[Troubling elements include the provision that will put at risk
food assistance for very low-income older adults. This policy will
increase hunger and poverty among that group, runs contrary to our
nation’s values, and should be rejected. ]
[[link removed]]

DEBT CEILING AGREEMENT REFLECTS IMPROVEMENTS OVER HOUSE BILL, HARMFUL
PROVISIONS REMAIN  
[[link removed]]


 

Statement of Sharon Parrott, CBPP President
May 28, 2023
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Troubling elements include the provision that will put at risk food
assistance for very low-income older adults. This policy will increase
hunger and poverty among that group, runs contrary to our nation’s
values, and should be rejected. _

President Biden, Senate Majority Leader Schumer, Minority Leader
McConnell, Speaker McCarthy, Minority Leader Jeffries discuss the debt
ceiling on May 9, 2023 in the Oval Office, The White House

 

While the debt ceiling agreement announced last night is a significant
improvement over the radical House bill, it is not the deal the
country deserves. There are a number of troubling elements, including
the provision that will put at risk food assistance for very
low-income older adults. This policy will increase hunger and poverty
among that group, runs contrary to our nation’s values, and should
be rejected. The nation must pay its bills — but that shouldn’t
mean enacting legislation that leaves people who already struggle to
afford the basics worse off.

We should never have been in this situation. We are here only because
House Republicans twisted the rules of democracy — using the debt
ceiling to hold hostage the jobs and well-being of millions of people
to demands for damaging policies they couldn’t pass even when they
held full control of Congress and the White House.

The agreement puts hundreds of thousands of older adults aged 50-54 at
risk of losing food assistance.
[[link removed].]

The agreement puts hundreds of thousands of older adults aged 50-54 at
risk of losing food assistance, including a large number of women.
Doubling down on the existing, failed SNAP work-reporting requirement
for adults aged 18-49 without children, this provision ignores the
strong evidence that it takes food assistance away from large numbers
of people without increasing employment or earnings.

A large share of low-income adults in this age range are in poor
health; many of them will lose basic assistance they need to buy
groceries because they aren’t able to meet the work-reporting
requirement; and the exemption system, notoriously laden with red
tape, won’t work. Decades of experience under the existing policy
shows that many of those whose SNAP benefits are taken away should
have been exempt. Those newly at risk of losing food assistance have
very low incomes, typically well below the poverty line, and will be
pushed even deeper into poverty when they lose SNAP.

The agreement includes some improvements to the existing failed SNAP
policy. While the new exemptions are positive, improvements for some
don’t justify expanding to others a failed policy that will increase
and deepen poverty.

Under the agreement, veterans and people experiencing homelessness can
be exempted from the requirements if_ _states properly identify that
they meet these criteria. But many veterans and people experiencing
homelessness should have been exempt under the _current_ criteria;
the need for a special category exposes the failures of the current
exemption system. And most people aged 50-54 newly subject to the
requirements are not veterans or people experiencing homelessness.

Share Chart on Facebook 
[[link removed]]Share
Chart on Twitter
[[link removed]]

Chart
[[link removed]]

Taking about $8 per person per day on average of food assistance away
from older adults was never about reducing deficits — the savings
are tiny in the context of the federal budget and the U.S. can easily
afford to ensure that people can afford food.

While details are still emerging, the agreement also includes some
problematic provisions that double down on TANF’s failed work
requirement structure. It effectively ratchets up requirements on
states to show that very low-income parents receiving TANF income
assistance are meeting rigid work requirements that are often
ill-suited to the needs of families. Some states will face challenges
meeting the requirements and may respond by restricting access to
assistance. The changes could limit states’ flexibility to design
effective programs and may lead some states to be more reticent to
respond to rising need or improve their programs in ways that help
families but make meeting inflexible federal requirements more
difficult.

The existing, rigid structure has led many states to take away or
severely restrict access to basic income assistance for large numbers
of very low-income families with children without improving long-term
employment outcomes. It is counterproductive to double down on these
failed policies. State officials from red and blue states alike agree
they are a hindrance to meeting the needs of very low-income families.

In a major improvement over the House-passed bill, President Biden
rejected policies that would take away health coverage from people
unable to meet a work-reporting requirement. But a person’s health
doesn’t depend only on health coverage — adequate food and income
are critical drivers of health.

Failed work-reporting requirements never should have been a part of
the debt ceiling discussion. These policies are steeped in racism and
unfounded stereotypes about people with low incomes. They ignore the
reality that most people who can work do work and that many people
receiving assistance are working, are between jobs, or have reasons
— like health or caregiving — they aren’t able to work, at least
temporarily.

Even as House Republicans insisted on harmful work requirements for
low-income people, they prioritized making it easier for wealthy
people to cheat on their taxes. While full details remain unclear, it
appears that the agreement calls for a substantial rescission in the
IRS funding — $10 billion in 2024 and up to that amount in 2025 —
that was provided in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). While smaller
than the cut in the House-passed bill, this could be as much as
one-quarter of the funding provided under the IRA. The Republican
focus on protecting wealthy tax cheaters is a disservice to honest
taxpayers and the cut sets a terrible precedent, undermining efforts
to make the IRS an effective agency that better serves these honest
taxpayers and enforces the law.

The agreement represents tough compromises on funding for non-defense
priorities and significant improvements over the policies put forward
in the House Republican debt-ceiling-and-cuts bill. The result,
however, will still be cuts overall in key national priorities when
the very real impact of inflation is taken into account.

While protecting defense from cuts, the agreement cuts the part of the
budget that funds key building blocks of our economy and investments
that are critical for the well-being of people and communities, from
child care, education, job training, and housing, to medical research,
environmental protection, and public health. Neither Republicans nor
the White House has identified program areas they believe should be
cut. It will be critical for policymakers to ensure that as
appropriations bills are written, they protect the areas most
important to safeguarding the well-being of those who face real
difficulties affording the basics.

Republicans’ insistence on cutting IRS funding, refusal to consider
any revenue increases, and opposition to provisions that would have
reduced prescription drug costs undermine their claims of concern
about deficits. Their bill included far deeper IRS cuts that would
have gifted more than $100 billion to tax cheats, and their broader
tax agenda would extend — without paying for — the 2017 Trump tax
cuts, which are heavily tilted toward the wealthy, at a cost of $300
billion per year.

The contrast here is striking. House Republicans are pressing for
policies that would protect wealthy tax cheaters and tax cuts for high
income people — policies that, because of a long history of racism,
disproportionately benefit white people. At the same time, they also
have pushed for harmful policies that would take away assistance from
people who need it and shortchange investments that expand opportunity
— policies that disproportionately hurt people of color, whose
access to opportunity has been systematically limited.

Looking forward, we must find a path to abolish the debt ceiling and
end the absurd debt ceiling hostage-taking that Republicans engage in
when they can use it as a bludgeon against a Democratic president.

Freed of this cycle of manufactured crisis, policymakers could turn to
the debate we should be having, about the country we want to be and
the policy agenda that will help us get there. Such an agenda would
broaden opportunity and reduce the too-high levels of hardship that
individuals and families endure. And it would ensure
that _everyone_ has the resources to afford the basics, including
food, a roof overhead, and health care.

_SHARON PARROTT is President of the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities. Parrott has nearly three decades of experience at the
Center and in government. Her expertise spans a broad range of issues,
including policies to reduce poverty and expand opportunity, the
intersection of the federal budget and low-income programs, and the
use of data and analysis to inform policy debates._

_ABOUT THE CENTER:_

_WHO WE ARE_

_We are a nonpartisan research and policy institute that advances
federal and state policies to help build a nation where everyone —
regardless of income, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender
identity, ZIP code, immigration status, or disability status — has
the resources they need to thrive and share in the nation’s
prosperity._

_WHAT WE DO_

_We combine rigorous research and analysis, strategic communications,
and effective advocacy to shape debates and affect policy, both
nationally and in states._

_We work closely with a broad set of national, state, and community
organizations to design and advance policies that promote economic
justice; improve health; broaden opportunity in areas like housing,
health care, employment, and education; and lower structural barriers
for people of color and others in communities that continue to face
systemic barriers to opportunity._

_We promote federal and state policies that will build a stronger,
more equitable nation and fair tax policies that can support these
gains over the long term. We also show the harmful impacts of policies
and proposals that would deepen poverty, widen disparities, and worsen
health outcomes._

_We work on policy implementation at the federal, state, and local
levels to maximize the positive impact of policies and bring the
lessons learned on the ground back to the policymaking process in
Washington, D.C. and state capitals._

_Our work — rooted in sound research and original data analysis,
informed by our extensive knowledge of policy and how programs operate
on the ground, and strengthened by our collaboration with a broad
range of partners — is trusted by a wide range of researchers,
policymakers, and media. _

_Donate to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
[[link removed]]_

* Debt Ceiling
[[link removed]]
* food security
[[link removed]]
* House Republicans
[[link removed]]
* Joe Biden
[[link removed]]
* Health Care
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]