Hunger will increase across America
A new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office says 3.2 million people would lose food assistance benefits under the tax and spending bill recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. (Photo by Lance Cheung/USDA).
Being a freelance writer, I have had my own financial ups and downs. My own experience with poverty, and with paying bills that you really lack the funds to pay, leaves me flabbergasted by the short-sightedness behind the massive budget package that passed the U.S House of Representatives.
Republicans and conservatives have been calling it 'a big beautiful bill,' but New Mexico's own The Food Depot, which services nine New Mexico counties, says the only result will be even greater challenges to access food and healthcare.'The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities writes that if the bill passes unchanged, it would be the first time in the modern history of the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Programs 'that the federal government would no longer ensure that the lowest-income families with children, older adults, and people with disabilities in every state have access to the food assistance they need.'
Local and national groups concur. And I believe them.
These organizations point out blatant inconsistencies in the bill's rationale, revealing its intent is not to lift spirits, or instill the down-on-their-luck with training and knowledge. It's to punish them.
The most talked about aspects are the additional work requirements for nutritional assistance and Medicaid recipients. The revisions display a grave misunderstanding that poverty is layered, complex and full of pitfalls. Able-bodied SNAP recipients already fulfill work requirements, with exemptions for those who are taking care of children, or over age 55. The provisions in the U.S. House bill eliminate most exemptions, like a clean slate that erases all familial differences, or capabilities. The new provision—which will heavily impact New Mexico, where 61% of SNAP recipients are families with children—orders that any parent with a child over six years old will have to meet work requirements.
The new requirements can easily undermine households already in tenuous situations. Obviously, people who qualify for nutritional assistance have even less ability to pay for child care. How much harm will forcing a parent to leave the house and systemically abandon a very young child do?
Furthermore if the family or single parent faces a set of circumstances that leaves them unable to meet the new work requirements, what happens? The household loses its SNAP benefits. The bottom line is that this means less food for the child. The proposal promises a drastic uptick in child hunger. What kind of society snatches food from families with children?
The bill would also impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients, forcing them to prove they're consistently working, which is basically an excuse for additional paperwork—additional red tape in a system that is already clogged with it. The overwhelming majority of Medicaid recipients already work. A 2023 analysis found that 71% of Medicaid enrollees were in school, or employed, and a significant number of the 'unemployed' were caregivers of some kind, staying at home for the sake of sick family members. Healthcare furthermore is a human right that should be available to all Americans, regardless of income or ability to make a regular paycheck.
GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson cavalierly claims the bill is harmless. 'What we're talking about, again, is able-bodied workers, many of whom are refusing to work because they're gaming the system,' he stated on the Face the Nation TV show, and opined, 'There's a moral component to what we are doing.'
Alas, Johnson's moral component is based on an obsessive zeal to stereotype the recipients of assistance with the lie that all people who aren't financially solvent are consequently lazy, shiftless or criminal. Like most distorted morality imposed by self-righteous groups, it's worsened by the refusal to examine the GOP''s own hypocrisy and self-interest. The 'big beautiful bill' includes a massive tax cut for the wealthy.
It's a matter of cutting services to the have-nots to provide benefits for the very rich. It's a matter of kicking one group off the rolls to afford tax cuts that bolster the other. The U.S. Senate can do better than this, and should reject this ' big beautiful bill' and its contemptuous elitist morality.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
KY Rep. Thomas Massie is at odds again with Trump over Iran. Here's the history
Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie and President Donald Trump don't always see eye-to-eye. In fact, the two Republicans have been at odds for most of Trump's second term. Massie was one of only two House Republican 'no' votes on the president's massive spending bill, and he's been the loudest voice in the room against Trump's actions against Iran. And on Saturday, Massie led GOP opposition to the Trump administration's intervention in the Israel-Iran war by striking three Iranian nuclear development sites. Trump has repeatedly called the 4th Congressional District Rep. a 'grandstander' and said earlier this year he 'should be primaried.' The past few months are just the latest in a long history between Massie and Trump, though. The pair agree on many conservative principles, and have endorsed each other at points, but Massie's relationship with has been among the most frictional of any sitting lawmaker over the years. Here's a timeline: Massie, a critic of most precautionary measures adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic, forced an in-person vote on a Trump-backed relief package early in the pandemic in 2020. Members of both parties criticized Massie, and Trump called him a 'third-rate grandstander.' The president also urged Republican leaders at the time to 'throw Massie out of Republican Party.' Later that year, a GOP primary challenger's attempt to brand Massie as disloyal to the president fell far short of success. The challenger, Todd McMurtry, notched 19 percentage points to Massie's 81. During the next election cycle, Claire Wirth took a similar tack and lost by roughly the same margin. Shortly after Massie's primary win, Trump endorsed him for the general election, calling the representative a 'Conservative Warrior' and a 'first-rate Defender of the Constitution.' In 2023, Massie hitched his wagon to the GOP presidential primary campaign of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. The governor was viewed widely as the most viable Republican alternative to Trump. Massie made several out-of-state appearances with DeSantis before DeSantis withdrew from the race in early 2024. In May 2024, Massie trounced his two GOP primary opponents, including Eric Deters, a Northern Kentucky political figure who has hewed close to Trump. In October 2024, just 11 days before the general election, Massie endorsed Trump in his ultimately successful bid for president. One of Trump's first legislative priorities was a funding bill that averted a government shutdown. Massie was the only 'no' vote on the bill in March of this year, prompting Trump's call that he 'should be primaried,' and vowing to 'lead the charge against him.' In the midst of that scrum, former co-manager of the Trump 2024 presidential campaign Chris LaCivita posted a cryptic message on social media indicating he'd work against Massie. As of late June, a legitimate primary challenger has yet to be announced. On Trump's wide-reaching 'Big Beautiful Bill,' Massie was unflagging in his opposition, citing its likelihood of increasing the national deficit and not cutting entitlement programs like Medicaid as much as he'd like. Trump made a pitch to Massie face-to-face at a House GOP caucus meeting in May, and Massie was unmoved. Two days later, Massie was one of just two House GOP members to vote no on the 'Big Beautiful Bill.' Since the conflict between Israel and Iran has heightened in the last 10 days, Massie has been one of the leading anti-intervention voices on the American right. Trump has not responded directly to Massie's activism, which turned to stark criticism following the U.S. military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites Saturday. Massie has asserted that the administration needed to consult Congress before launching the attack, and last week introduced a resolution against U.S. involvement in the war. Massie joined his resolution's co-sponsor, California Democrat Ro Khanna, for an interview on CBS Sunday denouncing the strikes. He framed the aggression as going against a crucial part of the new Republican party that stands against foreign intervention, adding he believes it was 'a good week for the neo-cons in the military industrial complex who want war all the time.'
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Americans react to US strikes on Iran with worry as well as support for Israel
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — One of Layton Tallwhiteman's earliest memories was watching the news at his uncle's house in Montana in 2003 and seeing the U.S. bomb Baghdad to launch the war in Iraq. Recollections of that war — waged in part to find weapons of mass destruction that did not exist – flooded back for Tallwhiteman after President Donald Trump ordered weekend bombing strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities amid its escalating conflict with Israel. The administration has indicated it wants to avoid getting pulled into all-out war. Tallwhiteman, who grew up on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation southeast of Billings, is skeptical. 'Their idea is to eliminate the threat. Like Bush said in Iraq, 'We're going to eliminate the threat. We're going to find weapons of mass destruction and eliminate them.' Did that work the way he planned? No, obviously it didn't,' said Tallwhiteman. The 30-year-old driver for a food distribution company said he usually votes Libertarian, but backed Democrat Kamala Harris over Trump last year. Across the U.S. on Sunday, Americans expressed a mixture of support, apprehension and confoundment at the bombings, which officials said caused severe damage to Iran's nuclear sites. Administration officials said the strikes left room for Iran to return to negotiations over its nuclear program. Yet if the conflict spirals, it could test Trump's foreign diplomacy skills and also his support at home. 'It had to be done' B-2 bombers that participated in the weekend strikes returned home to Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri on Sunday. Nearby, retired Air Force veteran Ken Slabaugh said he was '100% supportive' of Trump's decision and the military personnel who carried it out. Slabaugh said Iran has showed resistance to negotiations over its nuclear program for decades, a problem that he said Trump inherited. Iran can't be trusted, Slabaugh said, nor allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. 'It simply had to be done,' he said of the strikes, adding that he's now concerned for members of the military around the world. 'I'm proud of the guys and the gals that are doing the work out there. Nobody in the world does this like we do, and we have the freedom and liberty we enjoy because of that,' Slabaugh said. In Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, Andrew Williams, 18, said he was surprised by the timing of the attack given that many Republicans had expressed opposition to U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran war. Still, he thought it was necessary if Iran was building nuclear weapons. 'If we are able to get rid of that, that is something we should do,' Williams said. Robert Wallette of Billings said Trump had 'good reason' to conduct the bombing as a demonstration of American support for Israel. 'Iran's evil, evil people. They hate Americans,' he said. Concern about conflict spinning out of control Wallette, 69, a retired contract specialist at the federal Indian Health Service, said he hated Trump when the Republican was first elected because of his arrogant style. His perspective started to shift after Trump moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In 2024, Wallette voted for Trump based on his promises to curb illegal immigration, putting him among the 60% of voters backing Trump last year in Yellowstone County, which includes Billings. Notwithstanding his support, Wallette was unsure if Trump can avoid the U.S. getting drawn into a deeper conflict with Iran. 'Other countries are getting involved and this may be out of his control,' he said. Kent Berame, 32, of Davie, Florida, said it was a little outrageous for Trump to go rogue and approve the attack without explicit support from Congress. He said he doesn't agree with the United States supporting Israel's recent attacks on Iran. 'There's concern that we're putting troops in danger,' said Berame, a Democrat who owns his own marketing company. 'And obviously there's a retaliatory response toward all of our bases over there.' Berame said it's frustrating that the U.S. might be increasing hostilities with Iran just a few years after finally ending the war in Afghanistan. 'I don't want to see any U.S. soldiers in harm's way or in danger,' he said. Back in Billings, Trump voter Patty Ellman said she worries about the U.S. getting sucked into another extended conflict. 'We have enough going on in America to get into other countries' wars. Let's just take care of us right now,' she said. Ellman, a 61-year-old who stepped in as caregiver for her ex-husband after he suffered a stroke, said the U.S. should retaliate if attacked, but otherwise stay out of Iran's conflict with other countries. 'That's their business,' she said. 'We need to worry about Americans and how we're going to survive and are we going to have Social Security.' With contributions from David Fischer in Davie, Florida; Nicholas Ingram in Knob Noster, Missouri; and Mingson Lau in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Americans react to US strikes on Iran with worry as well as support for Israel
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — One of Layton Tallwhiteman's earliest memories was watching the news at his uncle's house in Montana in 2003 and seeing the U.S. bomb Baghdad to launch the war in Iraq. Recollections of that war — waged in part to find weapons of mass destruction that did not exist – flooded back for Tallwhiteman after President Donald Trump ordered weekend bombing strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities amid its escalating conflict with Israel. The administration has indicated it wants to avoid getting pulled into all-out war . Tallwhiteman, who grew up on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation southeast of Billings, is skeptical. 'Their idea is to eliminate the threat. Like Bush said in Iraq, 'We're going to eliminate the threat. We're going to find weapons of mass destruction and eliminate them.' Did that work the way he planned? No, obviously it didn't,' said Tallwhiteman. The 30-year-old driver for a food distribution company said he usually votes Libertarian, but backed Democrat Kamala Harris over Trump last year. Across the U.S. on Sunday, Americans expressed a mixture of support, apprehension and confoundment at the bombings, which officials said caused severe damage to Iran's nuclear sites. Administration officials said the strikes left room for Iran to return to negotiations over its nuclear program. Yet if the conflict spirals, it could test Trump's foreign diplomacy skills and also his support at home. 'It had to be done' B-2 bombers that participated in the weekend strikes returned home to Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri on Sunday. Nearby, retired Air Force veteran Ken Slabaugh said he was '100% supportive' of Trump's decision and the military personnel who carried it out. Slabaugh said Iran has showed resistance to negotiations over its nuclear program for decades, a problem that he said Trump inherited. Iran can't be trusted, Slabaugh said, nor allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. 'It simply had to be done,' he said of the strikes, adding that he's now concerned for members of the military around the world. 'I'm proud of the guys and the gals that are doing the work out there. Nobody in the world does this like we do, and we have the freedom and liberty we enjoy because of that,' Slabaugh said. In Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, Andrew Williams, 18, said he was surprised by the timing of the attack given that many Republicans had expressed opposition to U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran war. Still, he thought it was necessary if Iran was building nuclear weapons. 'If we are able to get rid of that, that is something we should do,' Williams said. Robert Wallette of Billings said Trump had 'good reason' to conduct the bombing as a demonstration of American support for Israel. 'Iran's evil, evil people. They hate Americans,' he said. Concern about conflict spinning out of control Wallette, 69, a retired contract specialist at the federal Indian Health Service, said he hated Trump when the Republican was first elected because of his arrogant style. His perspective started to shift after Trump moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In 2024, Wallette voted for Trump based on his promises to curb illegal immigration, putting him among the 60% of voters backing Trump last year in Yellowstone County, which includes Billings. Notwithstanding his support, Wallette was unsure if Trump can avoid the U.S. getting drawn into a deeper conflict with Iran. 'Other countries are getting involved and this may be out of his control,' he said. Kent Berame, 32, of Davie, Florida, said it was a little outrageous for Trump to go rogue and approve the attack without explicit support from Congress. He said he doesn't agree with the United States supporting Israel's recent attacks on Iran. 'There's concern that we're putting troops in danger,' said Berame, a Democrat who owns his own marketing company. 'And obviously there's a retaliatory response toward all of our bases over there.' Berame said it's frustrating that the U.S. might be increasing hostilities with Iran just a few years after finally ending the war in Afghanistan. 'I don't want to see any U.S. soldiers in harm's way or in danger,' he said. Back in Billings, Trump voter Patty Ellman said she worries about the U.S. getting sucked into another extended conflict. 'We have enough going on in America to get into other countries' wars. Let's just take care of us right now,' she said. Ellman, a 61-year-old who stepped in as caregiver for her ex-husband after he suffered a stroke, said the U.S. should retaliate if attacked, but otherwise stay out of Iran's conflict with other countries. 'That's their business,' she said. 'We need to worry about Americans and how we're going to survive and are we going to have Social Security.' ____ With contributions from David Fischer in Davie, Florida; Nicholas Ingram in Knob Noster, Missouri; and Mingson Lau in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
