* Tribune…
The Trump administration on Tuesday proposed tightening automatic eligibility requirements for the food stamp program, a change that could affect about 3.1 million people.
The Agriculture Department said the rule would close “a loophole” that enables people receiving only minimal benefits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program to be eligible automatically for food stamps.
“For too long, this loophole has been used to effectively bypass important eligibility guidelines. Too often, states have misused this flexibility without restraint,” Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said in a statement. […]
Under the proposal, to qualify for automatic eligibility, people would have to get at least $50 a month in benefits from TANF for a minimum of six months.
* I asked the governor’s office for a response. Here’s Jordan Abudayyeh…
The governor believes SNAP is an important tool that families across Illinois need to build better lives. The Trump administration is attempting to change rules around SNAP so less people will have access to the assistance they need and that’s just wrong. In Illinois, we believe in lifting up our neighbors so everyone has the opportunity to thrive. The Pritzker administration will tell the federal government that this rule change will hurt families across our state and urge them to reconsider the change.
* Meanwhile, from the Southern Illinoisan…
In Jackson County, nearly 12,000 people benefit from a federal anti-hunger program that helps families buy groceries.
Lauren Stoelzle is among them.
Without the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, Stoelzle said she’s not sure how she would be able to juggle completing her master’s thesis, raising two little girls as a single parent, part-time work as a bartender, job searching and helping her father, who has been diagnosed with colon cancer, make it to and from appointments at the Marion VA. […]
Almost 40% of Alexander County’s residents, and 30% of Pulaski County residents, receive SNAP benefits, commonly known as food stamps. In Jackson, Williamson, Union and Gallatin counties, about one in five people receive them. And in Saline, Franklin and Hardin, its about one in four, according to U.S. Census data analyzed by the Daily Yonder, a publication of the Center for Rural Strategies, a nonprofit with offices in Tennessee and Kentucky that is focused on rural issues.
- Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Jul 23, 19 @ 1:44 pm:
Republican Christianity: lavish the richest and tighten the screws on the poorest.
- Dotnonymous - Tuesday, Jul 23, 19 @ 1:47 pm:
Is America hungry enough…for change…yet?
Feed the poor…or…they will eat the rich?
- Momof2 - Tuesday, Jul 23, 19 @ 1:47 pm:
Based on the above, it sounds to me like they are proposing to redefine the rules for categorical eligibility so they are not misconstrued and applied too broadly.
- Beth - Tuesday, Jul 23, 19 @ 1:48 pm:
Don’t see anything wrong with double checking that those that are receiving truly should be
- Juvenal - Tuesday, Jul 23, 19 @ 1:53 pm:
“Downstate communities will be hardest hit.”
☝🏼 Try that Gov.
I mean, first off it’s true. But secondly you have to reframe this to win in the long haul, breaking the stereotype that SNAP only benefits black families in Chicago.
- DIstant watcher - Tuesday, Jul 23, 19 @ 1:56 pm:
What the feds are calling a “loophole” is a policy in place in over 40 states. The more hoops you make people jump through, the more likely someone deserving won’t get what they need. Shame.
- Joe Bidenopolous - Tuesday, Jul 23, 19 @ 2:14 pm:
===Based on the above, it sounds to me like they are proposing to redefine the rules for categorical eligibility so they are not misconstrued and applied too broadly.===
Yes, that is exactly what they are doing. Redefining rules that have been in place for 40 years that will result in 3 million low income families losing their benefits. But hey, $1/5 trillion dollars over 11 years for a tax cut, amiright???
- Joe Bidenopolous - Tuesday, Jul 23, 19 @ 2:14 pm:
Whoops - $1.85 trillion over 11 years for the tax cut, that is
- Honeybear - Tuesday, Jul 23, 19 @ 2:14 pm:
As an Human Services Caseworker, I can tell you
this is appalling.
This will totally backfire against Trump.
FYI Beth, we already double check for income. Once at redetermination and once at midpoint review.
In addition, every time they call, come into the office, appeal, heck even look at us cross eyed and we check those “clearances”, and look for income. Paying rent on your application? Boom, I’m going to question financial management because you listed no income. “How are you paying rent?”
Even if nothing is listed. With EVERY contact, I and every caseworker asks, “Are you working?”
Seriously, the CIA could recruit some of the caseworkers around here. Quality control is always on us watching for errors. I got nailed the other day because I didn’t catch a new job on a case. My butt was in my supervisors office in a New York minute.
What this is about is that stamps are income based. How much you get is based upon how much income you have, not on assets.
That schmuck millionaire may have to job income but that caseworker sure didn’t do their job. “What are you paying in rent or housing costs?” Applicant: “3000 a month”. CW: “How are you paying that?” “investments, rental income,” CW “Okay, I’m gonna need to see your tax returns, bank statements, Investment statements, etc. I need to have copies of anything that makes income for you, not just your job.”
See where I’m going with this?
Now, I need your lease, I need statement property value, car info and loan, payment, insurance policy info, everything that could be an asset.
It’s going to take
HOURS
to process a single customer.
The function of Trumps move
Is to kill foodstamps
with bureaucratic hoops and administration.
If will be so ugly
it won’t be worth the hastle.
It will make my job a living hell.
This is pure evil
on Trumps part
But ironically
he hurts his supporters most.
This, if enacted
ensures Trumps defeat.
- Hamlet's Ghost - Tuesday, Jul 23, 19 @ 2:16 pm:
Someone should ask the Congressman for Alexander County’s residents and Pulaski County’s residents whether they support this.
- Joe Bidenopolous - Tuesday, Jul 23, 19 @ 2:17 pm:
For context, this move is expected to save the USDA a whopping $2.5 billion annually. The budget Congress is trying to approve now increases overall Federal spending by $320 billion
- Nicky - Tuesday, Jul 23, 19 @ 2:19 pm:
If someone is rechecked and they still qualify
How will this loophole fix remove them from the program
- SWIL Voter - Tuesday, Jul 23, 19 @ 2:37 pm:
Here’s an illustration of the “sharp cliff” being created with this policy change, copied from a Center for American Progress:
“if Trump’s new rule gutting cat-el takes effect, it would create a sharp cliff, effectively penalizing workers for getting even a small raise.
Let’s look at a hypo to make this concrete:
Take a worker earning $12.50/hr, with 2 kids.
They’re at 125% of the federal poverty level, receiving about $161 in SNAP.
Thanks to cat-el, if the worker gets a 50-cent raise (+$86/mo), the family’s SNAP benefits go down by just $31, a net gain to the household of $55.
But under Trump’s rule, if the same worker gets a 50-cent raise, the whole family loses SNAP overnight, because it puts them >130% FPL.
They face a net *loss* of $75 per month.
They’re *worse off* after getting a raise.“
- Honeybear - Tuesday, Jul 23, 19 @ 2:37 pm:
Nicky, it depends on how they write the reg but my guess is that assets come into play. Now we DO consider assets when we determine eligibility for AABD, Aid the Aged, Blind, and Disabled. As a result, the majority of recipients get very little in stamps, mostly 15$ a month.
Get the trick? It’s not just getting folks off the program. It’s lowering the amount overall because
Food Stamps are 100% paid for by the
Federal Government.
If you start counting assets
almost everyone’s stamps are going to go down.
In systems of poverty
the most stable families are those
where a relative owns the house outright.
They pay no rent
Now this stable element is going to be counted against them.
But there are myriad ways this could wreak havoc
- Beth - Tuesday, Jul 23, 19 @ 2:46 pm:
This looks like it a revision on how AUTOMATIC enrollment in food stamps is processed
The proposal is that you have to be receiving at least $50 in tanf to get to be automatically eligible for food stamps
It doesn’t say that you can’t get food stamps if you receive less than 50. You just don’t get it automatically
- Honeybear - Tuesday, Jul 23, 19 @ 2:50 pm:
Sorry, I just reread the release.
It looks like they are making a play to keep TANF
mostly single moms with kids
from automatically getting foodstamps
for 6 months.
That’s gonna know a good number out.
TANF is already to much hastle.
It’s a nightmare.
- Montrose - Tuesday, Jul 23, 19 @ 3:04 pm:
“It doesn’t say that you can’t get food stamps if you receive less than 50. You just don’t get it automatically.”
Right. The reason you give it automatically is because being eligible for TANF is a clear sign of need, so it reduces the paperwork and hassle for both the caseworker and the recipient. This new rule would put up hurdles to folks getting the support they need, which is exactly what the Trump administration wants.
The Republicans complain about inefficiencies of government, but they are happy to make it inefficient if saves a couple bucks on the backs of the poor.
- JSS - Tuesday, Jul 23, 19 @ 3:10 pm:
Anything from Rep. Bryant, or is she only concerned with how cancelling slavery themed bands affects Southern Illinois?
- Blue Dog Dem - Tuesday, Jul 23, 19 @ 3:18 pm:
IMO. $20 billion in farm subsidies(pre-tarrif). $60 million/yr in subsidized crop insurance for tobacco. Come on folks, lets at least split the difference.
- stateandlake - Tuesday, Jul 23, 19 @ 3:38 pm:
After reviewing the press release and accompanying fact sheet closely, I can say this: We don’t know which states may include a household in TANF categorical eligibility simply on the basis of having requested and received a brochure, or started the process of eligibility determination. And we don’t know how many households may get SNAP benefits this way. But we know for sure that households who have passed the exhaustive TANF requirements screening will now not be categorically included in SNAP eligibility until receiving the stated level of TANF benefits for 6 months. Yes, they can still apply for SNAP separately and perhaps receive benefits sooner. But this move effectively adds still another burden for many families proven eligible through TANF screening, in order to prevent an unspecified number of people, in unspecified states, from gaining SNAP eligibility prior to TANF screening and approval. Anyone who works with this population knows how difficult it is, with work or training schedules, family responsibilities, and transportation challenges, to navigate the administrative requirements of the essential programs they participate in.
It seems to me that the rule could have been written more narrowly simply to require states not to include households in the categorical eligibility associated with TANF until they have passed the TANF screening. This would achieve the desired result without adding still another administrative hurdle for TANF eligible households during the first six months of their participation.
- Beth - Tuesday, Jul 23, 19 @ 4:45 pm:
What is the min tanf payment allowed
- Anon221 - Tuesday, Jul 23, 19 @ 5:09 pm:
Here’s some background from the Congressional Research Service-
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42054.pdf
The proposed rule with presser from yesterday and additional info - https://www.fns.usda.gov/pressrelease/usda-011319
You have 60 days to comment on this proposal.
- stateandlake - Tuesday, Jul 23, 19 @ 5:52 pm:
Anon221, thanks for the CRS background. Nice to have actual numbers to at least partially show the number of Illinois recipients to be affected by this change.
- Anon221 - Tuesday, Jul 23, 19 @ 7:18 pm:
stateandlake- You’re welcome:)
- SteveB - Tuesday, Jul 23, 19 @ 7:48 pm:
To put people through unreasonable hurdles, when they are already having legitimate financial difficulties seems to me to be incredibly short sighted especially when the vast majority are making extraordinary effort to extricate themselves to allow themselves a more productive existence. It will cause more pain to many who are doing their very best.
- Honeybear - Wednesday, Jul 24, 19 @ 9:08 am:
SteveB- exactly