Trump administration pursues rule that would remove 3.1 mln people from food stamps
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Politics
Trump administration pursues rule that would remove 3.1 mln people from food stamps
By Tom Polansek, Reuters Mon, Jul 22 11:59 PM EDT
By Tom Polansek
CHICAGO, July 22 (Reuters) - The Trump administration on Tuesday will propose a rule to tighten food stamp restrictions that would cut about 3.1 million people from the program, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) officials said.
Currently, 43 U.S. states allow residents to automatically become eligible for food stamps through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, if they receive benefits from another federal program known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, according to the USDA.
But the agency wants to require people who receive TANF benefits to pass a review of their income and assets to determine whether they are eligible for free food from SNAP, officials said.
If enacted, the rule would save the federal government about $2.5 billion a year by removing people from SNAP, according to the USDA.
U.S. President Donald Trump has argued that many Americans now using SNAP do not need it given the strong economy and low unemployment, and should be removed as a way to save taxpayers as much as $15 billion.
"Some states are taking advantage of loopholes that allow people to receive the SNAP benefits who would otherwise not qualify and for which they are not entitled," USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue told reporters on a conference call on Monday.
SNAP provides free food to some 40 million Americans, or about 12% of the total U.S. population.
A Trump-backed effort to pass new restrictions through the Farm Bill was blocked by Congress last year, following a months-long, partisan debate.
The USDA does not need congressional approval, however, to stop states from automatically allowing recipients of TANF benefits to become eligible for SNAP, said Brandon Lipps, a USDA acting deputy undersecretary.
Current rules allow people to access SNAP benefits worth thousands of dollars for two years without going through robust eligibility reviews, he told reporters on the call.
"Unfortunately, automatic eligibility has expanded to allow even millionaires and others who simply receive a TANF-funded brochure to become eligible for SNAP when they clearly don't need it," Lipps said.
The USDA will accept public comment on the proposed rule change.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in December estimated the rule could save the federal government $8.1 billion from 2019 to 2028, lower than the USDA's estimate.
In 2016, the CBO said arguments against the change included concerns that it would eliminate benefits for households in difficult financial situations and increase the complexity and time involved in verifying information on SNAP applications. (Reporting by Tom Polansek; Editing by Peter Cooney)
Tags
Who is online
69 visitors
Just let these struggling families, children just starve right scumbag?
That isn't the point or purpose or even what the article says.
I saw on another piece that they would cap it at $36,000 for a family of four.
I make more than $10,000 above that amount and there's just me.
For Christs' sake.
Sickening.
And?
Is $36,000 not enough for a family of four depending on where they live?
If it is not, then don't have as many kids. The world has an over population problem. It will cut down on resources needed for the future; and save the environment.
Saving money isn't what the left is concerned about. Neither is people taking advantage of the system.
No one is saying those removed cannot apply for SNAP and have their case reviewed. Many that are on TANF don't qualify for SNAP it seems.
Some think that it is ALL Of our responsibility to care for children that they CHOSE to bring into this world knowing they can not support them.
Personal responsibility is not their forte.
And taxpayers having to pick up the tab for companies like Walmart that don't pay a living wage to their employees isn't something that Walmart needs to be concerned with.
Or towns where factories close and move to Mexico where the labor rate is a $1.50/hour. That's the workers personal responsibility too.
Tex, I've installed over 200 robots and automated systems in my working career. Each one of them eliminated three $14-$16/Hr with health benefit jobs. Those "taxpayers" then end up working at a gas station for $7.00/hr and no benefits. Can't you see the spiral downwards, or just won't admit it? You're a smart guy.
What happens when everybody is replaced by a robot?
How the fuck can $36,000 a year be enough for a family of four?
Think of the game Boardwalk. Fun game in the beginning, when everyone has money, and is in the game. How much fun is the game when one person has everything? The game stops doesn't it.
Most people don't see it coming, and how quickly it is coming. Fully autonomous cars and trucks. What are we going to do with the 3.5 million OTR truck drivers that won't have jobs. It's just not robots, its apps too. Pharmacists, general medical practitioners, paralegals, all going to be eliminated by apps.
What are we going to do with all the people that are unemployable through no fault of their own?
It really isn't
I really don't know
Wal Mart pays more than minimum wage. So do the vast majority of businesses--even most fast food places.
If people want to earn more, they need to develop marketable skills which allow them to earn more.
And all of that really has squat to do with bringing children you can't afford into the world and expecting others to pay for them.
Helping someone who is disabled or temporarily in need is fine. It shouldn't be generational or for life for most folks.
'How the fuck can $36,000 a year be enough for a family of four?'
'It really isn't'
I know you're smart enough and savvy enough to realize that.
Pity about the others.
Not many folks are bringing children they can't afford into the world and expecting others to pay for them. There are always some folks out there that know how to game the system but they are a small percentage.
Life situations change, people lose good jobs through no fault of their own, are struck by catastrophic illnesses, lose everything due to a flood, fire, etc., etc., etc.
Fuck them right?
Let them starve right?
Still a very long way off. They are working out the bugs when weather and road conditions are ideal. I don't even want to see one on Michigan roads in a snow or ice storm (even in good weather the roads suck). Good drivers have a hard time coping with them.
Don't worry, government regulations are working to kill off truck drivers long before they can be replaced by robots. Which is the reason there is a shortage of OTR and drayage drivers.
Sooner or later most of us will be replaced. Which is the reason we need to get the number of people on the planet under control. There doesn't need to be this damn many of us.
Forced early retirement for many. With the stupidity of world governments wars, famine, disease, and discord will take care of the rest.
I bet there are just about as many kids born to people already on some type of government assistance as there are kids born to parents who suffer what are usually temporary setbacks.
No need to be flippant. No one is suggesting anything of the sort.
In fact, reading my entire post would have told you that very well.
Here it is (again):
Not one word about fucking them or letting anyone starve. No need for the melodramatics.
Honest answers Ronin... Kudos.
In the area of autonomous cars and trucks..... I've recently worked in that area of technology for the German Army. Wide use/expansion of 5G is all that remains to hold it back. The insurance companies are the ones that are going to push hard for its use. The technology is coming way faster than anyone realizes. The autonomous technology doesn't have to be perfect, just better than humans, and it has already bypassed humans in ability and safety.
Point 2: Still begs the question.... what do you do with these people? Sure, educate them, but for what fields?
Point 3: Planet overpopulation. We're in agreement. I'm thinking Ma nature will come up with some sort of virus, or resistant bacteria to thin out the herd. It won't be pretty though for those that survive.
Happy Friday from across the pond!
In 2016, the CBO said arguments against the change included concerns that it would eliminate benefits for households in difficult financial situations and increase the complexity and time involved in verifying information on SNAP applications.
It is time to wean some people off the government tit enough is enough.
So the working poor should starve?
Notice the some people not all people.Do you think there is no fraude in that system?
Of course there is some fraud in just about every system.
So you're willing to fuck over those who are truly needy because some people take advantage?
Sad.
I'm talking about the fraud and it is somewhere in the 20% range that is a lot of waste.
Care to open another seed about the waste and fraud in the POS F-35?
Aviation Weekly: "It can't climb, It can't turn, It cant run!"
What does that have to do with my comment?
What.... you want to pick on the small stuff about waste and fraud, that help people at the cost of $800million a year, but ignore the $163-billion dollar over budget programs that help......
Pretty myopic viewpoint.
It doesn't have anything to do with it.
He is making an assumption that conservatives aren't against military spending waste.
Some of us are against all governmental waste.
Where did he ever say he was ignoring other forms of government waste--including defense spending?
He didn't pick the topic. The topic is the seed. You are the one that brought in the F-35.
8.1 billion low end to 12 plus billion high end is considered small fraud?
Has he stated he is against military wasteful spending?
Ronin, you and everybody else on the right talk a real good game about wanting to end fraud and abuse, but all you do is talk. Just like deficits..... you're all about lip service.
At every turn, if it is a choice for business/wealthy interests you're all in on keeping their gravy train going. But you gut or block every piece of common sense legislation on banking regulation, medical health care, environmental regulation, consumer protection, anything that helps "people" at every turn.
Please provide proof of your claim.
You mean like the left are with this measure that is meant to end fraud and abuse?
You don't know anything about me; but the left is no better when it comes to deficits. They simply raise taxes so they can spend even more. When it comes to cutting spending the Democrats suck. Not that I am fond of the Republicans in that regard now either.
Really, I am pro big business and wealthy? Please tell that to my hard right conservative friends. I am pro gradual flat tax rate with very few loopholes or breaks. I drive them nuts. About the only thing we agree on is that everyone needs skin in the game when it comes to taxes.
As for the gravy train. The 1% accumulated far more wealth under the Obama administration
https://money.cnn.com/2013/09/15/news/economy/income-inequality-obama/index.html
https://nypost.com/2016/01/17/occupy-obama-he-orchestrated-a-massive-transfer-of-wealth-to-the-1-percent/
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/03/barack-obama-the-1-percent-and-income-inequality-why-the-rich-dont-need-to-fear-democrats.html
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/growth-of-income-inequality-is-worse-under-obama-than-bush.html
I am part of the "people". So are 99 percent of Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians. I am all for "common sense" regulations; but the politicians have to come up with some first.
Also, EO's are not laws- no matter how hard you want to spin them. Obama loved his EO's. Trump is undoing those EO's; which is his right under the law. Just to cut off the next argument. As much as they suck Congress is the ones that come up with the laws. The president can either sign them into existence; or VETO them.
Tell me why with health care the Dems refused TORT reform, portability, etc with the PPACA? Things that would lower the cost of healthcare insurance. That is something that would help everyone.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/democrats-should-embrace-coburncare-or-face-a-2014-reckoning-105056_Page2.html
But why stop at regulations? There are so many other things we can do to save money; like stop being the world's policeman by forcing NATO to pull their own weight. But the left railed against Trump trying to get NATO countries to just pay it's fair share. Forget forcing them to turn into a reliable capable military fighting force that doesn't need the US to do the heavy lifting on every conflict. Want to save money, cut back on military expenditures having bases all over the damn planet. We shouldn't need bases in every allied country. We shouldn't need to stay in every country we enter militarily forever.
You like to use a wide paint brush to paint the "right" (I am going to email this to my hard right conservative friends. They need a good laugh.)
I'm guessing you have no clue what it means to be hungry.
I fast 12 hours a day.
That doesn't mean you went hungry because your parents couldn't put enough food on the table.
My parents were responsible and my father worked several jobs while in the navy till he earned enough pay to take care of us with one job.My father grew up in western rural Arkansa in the 30's he is black his family received 0 welfare.
So again, you didn't go hungry.
A lot of these parents are holding down two jobs or more each and still having trouble making ends meet.
Who cares if your father is black? What does that have to do with this?
I do black is beautiful.
Are you completely ignoring this part of the article?
No one is taking anything away from anyone. Not everyone who qualifies for TANF, qualifies for SNAP. They are trying to remove the waste, fraud, and abuse from the system.
If this happens then any money saved should be used for birthcontrol, education, family planning and if needed abortions. This would reduce some future need for food stamps, but strangely those who want to cut aid to our citizens can't accept that overpopulation is the problem
I guess I qualify one of those that wants to cut aid to those that don't need it and abuse the system. I only want it to go to those that need it.
I will agree on this portion of your comment.
Until we are willing to do something about overpopulation these problems with continue to grow.
about overpopulation these problems with continue to grow.
Not just grow, but will accelerate.