to make dramatic cuts in the budget," Rep. Adam Smith (D., Wash.), the Armed Services Committee's former chairman, told the Hill last month. "So regardless of what McCarthy did or did not promise, that same group of people can do the same thing on the budget, on the appropriations bills, on the defense bill."
It is unlikely that any Democrat would sign on to cuts that target liberal initiatives such as the DEI office Banks has in his sights, and Republicans think they have a better chance to bring the party together on redirecting funds toward war-fighting rather than making any cuts.
Rep. Mike Waltz (R., Fla.), a combat veteran who serves on the Armed Services Committee, said all flanks of the Republican Party could unite to redirect Pentagon funding to critical war-fighting programs that increase America’s ability to confront China and other threats, such as those posed by Iran in the Middle East.
"I'm in favor of identifying wasteful programs within the [Defense Department] and redirecting those funds to urgent priorities, but we cannot propose broad spending cuts on the backs of our troops," Waltz told the Free Beacon. "We need to ensure our military has the capability to counter China's massive military buildup, Iran's growing nuclear capabilities, the emerging terrorist threat in Afghanistan, and much more."
There are also concerns that potential defense cuts could interfere with efforts to modernize America's military, which has lagged behind similar efforts undertaken by China and other nations in recent years. Military production lines in the United States also have been strained by the ongoing war in Ukraine, where America is supplying a great amount of hardware. Potential cuts to the defense budget could exacerbate these supply-line issues.
"A strong budget ensures that our military forces are always capable of safeguarding the homeland, protecting our national interests, strengthening foreign alliances and partnerships, rapidly modernizing our forces to counter emerging threats, and supporting service-member families and veterans," Rep. Joe Wilson (R., S.C.), another Armed Services Committee member, told the Free Beacon.
Rebeccah Heinrichs, a national security analyst with the Hudson Institute think tank, said the American military needs hardware now more than ever, particularly if it is to engage in a showdown with China in the Pacific region.
"In an idyllic world at peace," Heinrichs said, "we could do the hard acquisition reform and gut all of the butter out of a budget that's supposed to be strictly guns, so to speak. But we are not in that world."
BUILDING THE CORPORAT WELFARE STATE TAKES BILLIONS OF DOLLARS STOLEN FROM THE 99%
WHILE NAFTA DEMS ARE ALWAYS READY TO GO TO TOWN FOR MORE WELFARE FOR MORE ILLEGALS, YOU CAN BET THEY WILL NOT DO A THING TO PRESERVE SNAP EVEN AS AMERICA DRIFTS TO DEPRESSION FOR THE 99%.
SNAP recipients will lose their pandemic boost and may face other reductions by March
A sign noting the acceptance of electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards, which SNAP beneficiaries use to pay for food, is displayed at a grocery store in 2019 in Oakland, Calif. SNAP emergency allotments are ending after this month and have already ended in some parts of the country.
The emergency allotments provided an additional $95 or the maximum amount for their household size — whichever was greater.
"SNAP emergency allotments were a temporary strategy authorized by Congress to help low-income individuals and families deal with the hardships of the COVID-19 pandemic," the announcement explained. They're ending now because of Congressional action.
The U.S. farm bill is up for renewal this year. Here's what's at stake
Thirty-two states plus D.C., Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands are still providing the boost; there, benefits will return to pre-pandemic levels in March. In South Carolina, benefits return to normal this month. Emergency allotments had already ended everywhere else.
Nearly half of the households that use SNAP also receive Social Security, and Social Security is the most common source of income for SNAP households. Most of those households should expect to see further reductions in their SNAP benefits by March.
Food banks say SNAP is a better way to get food to people
"When Social Security or any household income goes up, SNAP benefits may go down," the announcement said. "However, the households will still experience a net gain, as the decrease in SNAP benefits is less than the increase in Social Security benefits."
SNAP benefits also saw a cost of living increase in October of last year.
Most of the 42 million SNAP beneficiaries are members of a working family, a person with a severe disability or a senior citizen on fixed income, and about one in five are nondisabled adults without children, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack told NPR in 2021.
Looming Cuts to SNAP by New Congress
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Benefits are expected to decrease for millions of recipients as early as March due to cuts in the 2023 Omnibus spending bill. Anti-hunger advocates say the changes will accelerate the looming hunger cliff.
In 2020, following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress increased SNAP benefits through emergency allotments (EAs). These EAs, issued to households in addition to their normal monthly SNAP benefits, helped to address rising rates of food insecurity in the U.S.
While some states have already ended their EAs, more than half maintained the supplemental benefits into the new year. With cuts in the 2023 Omnibus spending bill, however, EAs for all SNAP recipients will come to an end, with February marking the last month that the EA benefits will be issued.
“It’s expected that the loss of EAs will cost about US$82 a SNAP participant a month,” Ellen Vollinger, SNAP Director for the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) tells Food Tank.
Older adults, who are typically part of smaller households and receive the minimum benefit level, will likely feel these cuts the hardest. FRAC estimates that they will see their allotments fall from US$281 to pre-pandemic levels, just US$23 per month.
Vollinger calls the cuts “premature,” pointing out that EAs were “designed to be for the duration of the pandemic health declaration.” And while the supplemental benefits are ending, the U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary recently renewed the COVID-19 public health emergency, which gives the Biden-Harris administration the authority to respond to the pandemic.
This change is “coming at a time when we’re hearing, anecdotally, from emergency food providers around the country [about] how tough it is for them to keep up with the demand that they’re seeing, even toward the end of 2022,” Vollinger tells Food Tank. “There’s no way that this is not going to have a very negative impact on their purchasing power.”
For every one meal that food banks in Feeding America’s network provides, the nonprofit estimates that SNAP provides nine. And to understand the impact the cuts will have, anti-hunger advocates say they need only to look to states where EAs have already ended.
Propel, a financial services technology company that builds products for low-income Americans, designed a smartphone app for SNAP participants. The free tool allows electronic benefit transfer (EBT) card holders to check their EBT balance and transaction history. Propel can also use the platform to survey its users, which they began doing on a monthly basis at the onset of the pandemic.
According to Propel’s survey, 45 percent of users in 2022 were running low or were out of what they needed on a monthly basis. “This is a very high percentage of respondents and SNAP households,” Stacy Taylor, Head of Policy and Partnerships for Propel, tells Food Tank. But, Taylor continues, in states that ended their EAs early, the number jumps 7 points, with 52 percent of respondents reporting that they were running low or were out of basic necessities at the end of the month.
Congress argues that the elimination of SNAP boosts is necessary to enable investment in child nutrition programs. The Omnibus bill will establish a new, permanent, nationwide summer program that will give families of eligible children an additional US$40 per month per child for food. It will also grant providers of summer meals greater flexibility to make meal distribution easier and increase food access.
Vollinger, however, doesn’t believe in the trade-off. “For the families who are going to be affected, the math does not really work out for them,” she states. While FRAC supports summer food programs, she explains that the new benefits are “modest compared to the magnitude of dollars that we’re talking about here with the emergency allotments.”
State agencies are currently working with SNAP households to ensure they know that changes to monthly allotments are coming. Vollinger says it’s also important that recipients are aware of deductions—which vary depending on out of pocket costs for childcare, medical expenses, and other necessities—so they can receive the full benefits they are eligible for.
But “it’s only a dent,” Vollinger tells Food Tank. “None of these…are sufficient to fill this really enormous gap that’s coming. And that’s why we call it a hunger cliff.”
Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.
Photo courtesy of Victoriano Izquierd, Unsplash
Will SNAP work requirements doom the farm bill — again?
BY ROBERT PAARLBERG AND G. WILLIAM HOAGLAND, OPINION CONTRIBUTORS - 02/16/23 1:00 PM ET
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps, could become a pawn in the battle to raise the federal debt limit.
President Biden says he wants Congress to pass a “clean” debt limit increase — that is, with nothing attached to it — but House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) demands spending cuts to put the federal government “on a path to a balanced budget” as his price for House Republican support. McCarthy says Republicans won’t push for cuts in Social Security or Medicare and, in light of what President Biden said in his State of the Union address and on-the-spot congressional reaction, neither party supports such cuts anyway.
No one, however, has promised not to cut SNAP, which will cost an estimated $153.9 billion in the fiscal year 2023 — more than double the annual spending level before COVID-19. SNAP is now an inviting target for Republicans partly because the administration has mismanaged the program.
To contain costs while protecting this vital program that serves 40 million people, the administration and Congress should manage SNAP through a bipartisan process — via the farm bill — rather than through a debt limit standoff between the president and Speaker.
SNAP’s higher annual costs are due in part to an Agriculture Department (USDA) decision to raise monthly benefits by 21 percent in 2021 through its unilateral re-evaluation of the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), on which SNAP benefits are partly based. In the 2018 farm bill, policymakers called for a TFP re-evaluation by 2022 but, without consulting Congress, USDA accelerated the process by six months. The administration wanted to implement the benefits increase on the very day that a temporary, COVID-related SNAP benefit, was scheduled to expire.
Republicans in Congress were not consulted. A Government Accountability Office investigation of USDA’s reevaluation found that the department failed to provide documentation or justification for its decisions, did not seek or provide sufficient information for an external peer review and did not meet any project management standards. Rep. Glenn “G.T.” Thompson (R-Pa.) now the Republican Chair of the House Committee on Agriculture, described USDA’s role in this case as an “egregious effort to pull the wool over the eyes of the public.”
In March, another temporary SNAP benefit, which increased benefits by another $95 a month, is scheduled to expire. And when the Public Health Emergency ends in May, two more temporary, COVID-related SNAP provisions will end as well — the suspension of a time limit on SNAP benefits for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) who do not meet work or job training requirements, and an exemption that allowed benefits for certain students pursuing higher education at least half-time.
With SNAP in a transition phase as COVID-related benefits expire, the program should not be subject to changes that the president and Speaker negotiate on the fly as part of a debt limit fight. Nor is it wise to subject the program to the annual appropriations process, which could become partisan in a divided Congress. The best place to manage SNAP’s post-COVID transition is through a legislative process that requires bipartisan cooperation, as the farm bill traditionally does.
The bill is uniquely structured to guarantee bipartisanship because it reauthorizes both economic support programs for farmers and nutrition programs for low-income households. Republicans want to support the farm programs, and Democrats want to support low-income households, so both parties have a strong incentive to combine their votes to ensure that Congress passes the law. The 2018 farm bill passed the House and Senate by votes of 369-47 and 87-13, respectively.
Congress is now beginning to draft the 2023 farm bill and keeping partisanship at bay may be harder this time. Fiscally conservative lawmakers dislike not just SNAP’s recent enlargement but also the ease with which states can get federal waivers to sidestep the time limits on benefits to ABAWDs. In 2018, a Republican attempt to impose much stronger work requirements on SNAP recipients met united Democratic opposition in the House, temporarily blocking the entire farm bill. Only after Democrats regained House control in the 2018 midterm elections did Republicans withdraw their demand for stronger work requirements, allowing the farm bill to pass.
Work requirements in SNAP remain a contentious issue inside the House and Senate Agriculture Committees. In January, Senate committee Republican Rick Scott (R-Fla.) introduced legislation to raise the age under which ABAWDs face work requirements by 10 years, to 59. In this year’s farm bill deliberations, policymakers should produce the same compromise as in 2018, allowing states to seek waivers on time-limited ABAWD benefits. As of January, 15 states plus the District of Columbia have been granted statewide ABAWD time limit waivers. Thirteen of these 15 states had voted for Biden in the 2020 presidential election.
This state-by-state approach allows pro-SNAP blue states to avoid what they consider to be an onerous time limit for some ABAWDs, but it does not eliminate all federal work requirements in SNAP. States that receive ABAWD time-limit waivers still must comply with other, more general work requirements that accompany SNAP benefits, including participating in SNAP Employment and Training, taking a suitable job if offered and not voluntarily quitting a job or reducing work hours below 30 a week without good reason. These are reasonable conditions to impose, and exceptions are provided for those with children under six, those who can’t work due to physical or mental limitations and others with special circumstances. A June 2022 Congressional Budget Office report suggested that these more general work requirements had “probably” boosted employment for some adults without dependents, so both Democrats and Republicans should wish to keep them in place.
Policymakers always managed SNAP through the farm bill before COVID-19, and they should return SNAP to that bipartisan venue now that the pandemic’s disruptions are winding down.
Robert Paarlberg, Ph.D. is a professor emeritus at Wellesley College, Harvard Kennedy School, and a member of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Food and Nutrition Security Task Force. G. William Hoagland is a senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center; former Senate staff and FNS-USDA administrator.
Temporary Pandemic SNAP Benefits Will End in Remaining 35 States in March 2023
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program’s (SNAP) emergency allotments (EAs) — temporary benefit increases that Congress enacted to address rising food insecurity and provide economic stimulus during the COVID-19 pandemic — will end after February 2023 issuances. This will result in a benefit cut for every SNAP household in the jurisdictions that still are paying EAs ― 32 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.[1] Every household in those states will receive at least $95 a month less; some households, who under regular SNAP rules receive low benefits because they have somewhat higher, but still modest incomes, will see reductions of $250 a month or more. The average person will receive about $90 a month less in SNAP benefits.[2]
The temporary benefits pushed back against hunger and hardship during COVID. A study estimated that EAs kept 4.2 million people above the poverty line in the last quarter of 2021, reducing poverty by 10 percent ― and child poverty by 14 percent ― in states with EAs at the time. The estimated reduction in poverty rates due to EAs was highest for Black and Latino people.[3]
The end of the temporary EAs will be a significant change that will increase food hardship for many individuals and families, given the modest amount of basic SNAP benefits and high recent inflation in food prices. Without the EAs, SNAP benefits will average only about $6.10 per person per day in 2023. That average daily benefit is about $1.35 higher per person per day this year than it would have been as a result of the recent adjustment to the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), which is the basis of SNAP benefits. The Agriculture Department (USDA) adjusted the TFP, effective in fiscal year 2022, under a congressional mandate to reevaluate it; the resulting TFP better aligns SNAP benefits with the cost of a nutritionally adequate diet.[4]
The timeframe for preparing for the end of EAs is short. Because this significant decrease will affect all SNAP households in the states that still are issuing EAs, it will be important for SNAP participants and local service providers, client advocate groups, retailers, and other stakeholders who communicate with SNAP participants to be aware of the timing of the reduction in benefits, and to take measures to minimize or mitigate the impact on households and on state agency operations.
The upcoming end of EAs also highlights the continued importance of ensuring that households participating in SNAP can claim allowable deductions for expenses such as rent, utilities, dependent care, child support payments, and medical expenses. SNAP benefits are higher for households with these kinds of expenses, which reduce the money they have available for food. Agencies’ efforts to ensure that households know about and claim these deductions will mean that their SNAP benefits more accurately reflect their food assistance needs.
Temporary SNAP Pandemic Benefit Increase Was Designed to Respond to Need Caused by COVID-19
Congress and President Trump enacted temporary SNAP EAs in March 2020 as part of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act to “address temporary food needs” during the pandemic. The law gave USDA the authority to approve states’ requests for EAs for as long as the federal government’s public health emergency (PHE) was in effect and the state had issued an emergency or disaster declaration. All states used the option in 2020 and early 2021, though by late 2022 some 17 states were no longer paying EAs because their state emergency declarations had ended. An additional state, South Carolina, ended EAs after January 2023. (See Figure 1.)
In the year-end government funding bill enacted in late December 2022, Congress terminated the temporary SNAP EAs after the February 2023 issuance, ending the tie to the federal PHE (which the President has announced will end on May 11.) This change was made as part of a bipartisan compromise that created a permanent Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) program to provide grocery benefits to replace school meals for some 30 million children in low-income families when schools are closed in the summer ― a time when families with school-aged children are at higher risk for food insecurity. It is deeply unfortunate that, to pay for this important advance, policymakers chose to end the EAs on a date certain rather than leaving them in place until the public health emergency ends. In recent months the EAs have provided about $3 billion each month in additional SNAP benefits in the states in which they are in effect.
The year-end legislation left in place other temporary pandemic-related SNAP flexibilities, such as the suspension of the three-month time limit for unemployed adults without children in their homes and expanded eligibility for low-income college students, but these will end when the federal PHE ends. (See box, “Other Temporary SNAP COVID-Related Food Assistance That Will End With the End of the PHE.”)
Temporary Emergency Allotments Pushed Back Against Hunger During COVID
Early in the pandemic, hunger was poised to soar. Calls to “211” for help with food in the first two months of the pandemic were over four times greater than earlier in 2020.[5] Use of food banks also increased.[6] In the Great Recession, the share of households that were food insecure rose from 11.1 percent in 2007 to 14.7 percent in 2009, according to USDA estimates. Yet because of broad and robust relief measures (including the EAs) soon after COVID emerged, the typical annual measure of food insecurity in 2020 and 2021 held steady at just over 10 percent, statistically unchanged from the 2019 level.
One study estimated that EAs kept 4.2 million people above the poverty line in the last quarter of 2021, reducing poverty by 10 percent ― and child poverty by 14 percent ― in states with EAs at the time. The reduction in poverty rates due to EAs was highest for Black and Latino people.[7] Another study examined the changes in rates of food insufficiency ― a more severe condition of food hardship than food insecurity that was measured periodically over the course of the pandemic ― when states ended EAs and found that EAs reduced food insufficiency by 10 percent.[8]
The temporary EAs have been the largest of the SNAP COVID-related relief measures, ultimately reaching all SNAP households in all states. Originally, beginning in March 2020, under a Trump Administration interpretation, a household’s EA was the amount that raised the household’s benefits to the SNAP maximum benefit for its household size. However, this approach left out the lowest-income SNAP households ― the 40 percent of SNAP households that already received the maximum benefit.[9] The Biden Administration revised this policy, and, since April 2021 all households in states with EAs have received EAs of at least $95 a month. [10]
Size of SNAP Benefit Decrease Will Vary for Different Types of Households
Households in the states that are no longer issuing EAs will not experience any reduction in their SNAP benefits in March due to the federal change. As Table 1 shows, in the 35 states that still are issuing EAs, the size of the cut for any given household will depend on their household composition, income, and other circumstances because a household’s EA depends on the household size and regular SNAP benefit (which is in turn based on their income and expenses).[11]
Every household’s benefits will be at least a $95 a month lower. Some households, those who under regular SNAP rules receive lower benefits because they have incomes that are somewhat higher, but still modest, will see reductions of $250 a month or more. The average per-person reduction will be about $90 a month. Benefits for households in Hawai’i, Guam, and the Virgin Islands may fall by slightly more than the average because their maximum benefit levels are higher due to the increased cost of food in those locations.[12] (See Table 2 for estimated reductions in each state.)
The average decrease will vary by factors such as:
Household composition. Households with children will lose $223 on average per month. For households with adults aged 60 and older, the average decrease will be $168, and for households with disabled people it will be $190. The average decrease is larger for households with children because they tend to have larger households.
Income. Households with incomes at or below the poverty line, about 4 in 5 SNAP households, will lose an average of $142 per month. Lower-income households will lose less because their regular SNAP benefit is higher due to lower incomes or higher expenses that make it more difficult to afford enough food; their EA is lower as a result. Households with higher, but still low, incomes will lose more because they have somewhat more monthly income available for food, giving them a smaller regular SNAP benefit and a higher EA.
Household size. One-person households will lose an average of $132 per month, while three-person households will see a larger average reduction of $197 per month. Larger households will lose more because the SNAP benefit is scaled to household size to account for each person’s needs.
These estimated averages conceal wide variation even among households of the same size. For example, the average decrease among one-person households will be $132 per month. The lowest-income households, who would have received the maximum SNAP benefit in the absence of EAs, will lose $95. (This is about 4 in 10 one-person households.) By contrast, nearly one-sixth of one-person households would have received the minimum amount of SNAP benefits in the absence of the EAs and will lose much more when the EAs end ― over $250 per month.[13] (See Figure 2.)
There is similar variation in the amount of cut households of other sizes will see. For example, the average three-person household will see their benefit decrease by an estimated $197 per month. Like one-person households, three-person households receiving the maximum benefit under regular program rules (about one-third of three-person households) will lose $95. However, nearly 1 in 5 households (lower-benefit households receiving less than $400 in regular monthly SNAP benefits) will lose more than $440 per month in EAs on average. (See Figure 3.)
TABLE 1
Estimated Decrease in SNAP Benefits Due to End of Pandemic Emergency Allotments
Per Month, By Household Demographic
Share of SNAP Households
Share of SNAP Participants
Average Decrease Per Household
Average Decrease Per Person
Total households
100%
100%
$175
$88
Households with:
Children
39%
66%
$223
$67
Earnings
29%
42%
$251
$87
Aged 60+
28%
17%
$168
$138
Disabled
21%
19%
$190
$107
Maximum benefit under regular rules
36%
32%
$95
$55
Minimum benefit under regular rules
10%
6%
$286
$244
Household size
1
56%
28%
$132
$132
2
18%
18%
$185
$92
3
12%
18%
$197
$66
4
8%
16%
$261
$65
Gross income as a percent of poverty
No income
19%
15%
$98
$60
1-50%
18%
23%
$108
$41
51-100%
44%
42%
$173
$93
101-130%
13%
14%
$303
$146
131% and above
7%
6%
$320
$194
SNAP Cost-of-Living Adjustments and Thrifty Food Plan Revision Will Soften Cliff When Emergency Allotments End
Though all SNAP households will experience a significant reduction in benefits when EAs end, two factors will help to ensure that their regular SNAP benefit still comes closer to reflecting the cost of a healthy diet.
The first is the program’s annual cost-of-living adjustments, which affect maximum benefits, income limits, and deductions used to calculate a household’s SNAP benefit level. In the years leading up to the recent period of higher inflation, these cost-of-living adjustments typically resulted in modest changes to a household’s SNAP benefits. However, because of the high recent inflation in food prices and other goods and services, the fiscal year 2023 cost-of-living adjustments, which went into effect on October 1, 2022, were higher.
SNAP maximum benefits increased by 12 percent. For a family of three, this raised the regular maximum SNAP benefit by $88 per month, from $652 to $740. Though the annual cost-of-living adjustment is critical to ensuring that the purchasing power of SNAP benefits does not erode over time, it is based on food price changes over the 12 months ending the preceding June. This means that these automatic adjustments can significantly lag food price increases when inflation is high. Indeed, from June 2022 through December 2022 food prices rose another 3 percent.
Separate from the cost-of-living adjustment, households’ regular SNAP benefits more closely reflect the cost of a healthy diet due to a recent revision to the TFP, which is the basis for SNAP benefits. In the bipartisan 2018 farm bill, Congress directed USDA to update the TFP to account for current food prices, food composition data, consumption patterns, and modern dietary guidance. This comprehensive update to the TFP — the first since the 1970s — took effect in October 2021 and resulted in a 21 percent increase in maximum SNAP benefits. Because of the TFP revision, the average regular SNAP benefit when EAs end will drop from about $9.00 per person per day to about $6.10. Without the TFP revision, the average regular benefit would be only about $4.75 per person per day.[14]
Preparing for the End of Emergency Allotments
The timeframe for preparing for the end of EAs is short. The last EA issuances will occur in February in most states, though a handful of states will not issue the February emergency allotment until sometime in March. Because this decrease will be significant and affect all SNAP households in the states that still are paying EAs, it will be important for SNAP participants and local service providers, client advocate groups, retailers, and other stakeholders who communicate with SNAP participants to be aware of the timing of the reduction in benefits and to take measures to minimize its impact on households and on state agency operations.
Many states have already published outreach materials explaining how, when, and why benefits will change for households in their state, including materials in multiple languages. Clear communication to SNAP households will help reduce confusion and may reduce client inquiries and hearing requests to state agencies when EAs end.
Key messages to consider communicating to SNAP households include:
During the COVID-19 pandemic, a federal program allowed [state] to give you extra SNAP benefits each month in addition to your regular benefits. These temporary benefits are ending after the February issuance.
We know that shopping and eating with reduced benefits will be difficult, but this change is required by federal law and we cannot stop it.
You will receive [or just “received” if the issuance has gone out] these extra benefits for the final time on [date]. After that, you will only receive your regular benefit amount.
Unused SNAP benefits roll over from month to month, so you can continue to use any benefits you have saved up.
This change does not affect your eligibility for benefits. You will continue to receive your regular SNAP benefit until the end of your certification period as long as you are eligible.
Your regular SNAP benefits may rise if you have recently lost income, experienced an increase in certain expenses, such as housing or child care costs, or if someone in your household is aged 60 or older or has a disability and medical expenses over $35 per month. Tell [state or local agency] if your household has recently experienced these changes or if you think the state doesn’t have the current information about your income or these expenses.
Other key information may include:
How participants can check their regular SNAP benefit amount and current balance.
Whom participants should contact if they have further questions or wish to provide updated information.
Where participants can go if they need additional resources for food, including information about the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) for households that include pregnant or postpartum people or children under the age of 5. (See box, “Helping Families With Young Children.”)
The upcoming end of EAs also highlights the continued importance of ensuring households can claim allowable deductions for expenses such as rent, utilities, dependent care, child support payments, and medical expenses. This will ensure that the regular SNAP benefit households receive most accurately reflects the available resources they have for food.
Because most states have been providing EAs for nearly three years, many households have never experienced the program under standard rules. Households may not have been recently screened for deductions and may not be aware that losing income or experiencing an increase in certain household costs could increase their regular SNAP benefit. While ensuring households can fully apply appropriate deductions is critical to reducing the hardship they will experience when EAs end, improving and streamlining state processes to screen for and verify household expenses can be an ongoing, longer-term project for states.
TABLE 2
Estimated Reduction in SNAP Benefits Due to End of Pandemic Emergency Allotments
[1] EAs already ended in 18 states because those states dropped their COVID-19 related emergency declarations. SNAP participants in those states will not experience a decrease due to the end of EAs. In most states where EAs will be ending, the last EA issuance will be in February 2023. In a handful of states (for example, California, Hawai’i, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, and Vermont) the last EAs for February will likely be issued in March 2023.
[2] Estimates are based on CBPP analysis of fiscal year 2019 SNAP household characteristics data with income and expenses adjusted to fiscal year 2023 values.
[9] Households receive the maximum benefit because they have no disposable income available to purchase food under the SNAP benefit calculation rules. SNAP households are expected to spend 30 percent of their net income on food; SNAP makes up the difference between the household’s contribution and the maximum benefit. Many other low-income households received only small EAs because their regular benefits were already close to the maximum due to their low disposable income.
[11] Estimates are based on CBPP analysis of fiscal year 2019 SNAP household characteristics data with income and expenses inflated to fiscal year 2023 values.
[12] Alaska also has a higher maximum SNAP benefit than the 48 contiguous states and D.C. However, Alaska has already discontinued EAs.
[13] Eligible households with one or two members qualify for at least a “minimum benefit,” which is $23 in fiscal year 2023 for 48 states and the District of Columbia (with higher amounts for Alaska, Hawai’i, Guam, and the Virgin Islands).
[14] Estimates based on CBPP analysis of fiscal year 2019 SNAP household characteristics data with income and expenses inflated to fiscal year 2023 values.
No comments:
Post a Comment