SNAP IN THE DEBT LIMIT DEAL: Several rank-and-file Democrats told MA they were “blindsided” by the addition of new work requirements on the country’s leading anti-hunger program in the final debt limit deal, especially following several White House statements they saw as Biden taking SNAP off the negotiating table. But other House Democrats, including some in the leadership circle, had been worried about the potential of Biden agreeing to such concessions for weeks amid GOP demands that the measures be part of any deal to lift the debt ceiling. Two of those Democrats said they were ultimately not surprised about new, additional SNAP work requirements on adults aged 50-54 without children in their house (beyond the current 18-49 age bracket) and other new restrictions on the program. The final deal sunsets the SNAP work requirements in 2030 and also includes new restrictions on emergency cash aid known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which will hit low-income families with children. More than a week ago, MA asked Senate Ag Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who oversees SNAP and is a member of Senate leadership, about her concerns that SNAP and TANF could be in the final deal. She replied she had “deep concerns about both.” How it happened: As we first reported, White House negotiators signaled several weeks ago that they were willing to make some concessions on work requirements for aid programs in order to avert a default catastrophe. House Republican and White House negotiators went around and around about a stricter GOP TANF proposal for weeks, according to four people involved in the talks who were granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations. The discussions over work requirements were some of the most contentious throughout the talks, according to the people. And while the two sides talked about SNAP, it wasn’t seriously part of the discussion until the final days of the talks and White House negotiators then tried to hold off what they saw as the most extreme parts of the GOP plans. But even as Biden ultimately agreed to SNAP concessions, his team pushed for separate concessions from Republicans. More on that below. Two Republicans involved in the talks told MA that they knew they were most unlikely to get new Medicaid work requirements as part of the deal. But they needed to keep demanding changes to Medicaid, even though the White House was guarding it most forcefully of the three programs, in order to secure concessions on SNAP and TANF. Their best chance for doing so was going to be in the final hours of the talks when a deal was close and Biden was eager to avoid a default crisis, the two Republicans said. GOP negotiators held out and got some of the biggest concessions over work requirements for federal aid in decades as a result. GOP lawmakers argue those work requirements will help grow the workforce and provide resources to older Americans to find jobs. But, the White House maintains such work requirements for aid “tie the most vulnerable up in bureaucratic paperwork” and “have shown no benefit for bringing more people into the workforce.” MISSED SIGNALS: The confusion among some Hill Democrats over what the White House was willing to concede on work requirements flared up late Friday night. Four House Democrats, who were granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations, told MA they believed a statement from the White House in the final hours of the negotiations meant Biden was going to refuse any SNAP concessions in the final deal. But the White House statement simply stated that Biden was “standing against [the] cruel and senseless tradeoff,” as Republicans made their final push for new SNAP work requirements and other restrictions on the program. Less than 24 hours after the White House statement, many rank-and-file Democrats said they learned through media reports that new SNAP work requirements were in the final deal. After yearslong attempts by Republicans, the deal included the biggest restrictions on SNAP since Biden voted for welfare reform when he was a senator in 1996. The age increase actually goes beyond anything Biden ever supported in the 90s, despite Republican arguments that they were simply trying to “restore” work requirements from that era. NEW EXEMPTIONS: Since Saturday night, White House officials have been aggressively pitching House Democrats, especially progressives, in one-on-one phone calls on separate SNAP exemptions that would cover homeless people, veterans and people recently aged out of foster care for the first time. White House officials see the policy as a major win for Democrats and a way to make up for the new work requirements on older low-income Americans — which some progressives are livid about. White House officials also argue it’s likely that the same number of people will end up covered by SNAP between all the changes. But while that may be the case on paper, the actual practice of getting close to 300,000 new people signed up for SNAP, many unhoused and without documentation, will be a significant undertaking. (And if there are actually more people to cover, there’s no indication Republicans agreed to anything to increase SNAP funding, which they intensely oppose.) Pushback: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-aligned think tank with influence among many Hill progressives, said Sunday that new SNAP work requirements for abled-bodied adults without children from ages 50 to 54 will “increase hunger and poverty among [hundreds of thousands of older, low-income Americans], runs contrary to our nation’s values, and should be rejected.” The group added that “improvements for some don’t justify expanding to others a failed policy that will increase and deepen poverty.” POTUS weighs in: But Biden personally brushed off the criticism Sunday night. Asked about the concerns of some Hill Democrats that the deal would lead low-income Americans to go hungry, the president responded that it was a “ridiculous assertion.” A spokesperson for Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, declined to comment on Biden’s remarks. Before Biden struck the agreement, Jayapal told us that any added work requirements on aid programs would increase hunger among poor Americans and the move was “a nonstarter” with her group, which includes about 100 House Democrats. DEMS GETTING ON BOARD: While progressives are still weighing the plans, a growing number of moderate House Democrats tell MA they are willing to back the tradeoff, even though they don’t necessarily like it. “It isn’t good. But it’s better than defaulting,” one House Democrat said. Leaders of the House’s New Democrat Coalition issued a statement Monday supporting the bipartisan agreement and called for Congress to pass it as soon as possible in order to avoid a default. “Compromise depends on give and take and this bill required concessions from both sides,” said the leaders of the group, including its chair, former House Ag member Annie Kuster (N.H.). Current House Ag members Sharice Davids (Kan.), Salud Carbajal (Calif.) and Nikki Budzinski (Ill.) are also part of the group’s leadership team.
| 
Comments
Post a Comment