Local programs brace for impact of potential SNAP reductions
JOPLIN, Mo. — The Missouri House prepares to vote on a federal budget resolution which could impact the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as 'SNAP.'
Back in April, the state proposed to delegate cuts to SNAP to aid the federal budget resolution.
According to the USDA, SNAP helps more than 650,000 people in Missouri, including about 300-thousand children, afford food.
Representatives with Joplin's Head Start program say about 80-percent of their families are eligible for SNAP benefits and 42-percent of them say 'they struggle to provide healthy meals each day.'
Local food bank workers say those numbers are causing a steady stream of traffic through their doors.
'At first it was just like a little trickle. But now we have more and more people coming in and it's definitely noticeable. We have probably a 10% increase about 10% to 15% of the amount of households that are coming in that need food assistance,' said Carrie Pence, Joplin Crosslines Ministries executive director.
'Even with all of the stuff that we are doing on the front line, we're still seeing a lot of food insecurity, so a cut to the SNAP benefits would strain and stretch an already taxed community support system that we're already relying on heavily,' said Kelly Creech, Head Start and Early Head Start family development coordinator.
Head Start and Early Head Start serve about 900 families a year, and Crosslines Ministries serve about 2,000 families each month to help lessen the gap of food insecurity.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Walmart Pulls Three Items After Deadly Food Poisoning Outbreak
Federal health officials revealed that three chicken fettuccine alfredo products sold at Walmart and Kroger are the cause of a deadly food poisoning outbreak. The listeria food poisoning outbreak, which began last August and has now claimed the lives of three people and led to one pregnancy loss, comes from pre-packaged chicken fettucine alfredo products from producer FreshRealm, according to the USDA. In total, at least 17 people in 13 states have been infected. FreshRealm is recalling the products that were made before June 17. The recalled products are as follows: —32.8-ounce trays of Marketside Grilled Chicken Alfredo with Fettucine Tender Pasta with Creamy Alfredo Sauce, White Meat Chicken and Shaved Parmesan Cheese with best-by dates of June 27 or earlier. —12.3-ounce trays of Marketside Grilled Chicken Alfredo with Fettucine Tender Pasta with Creamy Alfredo Sauce, White Meat Chicken, Broccoli and Shaved Parmesan Cheese with best-by dates of June 26 or earlier. —12.5-ounce trays of Home Chef Heat & Eat Chicken Fettucine Alfredo with Pasta, Grilled White Meat Chicken and Parmesan Cheese, with best-by dates of June 19 or earlier. Anyone with those products at home are advised to either throw them out or return them to where they were purchased. According to the Mayo Clinic, healthy people rarely get very ill from the bacteria, but listeria is especially dangerous for pregnant women and unborn babies, people over 65 and people with weakened immune systems. Foods such as soft cheeses, deli meats and dairy products that haven't been pasteurized are more likely to be tainted than other foods. Listeria bacteria is capable of surviving refrigeration and freezing. Walmart Pulls Three Items After Deadly Food Poisoning Outbreak first appeared on Men's Journal on Jun 18, 2025
Miami Herald
18 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Donald Trump's SNAP Benefit Cut Plans Suffer Blow
A plan by Republicans to shift a portion of federal food stamp costs to state governments suffered a major setback after the Senate parliamentarian found it would violate chamber rules. The blocked provision was an attempt to reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), affecting more than 40 million low-income Americans who rely on food aid. The shift would have transferred major SNAP costs to the states, requiring them to pay at least 5 percent—and potentially more—of benefit costs, which analysts warned could result in significant cuts to nutrition support. The parliamentarian's decision places additional pressure on the bill's champions to find alternative means to fund tax cuts without imperiling food assistance, Medicaid, or other federal support programs. The provision, a cornerstone of Republican efforts to offset the costs of President Donald Trump's multitrillion-dollar tax and spending legislation, has been ruled inadmissible under Senate rules, sending GOP leaders scrambling to revise the mega bill. The ruling, issued by Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, came as the package prepared for a vote. While her opinions are advisory, they are rarely ignored in lawmaking practice. Republican lawmakers are now searching for new savings as they continue to advance Trump's legislative priorities despite the setback. MacDonough declared the SNAP cost-sharing plan noncompliant with the chamber's budget reconciliation rules, specifically the Byrd Rule, which bars certain policy measures from being attached to budget bills. The proposal would have shifted billions of dollars in SNAP costs from the federal government to the states, creating a new fiscal obligation for state governments and threatening coverage for millions. House Passes Bill with GOP SNAP Cuts The House passed the broader tax and spending package along party lines in May 2025, including a provision to require states to fund at least 5 percent of SNAP benefits and more for high error rates. The House-passed measure's SNAP provision was projected to save about $128 billion. Republican leaders had hoped these savings would help offset the bill's $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and new spending. Other Key Provisions Beyond SNAP, the package includes an extension and expansion of individual and business tax cuts, new work requirements for Medicaid recipients, cuts to federal health and nutrition programs, increased military and border security funding, and the elimination of taxes on tips for service workers. GOP Paths Forward Republican leaders, including Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman of Arkansas, said they were exploring options to keep the legislation on track while still delivering savings elsewhere. Options range from modifying the disputed SNAP provision to removing it entirely or risking a procedural vote requiring 60 votes—an unlikely scenario in the current Senate. Impact on SNAP Recipients The plan would have expanded work requirements to older adults (up to age 65), a component that remains in the bill for now. Democrats and anti-hunger advocates warned of significant harm to those in need, with more than 3 million individuals projected to lose food stamp access based on Congressional Budget Office estimates. Additional Rulings Expected The Senate parliamentarian is also expected to rule on other elements in the bill, including limits on immigrant eligibility for nutrition aid and changes to federal agencies, with further decisions likely to shape the final legislation. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, said: "We will keep fighting to protect families in need," opposing shifts in SNAP costs to states, which she said would result in significant benefit cuts. Arkansas Senator John Boozman, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said Republicans are "exploring options" to comply with Senate rules, while supporting those reliant on SNAP. Senate Republicans are expected to revise the bill to comply with the parliamentarian's rulings or drop the contested SNAP provisions. Further decisions from the adviser on other elements of the megabill are anticipated before any final Senate vote. This article contains reporting from The Associated Press. Related Articles When Are July 2025 SNAP Payments Coming?Republicans Out Of Step With Voters On Medicaid FundingNew York State Facing Lawsuit Over SNAP BenefitsSNAP Recipients Get Extra Money This Month in California 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Miami Herald
a day ago
- Miami Herald
Senate official rejects food aid cuts proposed by Republicans in megabill
A top Senate official on Friday night rejected a bid by Republicans to slash federal food aid payments as part of their sweeping legislation carrying President Donald Trump's domestic agenda, sending party leaders scrambling to find another way to help offset the massive cost of the bill. The measure passed by the House last month and on track to be considered in the Senate next week would cover part of the cost of extending and expanding large tax cuts by cutting social safety net programs including Medicaid and nutrition programs, including SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. Republicans are moving the bill through Congress using special rules that shield it from a filibuster, depriving Democrats of the ability to block it. But to qualify for that protection, the legislation must comply with a rigorous set of budgetary restrictions meant to ensure that it will not add to the deficit. And the Senate parliamentarian, an official appointed by the chamber's leaders to enforce its rules and precedents, must evaluate such measures to ensure that every provision meets those requirements. Elizabeth MacDonough, the parliamentarian, ruled that the SNAP measure, which would push some of the costs of nutrition assistance onto the states, did not. That sent Republicans back to the drawing board to find another strategy for covering tens of billions of dollars of the bill's cost. She also said Republicans could not include a provision that would bar immigrants who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents from receiving SNAP benefits, according to Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Budget Committee. The House-passed bill would require all states to pay at least 5% of SNAP benefit costs, and more if they reported a high rate of errors in underpaying or overpaying recipients. That provision was estimated to save roughly $128 billion. Senate Republicans were unsettled by that plan, arguing it would tee up insurmountable budget shortfalls for their states. They softened it, advancing a lower share for states to shoulder than that set forward by the House proposal. On Saturday, Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., the chair of the Agriculture Committee, said GOP senators would continue to try to find a way to cut food assistance that complied with Senate rules. 'To rein in federal spending and protect taxpayer dollars, the committee is pursuing meaningful reforms to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to improve efficiency, accountability and integrity,' Boozman said in a statement. He said he was looking at options 'to ensure SNAP serves those who truly need it while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.' Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the Agriculture Committee, cheered the parliamentarian's decision, saying she had 'made clear that Senate Republicans cannot use their partisan budget to shift major nutrition assistance costs to the states that would have inevitably led to major cuts.' Several fiscal hawks in the House and Senate have complained that the legislation does not do enough to cut federal spending. With the parliamentarian's ruling, Republicans will have to find another way to slash a huge sum of money that their members also feel comfortable voting for. The ruling was just one piece of a broader review the parliamentarian is conducting of the Republican-written legislation. She was expected to work through the weekend evaluating the measure and instructing Republicans to strip out any provision she deems out of order. Should they fail to do so, Democrats could challenge the bill on the floor, forcing Republicans to muster 60 votes to advance it, which would effectively kill it since Democrats are solidly opposed. The parliamentarian also will determine whether Republicans can keep a provision that would block states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade, and whether they can use a budget trick that would make extending the 2017 tax cuts appear to be free. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
