People are already scared - being rounded up (or threatened to be) on the street, military deployed to civilian neighborhoods, privacy overreaches that people are beginning to become aware of, stretching credit way beyond the point it should be stretched, barely making rent, sick - now you take away food? It's almost like this administration is trying to provoke a reaction. I can't think of an easier way to spark mass revolt, although I guess most snap recipients aren't probably of fighting age/fitness.
The author proposes three solutions: the GOP could change Senate rules to fund SNAP, the Republicans draw on the $5B fund that can sustain SNAP at least temporarily, or they can pass legislation in the House to fund SNAP.
Of course, a handful of Democrat Senators could also vote to end the shutdown and that would fund SNAP, and everything else, too, at least for a few more weeks.
Both sides seem dug in right now. It's still not clear who I'll blink first.
Actually, there is $500 billion that is REQUIRED to be used to fund SNAP. But Republicans are not activating it, because if they do, they need to bring congress back in session, and then they will be forced to vote on releasing the Epstein files. Get it?
> Despite the government shutdown, the SNAP program isn’t out of money. In fact, it has $5 billion in contingency funds,[1] intended as a reserve to be tapped in emergencies. And if the imminent cutoff of crucial food aid for 40 million people isn’t an emergency, what is? The Department of Agriculture, which runs the program, also has the ability to maintain funding for a while by shifting other funds around. But Donald Trump has — quite possibly illegally — told the department not to tap those funds.[2]
Hunger isn't the right word here. SNAP benefits are not correlated with greater calorie consumption. That's not to minimize the pain. They do increase food quality, and they pay for other essentials due to the fungibility of money. But the hunger part is an empty emotional appeal.
It's a map of dependence and poverty. The most affected of my local counties are the ones with the highest indigenous populations. Those are also the bluest voting rural counties. Food credits are a lousy substitute for vast herds of buffalo.
> Why are these terrible things happening? At a basic level they’re happening because Republicans want them to happen. Drastic cuts in food stamps and health care programs were central planks in Project 2025, which is indeed the Trump administration’s policy platform, and were written into legislation in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that passed last summer.
[…]
> But there’s a further problem. Passing either a SNAP bill or a revised budget would require calling the House of Representatives back into session, which would in turn make it impossible for Mike Johnson, the speaker, to keep stalling the swearing-in of Adelita Grijalva, who won a special election more than 5 weeks ago.[1] And here’s the thing: Once sworn in, Grijalva would provide the decisive signature to trigger a vote in the House to release the Epstein files.[2]
Unclear, the AZ Attorney General is currently suing to compel Mike Johnson to swear her in and I believe there is an argument any federal judge could swear her in but it's unclear if congress would accept it if that happened.
People are already scared - being rounded up (or threatened to be) on the street, military deployed to civilian neighborhoods, privacy overreaches that people are beginning to become aware of, stretching credit way beyond the point it should be stretched, barely making rent, sick - now you take away food? It's almost like this administration is trying to provoke a reaction. I can't think of an easier way to spark mass revolt, although I guess most snap recipients aren't probably of fighting age/fitness.
1.2 million veterans are/were SNAP recipients
https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/snap-helps-12-...
How many are past fighting age?
The author proposes three solutions: the GOP could change Senate rules to fund SNAP, the Republicans draw on the $5B fund that can sustain SNAP at least temporarily, or they can pass legislation in the House to fund SNAP.
Of course, a handful of Democrat Senators could also vote to end the shutdown and that would fund SNAP, and everything else, too, at least for a few more weeks.
Both sides seem dug in right now. It's still not clear who I'll blink first.
Actually, there is $500 billion that is REQUIRED to be used to fund SNAP. But Republicans are not activating it, because if they do, they need to bring congress back in session, and then they will be forced to vote on releasing the Epstein files. Get it?
> Despite the government shutdown, the SNAP program isn’t out of money. In fact, it has $5 billion in contingency funds,[1] intended as a reserve to be tapped in emergencies. And if the imminent cutoff of crucial food aid for 40 million people isn’t an emergency, what is? The Department of Agriculture, which runs the program, also has the ability to maintain funding for a while by shifting other funds around. But Donald Trump has — quite possibly illegally — told the department not to tap those funds.[2]
Hunger isn't the right word here. SNAP benefits are not correlated with greater calorie consumption. That's not to minimize the pain. They do increase food quality, and they pay for other essentials due to the fungibility of money. But the hunger part is an empty emotional appeal.
It’s really fascinating where the highest percentages are from that map.
It's a map of dependence and poverty. The most affected of my local counties are the ones with the highest indigenous populations. Those are also the bluest voting rural counties. Food credits are a lousy substitute for vast herds of buffalo.
I thought I saw a judge rule snap must be funded.
edit: seems so:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/federa...
Question is, will the administration listen to _this_ judge? I'm guessing no.
See also perhaps a post from today:
> Why are these terrible things happening? At a basic level they’re happening because Republicans want them to happen. Drastic cuts in food stamps and health care programs were central planks in Project 2025, which is indeed the Trump administration’s policy platform, and were written into legislation in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that passed last summer.
[…]
> But there’s a further problem. Passing either a SNAP bill or a revised budget would require calling the House of Representatives back into session, which would in turn make it impossible for Mike Johnson, the speaker, to keep stalling the swearing-in of Adelita Grijalva, who won a special election more than 5 weeks ago.[1] And here’s the thing: Once sworn in, Grijalva would provide the decisive signature to trigger a vote in the House to release the Epstein files.[2]
* https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/too-cruel-too-soon
Not American. Can this swearing in be deleted forever?
Unclear, the AZ Attorney General is currently suing to compel Mike Johnson to swear her in and I believe there is an argument any federal judge could swear her in but it's unclear if congress would accept it if that happened.
Taxation without representation? Her constituents would seem to have standing.
> At a basic level they’re happening because Republicans want them to happen.
At a basic level they're happening because 9A and 10A have been cheerfully ignored for a very long time:
https://grokipedia.com/page/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#nin...
https://grokipedia.com/page/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#ten...
The last century has been a slow tale of scope- and debt-creep.
“If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” ― Herbert Stein, What I Think: Essays on Economics, Politics, and Life
Of course it's flagged, lol hacker news.