Just when you think they can’t sink any lower, BAM! They do. A federal judge in Rhode Island has had to step in and order the Trump administration to fully fund SNAP benefits for November. He had to tell the folks in high office, the ones who probably haven’t seen the inside of a grocery store in decades, to make sure 42 million Americans have enough to eat. We’re talking about 1 in 8 folks, most of them living in poverty, who depend on this aid to put food on their table. And the government thought it was a good idea to play dice with their dinner plates. It’s like watching a bad soap opera, except the stakes are real.
The Trump administration, in all its wisdom, decided to offer only 65% of the maximum benefit. A decision so short-sighted it would have left some SNAP recipients with empty wallets and emptier stomachs this month. As if dealing with poverty wasn’t enough, they now had to deal with government-induced starvation. Judge McConnell was swift in his critique. He called them out, saying they ‘failed to consider the practical consequences’ and ‘the harms individuals who rely on those benefits would suffer.’ Let’s be real, friends, this isn’t just poor planning, it’s a raw deal.
So, what’s the government’s defense, you ask? They played the ‘not our job’ card. They claimed it was up to Congress to appropriate the funds and they needed the other money to shore up other child hunger programs. Smells like a classic case of passing the buck. And all the while, as the legal ping-pong match continues, folks who can’t afford to miss a meal are left hanging in uncertainty.
And here’s the kicker. While they did agree to fund 65% of the benefits, the way it’s calculated, some families would have received nothing. Zero. Zilch. Others, maybe as little as $16. Imagine trying to feed your family on that. Carmel Scaife, a former day care owner from Milwaukee, who relies on the $130 she gets from SNAP to buy groceries, would have to tap into her Social Security income. ‘That’ll take away from the bills that I pay,’ she said. ‘But that’s the only way I can survive.’
At the end of the day, folks like Scaife aren’t asking for a handout. They’re asking for a fair shake. Yet, in the twisted world of politics, even that seems too much to ask. Instead of devising sensible policies to alleviate poverty, we play political football with people’s lives. We dangle the prospect of hunger over their heads as a bargaining chip. We use their desperation as a tool for political leverage. And we call that governance.
It’s a sorry state of affairs when a federal judge has to step in to remind the government of its duty towards its citizens. ‘We shouldn’t have to force the President to care for his citizens,’ said Skye Perryman, CEO of Democracy Forward. But it seems that’s exactly what we have to do. And as the saga continues, millions of Americans are left asking one question: Will they have enough to eat this November?