N※N

Top and Current
Source : (remove) : Stateline
^{RSS • JSON • XML • CSV}

Top and Current
Source : (remove) : Stateline
^{RSS • JSON • XML • CSV}

Newworkrulescoulddenyfoodstampstothousandsofveterans

Proposed USDA Rules Could Strip Food Stamps from Millions of Americans

In a move that has sparked widespread debate and concern among advocates for low-income families, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has proposed new regulations that could significantly restrict access to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps. These changes, if implemented, are estimated to affect hundreds of thousands of individuals, potentially denying them crucial nutritional support at a time when food insecurity remains a persistent issue across the nation. The proposals come amid broader efforts by the administration to reform welfare programs, emphasizing work requirements and reducing what officials describe as loopholes in the system. Critics, however, argue that the rules would disproportionately harm vulnerable populations, including the working poor, rural communities, and those facing barriers to employment.

At the heart of the proposed rules is a tightening of waivers for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs). Under current SNAP guidelines, ABAWDs—defined as individuals aged 18 to 49 who are not disabled and do not have children—are limited to receiving benefits for no more than three months in a three-year period unless they meet specific work or training requirements, such as working at least 20 hours per week or participating in job training programs. However, states have long had the flexibility to request waivers from these time limits in areas where unemployment rates are high or job opportunities are scarce. This waiver system allows states to adapt the program to local economic conditions, ensuring that people in distressed regions aren't cut off from aid prematurely.

The USDA's new proposal seeks to eliminate much of this flexibility. Specifically, it would restrict waivers to only those areas with unemployment rates above 6% over a 24-month period, a threshold that is higher than the current standard of 10% above the national average or a flat 7% rate. Additionally, the rules would prevent states from combining data from multiple areas to qualify for waivers, effectively making it harder for regions with uneven economic recovery to maintain eligibility. For instance, metropolitan areas that include both affluent suburbs and impoverished urban cores might no longer qualify as a whole, leaving pockets of high need without support. The USDA estimates that these changes could result in approximately 755,000 people losing their SNAP benefits, leading to a projected savings of about $7.9 billion over five years for the federal government.

Proponents of the rule changes, including USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue, frame them as a means to promote self-sufficiency and encourage workforce participation. Perdue has publicly stated that the waivers have been overused, allowing too many capable adults to remain on assistance without contributing through work. He argues that with the U.S. economy experiencing low unemployment rates—hovering around 3.5% nationally at the time of the proposal—these restrictions are timely and necessary to align SNAP with its original intent as a temporary safety net rather than a long-term entitlement. Administration officials point to data showing that work requirements in other programs, like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), have successfully increased employment among recipients, suggesting similar outcomes for SNAP.

However, opponents contend that the rules overlook the complexities of poverty and employment barriers in America. Advocacy groups such as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) highlight that many ABAWDs are already employed but in low-wage, unstable jobs that don't consistently meet the 20-hour threshold. Others face obstacles like lack of transportation, health issues that don't qualify as disabilities under SNAP definitions, or limited access to job training in rural or underserved areas. For example, in states like West Virginia or parts of the Midwest, where manufacturing jobs have declined and opioid crises have exacerbated unemployment, the waiver system has been a lifeline. Removing these flexibilities could force individuals to choose between food and other essentials, potentially increasing hunger and straining local food banks and charities.

The proposal also intersects with broader discussions on immigration and public benefits. Another facet of the USDA's efforts includes revising the "categorical eligibility" rules, which allow families receiving benefits from other programs, like TANF, to automatically qualify for SNAP without stringent asset tests. The new rules would impose stricter income and asset limits, potentially affecting up to 3 million people, including many children and families. This could particularly impact mixed-status households, where U.S. citizen children might lose access if their immigrant parents fear repercussions from using public benefits, a concern amplified by the administration's "public charge" rule, which penalizes immigrants for using certain assistance programs.

Reactions to the proposals have been swift and polarized. Democratic lawmakers, including members of the House Agriculture Committee, have decried the changes as an attack on the poor, accusing the administration of bypassing Congress after similar measures failed to pass in the 2018 Farm Bill. Organizations like Feeding America and the Food Research & Action Center (FRAC) have mobilized campaigns, urging public comments during the rule-making process to highlight personal stories of those who rely on SNAP to make ends meet. On the other side, conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation applaud the reforms, arguing they restore accountability and reduce dependency on government aid.

If finalized, the rules could take effect as early as spring 2020, though legal challenges are anticipated. States would need to adjust their administration of SNAP, potentially leading to administrative burdens and confusion for recipients. Economists warn of ripple effects, such as reduced consumer spending in local economies, since SNAP dollars are often spent immediately on groceries, supporting farmers and retailers. A study by the Urban Institute suggests that for every dollar cut from SNAP, there's a multiplier effect of up to $1.80 in economic activity lost.

Beyond the immediate impacts, the debate underscores deeper philosophical divides over the role of government in addressing poverty. Supporters see the changes as empowering individuals through work incentives, while detractors view them as punitive measures that ignore systemic issues like wage stagnation, childcare costs, and discrimination in hiring. As the public comment period unfolds, with thousands of submissions already received, the outcome could reshape one of America's largest anti-hunger programs, which serves about 40 million people annually and has been credited with reducing food insecurity rates from 14.5% in 2010 to around 11% in recent years.

In rural America, where SNAP usage is often higher per capita than in urban areas, the changes could exacerbate existing divides. Places like Appalachia or the Mississippi Delta, which have relied on waivers during economic downturns, might see increased malnutrition and health issues among residents. Urban advocates point out that even in booming cities, underemployment persists, with gig economy workers struggling to meet consistent hour requirements.

The USDA maintains that the rules are data-driven, based on analyses showing that many waiver areas have unemployment rates below the national average. Yet, experts like James Weill of FRAC argue that unemployment figures don't capture the full picture, such as labor force participation rates or the quality of available jobs. For ABAWDs, who make up only about 7% of SNAP recipients but are often the most stigmatized, the stakes are high: without benefits, many could face homelessness or turn to emergency services, shifting costs to other taxpayer-funded systems.

As the nation grapples with these proposals, the conversation extends to equity and compassion in public policy. Will the changes foster independence, or will they deepen inequality? The answer may hinge on the final rulemaking and potential court battles, but for now, the proposals serve as a flashpoint in the ongoing struggle to balance fiscal responsibility with social welfare. (Word count: 1,028)

Read the Full Stateline Article at:
[ https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/rules-could-deny-food-stamps-090022707.html ]