Trump fights in court to block pandemic food aid for lowest-income Americans
Category: News & Politics
Via: tessylo • 4 years ago • 34 commentsBy: Helena Bottemiller Evich, Politico
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Trump fights in court to block pandemic food aid for lowest-income Americans
The Trump administration is fighting in federal court to block states from giving billions of dollars in emergency food stamps to the lowest-income Americans during the coronavirus crisis.
Residents of Pennsylvania and California have sued President Donald Trump’s Agriculture Department over a policy that has kept roughly 40 percent of households who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program from receiving any emergency benefits during the pandemic. After being ordered by a federal judge last week to proceed with the payments in the Pennsylvania case, the department is continuing to appeal.
The Agriculture Department says that it’s simply following the law. A spokesperson noted that a California court recently sided with USDA on a procedural matter.
Critics say the Trump administration is trying to return to its pre-Covid mission of shrinking safety net programs, even as economists warn more help is needed for businesses and millions of households that are newly unemployed, behind on rent and struggling to buy food.
The USDA’s policy has already kept roughly $480 million in nutrition assistance out of just Pennsylvania, a state that’s suffered a particularly high unemployment rate and also is a must-win for Trump in his bid for reelection, according to a POLITICO analysis of court filings.
The legal dispute centers on how USDA has interpreted language in the nearly $200 billion Families First Coronavirus Response Act, one of the big aid packages Congress passed in March.
The law requires USDA to grant state requests to distribute emergency allotments of SNAP as long as both the federal government and the state are under an emergency declaration due to Covid-19. But there’s disagreement about how to implement the requirement.
The law says the emergency payment can’t be higher than existing maximum benefit levels for SNAP, thresholds that are set by the size and income level of a household. USDA has taken this to mean that households already receiving the maximum benefit level each month before the pandemic — because they have little to no household income — are not eligible for any emergency payments.
Instead of giving all SNAP households emergency payments, USDA decided to bring all households up to the maximum payment levels. For a family of three, the maximum is $535 per month, which comes out to about $2 per meal per person.
"USDA’s position is consistent with congressional intent and the language Congress actually passed," a department spokesperson said in an email.
One low-income individual who previously might have been getting $20 per month in SNAP benefits could be getting nearly 10 times that under USDA’s policy, while another low-income person who typically gets $204 per month has seen no increase whatsoever.
“It’s cruel that USDA interpreted it in such an inequitable way,” said Kathy Fisher, policy director at the Coalition Against Hunger in Philadelphia.
Anti-hunger advocates say Congress clearly intended for all SNAP recipients to receive emergency allotments and that the maximums only apply to the emergency benefit, not the total benefits for a given month.
Any household that qualifies for SNAP is already barely making ends meet and is particularly at risk during an abrupt recession, advocates say. In Pennsylvania, for example, the gross income limit for a family of three to qualify for SNAP is just over $2,300 per month, or roughly $28,000 per year. A full-time minimum wage worker in the state could earn as little as $7.25 an hour, or about $15,080 per year.
The USDA did allow states to boost assistance for millions of households whose incomes were high enough that they weren’t already receiving the maximum payment. That increased the benefits USDA pays out each month by 40 percent, or roughly $2 billion.
“These are unprecedented times for American families who are facing joblessness and hunger,” Agriculture Secretary Perdue said in a statement when USDA touted its benefits increases over the summer, adding: “Ensuring all households receive the maximum allowable SNAP benefit is an important part of President Trump’s whole of America response to the coronavirus.”
Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue.
USDA also later announced it would bump up the maximum benefit levels by 5 percent in response to rising food costs.
While the increases were welcomed, even by the administration’s critics, anti-hunger advocates have argued the department should never have left off extremely low or no-income households during the crisis.
The legal fight over emergency benefits extends back to May when plaintiffs in California filed a class action lawsuit against USDA alleging the department was violating the law for excluding some 40 percent of SNAP recipients from the emergency payments.
The state of California is currently doling out some $250 million in emergency aid per month, according to court filings. Over the summer, a federal judge in the Northern District sided with USDA and did not order a preliminary injunction. The litigation is ongoing.
In July, Community Legal Services of Philadelphia and law firm Morgan Lewis filed a similar class-action lawsuit against the department on behalf of Pennsylvanians who did not have access to increased food assistance during the pandemic because of USDA’s interpretation of the law.
Last month, U.S. District Judge John Milton Younge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a preliminary injunction that blocked USDA from continuing to rely on its interpretation of the law, finding that it ran counter to Congress’ intent.
USDA has repeatedly asked the court to set aside the injunction. A federal judge in Philadelphia last week issued a decision accusing USDA of essentially flouting its injunction order — calling it an act of “egregious disobedience.”
The next day, the department said it would issue the additional emergency payments in Pennsylvania for the month of October, which meant recipients there would be getting an extra $59 million.
The fight over food stamps, which is heating up in the final days of the presidential election, comes as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have failed to come to an agreement in time to pass another aid package before November 3.
But the administration is not giving up its fight against the additional aid for millions of households, even in a battleground state just days ahead of an election. Attorneys for USDA last week appealed to the Third Circuit and warned that if they are able to vacate the earlier injunction, the department will make the Keystone State pay the aid back.
“This reimbursement would not come from individual SNAP households,” the filing noted.
A spokesperson for USDA said if the plaintiffs are successful it would "exhaust the funds appropriated by Congress for these additional COVID benefits and result in a SNAP benefit cut for every SNAP beneficiary nationwide." Judge Younge recently called this threat "a straw man argument resting on a dubious premise." SNAP benefits have never been rationed due to a lack of resources and Congress has a long history of fully funding the program regardless of which party is in control.
There is a significant amount of money on the line, both at the individual low-income household level as well as the macro-level. Economists consider SNAP benefits one of the quickest ways to infuse money into local economies because virtually all of the benefits are spent within a month of being issued.
Agriculture Department economists have estimated that every $1 spent on nutrition assistance during a downturn, there’s about $1.50 of economic activity that results.
In Pennsylvania, state officials have outlined a plan for getting emergency allotments to households that haven’t previously been eligible. Under the plan, a four-person household would receive an additional allotment of $340 each month.
Groups in Pennsylvania are also seeking back payments going all the way to March, a request worth nearly half a billion dollars that would be spread across hundreds of thousands of low-income households. The court has not yet decided whether retroactive payments are warranted.
"In the meantime," said Vollinger, an anti-hunger advocate at FRAC. "People are not getting the help that they need."
Tags
Who is online
447 visitors
The Trump administration is fighting in federal court to block states from giving billions of dollars in emergency food stamps to the lowest-income Americans during the coronavirus crisis.
Residents of Pennsylvania and California have sued President Donald Trump’s Agriculture Department over a policy that has kept roughly 40 percent of households who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program from receiving any emergency benefits during the pandemic. After being ordered by a federal judge last week to proceed with the payments in the Pennsylvania case, the department is continuing to appeal.
There is a significant amount of money on the line, both at the individual low-income household level as well as the macro-level. Economists consider SNAP benefits one of the quickest ways to infuse money into local economies because virtually all of the benefits are spent within a month of being issued.
Agriculture Department economists have estimated that every $1 spent on nutrition assistance during a downturn, there’s about $1.50 of economic activity that results.
I hope these folks and anyone who supports this 'president' realize that he doesn't give one shit about them.
A very sad commentary on the administration.
by starving those americans with the least among us, trumpski is emulating his totalitarian heroes.
Giving needed relief to the poor, downtrodden...They should pull themselves up by their bootstraps and work harder. I am tired of paying for deadbeats.
Giving the wealthy and corporations tax breaks and subsidies...Well, that is needed to spur the economy.
Twisted thinking and logic that some people actually believe, even as food is taken from their own mouths.
If only this was headlines in Pennsylvania. Wonder how many votes Trump would loose because of it.
I thought they were so concerned about the children? So much for pro-life.
... only those with a functioning umbilical chord.
3 weeks of a pregnancy...Think of the children!
15 weeks of pregnancy...Think of the children!
30 weeks of pregnancy...Think of the children!
A child is born...Well they should have planned ahead. It is the parents fault for bringing a child into the world when they weren't prepared.
Annnnd another misleading headline. It isn't Trump. It's the Trump administration and the people charged with actually governing and making policy. There is no indication in the article that points directly to Trump wanting it in court. But all one has to see is that magic "Trump" in the headline and BOOM. the heads explode
Well Jim, the Trump administration is headed by Trump so it is his policy unless he rejects it.
Kavika , losers nitpick semantics. They are struggling right now.
So the guy in charge has no responsibility?
Odd stance to take...
Odd?
Oh I get it
sarcasm
Obama is president! He knows everything that is going on! It is all his policy!
donald can't know everything going on. His administration is doing things...
Haha
So either his administration is running around doing things behind his back, or he is too stupid to know what is going on.
Not exactly a stellar defence.
It is pretty funny
So, Trump is just a mere figurehead and has nothing to do with governing or making policy. Got it.
You wait long enough and even the trumpies start admitting the truth
Typical - the 'president' claims COMPLETE AUTHORITY yet claims ZERO RESPONSIBILITY
He has claimed nothing of the sort in this case. Until asked to actually sign something. He may know OF it but doesn't mean he will necessarily approve it when it hits his desk. There are other advisors who will get their input into the matter and I don't think he wants to go in willy nilly and do something of this magnitude to those less fortunate in this time of need. Hell he even bucked his party and told them to up the ante on the stimulus bill over and above what the dems want to get it done.
Typical - the 'president' claims COMPLETE AUTHORITY yet claims ZERO RESPONSIBILITY
Your 'president' is holding folks hostage with the stimulus bill.
Nope.........guess you missed this...........
"Hell he even bucked his party and told them to up the ante on the stimulus bill over and above what the dems want, to get it done."
Glad to help............
Nope, didn't miss a thing.
Oh maybe this then...........
"Trump has hinted that he would pressure Senate Republicans to pass the vote . During the Oct. 22 presidential debate, Trump said he's prepared to get a deal done : "We are ready, willing and able to do something."
"Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Thursday that President Donald Trump would personally lobby to get reluctant Senate Republicans behind any stimulus deal they reach.
Trump said he’s willing to go beyond the $1.8 trillion offer for a virus relief plan that’s already been offered by the administration, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rejected that, saying GOP lawmakers won’t go along."
Nope, so where are the checks?
Nancy Pelosi's desk drawer............and Mitch's lunchbox........to be released soon when the election dust settles.
Well if he knows OF it, he sure as hell can make a phone call and tell them to knock it off. If he doesn't know OF it, then the advisors that he CHOSE are keeping it from him.
BTW, Trump already signed the funding legislation.
I haven't seen any evidence that Trump gives a fuck about those who are less fortunate.
So based on that, it looks like Trump is an utterly failed leader since he can't even get his own party to follow his wishes.
So you admit that the 'president' is holding those folks, who would greatly benefit from the stimulus checks, hostage, not to be released unless he is re-elected.
Just like he is withholding these food benefits/monies from those most needy folks who would benefit from this.
THANKS!
Nope. He isn't holding anything. An agreement has to be reached and all he can do is apply the pressure to the Senate to pass. And has nothing to do with reelection. Perhaps wanting to get it done prior TO the election but there is no "unless" except in your mind. Sometimes I wonder where some come up with shit like that.
Yes, yes he is.
He's holding those folks hostage.
As Trump Declares Surrender to the Coronavirus, GOP-led Senate Punts on Pandemic Relief
With the hasty, hypocritical business of Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court completed, the Republican-led Senate has gone into recess for the next two weeks — meaning there will be no action on a new economic relief bill before the election. The move by majority leader Mitch McConnell leaves millions of Americans vulnerable to the financial ravages of the pandemic — even as the Trump White House has declared that it is no longer working to contain the spread of the coronavirus .