

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

One cut to ther budget would eliminate the minimum benefit, which would cut benefits to 2 million individuals, mainly low-income seniors and people with disabilities. (Photo: Screenshot)
Among other SNAP cuts, the President's budget would:
While USDA routinely buys and distributes commodities to entities that run and operate government food programs (such as school districts or state agencies that work with local food banks), this new proposal to support individual households would require operational capacity and infrastructure that neither USDA nor states now have. This unprecedented proposal puts access to food at risk for 1 in 10 Americans on the faulty assumption that government can buy and provide food more efficiently than millions of American households.
(Note: The budget contains a gross SNAP cut of more than $216 billion over ten years. It allocates an additional $2.5 billion over ten years for new state administrative costs associated with distributing the proposed food boxes, which leaves a net cut of more than $213 billion.)
SNAP is a highly effective program targeted to households that need its help to meet their basic food needs. With a small average benefit of just $1.40 per person per meal, it lifts millions out of poverty, and it has demonstrated long-term benefits for children that participate, including better health and education outcomes. The President's SNAP proposals remain as ill-advised and harmful as they were last year.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Among other SNAP cuts, the President's budget would:
While USDA routinely buys and distributes commodities to entities that run and operate government food programs (such as school districts or state agencies that work with local food banks), this new proposal to support individual households would require operational capacity and infrastructure that neither USDA nor states now have. This unprecedented proposal puts access to food at risk for 1 in 10 Americans on the faulty assumption that government can buy and provide food more efficiently than millions of American households.
(Note: The budget contains a gross SNAP cut of more than $216 billion over ten years. It allocates an additional $2.5 billion over ten years for new state administrative costs associated with distributing the proposed food boxes, which leaves a net cut of more than $213 billion.)
SNAP is a highly effective program targeted to households that need its help to meet their basic food needs. With a small average benefit of just $1.40 per person per meal, it lifts millions out of poverty, and it has demonstrated long-term benefits for children that participate, including better health and education outcomes. The President's SNAP proposals remain as ill-advised and harmful as they were last year.
Among other SNAP cuts, the President's budget would:
While USDA routinely buys and distributes commodities to entities that run and operate government food programs (such as school districts or state agencies that work with local food banks), this new proposal to support individual households would require operational capacity and infrastructure that neither USDA nor states now have. This unprecedented proposal puts access to food at risk for 1 in 10 Americans on the faulty assumption that government can buy and provide food more efficiently than millions of American households.
(Note: The budget contains a gross SNAP cut of more than $216 billion over ten years. It allocates an additional $2.5 billion over ten years for new state administrative costs associated with distributing the proposed food boxes, which leaves a net cut of more than $213 billion.)
SNAP is a highly effective program targeted to households that need its help to meet their basic food needs. With a small average benefit of just $1.40 per person per meal, it lifts millions out of poverty, and it has demonstrated long-term benefits for children that participate, including better health and education outcomes. The President's SNAP proposals remain as ill-advised and harmful as they were last year.