SNAP Navigator

Get help getting the help you need!

recent posts

about

“With a background in social services, pastoral ministry and as a veteran of the US Armed Forces, I’ve spent years helping individuals and families navigate essential economic assistance programs like SNAP, LIHEAP, and TANF. My goal is to demystify these resources and ensure people receive the full support they’re entitled to. I’m here to help you understand how to effectively apply for and maximize the benefits available, so you don’t shortchange yourself.”

  • Nebraska Fallout: Trump Ends Annual Survey on Food Insecurity

    From KETV.com: “Food insecurity isn’t just a number on a page,” said Eric Savaiano, the program manager for food and nutrition access with Nebraska Appleseed. “It is evidence of people not having the food that they need in communities”…

    Savaiano said between 2021 and 2023, the food insecure population in the state increased by about 90,000. He says that could grow even more after the cuts to SNAP from the One Big Beautiful Bill.

    “They started a fire,” Savaiano said. “And what they’re doing is removing the batteries from the smoke detector so that we can’t know where that’s happening.”

    You can find the entire story here: https://www.ketv.com/article/nebraska-advocates-concerned-end-survey-food-insecurity/68047250

    The Big Beautiful Bill continues to work it’s magic across the country. Red or Blue, rural or urban, young or less young there are people struggling everywhere.

    Annual food insecurity data, particularly the Household Food Security Reports produced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) until their recent termination, has been a critical tool for government agencies in several key ways:

    Informing and Evaluating Federal Nutrition Programs: The data was essential for the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to assess the effectiveness and reach of major programs designed to combat food insecurity, such as:

    The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (formerly food stamps).

    School Meal Programs (National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program).

    The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). The statistics were used to track whether food insecurity was rising or falling and to understand which populations and geographic areas were most affected, which in turn helped inform decisions about program structure, eligibility, and funding.

    Policy and Funding Decisions: Policymakers at federal, state, and local levels relied on the official statistics to:

    Justify the need for anti-hunger initiatives and determine the appropriate scale of funding.

    Set policy goals related to reducing food insecurity.

    Measure the impact of economic changes (like recessions or inflation) and legislative actions (like cuts or expansions to safety net programs) on household food access.

    Resource Allocation: The data, often broken down by household characteristics and geography, helped government agencies and their partners (like state-level agencies and food banks) prioritize the allocation of resources to areas with the highest rates of food insecurity.

    Public Awareness and Research: Although not directly a function of an operating agency, the official data was used by government researchers and external academics to study the factors contributing to food insecurity and to develop evidence-based interventions.

    The USDA recently announced the end of the annual Household Food Security Reports, which served as the official national data source for food insecurity statistics. The USDA claims the survey was redundant and subjective, while experts and advocates argue it eliminates a crucial metric for tracking and responding to hunger in our nation.

    This data loss will impact millions of people for years to come. The impacts on health, security and education are going to take a generation to recover from.

    We are all going to pay for the non existent savings generated by Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill. The total increase in the national debt from the OBBBA is estimated to be over $4.1 trillion over the next decade. The saddest part of all this? The OBBBA adds to the deficit because the large-scale tax cuts (which disproportionately favor the wealthy), (reducing revenue) are much greater than the spending cuts (reducing outlays for safety net programs) it calls for. 

    What do you think?

    Please leave a comment and let me know!

  • Sweeping (SNAP) data under the rug: Hunger? What Hunger?

    From Americanprogress.org: “The Food Security Supplement (FSS) to the Current Population Survey has been around for roughly 30 years, but the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) last weekend announced the survey would no longer be funded because the reports “became overly politicized,” according to reporting from The Wall Street Journal. While 2024 data will still be included in the upcoming October 22 report from the USDA, the series will end there… The cancellation comes just a few months after congressional Republicans and the Trump administration enacted the largest cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in history...

    The timing is no coincidence, as research has repeatedly shown that SNAP participation helps reduce instances of food insecurity by as much as 30 percent. SNAP is particularly valuable for households that are more likely to experience food insecurity, such as those in or near poverty and households with children or people with disabilities. (see Figure 1) By canceling the FSS, the administration is making it more difficult for policymakers and the public to track the harms of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which is projected to eliminate or substantially reduce benefits for 4 million low-income Americans who rely on SNAP to feed their families.”

    “Despite the USDA’s claim that trends in food insecurity have remained virtually unchanged in recent years, the evidence suggests otherwise. Food insecurity actually fell to its lowest rate in decades in 2021 thanks to the economic stimulus provided to families in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, which included temporary expansions to SNAP. The data clearly show that policy intervention is measurable and important in people’s lives. Two years later, in 2023, food insecurity rose to levels not seen since 2014 as the temporary assistance expired and inflation rose. (see Figure 2) The historic cuts to SNAP enacted under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will push food insecurity even higher…

    The cancellation of the food security report is the latest attempt from the Trump administration to interfere with the collection and reporting of federal statistics. Without consistent, accurate food security data from the Census Bureau, policymakers, researchers, and USDA staff alike will have a harder time measuring changes in household well-being as the largest SNAP cuts in history reduce food access for millions of people.”

    You can read the entire article here: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-trump-administration-cancels-food-insecurity-report-masking-harms-of-historic-snap-cuts/

    To emphasize how little regard the Trump Administration has for the poor look no further than the article noted above. Ending one of the primary sources for monitoring food insecurity in our society is a huge blow to families and individuals already dealing with SNAP eligibility changes, cuts to safety net programs, rising food prices, the effect of tariffs across the economy and the stress of knowing that your family won’t make it without help. Other aid agencies will struggle to budget resources accurately as the data points will no longer be available.

    Congress and other agencies have had an important tool in the fight against hunger taken away. There will be no cost savings from this and many people will struggle because the annual COLA, (Cost of Living Adjustment), increases in aid that people receive to make up for the effects of inflation may stop completely.

    We say we are the greatest nation on the earth. “You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him.” Goethe.

    Perhaps President Trump’s administration should ponder that thought.

    What are your thoughts?

    Please leave a comment below!

     

  • SNAP Cuts: Food Insecurity and the Strain on Families

    From myamericannurse.com: “The One Big Beautiful Bill is already reshaping federal nutrition policy. As Congress prepares to debate the next Farm Bill, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) faces sweeping changes that could cut billions from the program, reduce access for millions of households, and deepen food insecurity.

    Laura Samuel, PhD, RN, FAAN, associate professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, has studied SNAP, food insecurity, and financial strain for nearly 2 decades. She shares what the evidence shows, why proposed changes raise red flags, and what she wants policymakers to understand.”

    “The evidence shows that SNAP reduces food insecurity and lowers healthcare use. Participants are more likely to take prescribed medications, have lower risks of diabetes and hypertension, and experience fewer diabetes-related hospital visits…

    There’s also a misconception that SNAP has high fraud rates. In reality, error rates are low, and most errors are small over- or underpayments caused by changes in households, not misuse. Framing this as fraud is misleading and using it to justify cost-sharing is shortsighted. Cutting SNAP doesn’t save money—it shifts costs onto health systems, Medicare, and Medicaid…

    The new work requirements pose challenges, especially for families with children and people with disabilities. Many SNAP recipients already work, often full-time, but still earn below the poverty line. Extending requirements to households with children as young as 7 years forces impossible choices when childcare is unaffordable. Expanding them to older adults adds another barrier, since many face health limitations that restrict the work they can do…

    Policymakers need to see SNAP for what it is: critical to keeping families healthy and children learning, now and in the future.”

    You can read this excellent article in it’s entirety here: https://www.myamericannurse.com/sweeping-changes-to-snap-could-make-food-insecurity-more-acute-3-questions-for-dr-laura-samuel/

    The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, (SNAP), is a net positive for our nation. Economies are boosted, health outcomes and educational outcomes improve as well.

    Dr. Samuel points out clearly and succinctly why cutting SNAP will have such a broad negative impact on our society. Poorer health, more stress on families struggling to get by, worsened educational outcomes and a loss of access to food are all known outcomes of the budget cuts signed into law by President Trump in his Big Beautiful Bill.

    It will be more expensive for states to administer SNAP. This additional cost will affect all of us.

    The science and documented history are there for anyone to see. Sadly, thanks to the Trump administration’s decision to end food insecurity studies we will have less information to work with going forward. You can read about it here: https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/21/health/hunger-reports-usda

    The war against the poor continues. The wealthy receive tax breaks, farmers are hoping to be bailed out by the government due to the impact of Trump’s tariffs but the poor are told to make due.

    What are your thoughts?

    Please leave a comment below-

     

  • Unintended Consequences- The Big Brutal Bill in Oregon

    The Big Beautiful Bill signed into law by President Trump continues to create collateral damage across the country, from the Oregon Capital Chronicle: ” The lines of responsibility for Sara Gwin have been blurred over the past few years.

    As an experienced benefit eligibility worker for the state of Oregon, she has long taken pride in coming up with ideas for the hands-on training required by the hundreds of employees who process applications for benefits administered by the state like cash payments, medical assistance or food stamps. But she often has had to step up for that teaching role without additional pay.

    The state struggles to consistently employ workers like Gwin in lead positions, with its human services department only having funding for about 28% of the lead workers it needs, according to the agency. The result is that it’s harder to provide real-life experience to workers seeking to aid vulnerable Oregonians and avoid errors at a time of federal scrutiny on benefit programs nationwide.”

    “Looming federal cuts related to over and underpayment errors in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are estimated to drain roughly $500 million every two years from the human services department, part of the largest chunk of cuts expected to impact the agency.

    Eligibility workers like Gwin and policy experts, however, say bringing the error rate down in light of stricter federal eligibility requirements and a lack of adequate training will prove difficult. Two other eligibility workers with differing levels of experience echoed Gwin’s complaints in interviews with the Capital Chronicle.

    “Every time someone wants to cut money from the program, they introduce a new complicated rule. The more complicated rules, the more there are possibilities that someone’s not going to understand them quite rightly, and mistakes will be made,” said David Super, a professor of law and economics at Georgetown University. “If anything, the people we should blame that for is Congress.”

    “During different periods, like open enrollment for medical which happens every October, November, time frame, we know we’re going to see greater demand, especially in our call centers, as we move through things, so we try to shift work where we can,” Singer said. “But that’s one that I think we’ll be struggling with just over the next year, as we see what these administrative requirements really feel like.”

    In the meantime, eligibility workers say they continue to look for support from leadership and in meetings where they can share feedback, but that the conditions remain taxing. ”

    You can read the entire article here: https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2025/09/23/a-universal-struggle-oregon-eligibility-workers-brace-for-federal-benefit-cuts/

    I speak from experience when I say that eligibility workers have a much more complex job than most people give them credit for. They need the soft skills of customer service and have to learn the various policies for each assistance program. As a supervisor I had to know 12 programs’ policies. Each handled income, assets, and expenses in a different way. Most eligibility workers have to know 2-8 programs’ policies.

    Workers are underpaid- many just miss the threshold for qualifying for assistance themselves. As more people have applied for benefits the workforce has not been increased. Some states have hired external companies to help manage the work load but that has created some problems of it’s own. External workers are not trained to the same extent that state employees are and do not have the same access to information or the authority to make benefit eligibility decisions. This has proven confusing for clients and frustrating for all parties.

    States save money in the short term hiring external vendors to assist with the workload as they do not have to pay for any benefits like sick leave, insurance, paid time off, etc. In the long term they are creating a snowball that is rolling downhill and gathering momentum.

    Workers who can leave will. There is no incentive to keep having more and more responsibility piled on you with no increase in compensation or any concrete paths to reducing the workload.

    We will continue to see and hear more and more stories like this. It is almost as if those in charge want the systems to break.

    What do you think? What is the situation in your state?

    Please leave a comment below

     

  • The War on the Poor: Trump’s 2026 Budget and the Fight for Federal Funding

    From The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Funding for non-defense appropriated programs has fallen in recent years, with 2025 funding at its lowest inflation-adjusted level since 2017. Nonetheless, President Trump’s 2026 budget proposes extremely deep cuts to non-defense funding relative to 2025 levels. ”

    “Medical research. The President’s 2026 budget cuts the budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) by 41 percent, to $27.7 billion.[19] The Senate Appropriations Committee Labor-HHS-Education bill provides a 0.9 percent increase over the 2025 level, while the House Appropriations subcommittee bill makes a cut of 0.9 percent for NIH. Predictable funding for medical research is essential to long-term advances in health care; even a short delay in funding can set research back years. Yet for 2025 the Administration has attempted to freeze billions of dollars for life-saving NIH research; significantly delayed the awarding of funds for Alzheimer’s, diabetes, cancer, and other important medical research; and illegally terminated hundreds of NIH grants.

    K-12 education. The President’s budget cuts the Department of Education by 15 percent relative to 2025, as does the House bill. The Senate bill, in contrast, mostly holds education funding steady. For example, in K-12 education the President’s budget consolidates 18 education grant programs, including for after-school and summer programs, English language learning support, teacher professional development, and tutoring programs, into one block grant and cuts funding by more than two-thirds, from $6.5 billion to $2 billion. The House takes a different approach to K-12 funding, cutting Title I, funds that support schools serving families with low incomes, by almost $5 billion or 25 percent. The Senate bill holds funding for most K-12 programs at their 2025 levels.

    Home energy assistance for low-income households. The President’s budget eliminates in 2026 the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which provides heating and cooling assistance to 6 million low-income households to help prevent utility shutoffs. The President also attempted to zero out LIHEAP in his first term. In addition, in April the Administration made clear its intention to do away with LIHEAP by firing the entire staff.[23] The Senate bill provides $4.0 billion for LIHEAP, a 0.5 percent increase above the 2025 level. The House bill provides a smaller increase of 0.25 percent above the 2025 level. (Due to limited funding, LIHEAP currently aids only one-sixth of eligible households.)

    Nutrition assistance for new and expecting parents and young children. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) provides a science-based food benefit that helps ensure that low-income families with young children can afford the foods they need for a healthy diet. The WIC funding levels in the House 2026 Agriculture Appropriations bill and the President’s budget would break Congress’s nearly 30-year commitment to provide enough funding to serve all eligible families who seek support from WIC and to provide full benefits. The House bill also starts the process laid out in the President’s budget to slash WIC’s science-based fruit and vegetable benefit for more than 5 million participants.

    Rental assistance. Federal rental assistance helps roughly 10 million people — struggling seniors, people with disabilities, veterans, and working families — keep a roof over their heads, often by helping them afford rental units they find in the private market. The House Transportation and Housing Appropriations bill would result in about 411,000 fewer people receiving Housing Choice Vouchers. It also cuts funding for public housing by nearly $1.5 billion (about 17 percent), reducing the maintenance and repairs needed to protect residents’ health and safety. The Senate bill’s funding levels are higher but would still cut public housing by $410 million (about 5 percent) and result in about 243,000 fewer people receiving vouchers. Housing Choice Vouchers are tied to rental costs so require additional funding each year to continue assisting the same number of people; only about a quarter of those who are eligible receive vouchers due to limited funding…

    Congress can act to curb the Administration’s illegal actions and prohibit partisan deal-breaking to restore the ability of lawmakers to reach a true bipartisan agreement. It could take steps to speed up the distribution of funding and take away executive branch discretion that has been repeatedly abused by the Administration to slow spending.

    It could strengthen the penalties when the Administration engages in illegal impoundments. It could prohibit partisan rescissions in funding provided through bipartisan funding legislation. And it could limit the Administration’s politicization of the grantmaking process and improve transparency to aid in oversight and public pushback. Enacting these changes will require bipartisan support. Without them, it is hard to see how Congress can reach a bipartisan budget agreement and avert a damaging government shutdown.”

    You can read the entire article here: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/2026-appropriations-must-protect-against-further-partisan-cuts-and-illegal

    So far the Trump administration has tried almost every conceivable to upset the balance of power between the three branches of the government. Their repeated attempts to wrest control of the national budget from Congress have been blatant and have already created chaos for many.

    The Trump Administration has just stopped measuring Food Insecurity, there’s no problem if no one’s checking, which is another indicator of the administration’s desire to paint a rosy picture by painting over or cutting out anything that might stray from their desired narrative.

    The blatant disregard for the poor, the disabled, veterans and children is to great to miss.

    Congress CAN act but will they? So far loyalty to Trump outweighs every other consideration, like understanding that Congresspersons’ job is to work for the benefit of the people who voted them into office. Until Congress feels the pressure, enough to affect their perceived job security, no change will come.

    What do you think?

    Does any of these funding issues affect your household or any other family/friends?

    Let your representative know what you think: https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials

     

     

  • Utility Costs Up, LIHEAP Funding Down, or Eliminated

    From the Sierra Sun Times, “The National Energy Assistance Directors Association (NEADA) has released its winter home-heating update. The most significant increase this season will hit households that heat with electricity: expenditures are expected to rise 10.2%, from $1,093 last winter to $1,205 this year. Electricity prices are rising more than twice as fast as the overall inflation rate due to utility investment in transmission and distribution systems, the rising cost of natural gas, a primary fuel for power generation – and rapid growth in large data centers that are increasing demand for electricity.

    NEADA also projects higher natural gas costs, with the average household gas bill increasing from $639 to $693, driven by higher wholesale gas prices and strong LNG export demand.”

    “Arrearages for electricity and natural gas are also increasing: Since December 31, 2023, household energy arrearages have risen by about 31%, from approximately $17.5 billion to $23.0 billion by May 31, 2025. The increase reflects rising home-heating costs and greater summer air-conditioning use amid higher temperatures. About one in six U.S. households is already behind on their utility bills before winter starts. Higher heating costs, particularly for households with electric heat, will make them fall further behind. At the very moment families need more support, federal aid is shrinking. LIHEAP funding fell from $6.1 billion (FY2023) to about $4.1 billion (FY2025). The Administration has proposed eliminating LIHEAP. While the House and Senate appropriations bills include a small increase for the coming fiscal year, they have not yet passed and do not include additional resources to address rising home-energy costs.”

    You can read the entire article here: https://tinyurl.com/yc6rycr3

    This is another blow to people already trying to cope with SNAP cuts, Medicaid cuts, and rising prices in general. Congress still has the opportunity to supply funds to a program that many families count on to get them through cold winters, hot summers, and to keep their medical equipment running.

    Many households depend on help from the LIHEAP program to avoid shutoffs for their cooling and heating utilities. A portion of LIHEAP funding is specifically for crisis situations, which often includes preventing or resolving utility shutoffs. For example, in Nebraska for FY 2024, 2,770 households received “Year-round Crisis” assistance.

    Not every state makes provision due to temperature or time of year keeping utilities from shutting off or disconnecting a household’s service. With weather extremes becoming less predictable, more so due to the Trump administration cutting NOAA positions, LIHEAP assistance becomes a literal lifeline for households, especially for those on fixed income. As other costs rise, people have less and less funds to spread. Every year people die because they cannot heat or cool their houses due to lack of money.

    Aid agencies also face reductions in donations and federal grants that enable them to help households in need. Thank you Big Beautiful Bill.

    Is this really where we are as a nation now? At least the wealthy get their tax breaks…

    What are your thoughts?

    Please leave a comment-

    •  

     

  • SNAP- Trump Effect in Colorado. Punishing the Elderly

    From CBSNews.com, “The Food Bank of the Rockies says 13% of adults don’t have easy access to food, which is a 35% increase from just five years ago. Meals on Wheels Coal Creek, which serves parts of Boulder County, is on pace to serve 90,000 meals this year, which would be a 25% increase from last year.”

    More Coloradans need help getting food, and Meals on Wheels Coal Creek is working to keep up with demand.
    The Food Bank of the Rockies says 13% of adults don’t have easy access to food, which is a 35% increase from just five years ago. Meals on Wheels Coal Creek, which serves parts of Boulder County, is on pace to serve 90,000 meals this year, which would be a 25% increase from last year.

    meals-on-wheels-demand-10pkg-transfer-frame-98.jpg
      Meals on Wheels Coal Creek CBS

    Meals on Wheels Coal Creek says they’re expecting an even bigger need as SNAP benefits change this fall. According to The Colorado Health Foundation, right now 584,000 Coloradans rely on SNAP to eat.

    Every day, Meals on Wheels staff and volunteers pack up 300 meals to deliver to their neighbors in need. This week, Your Reporter in Boulder County Sarah Horbacewicz joined Director of Programs Emma Gaulin on a delivery as they see a higher demand.

    “Today we’re going to go see Fred in Louisville,” Gaulin said, “With inflation and the worry of SNAP benefits being taken away from some already, and the fear of it being taken away from others. We have a lot of calls for people to up the amount of hot meals that they get… “I look forward to them coming. I always feel real bad when they have to leave,” Foster said, “I would have gone hungry many times without them.”

    Now Foster says he’s expecting his SNAP benefits to get cut next month and may rely on Gaulin visits, and these meals that much more.

    “You want to give up after, you know, when you receive a letter like that, it’s a shock,” Foster said, “You start depending on it, and when you’re older, you really depend on it.”

    You can read the article here: https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/snap-benefits-cuts-colorado-meals-wheels-coal-creek-increased-demand/

    An example of how the cuts generated by the Big Beautiful Bill (OBBBA) signed into law by President Trump will affect the elderly and disabled.

    The spending cuts in the OBBBA are intended to partially offset the cost of new tax cuts, including the permanent extension of the 2017 tax cuts and new deductions for overtime pay, tips, and car loan interest.

    The bill is projected to add trillions of dollars to the national debt over the next decade.

    Critics argue that the bill disproportionately benefits higher-income individuals through tax cuts while harming low-income families and vulnerable populations by reducing access to essential programs like SNAP and Medicaid. They also point to the potential negative impact on the economy and local communities, such as rural hospital closures and harm to local farmers.

    Separately from the OBBBA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has also cut funding for pandemic-era programs that helped schools and food banks purchase food directly from local farmers.

    All of this, plus inflation generated by tariffs, leads to higher costs and less help from the federal government for all of us.

    Poorer nutrition leads to worse health outcomes. The cuts to Medicaid will only increase the pain that many will feel as access to medical care is reduced and/or eliminated for many people.

    Rural hospitals will be forced to close, leaving persons like Fred in the story above, without the resources he depends on to live.

    This bill is cruel and is going to force people to choose between food and medication or medical care. If they have to commute to another city to get medical care then they’ll be spending more money for that transportation. The many increased costs will strain and break the budgets of those on fixed incomes. The effects of this bill will be felt for years and years to come. I haven’t even mentioned the fact that Energy Assistance, (LIHEAP), has not been funded beyond this winter…

    What are your thoughts?

    Please leave a comment below

     

  • SNAP- Trump Effect Hits Tennessee

    From Wkrn.com, “A new report by the Tennessee Commission on Children & Youth found the state’s financial obligation to carry out its Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program could increase from $56.7 million to $165.3 million due to federal cuts included in the “Big Beautiful Bill.”

    The report used costs from fiscal year 2024, when states paid half of the administrative costs and none of the benefits costs of SNAP. The commission then applied the federal cuts and changes to the same numbers, with states paying 75% of the administrative costs and up to 15% of the benefits costs, depending on their error rate, which resulted in a $108.6 million estimated cost increase.”

    “We have grandparents that we work with that care for grandchildren, and they are all of a sudden potentially going to be hit with a work requirement, and these are grandparents who are 60 and had retired and hadn’t anticipated caring for five grandchildren, but now they could be cut from the SNAP program,” Anderson said.”

    You can read the complete article here: https://www.wkrn.com/news/tennessee-politics/report-tn-snap-costs-could-double/

    The same story is repeating in state after state, the Big Brutal Bill will hurt children and families who rely on SNAP assistance to function. It will hit all taxpayers in increased administration costs shifted from the Federal government to State governments in order to fund tax breaks for the wealthy.

    It is a cruel reality that we must deal with- our country elected an agenda that punishes the poor. It reduces or outright removes the safety net for some families and makes it harder for all taxpayers who aren’t wealthy beneficiaries of Trump’s tax gifts.

    On top of all this, the budget deficit will increase by trillions of dollars, adding to the continual burden placed on all of us. This bill has weakened our economy and will continue to unless changes come from Congress. We have had our credit rating lowered, inflation is creeping up, and everyone will tell you that cost of living has increased pretty much across the board.

    Tennessee is a solidly Red state- Tennessee has voted for the Republican presidential candidate in every election since 2000. These victories have been by double-digit margins since 2004. They voted to harm them selves, and all of us. More red states receive federal SNAP assistance per capita. This is a common pattern for federal aid programs.

    Many red states, particularly in the South and parts of the Midwest, have higher poverty rates and lower median incomes compared to many blue states. This demographic reality often results in a greater need for social safety net programs. Despite this, out of fears stoked by President Trump, they voted against their own self interests and all of us will pay a price- none will pay more than the poor, aged, disabled, veterans, and children.

    What are your thoughts?

    Please let us know by leaving a comment

  • In New Hampshire Trump Cuts Deep- SNAP and More

    From NewHampshireBulletin.com: ”

    Maria Khan spent much of this year terrified as she watched Congress debate whether to cut funding for federal food assistance and other programs she relies on.

    “It severely affected my mental health,” she said. “I was getting really bad. I had to get off social media. I’ve had to stop looking into it because I couldn’t function. I was just living in fear, and I was finding that I was really having a hard time parenting and functioning for myself.”

    In July, her fears were realized when President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act became law. The behemoth legislation touches nearly every segment of the federal government and makes severe cuts to Medicaid and other social programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as SNAP or food stamps, that Khan uses to feed her family.

    The SNAP changes, many of which go into effect as soon as states can implement them while others will be implemented as late as 2028, are expected to cause roughly 44,000 families in New Hampshire — and 22.3 million nationwide — to lose some or all of their benefits, according to analysis from the Urban Institute. However, many economists and hunger experts say the consequences will be much more far-reaching, straining food banks and other social services, hitting the bottom line of farmers and grocery stores and municipalities.”

    (This is my favorite part)”Drew Cline, executive director at the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a New Hampshire conservative think tank, said the state should’ve seen this coming.

    Cline argued New Hampshire “has relied for far too long on these pretty high federal expenditures on these programs, and it was becoming increasingly clear as the deficits started to really grow in recent years that the federal government simply wasn’t going to be able to maintain its commitment to these programs… The spending cuts in the law were designed to make space in the budget to extend a series of tax cuts enacted during Trump’s first term. The tax cuts have been lambasted by those who point out that they disproportionately benefit the wealthy and are expected to add $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years, according to the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office.”

    ”

    In a 2021 study evaluating “bangs-for-the-buck,” Moody’s Analytics determined SNAP is one of the most effective programs at growing the economy, particularly because it grows when the economy recedes. 

    “SNAP is particularly effective economic stimulus because it provides resources to households that do not have very much to begin with, and those individuals and families spend them quickly and directly in their local economies,” Phil Sletten, an economist and research director at the New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute, wrote in an email to the Bulletin.

    “Dollars spent on SNAP support jobs at community grocery stores and provide supports to families that may otherwise go without food, hurting their abilities to be healthy and participate in the economy in other ways, such as working,” he continued. “Less federal money flowing to New Hampshire through SNAP, and the Granite Staters that benefit from it, could reduce economic activity in the state, including in rural areas.”

    You can read the entire article here: https://newhampshirebulletin.com/2025/09/15/in-new-hampshire-families-who-rely-on-snap-may-go-hungry-others-will-be-affected-too/

    More wealth is transferred from the many to the few. Under the guise of cutting our deficit and eliminating fraud, waste and abuse vital social programs are being gouged in order to benefit the rich.

    The stated goal of these guts is to stimulate growth through tax cuts, but the investment of SNAP funds into a community already accomplishes this. For every dollar spent on SNAP there is a return of $1.50- $$1.89. That money keeps local economies going. It feeds people and helps them stabilize so that they are able to contribute to their community. Taking away food from working families, from the disabled, veterans and the elderly punishes them in order to reward the rich for being rich.

    Trickle down does not work; instead of wealth “trickling down” from the rich, it tends to “trickle up” or concentrate at the top. Research and data from the past several decades show that tax cuts for the wealthy have largely failed to stimulate economic growth or unemployment, instead increasing income inequality. A more effective approach, sometimes called “trickle-up” or “trickle-across” economics, involves strengthening the middle and lower classes through policies like increased wages and public investments, which can better stimulate demand and economic growth.  

    Let your representatives know what you think, and let me know by leaving a comment below!

  • “Closing the Meal Gap Act of 2025” Is this the best you can do?

    The Headline: “Adams, Gillibrand, Hayes, Summer Lee, Velázquez Introduce Landmark Anti-Hunger Legislation”

    The reality is much different. The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” of 2025 significantly changed how the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) is updated, limiting future re-evaluations and requiring them to be “cost-neutral,” meaning only inflation adjustments are allowed. This restriction, effective October 1, 2025, restricts the USDA‘s ability to adjust benefits to reflect a healthy diet, potentially causing SNAP benefits to fall behind rising food costs over time. The Act also made other changes, including administrative simplifications to utility expenses, which will cut benefits for some low-income households, and eliminated SNAP-Ed funding. 

    The proposed legislation, entitled “the Closing the Meal Gap Act of 2025 ” is supposed to address the losses inflicted by the Big Beautiful Bill. I am not seeing it.

    This legislation does not address the 3 primary issues namely the loss of SNAP funding, the increased administrative cost to states, or the more stringent work requirements.

    It does mention

    • It aims to calculate SNAP benefits based on the low-cost food plan instead of the thrifty food plan.
    • The low-cost food plan will be defined and reevaluated every five years, starting December 31, 2029.
    • Adjustments will be made for household size and specific states like Hawaii and Alaska to reflect local food costs.

    Calculation of Benefits Using Low-Cost Food Plan

    The bill mandates that SNAP benefits be calculated using the low-cost food plan, impacting how benefits are allocated.

    • The low-cost food plan will be based on a diet for a typical four-person family.
    • The Secretary will adjust the cost of the diet annually on October 1

    • The value of allotment will change from 8% to 10% based on the low-cost food plan.

    You can read the bill here: https://adams.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/adams.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/119_text_closing-the-meal-gap-act-1.pdf

    So the Thrifty Food plan adjustment to SNAP has ended, and the new proposed adjustment, which is “better”, would not take effect until as late as 2029. No mention of restoring funds, adjusting work requirements or dealing with the increased administrative costs that states will have to deal with. Or what is supposed to happen for the next 4 years…

    This legislation does increase the medical expense deduction, but most households do not qualify for this expense. Since many SNAP households also receive Medicaid or Medicare they often have few out of pocket medical expenses.

    Interestingly enough, a household’s internet expense is not included in the standard utility allowance. It is almost impossible to function without internet access of some kind, why this expense continues to be excluded from a household’s allowable expenses is a mystery to me.

    This legislation seems pretty pointless. It does not restore funding, it does not ease access, and it does not reflect the real day to day needs of people across the country.

    The legislation appears to be an attempt to look like “we’re doing something,” but the reality is that even if passed the earliest a family would see any real benefit from this bill is about 4 years from now.

    Our elected officials have to try harder. They have to make real change to benefit their constituents. Toothless words masquerading as landmark legislation are not good enough.

    I would hope that the sponsors/authors of this bill would choose courage over theater and take some risk in order to better the lives of the people they are supposed to serve. This “legislation” is kind of pathetic, like bringing a sharp stick to a firefight.

    Do better.

    What do you think? Please leave a comment

    https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member