Idaho runs SNAP efficiently, officials say. But Congress might make state pay millions more.
At a farm market in St. Petersburg, Florida, SNAP recipients were able to use their Electronic Benefits Transfer cards for food. (Photo by Lance Cheung/USDA).
Earlier this month, Idaho Gov. Brad Little said he had thoughts on the 'big, beautiful bill' advancing through Congress.
To extend 2017 tax cuts, the bill would deeply cut federal spending for programs, including Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
Speaking to reporters, Little said he wondered how it would impact Idaho.
'I don't want to be in a position to where the big, beautiful bill passes, and myself and all my fellow governors are going to be back there whining and crying,' he said on May 12.
ID governor joins letter to Trump supporting bill that cuts billions from Medicaid, food assistance
But he soon added that Idaho would be better prepared than other states — because of the state's stockpiled rainy day fund, and investments in facilities, schools and roads.
'I've said this many times: With what we've done in the past, where we are, almost anything that happens at the federal level is going to impact the other 49 states more than it is Idaho,' Little said. 'And I feel that about the big, beautiful bill.'
Last week, he threw his support behind the bill — also backed by President Donald Trump. The bill passed the U.S. House and now heads to the U.S. Senate.
It could shift millions of dollars in SNAP costs onto Idaho.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
SNAP is a federal program that states run. The federal government pays for benefits. But states already chip in somewhat, by splitting administrative costs with the federal government.
'States have really very little flexibility or options in how to administer it,' the Idaho governor's budget chief, Lori Wolff, told the Idaho Capital Sun in an interview.
But where states do have flexibility, Idaho opts toward oversight, she explained — like limiting exemptions for SNAP work requirements, prosecuting fraud cases, and ensuring payments are made accurately. Idaho has been among the top three states for payment accuracies for years, Wolff said.
In Little's remarks a couple weeks ago, he leaned on Idaho's metrics, too.
Idaho is one of the most efficient states at running the federal SNAP program, he said, citing a recent report that showed Idaho had a range of extra program accountability measures than other states.
'That's one of the things I'm worried about, is they categorically tell all the states, 'We're going to cut your program by such and such,'' Idaho's governor said. 'And I says, 'We're doing a good job. We've got the highest compliance rate, the least amount of fraud. Why would you penalize us?''
Last week, Little and 19 other Republican governors endorsed the bill, two days before it passed the U.S. House with only support from congressional Republicans.
Changes are expected in the U.S. Senate. But as it stands now, the bill would benefit wealthy taxpayers more while decreasing resources for low-income families, an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found.
Idaho has the second lowest SNAP payment error rate in the nation, which is only behind South Dakota, according to the most recent data from the United States Department of Agriculture, or USDA. That figure measures 'the accuracy of each state's eligibility and benefit determinations,' USDA says.
CONTACT US
The Gem State is among only seven states that would qualify for the lowest state cost-sharing for SNAP under the bill being considered in Congress, States Newsroom reported. The bill would require those states to pay for 5% of SNAP benefits, and require states with higher SNAP error rates to pay even more.
It could raise Idaho's costs for SNAP by at least $18 million, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare spokesperson AJ McWhorter told the Sun.
That requirement wouldn't start until 2028. So that gives Idaho officials time to plan, he said.
Idaho already pitches in some money for SNAP. Last year, Idaho spent more than $8 million to run the program, McWhorter said.
But that is only a small fraction of what the program costs. Last year, Idaho's SNAP program gave out $271 million in benefits to low-income families last year, he said.
Less than 3.5% of Idaho's SNAP payments were in error, USDA data shows. That's around three times lower than the national average payment error rate, which was 11.7%.
'Idaho is often seen as a model for successful SNAP administration,' McWhorter said. 'Federal policymakers can use us as an example for other states.'
The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare on May 16 asked the federal government for permission to ban candy and soda from being covered by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
This year, the Legislature required Health and Welfare to submit that waiver through House Bill 109.
Last week, Nebraska became the first state to receive approval for that type of waiver from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Nebraska Examiner reported.
More than 3 million people would lose SNAP benefits under GOP bill, nonpartisan report says
In a news release, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare cited USDA data to claim that about 20% of SNAP purchases nationally are for 'sugary beverages and snacks.'
The agency couldn't immediately share the source for that claim. A USDA spokesperson directed the Idaho Capital Sun to a 2016 study that found 'About 20 cents out of every dollar was spent on sweetened beverages, desserts, salty snacks, candy and sugar.'
The study has many limitations, and 'should not be considered nationally representative,' the USDA spokesperson added.
The American Heart Association says it supports Idaho's move and is asking the USDA to quickly approve the waiver.
'The American Heart Association is committed to removing sugary drinks from SNAP, and we are proud to stand in support of Idaho's efforts to do so over the soda industry's unconscionable opposition,' American Heart Association CEO Nancy Brown said in a written statement.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
33 minutes ago
- CNN
Dem. Senator Adam Schiff says 'we simply don't know' if US is safer after Iran strikes
Democratic Senator Adam Schiff speaks to Kasie Hunt about the congressional response to President Trump's order to strike Iran.
TechCrunch
33 minutes ago
- TechCrunch
Moratorium on state AI regulation clears Senate hurdle
A Republican effort to prevent states from enforcing their own AI regulations cleared a key procedural hurdle on Saturday. The rule, as reportedly rewritten by Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz in an attempt to comply with budgetary rules, would withhold federal broadband funding from states if they try to enforce AI regulations in the next 10 years. And the rewrite seems to have passed muster, with the Senate Parliamentarian now ruling that the provision is not subject to the so-called Byrd rule — so it can be included in Republicans' 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' and passed with a simple majority, without potentially getting blocked by a filibuster, and without requiring support from Senate Democrats. However, it's not clear how many Republicans will support the moratorium. For example, Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee recently said, 'We do not need a moratorium that would prohibit our states from stepping up and protecting citizens in their state.' And while the House of Representatives already passed a version of the bill that included a moratorium on AI regulation, far-right Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene subbsequently declared that she is 'adamantly OPPOSED' the provision as 'a violation of state rights' and said it needs to be 'stripped out in the Senate.' House Speaker Mike Johnson defended the provision by saying it had President Donald Trump's support and arguing, 'We have to be careful not to have 50 different states regulating AI, because it has national security implications, right?' In a recent report, Americans for Responsible Innovation (an advocacy group for AI regulation), wrote that 'the proposal's broad language could potentially sweep away a wide range of public interest state legislation regulating AI and other algorithmic-based technologies, creating a regulatory vacuum across multiple technology policy domains without offering federal alternatives to replace the eliminated state-level guardrails.' Techcrunch event Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Boston, MA | REGISTER NOW A number of states do seem to be taking steps toward AI regulation. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a high-profile AI safety bill last year while signing a number of less controversial regulations around issues like privacy and deepfakes. In New York, an AI safety bill passed by state lawmakers is awaiting Governor Kathy Hochul's signature. And Utah has passed its own regulations around AI transparency.
Los Angeles Times
38 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Democrats at odds over response to Trump decision to join Israel-Iran war
After nearly two years of stark divisions over the war in Gaza and support for Israel, Democrats remain at odds over policy toward Iran after the U.S. strikes early Sunday. Progressives demanded unified opposition before President Trump announced U.S. strikes against Tehran's nuclear program, but party leaders were treading more cautiously. U.S. leaders of all stripes have found common ground for two decades on the position that Iran could not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. The longtime U.S. foe has supported groups that have killed Americans across the Mideast and threatened to destroy Israel. But Trump's announcement Saturday that the U.S. had struck three nuclear sites could become the Democratic Party's latest schism, just as it was sharply dividing Trump's isolationist 'Make America Great Again' base from more hawkish conservatives. Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, noted that in January, Trump suggested the U.S. could 'measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.' 'Today, against his own words, the president sent bombers into Iran,' Martin said in a statement. 'Americans overwhelmingly do not want to go to war. Americans do not want to risk the safety of our troops abroad.' Sen. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, said the U.S. entering the war in Iran 'does not make America more secure.' 'This bombing was an act of war that risks retaliation by the Iranian regime,' Welch said in a statement. While progressives in the lead-up to the military action had staked out clear opposition to Trump's potential intervention, the party leadership played the safer ground of insisting on a role for Congress before any use of force. Martin's statement took a similar tack, saying, 'Americans do not want a president who bypasses our constitution and pulls us towards war without Congressional approval. Donald Trump needs to bring his case to Congress immediately.' Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine called Trump's actions 'horrible judgment' and said he'd 'push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war.' Many prominent Democrats with 2028 presidential aspirations had been silent on the Israel-Iran war, even before Trump's announcement — underscoring how politically tricky the issue can be for the party. 'They are sort of hedging their bets,' said Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of State who served under President Obama and is now a strategist on foreign policy. 'The beasts of the Democratic Party's constituencies right now are so hostile to Israel's war in Gaza that it's really difficult to come out looking like one would corroborate an unauthorized war that supports Israel without blowback.' Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) had called Trump's consideration of an attack 'a defining moment for our party.' Khanna had introduced legislation with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) that called on the Republican president to 'terminate' the use of U.S. armed forces against Iran unless 'explicitly authorized' by a declaration of war from Congress. Khanna used Trump's campaign arguments of putting American interests first when the congressman spoke to Theo Von, a comedian who has been supportive of the president and is popular among Trump supporters, particularly young men. 'That's going to cost this country a lot of money that should be being spent here at home,' said Khanna, who is said to be among the many Democrats considering seeking the presidential nomination in 2028. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who twice sought the Democratic presidential nomination, had pointed to Trump's stated goal during his inaugural speech of being known as 'a peacemaker and a unifier.' 'Supporting Netanyahu's war against Iran would be a catastrophic mistake,' Sanders said, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Sanders reintroduced legislation prohibiting the use of federal money for force against Iran, insisted that U.S. military intervention would be unwise and illegal and accused Israel of striking unprovoked. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York signed on to a similar bill from Sanders in 2020, but so far was holding off this time. Some believed the party should stake out a clear antiwar stance. 'The leaders of the Democratic Party need to step up and loudly oppose war with Iran and demand a vote in Congress,' said Tommy Vietor, a former Obama aide, on X. The staunch support from the Democratic administration of President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for Israel's war against Hamas loomed over the party's White House ticket in 2024, even with the criticism of Israel's handling of the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. Trump exploited the divisions to make inroads with Arab American voters and Orthodox Jews on his way back to the White House. Today, the Israel-Iran war is the latest test for a party struggling to repair its coalition before next year's midterm elections and the quick-to-follow kickoff to the 2028 presidential race. The party will look to bridge the divide between an activist base that is skeptical of foreign interventions and already critical of U.S. support for Israel and more traditional Democrats and independents who make up a sizable, if not always vocal, voting bloc. In a statement after Israel's first strikes on Iran, Schumer said Israel has a right to defend itself and 'the United States' commitment to Israel's security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran's response.' Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) said that 'the U.S. must continue to stand with Israel, as it has for decades, at this dangerous moment.' Other Democrats have condemned Israel's strikes and accused Netanyahu of sabotaging nuclear talks with Iran. They are reminding the public that Trump withdrew in 2018 from a multinational nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions negotiated during the Obama administration. 'Trump created the problem,' Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) posted on X. A Pearson Institute/Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll from September 2024 found that about half of Democrats said the U.S. was being 'too supportive' of Israel and about 4 in 10 said its level of support was 'about right.' Democrats were more likely than independents and Republicans to say the Israeli government had 'a lot' of responsibility for the continuation of the war between Israel and Hamas. About 6 in 10 Democrats and half of Republicans said they felt Iran was an adversary with whom the U.S. was in conflict. Gomez Licon and Beaumont write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mary Clare Jalonick, Linley Sanders, Will Weissert and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report
