Washington, D.C. — Earlier today, the U.S. House Agriculture Committee released their budget proposal which would enact the largest Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) cut in history, aiming to cut $290 billion from SNAP. A new Center for American Progress article breaks down how this proposal makes it harder for families and children in need to put food on the table.
The proposal would shift benefit costs to states for the first time, linking this new cost-sharing formula to state error rates. On top of this, the package would expand burdensome paperwork requirements to older Americans and families with children and freeze future benefits increases that would help households adjust to rising food costs. Some key takeaways breaking down the budget proposal include:
- A new mandate shifting a portion of SNAP benefit costs to states—a massive new expense for states that could cost them hundreds of millions of dollars annually. The proposal mandates that, for the first time, states have to begin paying for a portion of SNAP benefits, starting at 5 percent for those below 6 percent error rate and rising to 25 percent for states with the highest error rates. These mandates are particularly problematic during recessions, when SNAP participation spikes as state revenue falls, potentially pushing hundreds of thousands of additional people into poverty if states were forced to reduce benefits to balance their budgets.
- Paperwork requirement expansions would increase program complexity and administrative burden. The budget proposal includes expansions of SNAP’s paperwork requirement that imposes a three-month time limit on benefits in a three-year period unless recipients demonstrate compliance. If implemented, it could take essential food assistance away from 3 million parents with children older than age 7, plus more than 4 million children in these households.
- Freezing updates to the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) means all SNAP participants will face cuts. SNAP benefits are calculated using TFP, and preventing future benefit increases would result in outdated benefits and prevent recipients from keeping pace with the rising costs of groceries.
“SNAP is an efficient anti-hunger program. Yet, House Republicans’ proposals would gut this program, and take food away from the hungry to give tax breaks to the ultrawealthy. These budget proposals make it clear where their priorities lie,” said Kyle Ross, policy analyst and author of the column.
Read the column: “The House Republican SNAP Cuts Would Take Food From Hungry Families” by Kyle Ross
For more information or to speak with an expert, please contact Sarah Nadeau at [email protected].