Source: Politics<\/p>\n
Under the political radar, the country\u2019s food stamps program is undergoing a slow-motion transformation. The ramifications could bubble up into the midterms.<\/p>\n
Changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program from Republicans\u2019 One Big Beautiful Bill Act are rolling out in phases, from tougher work requirements to restrictions on non-citizens. Food stamp rolls already shrank by more than 5 million people<\/a> nationwide as of this summer, as the hardest-hit state, Arizona, saw an outright majority of its food stamp recipients lose benefits.<\/p>\n The latest alteration clicked into place Oct. 1, when the share of administrative costs states and counties have to pay rose to 75% from 50%. An even bigger financial shift looms in a year, when states with high payment error rates will have to assume some benefit costs for the first time, a scenario that\u2019s already rippling through state and local budget planning.<\/p>\n It all adds up to a new era in federal-state relations \u2014 and in the size and nature of the welfare state.<\/p>\n In a year when affordability worries top voters\u2019 priority lists and grocery prices strain their wallets, Democrats think the SNAP shift gives them an opening to make Republicans pay politically after the GOP used social safety net cuts to food aid and Medicaid to help pay for last year\u2019s tax cuts.<\/p>\n \u201cPeople are getting kicked off these programs at the very moment they\u2019re going to the polls to vote,\u201d House Agriculture ranking member Angie Craig (D-Minn.) said. \u201cI sure wouldn\u2019t want to be a Republican headed into the November ballot.\u201d<\/p>\n But Republicans think they have a compelling story to tell voters, trying to right-size a program that spends millions of dollars on erroneous payments. The SNAP changes align with the Trump administration\u2019s broader push to crack down on fraud and make the government smaller or more efficient. Implementing stricter work requirements for welfare often polls well, and trying to move people toward work gets at the root causes of poverty, they argue.<\/p>\n \u201cThe premise is simple: Let\u2019s make sure that this program is preserved for those truly in need, and that we aren\u2019t squandering taxpayer dollars,\u201d a senior USDA official told Playbook in an interview. \u201cAnd let\u2019s make sure that if folks are able-bodied, they are work training or volunteering for 20 hours per week.\u201d<\/p>\n That doesn\u2019t mean Republicans in competitive races are putting SNAP and Medicaid cuts front and center on the campaign trail. When they tout last year\u2019s megalaw, new tax breaks typically lead the messaging. And 10 frontline GOP House campaigns didn\u2019t respond to requests for interviews about how they can win on SNAP.<\/p>\n At the state and county level, some governments are scrambling to prepare for a massive cost shift, hitting at the same time as significant Medicaid changes. The resulting bureaucratic jumble has contributed to some of the SNAP losses this year, as recipients struggled to get through overtaxed call centers, some states cut staff, and others tightened their processes.<\/p>\n \u201cIt really sets up a change in the federal responsibility, and I view it as a slippery slope,\u201d warned Barbara Guinn, New York\u2019s commissioner of the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance. Her state is staring down a possible $1 billion added burden next year, though they\u2019re advocating for a repeal of the benefits change. \u201cOnce they implement any kind of cost shift, I think it will be easier for them to take similar actions in the future.\u201d<\/p>\n Whether to delay next year\u2019s cost shift has already generated tensions over the farm bill in the Senate, where Democrats are demanding a longer postponement<\/a> than Republicans\u2019 offer of one year. Some Minnesota counties are considering significant property tax increases to pay for the extra costs, Craig said: \u201cWe\u2019re going to be pushing hard for a two-year delay \u2014 at the request of, frankly, many of my Republican county commissioners, not just Democrats.\u201d<\/p>\n Conservatives see the new calculus as a long overdue change to improve efficiency and incentivize program integrity. Improper payment rates are high<\/a> in many states (though they comprise both over-payments and under-payments, and error rates are different from fraud). Those that reduce errors enough won\u2019t have to take on paying the benefits. And even opponents of the changes think lower error rates are a worthy goal. SNAP rolls often ebb and flow with the economy, and the recent drop could reflect the job market pulling people out of need \u2014 or the removal of people who shouldn\u2019t have been getting food stamps in the first place.<\/p>\n \u201cThere needs to be some level of accountability,\u201d the USDA official said. States with high error rates \u201cneed to start to have skin in the game.\u201d<\/p>\n But at a time when many households are already squeezed by inflation, the SNAP changes have correlated with higher numbers of Americans turning to charities to ward off hunger. The surge in people losing food aid came more quickly than expected. The unemployment rate hasn\u2019t meaningfully changed. And the vast majority of large food banks in a recent NBC survey<\/a> said they were grappling with higher demand, in part due to food stamp changes. Another rule kicking in<\/a> the day after the midterms could lead to many retailers being bumped out of SNAP as places where low-income people can use their benefits.<\/p>\n For state governments, a set of sweeping operational changes are now underway to conform to new policy demands, often requiring more money or staffing at already under-resourced offices. And the budgetary stakes to get error rates lower are sky-high.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s a really complicated, nuanced and confusing time for states who are trying to administer SNAP,\u201d said Lauren Kallins, a senior legislative director at the nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures, which has advocated for a delay in the benefits costs shift.<\/p>\n