How proposed federal SNAP cuts would harm New Hampshire
Advertisement
Right now, the federal government pays for 100 percent of the state's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, formerly known as 'food stamps' – $154 million in fiscal year 2024, according to the
Get N.H. Morning Report
A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox.
Enter Email
Sign Up
People with low income who are eligible get a benefits card, and they can use money loaded onto the card toward the cost of groceries each month.
The bill would require states to pay 5 percent to 25 percent of those benefits, and states that made more errors, such as overpayments or underpayments, would have to pay a higher percentage.
Advertisement
In 2023, New Hampshire's error rate was 12.53, according to the
But Laura Milliken, executive director at New Hampshire Hunger Solutions, said it's very unlikely New Hampshire would be able to come up with that kind of money.
'There's no question that there would be cuts,' she said.
Milliken's organization estimates that tens of thousands of Granite Staters would lose access to SNAP if the federal proposal is approved.
The federal spending bill would also require states to pay 75 percent of the administrative costs of SNAP, up from 50 percent. In 2023, the overall cost of administering SNAP in New Hampshire was $22 million, according to the
'It's just so disturbing at a time when the cost of living is squeezing us all,' Milliken said of the proposed federal cuts. 'SNAP has been our country's first line of defense against hunger for 60 years. We should be strengthening those programs, not taking them away.'
This article first appeared in Globe NH | Morning Report, our free newsletter focused on the news you need to know about New Hampshire, including great coverage from the Boston Globe and links to interesting articles from other places. If you'd like to receive it via e-mail Monday through Friday,
Amanda Gokee can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
14 hours ago
- New York Post
Don't fall for the lies about the GOP's plan for Medicaid: We're actually STRENGTHENING it
President Donald Trump has asked Congress to follow through on his domestic-policy agenda by extending tax cuts for Americans, investing in our military and border security and cutting waste, fraud and abuse in entitlement spending, which threatens the solvency our nation's safety-net programs. For my House Committee on Energy and Commerce, this meant hitting a 10-year savings target of $880 billion across our jurisdiction — energy, environment, telecommunications and health care — which I knew could only be reached through careful consideration and resolve. Advertisement The committee came through, and then some: The most recent estimate from the Congressional Budget Office found that our efforts will save nearly $1.1 trillion. More than a quarter of this amount, $344 billion, comes from new community-engagement rules (i.e., work requirements) for able-bodied adults who receive Medicaid benefits but choose not to work. The rules will promote greater accountability and refocus Medicaid to better serve the most vulnerable. Advertisement What exactly do these community-engagement requirements consist of? If you're an able-bodied, unemployed adult who receives Medicaid, they ask that you demonstrate that you are either working, volunteering, in job training or in school for an average of 80 hours per month. Health care and work are inextricably linked in this country: Nearly half of all Americans get their health insurance through their jobs, seniors get Medicare after years of contributing payroll taxes and members of our military and our veterans get their coverage through their service to our country. To require Medicaid recipients who are able-bodied and unemployed to either work, go to school or volunteer in their communities in order to continue receiving subsidized health insurance should be a no brainer. Advertisement You may have heard misinformation that work requirements are really just a sneaky way to take health care away from hard-working Americans, or even people with disabilities. Let me set the record straight: This policy applies only to able-bodied, unemployed adults who have chosen not to work. Our bill couldn't be clearer about that; it includes a long list of exempted individuals. For instance: If you're pregnant, a member of a federally designated tribe, a caregiver or parent, under 19 or over 65, you're exempt from the requirements. Advertisement You're exempt if you're medically frail, which includes anyone who's blind, disabled, battling a chronic substance-use disorder or living with a serious and complex medical condition like cancer. If you meet work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (welfare), you're also relieved of the requirements. If you're in jail, prison or were released from incarceration within the past 90 days, you're exempt. And if you're a former foster youth under 26, the requirements don't apply. Plainly, the policy is targeting just a subset of fully able adults who are voluntarily choosing not to work or give back to their communities. There are strong grounds for this policy: A new study from the American Enterprise Institute found that able-bodied, unemployed adult Medicaid recipients without dependents average 6.1 hours a day — 184 hours a month — watching television and socializing. That figure is 50% higher than for employed beneficiaries. These individuals spend less than a combined one hour a day looking for work or caring for others. Advertisement And we're only asking that, in return for their Medicaid coverage, they choose from an array of options — work, go to school or volunteer — for just 80 hours per month. That's eminently reasonable, and can help them become more self-reliant and productive. Note, too, that a sizable number — 38% of beneficiaries, per a new White House Council of Economic Advisors study — are able-bodied, working-age adults. There's no good reason for them not to be contributing to their communities or at least on a path to becoming productive. Advertisement Americans are smart enough not to fall for the false narratives, lies and smears against work requirements. They share Republicans' desires to purge government programs of rampant waste, fraud and abuse. Our requirements help do just that, strengthening Medicaid for those who truly need it. Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) is chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Miami Herald
15 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.
Newsweek
17 hours ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's SNAP Benefit Cut Plans Suffer Blow
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. 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. Why It Matters 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. What To Know 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. Activists with the Poor People's Campaign protest against spending reductions across Medicaid, food stamps and federal aid in President Donald Trump's spending and tax bill being worked on by Senate Republicans this week, outside the... Activists with the Poor People's Campaign protest against spending reductions across Medicaid, food stamps and federal aid in President Donald Trump's spending and tax bill being worked on by Senate Republicans this week, outside the Supreme Court in Washington D.C. on Monday, June 2, 2025. More J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo Parliamentarian Ruling and Byrd Rule Compliance 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. What People Are Saying 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. What Happens Next 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.
