Carol Gundlach: Protect SNAP to help thousands of Alabama veterans make ends meet
Alabamians, like all Americans, take time on Veterans Day each year to honor those who have served our country and sacrificed to keep all of us free. But we should treat this holiday as more than a chance to say “thank you.” It also should be an occasion to reflect on our national obligation to provide veterans with the services and support they need to return to civilian life with dignity and security. The unfortunate reality is that many people who served in our military struggle with hunger after they return home. About 26,000 Alabama veterans, or 8 percent of all veterans in the state, use the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to help feed themselves and their families, according to a new study released Thursday by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, D.C. Nationally, nearly 1.4 million veterans, representing 7 percent of all American veterans, receive assistance through SNAP, also known as food stamps. SNAP is an essential tool to help these veterans feed their families, just as it fights hunger for tens of millions of other Americans. But a U.S. House proposal threatens to take this vital food assistance away from as many as 2 million people, including tens of thousands in Alabama. The U.S. House and Senate have passed conflicting versions of the Farm Bill, the legislation that authorizes SNAP. The House version, for which six of Alabama’s seven House members voted, would impose harmful new SNAP “work requirements” that would take food away from many hungry families while doing little or nothing to help them find or keep work. Fortunately, the bipartisan Senate bill – with support from Sens. Doug Jones and Richard Shelby – offers a better path. Unlike the House approach of creating punitive new barriers to SNAP, the Senate plan would strengthen core SNAP assistance. The Senate proposal also would make needed investments in employment and training services for seniors, homeless people, people with disabilities and other SNAP participants who face additional barriers to work. Now the House and Senate must reconcile the differences between the two Farm Bills. Congress faces a choice between helping and hurting hungry people, including the veterans who could be devastated by the House version. Veterans face many barriers as they re-enter the civilian labor force. Trying to find a civilian job while still in the military can be difficult, and veterans who come home with disabilities may face additional barriers to employment. SNAP is an especially critical lifeline for families including veterans with disabilities, which are more likely to struggle to put food on the table. Young male veterans have higher rates of unemployment than do similarly situated civilian workers. While the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has programs to help these veterans gain skills and find stable employment, the VA programs are not necessarily aligned with the rigid one-size-fits-all work requirements proposed in the House Farm Bill. Should the House plan become law, many veterans would have to choose between getting the job help offered by the VA and keeping SNAP food assistance. This Veterans Day, we should thank Alabama veterans for their service by supporting SNAP, a program that helps thousands of them put food on the table. We also should urge our members of Congress to pass a final Farm Bill with the Senate’s SNAP provisions. By protecting and strengthening SNAP, Congress can take an important step toward ensuring that no veteran goes hungry after serving our country. ••• Carol Gundlach is a policy analyst for Alabama Arise, a nonprofit, nonpartisan coalition of congregations, organizations and individuals promoting public policies to improve the lives of low-income Alabamians. Email: carol@alarise.org.
Phil Kerpen: Farm bill should reform more than food stamps
Republicans are set to move landmark welfare reform in this year’s farm bill, which includes language requiring able-bodied adults to work or participate in a job training program to be eligible for food stamps. Democrats in Congress, however, have decided to litmus test opposition to work requirements and have therefore walked away en masse from supporting the usually bipartisan farm bill. That gives conservatives leverage to push for free-market reforms to the other 20 percent of the bill – and they should. The food stamp program accounts for about 80 percent of the cost of the farm bill, and work requirements are overwhelmingly popular with the public. They enjoy a robust 82 percent approval among all voters and are supported by even 71 percent of Democrats according to a recent poll commissioned by the Foundation for Government Accountability. If the farm bill accomplished nothing else, it would be worth supporting for this popular, critical reform that would incentivize Americans to reenter the workforce and get back on the ladder of economic opportunity – while helping grow an economy that is being held back by chronic shortages of workers in many industries. But a farm bill that reforms the food stamp program while reauthorizing farm welfare programs without reforms – and in some cases even with expansions – is an unnecessary political gift to Democrats, who can spin their opposition to sensible work requirements by accusing Republicans of hypocrisy. The bill loosens the loophole that allows non-farmers to collect agricultural subsidies of up to $125,000 per year. Current law allows immediate family members of farmers to collect even if they don’t live on the farm – the proposed farm bill expands the definition to include urban-dwelling cousins, nieces, and nephews. And they aren’t required to work to collect the money. And commodity support programs are available for couples making up to $1.8 million per year – hardly the needy – rather than following the much more sensible proposal in President Trump’s budget to cap eligibility at $500,000. The bill also reauthorizes the Soviet-style sugar program, which the great anti-cronyism writer Tim Carney has accurately identified as a test of whether Republicans “understand the distinction between pro-business and pro-market.” The sugar program is a hidden tax of $2.4 to $4 billion per year according to an analysis by the American Enterprise Institute – and it pushes candy companies to move to Mexico so they can buy sugar at the much lower world price. Census Bureau estimates show the sugar program has destroyed about 123,000 American jobs. But it continues because the sugar industry is politically powerful, especially in the key state of Florida. There might be enough votes in the House to reform the sugar program, but we won’t find out unless leadership allows a vote. Ultimately, conservatives may find it impossible to resist voting for a bill with a key policy reform (work requirements) applied to the single program (food stamps) that accounts for 80 percent of farm bill spending. But if they can use the leverage gained from Democrats walking away from the table to force reforms on the farm side of the bill they will achieve an even bigger victory while saving leadership from an obvious political vulnerability created by the current bill. ### Philip Kerpen is an American free-market policy analyst and political organizer, president of American Commitment, a conservative organization he founded in 2012.
New study reveals SNAP benefits don’t cover meal cost in Alabama
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides monthly food budget assistance to more than 42 million eligible, low-income Americans across the country. The Urban Institute, a liberal-leaning think tank, released a the study — How Far Do SNAP Benefits Fall Short of Covering the Cost of a Meal? — on Friday that shows meals in Alabama cost more than SNAP benefits allow — ranging from 10 percent more in Colbert County to 43 percent more per meal in Baldwin County. On a monthly basis, SNAP benefits fall short of the cost of an average meal by $46.50 per person nationwide. But according to a new study, even the maximum SNAP benefit does not cover the cost of an average meal in any of Alabama’s 67 counties. Barry Spear, public information manager for Alabama’s Department of Human Resources (ADHR), which administers SNAP, told The Associated Press that SNAP only meant to meet supplemental food needs. “It’s not the only source that they have to find food,” Spear said. “A lot of people think it’s supposed to take care of all their needs, and it’s not designed to do that.” He said individuals can join other federal programs like WIC, which gives aid to women and children, or go to food banks run by nonprofit organizations or churches. According to government records, more than 850,000 Alabamians, or 1 in 6 residents, received SNAP benefits for the entirety of 2016 (the last year the numbers are available).
Alabama residents join pet food stamp fight
A viral new petition is asking the federal government to extend food stamp benefits to pet food, and Alabamians are getting in on the action. Edward B Johnston Jr. is petitioning the Food and Nutrition Service – U.S. Department of Agriculture to extend Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits (formerly known as food stamps) to pets. He said he has personally only been receiving SNAP benefits for a few months, but has been unable to feed his dog due to the government regulations — hence the need for the petition. Under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, households cannot use benefits to buy pet food, according to the USDA. The Care2 petition, called “Don’t Let Pets Starve – Include Pet Food in SNAP Benefits!,” has already reached more than 101,000 signature, past its 90,000 goal. The petition reads: “Each year, over 40 million low- or no-income people in the United States rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to help purchase food for themselves and their families. It is the most wide-reaching program in the domestic hunger safety net, helping keep millions of families from starving. But what about their pets? Unfortunately, SNAP benefits cannot be used to buy pet food, leaving poor families with pets in a difficult position. “ The petition also argues a family’s financial status can change at any moment, so pet owners should not be forced to give up their animals simply just because they can’t afford them. “Should someone be forced to give up a pet they’ve had for years just because they hit a financial rough patch?” the petition reads. Alabama’s Austyn P. agrees. “Pets are just as important as children and people!!! They have feelings and get hungry to!!! I think this is a great thing!!” she wrote. Other Alabamians who have commented on the petition said they treat their pets as children and that they also deserve to eat. “My dogs are a part of my family not only do I treat them as my children but I cook most of their meals which means rather than buy enough for just myself I have to buy enough for them as well, two extra mouth to feed,” posted Alabama signer Kimberly K. “Because every life deserves to have food,” said Alabama supporter Betty T. Meanwhile other Alabamians aren’t so keen on the idea. “This has got to be a joke…Animals on Food Stamps. If this is proposed, this entity will be very embarrassed,” posted one Alabama signer.
GOP House member pre-files bill to nix waivers for able-bodied SNAP work requirements
On Alabama state rep is working to get more able-bodied Alabamians off of the government rolls and back to work. Ahead of the 2018 Legislative session, State Rep. Tommy Hanes (R-Bryant) pre-filed HB6, which prohibits the Alabama Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources from requesting a waiver of federal work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents who are applicants or recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) formerly known as food stamps. In 2009, the Obama administration passed a stimulus bill that allowed states to apply for waivers from regulations requiring able-bodied adults without dependents to work. Throughout former President Barack Obama‘s tenure, food stamp usage soared. In 2017, Alabama implemented laws requiring food stamp recipients work at least 20 hours per week, enroll in school, or take part in state-approved job training if they receive benefits for more than three months. Turns out the work requirements worked and the state saw large decreases in SNAP enrollment as a result of the work requirements. According to National Review, after Alabama reinstated food-stamp work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents, the rolls dropped by 85 percent. Now, Hanes is looking to drop the ability to ask for waivers, to require all SNAP recipients, who don’t have dependents, to meet work requirements to continue to receive benefits — which will hopefully encourage more Alabamians to go back to work. This bill requires all able-bodied adults without dependents who are applicants or recipients of SNAP benefits to participate in minimum work requirements, provide documentation of engaging in work training, or participate in volunteer community service and would provide limited exemptions from these work requirements. If passed, it will become effective on the first day of the third month following its passage and approval by Governor Kay Ivey.
House budget blueprint boosts military, cuts food stamps
House Republicans on Tuesday unveiled a budget that makes deep cuts in food stamps and other social safety net programs while boosting military spending by billions, a blueprint that pleases neither conservatives nor moderates. The GOP plan, authored by Budget Chairman Diane Black, R-Tenn., is critical to GOP hopes to deliver on one of President Donald Trump‘s top priorities – a Republican-only effort to overhaul the tax code. Unclear, however, is whether GOP leaders can get the measure through the House. Conservatives want deeper spending cuts while moderates are concerned the reductions go too far. Black announced a committee vote for Wednesday, but action by the entire House could be delayed by the ongoing quarrel between the GOP’s factions. Medicare is the second largest mandatory program after Social Security, and the House GOP plan again proposes to turn Medicare into a voucher-like program in which future retirees would receive a fixed benefit to purchase health insurance on the open market. Republicans have proposed the idea each year since taking back the House in 2011, but they’ve never tried to implement it – and that’s not going to change now, even with a Republican as president. The plan, in theory at least, promises to balance the budget through unprecedented and unworkable cuts across the budget. It calls for turning this year’s projected $700 billion or so deficit into a tiny $9 billion surplus by 2027. It would do so by slashing $5.4 trillion over the coming decade, including almost $500 billion from Medicare, $1.5 trillion from Medicaid and the Obama health law, along with enormous cuts to benefits such as federal employee pensions, food stamps, and tax credits for the working poor. “The status quo is unsustainable. A mounting national debt and lackluster economic growth will limit opportunity for people all across the country,” Black said in a statement. “But we don’t have to accept this reality. We can move forward with an optimistic vision for the future and this budget is the first step in that process. This is the moment to get real results for the American people. The time for talking is over, now is the time for action.” But in the immediate future the GOP measure is a budget buster. It would add almost $30 billion to Trump’s $668 billion request for national defense, which already exceeds an existing “cap” on spending by $54 billion. But while Trump proposed taking that $54 billion from domestic agencies and foreign aid, the GOP budget plan would restore most of the cuts, trimming non-defense agencies by just $5 billion. All told, the GOP plan would spend about $67 billion more in the upcoming annual appropriations bills than would be allowed under harsh spending limits set by a failed 2011 budget and debt agreement and pads war accounts by $10 billion. And, like Trump’s budget, the House GOP plan assumes rosy economic projections that would erase another $1.5 trillion from the deficit over 10 years. The measure, called a budget resolution, is nonbinding. It would allow Republicans controlling Congress to pass follow-up legislation through the Senate without the threat of a filibuster by Democrats. GOP leaders and the White House plan to use that measure to rewrite the tax code. As proposed by House leaders, tax reform would essentially be deficit neutral, which means cuts to tax rates would be mostly “paid for” by closing various tax breaks such as the deduction for state and local taxes. However, the GOP plan would devote $300 billion claimed from economic growth to the tax reform effort. But conservatives are insisting on adding cuts to so-called mandatory programs, which make up more than two-thirds of the federal budget and basically run on autopilot. After extended negotiations, Black would instruct 11 House panels to draw up $203 billion worth of mandatory cuts. But neither tea party lawmakers nor moderates are pleased with the idea. Conservatives want larger cuts, while moderates are blanching at voting to cut popular programs such as food stamps. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Donald Trump’s food stamp cuts face hard sell in Congress
President Donald Trump‘s proposal to slash food stamps by a third will be a hard sell in Congress, even as Republicans have tried repeatedly to scale back the program’s $70 billion annual cost. Democrats will oppose any changes to the program, which is designed as a temporary safety net for Americans who find themselves unable to adequately feed themselves or their families. Many Republicans, too, have been wary to overhaul food stamps, even as participation has more than doubled. Trump’s proposal could have a disproportionate effect on Republican-leaning states – seven of the 10 states with the highest food stamp participation supported Trump. Republicans are still eying cuts to the program, but none as large as what Trump has proposed. — WHAT TRUMP IS PROPOSING Known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, the program now serves 44 million people and cost $70 billion last year. The program more than doubled in cost during the recession, and after some eligibility rules were expanded. The cost has stayed higher even as the economy has recovered, though it has slowly decreased annually. Trump’s proposed budget would save $191 billion over 10 years by shifting some of the cost to states, targeting the benefits to the poorest people, increasing work requirements and limiting some eligibility. It would also allow states to determine the level of SNAP benefits they provide. States now administer SNAP with federal money, but would have to come up with an average of 10 percent of the cost by 2020 and 25 percent by 2023. Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s budget director, said shifting costs to states would give them “a little bit of skin the game” and incentivize them to improve the programs. — WHY IT’S A LONG SHOT Congress is unlikely to approve such deep cuts in the program, since it affects constituents so broadly. And farm-state lawmakers who have jurisdiction over SNAP have generally sought to preserve it, as food stamps help them win urban Democratic votes for the massive farm bill that Congress passes every five years or so. “It’s important to note, #SNAP plays a crucial role in protecting our most vulnerable citizens who’ve fallen on tough times,” tweeted House Agriculture Chairman Mike Conaway, R-Texas, after the budget was released. Still, Conaway and Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., have indicated they will support some sort of SNAP overhaul in the next farm bill, due next year. “We need to take a look at our nutrition assistance programs to ensure that they are helping the most vulnerable in our society,” Conaway and Roberts said in a joint statement on the budget. It won’t be easy. The bill would need 60 votes in the Senate, and Democrats have strongly opposed any changes to the program. Republican leaders insisted on food stamp cuts in the 2014 farm bill, and the House passed legislation that would have strengthened work requirements and cut 5 percent. After negotiations with the Senate, the cut was reduced to an almost-negligible 1 percent that only affected a handful of states. Similarly, in the mid-1990s, some in the GOP pushed for a major food stamp overhaul as part of welfare reform, and some work requirements were added. But the program stayed largely intact. — WHOM THE CUTS WOULD AFFECT While a majority of SNAP recipients are in urban areas, there has been an increase in rural areas. Of the 10 states that have the most food stamp recipients, seven went Republican in the 2016 presidential election – Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas. In a list compiled by the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, three states among those that have the highest percentage of recipients are strongly Republican – Louisiana, Mississippi and West Virginia. One of Trump’s proposals would limit government waivers that have allowed able-bodied adults who don’t have dependents to receive food stamps indefinitely without finding work. The Trump administration says this would help move people off the rolls. “If you’re on food stamps, and you’re able-bodied, we need you to go to work,” Mulvaney said. Lucy Melcher of the anti-hunger group Share Our Strength says some people aren’t able to find work in their areas, and have no access to job training. She says the cuts could be “devastating.” The proposed cuts would “just exacerbate poverty for people who are already trying to work their way out of it,” Melcher said. “I don’t think there’s a person living in poverty today who wouldn’t be affected by this budget.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
House GOP eyes food stamp overhaul, requirements
House Republicans are laying the groundwork for a fresh effort to overhaul the food stamp program during Donald Trump‘s presidency, with the possibility of new work and eligibility requirements for millions of people. The GOP majority on the House Agriculture Committee released a two-year review of the program on Wednesday that stops short of making specific policy recommendations, but hints at areas where Republicans could focus: strengthening work requirements and perhaps issuing new ones, tightening some eligibility requirements or providing new incentives to encourage food stamp recipients to buy healthier foods. “There’s nothing off the table when it comes to looking at solutions around these areas where we think improvements need to be made,” the committee chairman, Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, said in an interview with The Associated Press. He noted there is nothing in the review that suggests “gutting” or getting rid of the program, which he said serves a critical mission. The food stamp program, called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) now serves about 43.6 million people and cost $74 billion in 2015. Participation in the program rose sharply as the country suffered a recession. The program now costs roughly twice what it did in 2008. The report, based on 16 hearings by the committee, recommends better enforcement of some SNAP work programs in certain states, and finds that 42 states use broad eligibility standards that some Republicans have criticized as too loose. It encourages more incentives to get people to buy healthy food with their food stamp dollars, addressing criticism that recipients use public money for junk foods. The report cites Agriculture Department data showing that 10 percent of foods typically purchased by SNAP households are sweetened beverages. It’s unclear how or when an overhaul could happen. Food stamp policy is included in a wide-ranging farm bill every five years; the next one is due in 2018. It also could be part of a larger effort headed by House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to tackle a welfare or entitlement overhaul, if that should happen in the next Congress. Still, food stamp changes always have been a hard sell in Congress. Democrats almost unilaterally oppose any changes. Some Republicans from poorer districts are also wary. The 1996 welfare law added some new work requirements, but Congress declined to convert federal food stamp dollars into block grants for the states, a move that would cut spending for the program. In 2013, House Republican leaders tried to cut the program by 5 percent annually by passing broad work requirements as part of the last farm bill. The House bill also included drug testing for recipients. The then-Democratic Senate balked, though, and the final bill included a much smaller cut and no allowances for drug testing. Conaway said he’s open to any of those policies, but suggested that block granting the program – a past priority for Ryan – or drug testing recipients are not his priorities. “We don’t want to be helping folks on drugs, but then again, folks on drugs have children,” Conaway said. On block grants, Conaway said it’s not off the table, but not a priority. He said the report should help lawmakers be “not as knee-jerk reactionary as they have been in the past.” The 2013 effort didn’t resonate well, he has said, because Republicans didn’t spell out why it was necessary. Part of the calculation will be what Ryan proposes. He strongly supported block granting food stamps as part of his larger plans for welfare reform when he was chairman of the House Budget Committee. But an agenda he released this year after becoming speaker was vaguer, only suggesting that some food aid programs could be consolidated. As for Trump, he’s said little about what he’d want to do with the program. But he has frequently mentioned how the rolls have increased since President Barack Obama took office. GOP Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, was heavily involved in the 1996 welfare overhaul. He has said his committee will review the food stamp program, but hasn’t made any specific proposals. He says block grants would face significant opposition in the Senate, and he’s not sure whether new work requirements would pass muster, either. “To be determined,” he said. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Fast-food fan Donald Trump could remake healthy school lunches
Will President-elect Donald Trump remake school lunches into his fast-food favorites of burgers and fried chicken? Children grumbling about healthier school meal rules championed by first lady Michelle Obama may have reason to cheer Trump’s election as the billionaire businessman is a proud patron of Kentucky Fried Chicken and McDonald’s while promising to curb federal regulations. The Obama administration has made healthier, safer and better labeled food a priority in the last eight years, significantly raising the profile of food policy and sometimes drawing the ire of Republicans, farmers and the food industry. The first lady made reducing childhood obesity one of her signature issues through her “Let’s Move” campaign. In addition to the healthier school meal rules, the administration ushered a sweeping food safety law through Congress, pushed through several new food labeling regulations, started to phase out trans fats, added calorie labels to menus and suggested new limits on sodium in packaged foods. The White House has also fended off efforts in the Republican Congress to trim the nation’s food stamp program. “Food advocates are already nostalgic for the Obama era and will be playing defense for the next four years,” says Sam Kass, a former White House senior adviser on nutrition and personal chef for the Obamas. A look at some of the food regulations that could be scrapped – or tweaked – in the new administration: — MAKING SCHOOL MEALS GREAT AGAIN Trump himself hasn’t weighed in on school meal regulations. But Republicans, school nutrition directors and some in the food industry have balked at parts of the administration’s rules that set stricter fat, sugar and sodium limits on foods in the lunch line and beyond. While many students have now gotten used to the healthier foods, some schools still complain that they are costly and that it’s difficult to meet the standards. “I would be very surprised if we don’t see some major changes on the school lunch program” and some other food issues, said Rep. Robert Aderholt of Alabama, the Republican chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees Agriculture Department spending. Aderholt, who sits on Trump’s agriculture advisory committee, says the Obama administration’s approach was “activist driven” and people who voted for Trump are looking for a more common-sense approach. One of many names that have been floated as a possible agriculture secretary is Sid Miller, the Texas Agriculture Commissioner who repealed a state ban on deep fryers and soda machines at schools. Miller recently got in trouble when he used a profanity on Twitter to describe Democrat Hillary Clinton; he blamed a staffer and the tweet was deleted. — THE FOOD POLICE In September, the Trump campaign pitched rolling back food safety regulations in a fact sheet, arguing they are burdensome to farmers and criticizing increased inspections of food manufacturing facilities as “overkill.” The sheet referred to the “food police” at the Food and Drug Administration. The campaign later deleted the proposal from its website. Congress passed new food safety regulations in 2010, a year after a salmonella outbreak linked to a Georgia peanut company killed nine people. Michael Taylor, former FDA deputy commissioner for foods who oversaw the food safety rules, says it wouldn’t be popular with consumers to roll them back. “Consumers are only getting more focused on safety, health and wellness,” Taylor says. Trump himself is a self-professed germaphobe who prefers eating at fast-food restaurants because he believes they have higher food safety standards. — FOOD STAMPS Congressional Republicans have been examining food stamps since the program’s cost grew to almost $80 billion annually after the recession. Participation and costs have dipped since its 2013 high, but conservatives have suggested tightening eligibility standards or increasing work requirements. House Speaker Paul Ryan has for years championed an overhaul to the program. Democrats in the Senate have consistently objected to any changes to the program, and will still wield influence. But they won’t have the backing of a Democratic White House. — OTHER FOOD POLICY Many other laws are either already in place or close to it, including a revised “nutrition facts” panel on the back of food packages, with a new line breaking out added sugars, a labeling law for genetically modified foods and calorie labeling on restaurant and supermarket menus. In many cases, the rules are a result of compromise with industry. Kass says that pulling back may just create more cost and uncertainty for businesses. “Unwinding things is really hard, especially when most of them have been implemented and industry has moved on,” Kass says. He predicts most of the regulations will stay, but that there will be little additional progress. Ongoing administration efforts to reduce sodium in food and antibiotics in meat could be casualties. Margo Wootan, a lobbyist on nutrition issues for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, says advocates will continue to be aggressive at the state and local levels, hoping change will bubble up. “The public is more interested than ever in nutrition and will continue to press companies,” she says. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Robert Aderholt-backed bill would allow drug testing for food stamps
A key House Republican is renewing a GOP push to allow drug tests for low-income food stamp recipients, a move to help states like Wisconsin, where Gov. Scott Walker has sued the federal government to permit screening. Alabama Rep. Robert Aderholt unveiled the measure on Thursday as Republicans look to find savings in the program. Aderholt says that states could choose whether they wanted to allow drug testing, so the legislation wouldn’t be a mandate. He says it’s common sense to create drug programs for those who need help. “This is a compassionate way to try and help these people who have issues, instead of turning the head,” said Aderholt, chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees spending for the Agriculture Department, which administers the food stamp program. The bill is designed to aid states like Wisconsin, where former GOP presidential candidate Walker has sought to require food stamp recipients to undergo drug screening. Walker’s administration filed suit against the Agriculture Department, which has said federal law bars the practice. The government says states cannot impose new standards of eligibility under the law, and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has said drug testing recipients is intrusive and ineffective. The legislation would find savings – and cut benefits for some recipients – by making it harder for people to become automatically eligible for food stamps if they already participate in a federal heating assistance program. Aderholt’s office says the estimated savings are around $1.2 billion, with about half of that awarded to states for drug treatment programs. The food stamp program, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, served more than 46 million Americans and cost $74 billion last year. That’s twice the program’s 2008 cost. Though he has not weighed in on Aderholt’s legislation, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., has long said he wants to overhaul the food stamp program, along with other federal assistance for the poor. He has in the past proposed budgets that would convert federal food stamp dollars into block grants for the states, a move that would cut spending for the program. Aderholt says he hopes his legislation is a first step in a larger GOP effort to overhaul the food stamp program. In 2013, House Republican leaders tried unsuccessfully to cut the program by 5 percent annually by passing broad new work requirements as part of a massive farm bill. The bill also included drug testing for recipients. House leaders held up the bill for more than a year, insisting that money for farm programs be paired with significant cuts to food stamps. Democrats balked, and the final bill included a much smaller cut and no allowances for drug testing. That effort was before Republicans won the Senate in 2014. Since then, House Agriculture Chairman Mike Conaway of Texas has led what he calls a comprehensive, multiyear review of the program to see what’s working. He said last year that “either huge reforms or small reforms” could come from that process. Aderholt did not rule out adding his legislation to this year’s agriculture spending bill, which he writes. But he said he will try and move it through Conaway’s committee first. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Felony drug offenders now eligible for SNAP, TANF benefits in Alabama
On Saturday Alabama joined most U.S. states by allowing people with a past felony drug conviction to receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, as well as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) assistance, according to a news release by Alabama Arise. The lifetime ban on SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program, and TANF benefits for drug offenders grew out of a 1996 federal welfare reform law enacted by former President Bill Clinton, though the law does allow states to request a waiver. Though most other states requested a waiver before, Alabama included reinstating the benefits in a 2015 prison reform law sponsored by Sen. Cam Ward (R-Alabaster) with a floor amendment offered by Sen. Linda Coleman (D-Birmingham). Restrictions still apply to drug offenders seeking benefits, including the completion of their sentence and probation requirements. Further, persons with a drug offense in the past five years may be required to pass a drug test to receive TANF benefits. People previously denied Snap or TANF benefits because of a drug offense can apply at a local Department of Human Resources office after Monday. Further, households already receiving benefits but have a household member not included because of a drug conviction can report the “newly eligible person” to the household’s caseworker. “The end of Alabama’s SNAP and TANF bans is good news for state budget and for families,” the Arise news release said. “The policy change will help cut corrections costs in the cash-strapped General Fund budget by making it easier for released prisoners to reintegrate into the community, which will help reduce recidivism. Importantly, restoring SNAP and TANF benefits also will help prevent hunger and homelessness among some of Alabama’s most vulnerable families.” Officials with Alabama Arise estimate that 30,000 to 80,000 Alabamians would become eligible for SNAP benefits under the change, with TNF benefits being harder to monitor because they are more difficult to secure. Both programs are funded by federal dollars, so the influx of new beneficiaries will add no new costs to the state.
45,000 Alabamians at risk of losing food stamp benefits as work requirements resume
A federal waiver which allowed states to waive work requirements for recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, formerly known as the Food Stamp program, expired Jan. 1. The expiration of the federal waiver means that about 45,000 Alabamians receiving SNAP benefits must acquire work to maintain their benefits. The change does not affect recipients with physical or mental disabilities, only those who are “able-bodied” adults, ages 18 to 49, without dependents and receiving $194 a month in benefits. Along with exceptions for disabled recipients, those who are pregnant or caring for an incapacitated person. Though the expiration of the waiver requires these able-bodied Alabamians to work, or be enrolled in a training program, at least 80 hours a month, SNAP benefit recipients affected are allowed three months without a job during a 36-month period. The highest number of affected recipients is in Jefferson County, 6,377, with Mobile County close behind at 5,068. The work requirement waiver will continue to be observed in 13 of Alabama’s 67 counties suffering from high unemployment rates, including Barbour, Choctaw, Clarke, Conecuh, Dallas, Greene, Hale, Lowndes, Monroe, Perry, Sumter, Washington and Wilcox counties. As many as 1 million people nationally could lose SNAP benefits as a result of the waiver expiration, 40 percent of them women and a quarter who do not have a high school diploma, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
