like Budget discountsThe state’s mandates and new food restrictions are close to the crisis waving on the horizon with the country’s food aid programs-which prompted millions of Americans with low income to hunger. Republicans’ recent efforts to reduce financing popIn addition to the proposals that require countries that reach part of the draft law, they can leave the most at risk without the resources they depend on to obtain the basic food.
At the same time, calls for a ban “Fast food” From the program raises difficult questions about personal choice, public health and practical aspects of enforcement. With the collision of these forces, the question remains: Can the country’s safety network survive without revealing the fabric of the food security that was designed for protection?
Last week, and The Republican parliamentarians approved a budget framework It can significantly reduce funding for general benefits, including Medical aid And Snap. Although the plan does not determine the exact discounts, it directs the committees to reduce 880 billion dollars of health programs and $ 230 billion of Snap over the next decade. These discounts can lead to a 20 % decrease in Snap benefits and strict civil rules, which would impartially affect low -income Americans. The proposed discounts are expected to cause more than a million jobs and an economic loss of $ 113 billion in the affected states by 2026.
Democratic leaders and advocacy groups warn that these cuts may destroy weak societies, while Republicans argue that the plan is necessary to reduce government spending. Experts suggest that even if direct benefits discounts are avoided, the huge volume of discounts may still lead to a decrease in support of millions of Americans. According to Associated Press, the Senate is expected to suggest its own budget version, which includes much smaller discounts and the two rooms will negotiate before reaching the final deal.
Among the emerging proposals, a plan that requires countries to pay for a share of sudden food advantages, the cost that the federal government is currently covered.
This would represent a fundamental shift in how to finance the country to the largest anti -show program. “The demand of states to pay even a modest part of Snap advantages would radically change the program financing structure,” the center of budget and politics priority Warning in a new reportNoting that this step will abandon the “old national commitment to provide low -income families of sudden interest enough to provide a basic healthy diet.” Countries, who are already struggling with the lack of revenues in the wake of the slow economy, can have to reduce or both narrow benefits or eligibility – transform the burden of discounts away from Congress and the legislative bodies of the state.
The financial breed can be large. According to one of the analyzes, if a country like Pennsylvania is needed to cover only 10 % of Snap costs, you will face an bill of about $ 427 million last year – more than the country spends annually on the entire community college system. The report found that “the countries are less than the required match, the benefits will reduce according to this:” The average family may lose more than $ 1,000 annually in food aid. “
The suggestion will also lead to the erosion of Snap, an economic stability during Economic shrinkageWhen more families are eligible and state revenues are more restricted. The report said: “The assignment of states is paid even a small share of the costs of sudden food benefits will reach the state budgets strongly at a time when many states face a decrease in revenue.” “The painful implications that countries will face will not be aggravated unless this proposal is combined with other republic proposals to force the large new costs of countries, especially in medicaid, but also in education, transportation and other major public services.”
Although some proposals target Snap financing structure, others seek to reshape its function – by practicing more control over the food options for those who depend on the program.
Express the Minister of Health and Humanitarian Services, Robert F. Kennedy Junior and Minister of Agriculture Brock Rollins for his support to restrict beneficiaries of the use of their benefits to buy soda and other “fast food”. In a special meeting of the White House with the group, make America healthy again – an excerpt has been obtained from it Politico – Rollins said that the sugary drinks are “the highest element that the food stamps support through taxpayers dollars – go to a group of children who come from less economic social backgrounds, and many of them are very poor families. However, this is the first thing that our dining stamps program purchased.”
“The assignment of states even a small share of the costs of sudden food benefits would reach the state budgets strongly at a time when many states face a decrease in revenue.”
Some leaders at the state level joined calls for a ban.
In December, the ruler of Sarah Hakabi Sanders from Arkansas Send an open message For Kennedy and Rollins, saying that the current sudden policies “undermine the health of millions of Americans, the dime of taxpayer,” noting the high rates of obesity and chronic diseases between low -income families.
She pointed to the data that indicates that snacks and sugary drinks constitute nearly a quarter of all sudden purchases – about 25 billion dollars annually – and highlighted the provision of possible public health to remove soda from the program. Sanders also intended to search for a concession that allows Arkansas to restrict sudden purchases and redirect benefits towards local fresh food.
She wrote: “As trustees, I ask you to work cooperatively through the administration by banning the sale of unwanted foods in Snap and End, which is funded by taxes funded by taxpayers.”
However, the proposals necessary to restrict the types of beneficiaries of food that you can buy have faced criticism on both practical and philosophical foundations. Critics argue that such policies will strip the low -income Americans of autonomy in their nutritional choices, while they are expensive and difficult to implement.
In response to the message of the ruler Sanders, the American Drinks Association-which represents companies including Coca-Cola, Pepsi and Dr Pepper- Warning the restrictions Such “creating a two -level system effectively as the right to personal independence over the diet is conditional on income and means”, describes it as an insult to “America’s commitment to freedom and individual freedom.”
This feeling is repeated by some sudden beneficiaries. in Interview with NPRNatalia Kutaha, a single mother of four, described intermittently for nutritional assistance for more than a decade, soda as an accidental treatment – something that links him to pizza during a birthday or a family celebration.
“The more option I have, I feel more dignity,” she said. “I feel more safety in who I – I have options – which makes my mother better and better mental health. Everything is connected.”
“No purchases of consumers have been subjected to this European level of intrusion by the federal government, and it will put a terrifying precedent in intrusion on most of the private areas of our lives.”
The discussion also raises the thorny question about what is exactly “unwanted food.” This conversation interferes with a wider and still sophisticated dialogue about the health effects of the so-called “very treated foods”-and the best way to define them. in February symposium hosted by the Food Technology InstituteDr. Susan Bogil, a professor of nutrition at the University of Copenhagen, indicated that the current Nova classification system, which is widely used to classify food treatment, and collects various elements such as yogurt, bread and soft drinks. Bügel, who leads the efforts to improve this system, stressed that many processed foods still provide the main nutrients and can be part of a balanced diet. If the sudden ban is aged, it is unclear how the government will draw the line: Will orange juice be allowed, for example-high in natural sugars, but also rich in vitamins-or are considered unlimited?
Even if policymakers can agree to define “fast food”, it will remain another question: Who will be responsible for his enforcement? When Congress Republicans suggested a experimental program in 2024 to classify and restrict sudden purchases, The National Assembly pushed the grocery strongly. In a speech in which nearly 2,500 commercial and commercial organizations participated and sent to senior leaders of Congress, the group warned that such a policy would be a bureaucratic quagmire.
They said that the classification of more than 600,000 food products – and the update of that list annually – would lead to a “unnecessary red strip”, while they do little to improve public health. The message came: “The cashants in the grocery store will become a food police store,” tells parents what they can and what they cannot feed their families. “
He continued the message: “No purchases of consumers have been subjected to this euler’s intrusion by the federal government, and it will put a terrifying precedent in intrusion on most of the special areas of our lives.”
Read more
On this topic
