Trump’s Republicans Are Preparing to Starve Us

Share

This piece is written by poverty lawyer, Salaam Bhatti, creator of A Paycheck Away. Subscribe to his work to start your journey towards ending poverty by learning about issues, exploring solutions, and ways you can act.

Subscribe to A Paycheck Away

Within the next 24 hours, the Senate is expected to vote on a budget that cuts hundreds of billions of dollars in services that hard-working Americans rely on daily, from Medicaid and Medicare to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). This Senate bill, like the House version, includes two parts that dramatically shift SNAP’s costs to the states WHICH IS A PROBLEM.

Should these shifts occur, states will be forced to bear two new, prohibitive costs. 

1. The first would increase state costs for SNAP administration from 50% to 75% and decrease the federal government’s share from 50% to 25%. This would cost states up to hundreds of millions of dollars starting in fiscal year 2027.

2. The second, where states would need to pay for a portion of the SNAP benefit costs, would start in fiscal year 2028, and cost states  billions. The federal government currently fully funds the SNAP benefit. This change would shift the cost anywhere between 5% to 15% to the states. This major change suspiciously takes place after the midterm elections. This means the impact won't be understood or considered when people go to the polls for the next presidential race. Convenient, huh? 

If you don’t know much about state government, here’s a running theme: states don’t even have the budget to do all they want to right now. So if they’re suddenly faced with new, significant costs, they have three options:

1. Move funding from other government programs to pay for SNAP,

2. Increase taxes to pay for SNAP, or

3. Withdraw from the program because they can’t afford to pay for SNAP.

Do you think any agency will part with its inadequate funding? No, of course not.

Do you think any state will increase taxes, especially ahead of a recession? No, of course not.

The logical conclusion here is that states would withdraw from the program because if states can’t afford something, they don’t have the option to go into debt. They need to balance their budgets every year. So let’s be clear: if they can’t afford SNAP, then they’ll withdraw from the program.

This would not only increase hunger in ways paralleling Mao’s Great Leap Forward, but it would also send a shockwave throughout the farmer-to-grocery supply chain, causing devastation across the economy. Should this cost shift go through, along with a whole lot of other wonky cuts like forcing single parents to work while their child is in school, America’s future is in grave danger.

Enraged? Let’s get you engaged.

Call your Senator’s office and use the below script ASAP!

**Read the whole thing before doing it so you have a good sense of what to do:

1. Use this link to find your Senator’s phone number and call their office. You’ll speak with a staffer, not the Senator, and you won’t need to debate. When the receptionist answers, ask to speak with the staffer who works on SNAP or agriculture issues.

2. “Hello, my name is [Your Name], and I live in [City], [State]. I’m a constituent calling to urge Senator [Name] to protect the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, in the upcoming budget negotiations.”

3. “I’m calling about the Senate budget bill. It contains unprecedented, harmful cuts and structural changes to SNAP and Medicaid that would devastate families and our state economy. I strongly urge the Senator to oppose these provisions and make sure [he/she] does not vote for any single cut to SNAP or Medicaid.”

4. Choose 3-4 to raise on the call.

   • Shifts Huge Costs to States:The bill would force states to pay up to 15 percent of SNAP food benefits and raise the state share of administrative costs from 50 percent to 75 percent. If the Parliamentarian’s decision is overruled, then the cost shift would likely force our state to withdraw from the program simply because we don’t have the budget for this unfunded mandate.

   • Harms Kids, Grandparents, & Caregivers:It limits benefits to just three months in three years for parents of children as young as ten, grandparents, and older adults unless they can prove 20 hours of work each week—ignoring caregiving duties, child-care access, and local job conditions.

   • Worsens Health & Drives Up Costs:SNAP is proven to improve health, reduce hospitalizations, and boost kids’ educational success. Cutting it will raise health-care and education costs.

   • Damages Local Economies:Every $1 of SNAP benefits creates up to $1.80 in economic activity. In food retail alone, SNAP sustains nearly 200,000 jobs and $16 billion in wages nationwide. Slashing nearly 30 percent of SNAP would hit rural and low-income communities hardest.

   • Food Banks Can’t Fill the Gap:For every nine meals SNAP provides, charities supply only one. They can’t replace a program of this scale.

5. “Please tell Senator [Name] to:

• Publicly oppose any SNAP cuts.

• Work with Senate colleagues to ensure SNAP remains fully federally funded and accessible to all eligible families.”

Tips

• Be courteous

• Staffers are noting tallies so each call matters.

• Personalize with a brief story if you have one (e.g., how SNAP helped your family or someone you know).

• Keep it under two minutes - the shorter and clearer, the bigger the impact.

The Feed will keep bringing you the news that matters - no paywalls, no punditry, just the facts.