There are Publix, Kroger and Aldi stores less than two miles from my home. I use them only for immediate needs. I buy most of my groceries at Ingles which is about 10 miles away.
Two things about this story. More than 10% of the citizens rely on SNAP benefits. Congress hasn't been able to get its budget act together for several decades -regardless of which party is in the White House or which party controls Congress. Neither of these things make sense.
38% include a working family member, ~70% of those are full-time.
1.2M are veterans.
So it's mostly children, the elderly, and the disabled - people that are not expected to work. Those that are working and on SNAP are either caretakers for the aforementioned groups, or receiving such a low income that they still need the assistance (which begs the question why someone working full-time needs SNAP to afford food).
Regarding the budget: why don't we just have a fallback rule in place that if a budget has not been passed then the current budget is maintained until it is replaced? It'd be far less disruptive.
I can't really argue with this article, but what are your thoughts on Secretary Rollins' assertion that the contingency funds are available only for funded programs and that the program funding has not been passed by Congress. Can the courts really force spending on programs that aren't funded or is Secretary Rollins confused?
“The fact that the Democrats are saying, ‘But wait, USDA has money in their accounts’ … is a lie,” Rollins said during a House Republican news conference.
Rollins said the USDA notified state administrators of the federal program twice in October that SNAP benefits would end Nov. 1.
[...]
Rollins pushed back on that idea Friday, saying the contingency fund wouldn’t be sufficient to cover the $9.2 billion that is needed to pay SNAP benefits in November and that the contingency monies are only allowed to be used if the underlying appropriation is funded.
The appropriations bills to fund the government are currently in limbo because Republicans’ stopgap funding bill to keep the government open through Nov. 21 –– and allow for those appropriations to be negotiated –– has not passed [the Senate]."
OK, that's a thought and I can't argue it but, it raises other questions. Contingency funds will last only two or three months. What happens then to SNAP? What happens if there are severe weather events and emergency funds are exhausted? Congress has to do something to make more funds available. My guess is that both parties will have to agree to some legislation to address the problem of no emergency funds. Wonder how Congress would screw that up.
There are Publix, Kroger and Aldi stores less than two miles from my home. I use them only for immediate needs. I buy most of my groceries at Ingles which is about 10 miles away.
Two things about this story. More than 10% of the citizens rely on SNAP benefits. Congress hasn't been able to get its budget act together for several decades -regardless of which party is in the White House or which party controls Congress. Neither of these things make sense.
Also important about SNAP:
48% have someone with a disability.
47% have children.
39% have someone elderly.
38% include a working family member, ~70% of those are full-time.
1.2M are veterans.
So it's mostly children, the elderly, and the disabled - people that are not expected to work. Those that are working and on SNAP are either caretakers for the aforementioned groups, or receiving such a low income that they still need the assistance (which begs the question why someone working full-time needs SNAP to afford food).
Regarding the budget: why don't we just have a fallback rule in place that if a budget has not been passed then the current budget is maintained until it is replaced? It'd be far less disruptive.
I can't really argue with this article, but what are your thoughts on Secretary Rollins' assertion that the contingency funds are available only for funded programs and that the program funding has not been passed by Congress. Can the courts really force spending on programs that aren't funded or is Secretary Rollins confused?
https://redstate.com/sister-toldjah/2025/10/31/brooke-rollins-cooks-hakeem-jeffries-on-issue-of-usda-contingency-funds-for-snap-lays-out-facts-n2195699
“The fact that the Democrats are saying, ‘But wait, USDA has money in their accounts’ … is a lie,” Rollins said during a House Republican news conference.
Rollins said the USDA notified state administrators of the federal program twice in October that SNAP benefits would end Nov. 1.
[...]
Rollins pushed back on that idea Friday, saying the contingency fund wouldn’t be sufficient to cover the $9.2 billion that is needed to pay SNAP benefits in November and that the contingency monies are only allowed to be used if the underlying appropriation is funded.
The appropriations bills to fund the government are currently in limbo because Republicans’ stopgap funding bill to keep the government open through Nov. 21 –– and allow for those appropriations to be negotiated –– has not passed [the Senate]."
She is wrong.
OK, that's a thought and I can't argue it but, it raises other questions. Contingency funds will last only two or three months. What happens then to SNAP? What happens if there are severe weather events and emergency funds are exhausted? Congress has to do something to make more funds available. My guess is that both parties will have to agree to some legislation to address the problem of no emergency funds. Wonder how Congress would screw that up.