Trump’s cuts to food stamps are economically and morally indefensible.

Opinion: Trump’s cuts to food stamps are indefensible, economically and morally

By Karen Dolan             July 31, 2019

SNAP program reduces poverty better than anything else, with very little fraud

Getty Images
A half a million kids will lose their school lunch assistance if the Trump administration changes the rules for food stamps.

Under new changes proposed by the Trump administration, over 3 million struggling parents, children, people living with disabilities, and older American may lose access to food stamps, also known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Children in families who are slated to lose their SNAP benefits will also lose critical school-lunch assistance.

The Trump administration wants to eliminate an eligibility criterion known as broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE), which enables states to expand access to those in need of food assistance based on other programs they qualify for.

By eliminating it, the administration is effectively creating a benefits cliff, where a parent’s small raise at work — or a modest amount of savings — could end up disqualifying a family from SNAP entirely. That leaves them poorer for getting a raise or saving money, or else puts them at risk of their food aid falling through the bureaucratic cracks.

Failed twice

Trump and the Republicans attempted to get this reduction in the nation’s most effective social safety-net program rammed through Congress last year — and failed. They also failed in their attempt to significantly defund the program. So now Trump is attempting to reduce food access to families in need via executive fiat.

SNAP reduces poverty more simply and directly than nearly any other program. Because it’s responsive to the overall economy, it expands during economic downturns and contracts when poverty levels fall. This enables people to weather temporary economic hardship, stay above the official poverty level, and gets money more quickly into the economy.

It also literally puts food into children’s mouths, while their parents work and save.

Why would the administration want to take critical food assistance away from children and families who need it? The administration has claimed ineligible people are using the program, perhaps fraudulently. But that’s unlikely.

Looking at figures through 2016, Forbes contributor Simon Constable calculated potentially fraudulent SNAP expenditures at under 1% of the cost of the program — a minuscule amount compared to behemoth agencies like the Pentagon, which can’t even pass an audit, and which nonetheless keeps getting budget increases.

Rigorous standards

SNAP, by contrast, “has some of the most rigorous program integrity standards and systems of any federal program,” adds Robert Greenstein of the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities, including for recipients who qualify by their participation in other programs.

According to the center, SNAP is one of the most effective economic stimulators per federal dollar spent of any program. During the economic downturn of 2009, for example, Moody’s Analytics estimated that for every dollar increase in SNAP benefits that year, $1.70 economic activity was generated.

Further, the administration has repeatedly claimed — also falsely — that poverty is all but solved.

That’s not remotely true.

According to research by the Poor People’s Campaign and the Institute for Policy Studies, 140 million Americans are either poor or low-income. In this wealthiest nation on the planet, even as more wealth concentrates at the top, some 43% of us struggle to make ends meet — a number that far outpaces the official poverty measure, not to mention Trump’s mis-characterization of it.

Our social safety net, which includes assistance for basic needs such as housing, health, and nutrition, is insufficient and under attack.

Neglecting children

The impact of this neglect on the health and well being of our children, in particular, reverberates through our entire economy.

Our report compiles reams of data on the enormous economic costs of child poverty, such as the Children’s Defense Fund’s estimation that the economic cost of lost productivity, worsened health, and increased crime rates that stem from child poverty total roughly $700 billion per year — 3.5% of GDP.

Strengthening SNAP is key to reducing this damage. So on economic grounds alone, the Trump proposed rule change to kick millions struggling children, families — and not to mention people living with disabilities and older people — off critical food assistance makes no sense. On moral grounds, it’s indefensible.

As the Rev. Dr. William Barber and the Poor People’s Campaign often says, “Everybody’s got the right to live.” That right belongs to America’s 140 million poor and low-income people, including the 3.1 million children and families experiencing hardship that rely on the nutritional assistance provided by the SNAP program.

Karen Dolan directs the Criminalization of Race and Poverty Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. She’s a co-author of the IPS-Poor People’s Campaign Report, “A Poor People’s Moral Budget: Everybody Has the Right to Live.” The IPS is funded by private foundations and individual donors.

American farmer: Trump ‘took away all of our markets’

Yahoo – Finance

Adriana Belmonte, Yahoo Finance       July 31, 2019

Trump administration appoints opponent of public land to oversee 250 million acres of government-owned wilderness

Restaurants generate huge amounts of waste that go straight to landfills.

CNN

July 27, 2019

Most restaurants generate huge amounts of waste that go straight to landfills. So the owners of Lighthouse in New York decided to take a different approach.

“It’s our responsibility, it’s our job to… take control over how we behave with our environment.”

This New York restaurant dramatically reduced its waste, and wants others to follow

Most restaurants generate huge amounts of waste that go straight to landfills. So the owners of Lighthouse in New York decided to take a different approach.“It’s our responsibility, it’s our job to… take control over how we behave with our environment.”

Posted by CNN on Friday, July 26, 2019

People cross into Mexico to buy the life-saving drug!

Bernie Sanders is heading across the border to Canada with type 1 diabetics this weekend to buy cheap insulin this weekend.

We met with people who cross into Mexico to buy the life-saving drug — and tried to find out why it’s so expensive.

Inside The Factory Where Most Of The World’s Insulin Is Made

Bernie Sanders is heading across the border to Canada with type 1 diabetics this weekend to buy cheap insulin this weekend.We met with people who cross into Mexico to buy the life-saving drug — and tried to find out why it’s so expensive.

Posted by VICE News on Friday, July 26, 2019

Mitch McConnell is a Russian asset


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington on Tuesday. (Susan Walsh/AP).

This doesn’t mean he’s a spy, but neither is it a flip accusation. Russia attacked our country in 2016. It is attacking us today. Its attacks will intensify in 2020. Yet each time we try to raise our defenses to repel the attack, McConnell, the Senate majority leader, blocks us from defending ourselves.

Let’s call this what it is: unpatriotic. The Kentucky Republican is, arguably more than any other American, doing Russian President Vladimir Putin’s bidding.

Robert Mueller sat before Congress this week warning that the Russia threat “deserves the attention of every American.” He said “the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in our election is among the most serious” challenges to American democracy he has ever seen. “They are doing it as we sit here, and they expect to do it during the next campaign,” he warned, adding that “much more needs to be done in order to protect against these intrusions, not just by the Russians but others as well.”

Not three hours after Mueller finished testifying, Mark Warner (D-Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, went to the senate floor to request unanimous consent to pass legislation requiring presidential campaigns to report to the FBI any offers of assistance from agents of foreign governments.

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) was there to represent her leader’s interests. “I object,” she said.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) attempted to move the bill that would require campaigns to report to the FBI contributions by foreign nationals.

“I object,” said Hyde-Smith.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) tried to force action on bipartisan legislation, written with Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and supported by Sens. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), protecting lawmakers from foreign cyber-attacks. “The majority leader, our colleague from Kentucky, must stop blocking this common-sense legislation and allow this body to better defend itself against foreign hackers,” he said.

“I object,” repeated Hyde-Smith.

The next day, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the minority leader, asked for the Senate to pass the Securing America’s Federal Elections Act, already passed by the house, that would direct $600 million in election assistance to states and require back-up paper ballots.

McConnell himself responded this time, reading from a statement, his chin melting into his chest, his trademark thin smile on his lips. “It’s just a highly partisan bill from the same folks who spent two years hyping up a conspiracy theory about President Trump and Russia,” he said. “Therefore, I object.” McConnell also objected to another attempt by Blumenthal to pass his bill.

Pleaded Schumer: “I would suggest to my friend the majority leader: If he doesn’t like this bill, let’s put another bill on the floor and debate it.”

But McConnell has blocked all such attempts, including:

A bipartisan bill requiring Facebook, Google and other Internet companies to disclose purchasers of political ads, to identify foreign influence.

A bipartisan bill to ease cooperation between state election officials and federal intelligence agencies.

A bipartisan bill imposing sanctions on any entity that attacks a U.S. election.

A bipartisan bill with severe new sanctions on Russia for its cyber-crimes.

McConnell has prevented them all from being considered — over and over again. This is the same McConnell who, in the summer of 2016, when briefed by the CIA along with other congressional leaders on Russia’s electoral attacks, questioned the validity of the intelligence and forced a watering down of a warning letter to state officials about the threat, omitting any mention of Russia.

No amount of alarms sounded by U.S. authorities — even Republicans, even Trump appointees — moves McConnell.

On Tuesday, FBI Director Christopher Wray — Trump’s FBI director — told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Russians “haven’t been deterred enough” and are “absolutely intent on trying to interfere with our elections.”

This year, National Intelligence Director Dan Coats — Trump’s intelligence director — told the Senate Intelligence Committee that “foreign actors will view the 2020 U.S. elections as an opportunity to advance their interests. We expect them to refine their capabilities and add new tactics.”

And on Thursday, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan report finding that “Russian activities demand renewed attention to vulnerabilities in U.S. voting infrastructure.”

The committee concluded that “urgent steps” are needed “to replace outdated and vulnerable voting systems.” (The $380 million offered since 2016 is a pittance compared with the need.) “Despite the expense, cyber-security needs to become a higher priority for election-related infrastructure,” the report concluded.

But one man blocks it all — while offering no alternative of his own.

Presumably he thinks whatever influence Russia exerts over U.S. elections will benefit him (he’s up for reelection in 2020) and his party.

“Shame on him,” Schumer said on the Senate floor this week.

But McConnell has no shame. He is aiding and abetting Putin’s dismantling of Americans’ self-governance. A leader who won’t protect our country from attack is no patriot.

Dana Milbank is an op-ed columnist. He sketches the foolish, the fallacious and the felonious in politics.

Mueller Reminds the Public: Trump Betrayed the United States

Former special counsel Robert Mueller testifies to the House Judiciary Committee.J. Scott Applewhite/AP.

There’s an old saying in newsrooms: News is stuff that people have forgotten. Robert Mueller’s dramatic appearance before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning was a striking reminder of this adage. The former special counsel did not drop any new revelations about the Trump-Russia affair. Yet in a simple but important manner, he reiterated the basics of this scandal—perhaps the most consequential political scandal in American history. These are the fundamentals that have often been subsumed by all the never-ending partisan squabbling and by the ongoing crusade mounted by Donald Trump and his defenders to distract from his perfidy. These are the facts that Trump has refused to acknowledge, and they are the facts that taint his presidency and undermine its legitimacy.

In his opening statement, Mueller emphasized the key finding from his report: “The Russian government interfered in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion.” And during the questioning, Mueller repeated the conclusion previously reached by the US intelligence community that Russia conducted this covert operation to help Trump get elected. “Did your investigation find that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from one of the candidates winning?” Mueller was asked by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.). He replied with one word: “Yes.” Lofgren followed up: “And which candidate would that be?” Mueller responded, “Well, it would be Trump.”

So Russia attacked an American election to help Trump. And what did Trump do? “The Trump campaign wasn’t exactly reluctant to take Russian help,” Lofgren remarked to Mueller. “You wrote it expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, isn’t that correct.”

Mueller answered with another brief sentence: “That’s correct.” That is, Trump sought to exploit a foreign adversary’s clandestine assault. And as Mueller noted in his report, during the campaign Trump dismissed the notion that Russia was intervening in the election, and after he was elected he continued to deny “that Russia aided his election.”

For a moment, put aside the question of collusion. (Despite Trump’s insistence that Mueller found no collusion, Mueller testified that “we did not address collusion,” but rather the issue of criminal conspiracy.) And consider the story so far: Russia attacked, and Trump denied the attack happened—which provided cover for Moscow—yet attempted to benefit from it. This is a profound act of betrayal. It is the essence of the scandal: A presidential candidate aiding and abetting an assault on the United States. And Trump’s denials of the Russian operation during the campaign and his public statement asking Russian hackers to target Hillary Clinton could certainly have been read by Moscow as encouragement. (The same is true for the various private Trump campaign contacts with Russian intermediaries that occurred while the Kremlin was mounting its information warfare against the United States to subvert the election to assist Trump.)

This is the narrative that Trump has desperately wanted to obstruct and smother since the campaign. He was elected president partly due to the Russian intervention he has refused to fully acknowledge and address. After the election, he did not want a comprehensive investigation of any of this, and, as Mueller’s report noted, Trump took multiple steps to block Mueller’s probe—actions that could amount to obstruction of justice.

Yet Trump has escaped prosecution on that front. Mueller’s report stated that Trump could not be charged with any crime because of a Justice Department policy prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president. Still, Trump has repeatedly brayed that Mueller exonerated him. In a notable exchange at the start of the hearing, Mueller was asked if his report did indeed absolve Trump. “That is not what the report said,” Mueller declared. He later commented, “The president was not exculpated for the acts he allegedly committed.” Muller also said that Trump could be charged with obstruction of justice after he leaves office. (As Mueller was testifying, Trump’s 2020 campaign zapped out an email fundraiser falsely exclaiming, “NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION, COMPLETE AND TOTAL EXONERATION!”)

Though Trump’s alleged obstruction was the focus of the morning’s hearing—with GOP’ers trying to distract by promoting their favorite conspiracy theories—Mueller’s appearance did call attention to the heart of the matter: the unprecedented attack on the United States, Trump’s effort to exploit it, and Trump’s refusal to recognize Moscow’s assault. Whether or not Trump engaged in active collusion with Vladimir Putin’s regime, he gained the presidency with covert foreign assistance and then abandoned his most fundamental duty: to protect the United States. Arguably, this is more significant than the obstruction issue, for Trump has permitted a foreign power to get away with perverting the foundation of American democracy.

Mueller finished his opening statement by remarking, “Over the course of my career, I’ve seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government’s effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious.” This could well be taken as criticism of Trump. After all, the president has never accepted this. Doing so would force Trump to acknowledge his own wrongdoing and affirm questions about the legitimacy of the election that landed him in the White House.

A US election was hijacked. Trump stood by as it happened and profited from it. And ever since he has attempted to cover up this original sin of his presidency. At the hearing, Mueller did not rail about Trump’s serious misconduct. But in the quiet way of an institutionalist who respects norms and rules, Mueller made it clear: Trump engaged in treachery. This is not news. But it remains a defining element of the Trump presidency that deserves constant attention.

THANK YOU.

We recently wrapped up the crowdfunding campaign for our ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project, and it was a smashing success. About 10,364 readers pitched in with donations averaging $45, and together they contributed about $467,374 toward our $500,000 goal.

That’s amazing. We still have donations from letters we sent in the mail coming back to us, so we’re on pace to hit—if not exceed—that goal. Thank you so much. We’ll keep you posted here as the project ramps up, and you can join the hundreds of readers who have alerted us to corruption to did into.

Trump Administration Moves to End Food Stamps for 3 Million People

Bloomberg

Trump Administration Moves to End Food Stamps for 3 Million People
Mike Dorning, Bloomberg             July 23, 2019
White House to propose rule that would remove 3 million people from food stamps

(Bloomberg) — The Trump administration moved to end food stamp benefits for 3.1 million people with proposed new regulations curtailing the leeway of states to automatically enroll residents who receive welfare benefits.

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said state governments “have misused this flexibility.”

“We are changing the rules, preventing abuse of a critical safety net system, so those who need food assistance the most are the only ones who receive it,” he added.

Conservatives have long sought cuts in the federal food assistance program for the poor and disabled. House Republicans tried to impose similar restrictions on the food stamp program last year when Congress renewed it but were rebuffed in the Senate.

The proposed rule changes released Tuesday for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — often called by its former name, food stamps — would deliver on the goal as the administration has agreed to a deal to lift caps on federal spending, ushering in a return to trillion-dollar budget deficits.

Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee, said the Agriculture Department’s action “is yet another attempt by this administration to circumvent Congress and make harmful changes to nutrition assistance that have been repeatedly rejected on a bipartisan basis.”

“This rule would take food away from families, prevent children from getting school meals, and make it harder for states to administer food assistance,” the Michigan senator added.

Income Cap

The Trump administration rule would rein in states’ ability to enroll recipients earning more than 130% of the federal poverty guidelines — in most cases capping eligibility to an annual income of $32,640 for a family of four. Households are also limited in most cases to $2,250 in countable assets, such as cash or money in bank accounts.

Forty states and the District of Columbia currently use alternative eligibility criteria that allow participants in some federally funded welfare programs to automatically receive food stamps as long as their income is less than double the poverty level.

Brandon Lipps, an acting deputy undersecretary in the Agriculture Department, told reporters in a conference call previewing the regulatory changes that in some cases states enroll residents for food stamps even though they are receiving federal welfare benefits of minimal value — including brochures.

The proposed regulations would only allow automatic enrollment of people who receive welfare benefits worth at least $50 a month on an ongoing basis for at least six months. Other than cash, the only welfare benefits that would qualify are subsidized employment, work supports such as transportation, and child care, Lipps said.

The proposed restrictions would eliminate food stamps for 3.1 million people at an average annual savings of $2.5 billion, according to Agriculture Department officials. A final regulation will be issued after a 60-day public comment period.

36 Million Recipients

As of April, 36 million Americans received food stamps, with an average monthly benefit of $121 per person, according to the Department of Agriculture. Enrollment has declined as the economy has improved and was down 2.5 million from a year earlier.

The federal government pays the cost of food stamp benefits. But states administer the program and determine eligibility of applicants, with the state and federal government splitting administrative costs.

Cutting back automatic enrollment would have a substantial impact, mostly hitting recipients who receive lower monthly benefits and disproportionately affecting working families with children trying to climb out of poverty, Elaine Waxman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute said in testimony last month to a House Agriculture subcommittee.

“We particularly worry about food‐insecure households with kids and adolescents,” Waxman said. “Food insecure children have higher rates of fair and poor health, have higher rates of hospitalization, increased risk of asthma, and delays in cognitive developments.”

(Updates with proposed regulations released beginning with fifth paragraph.)

To contact the reporter on this story: Mike Dorning in Washington at mdorning@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Joe Sobczyk at jsobczyk@bloomberg.net, John Harney

For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com

The US has a history of testing biological weapons on the public

Related:

ConsumerReports.org

How Quickly Can an Attached Tick Make You Sick?

15,000 Americans Died So Republican Governors Could Stick It to Obama

Esquire

Charles P. Pierce, Esquire       July 22, 2019