Judge Blocks Trump Plan to Take Away Food from 700,000+ People During Pandemic

[lil devils x]

Judge blocks Trump plan to cut food stamps for 700,000 adults

"A judge on Sunday struck down the Trump administration's efforts to make it more difficult for some adults to receive food stamps. In a 67-page opinion, Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell of D.C. condemned the administration for failing to consider how the rule would impact an estimated hundreds of thousands of Americans during the pandemic.

The ruling comes after a year-long effort from the Trump administration to trim the number of people who rely on food stamps, also known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. When the Trump administration initially proposed its new rules for limiting access to the program, the U.S. was enjoying record low unemployment and a strong economy.

But the coronavirus pandemic has upended the once-growing economy and pushed millions of Americans into joblessness. Almost 25 million adults are currently claiming unemployment benefits, and the jobless rate stood at 7.9% in September, more than double the 3.5% rate in February. Despite the rise in unemployment and hardship, the Trump administration had pressed forward in May with its efforts to trim the food stamp program.

In her ruling, Howell said the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers SNAP, had remained "icily silent" on how many people would have been impacted by the rule change "while the pandemic rapidly spread across the country." She added that enrollment in food stamps had surged by 17%, or almost 6 million additional recipients, through May.


The rule was "a vivid illustration of this relentless ideology that's not informed by the economic realities of people, whether they are in the pandemic or not in the pandemic," said Stacy Dean, vice president for food assistance policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank. "The judge called them out for trying to steamroll through policy with seemingly no effort to incorporate feedback" on concerns from states and other groups.

The USDA didn't return a request for comment.

Rising poverty rate
Howell also said the Trump administration had failed to justify the reasons for the rule change, which focuses on so-called "able-bodied adults without dependents" — or adults between ages 18 to 49 who don't have disabilities or dependents, such as children or adult family members with disabilities. These adults are limited to three months of food stamps within a three-year period unless they have a job or are enrolled in worker training programs, but states are able to waive these requirements."

Judge blocks Trump plan to cut food stamps for 700,000 adults

Judge Beryl A. Howell said the Trump administration was "icily silent" on the impact of such cuts during the pandemic.

www.cbsnews.com

Right now, food assistance programs really need to be expanded to combat the ever growing poverty rate + food shortage at local food banks right now, however as long as republicans retain control of the white house or either house of congress, that will be impossible to expand. If democrats win the White House + Senate and retain control over the House, we hopefully will have some food relief coming as it is desperately needed at this point. Hopefully though this will not be appealed and it is pretty screwed up that republicans pushed forward with this in May giving the circumstances of the pandemic causing the poverty rate to skyrocket.

 

[Houseman]

The article says that this is a "rule". What does that mean, exactly?

Was this a bill? Signed off by congress? How can a judge veto a bill?
What exactly happened here?

*does research*

It looks like this was a civil suit vs the USDA.
Reading the document, it looks like this is under the jurisdiction of the "Administrative Procedure Act" which " governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations"

So I guess judges can fight with federal agencies? Neat.

 

[lil devils x]

The article says that this is a "rule". What does that mean, exactly?

Was this a bill? Signed off by congress? How can a judge veto a bill?
What exactly happened here?

*does research*

It looks like this was a civil suit vs the USDA.
Reading the document, it looks like this is under the jurisdiction of the "Administrative Procedure Act" which " governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations"

So I guess judges can fight with federal agencies? Neat.

Trump attempted to change the Food Stamp program by changing the rules to make it so less adults qualified for food by creating an executive order. You have the bill that creates the food assistance program, but then you have " rules" that can be applied to that bill and the judge determines Trump's rule invalid. Before States had the option to waive work requirements for adults to receive food, Trump tried to remove their ability to do so. It is pretty difficult to expect people to work when there are no jobs available and millions are being laid off. Trump's rule just means they would have no access to food at all due to food pantry and charity shortages.

Even worse, without people actually having access to food stamps, people with food allergies and/or medical conditions that have them on a restricted diet often cannot even find food they are able to eat from the food pantries or Charites at all and still just wind up doing without. It is especially difficult for those on restricted diets because they give them a food box premade for them and chances are they cannot even eat what is in it. I too have are restricted diet, I have made these food boxes up myself when volunteering and worry that much of what is donated isn't even being able to be eaten by the people we have given it to. It is sad knowing that even though we try to get food donated, it is simply not enough to meet their actual needs and could do more harm than good if they do eat it in an attempt to prevent starvation. We just really need to focus our efforts on funding food stamps and make it more widely available instead so that situation isn't happening as often as it is. Even our meals on wheels programs, the food often isn't even eaten by the people we deliver it to because the people either can't or won't eat it. Elderly patients often have very restricted diets, and either they are so set in their ways they will starve if they are not given something they want to eat or are often unable to even digest what they are given and need o have something else provided that is not available to the programs that are delivering their food.

Essentially the programs are not meeting the actual needs of the people and fall short and we need to not only expand the program and increase who can access it, but also make sure it and others actually meet the dietary and health needs of the people receiving them or they will fall short and not accomplish the goals they are trying to meet.

 

[Kwak]

...

No point elaborating - he doesn't care what the real-world effects are or how morally indefensible this is. He's only interested in what the technical legal definitions of words are and how this can be minimised. It's 'neat'.

 

[lil devils x]

No point elaborating - he doesn't care what the real-world effects are or how morally indefensible this is. He's only interested in what the technical legal definitions of words are and how this can be minimised. It's 'neat'.

Yea, he thinks it is " neat" how he can change the words from Shall to "may" so he can withhold funding on the stimulus bill as well. Trump even admitted he wanted to be able to withhold Pandemic Funding to democrat led states due to his " pride".

"On Thursday, Trump admitted his “pride” wouldn’t let him support the deal Pelosi proposed because it included funding for Democrat-led states and cities, which have been devastated by the pandemic. "

Nancy Pelosi: Pandemic Relief Needs A Deal By Tuesday To Pass By Election Day

The House speaker said the Trump administration's desire to water down a plan for nationwide coronavirus testing and contact tracing threatens any agreem...

www.huffpost.com

If it were up to the GOP there would be no funding for the poor at all, they didn't even include a stimulus check in their COVID-19 bill at all.

 

[Agema]

It looks like this was a civil suit vs the USDA.
Reading the document, it looks like this is under the jurisdiction of the "Administrative Procedure Act" which " governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations"

So I guess judges can fight with federal agencies? Neat.

The concern here is that of many governments: arbitrary and excessive use of power to the detriment of good governance. The executive was thus expected to provide accurate and detailed justifications for its actions, and the judiciary were granted the role of oversight.

Meeting these criteria should not be a particularly high bar. To quote the article, the judge "condemned the administration for failing to consider how the rule would impact an estimated hundreds of thousands of Americans during the pandemic." So there is a statute/program designed to alleviate hardship, if the administration cannot trouble itself to examine the effect its rule changes for that statute will have on hardship, it seems to me quite problematic for a law that demands evidence-based decision-making.

This isn't the first time, either. The administration failed to undo I think it was DACA for the same reason: even though SCOTUS was hostile to DACA, the administration's clumsy attempt to end it failed because it couldn't be bothered doing basic due diligence to properly examine the consequences of ending it.

 

[tstorm823]

Was this a bill? Signed off by congress? How can a judge veto a bill?
What exactly happened here?

So there is a bill somewhere in the past, before Donald Trump was even elected. It's the welfare reform from 1996, which Joe Biden voted in favor of, in fact. It has work requirements for receiving SNAP benefits, which in a general sense say that if you can work you should work, with a healthy lists of exceptions and employment training programs that qualify. There's an additional requirement specifically on those age 18-49 who are able-bodied and without dependents (ABAWB) to work or volunteer for 80 hours a month, also with a list of reasonable exceptions, or you get cut off after 3 months.

Except nobody was getting cut off after 3 months. Despite the law having that provision for decades, it also allowed states to waive the work requirement if unemployment locally was above 2.5%. Which is well, well under "full employment". Under 2.5% is basically employers begging people to move there territory. It means that extra requirement is utterly meaningless, as states had 100% discretion to waive the 3 month limit and SNAP is payed for 100% by federal funding. The Trump administration wanted to leave the requirements exactly the same except for raising that number to 6%. That's the regulatory change, it just makes the law actually do something. The judge blocked making the law do something. The judge ruled this way in part based on the pandemic. The current unemployment rate nationally is about 8%. All work requirements have been waived anyway until the emergency declaration for covid is rescinded. This judge is a moron.

 

[Houseman]

No point elaborating - he doesn't care what the real-world effects are or how morally indefensible this is. He's only interested in what the technical legal definitions of words are and how this can be minimised. It's 'neat'.

I gotta understand how the system works and what is actually happening here before I can say "orange man bad", or else I'm just uncritically parroting what the media says. Which do you want?

 

[lil devils x]

So there is a bill somewhere in the past, before Donald Trump was even elected. It's the welfare reform from 1996, which Joe Biden voted in favor of, in fact. It has work requirements for receiving SNAP benefits, which in a general sense say that if you can work you should work, with a healthy lists of exceptions and employment training programs that qualify. There's an additional requirement specifically on those age 18-49 who are able-bodied and without dependents (ABAWB) to work or volunteer for 80 hours a month, also with a list of reasonable exceptions, or you get cut off after 3 months.

Except nobody was getting cut off after 3 months. Despite the law having that provision for decades, it also allowed states to waive the work requirement if unemployment locally was above 2.5%. Which is well, well under "full employment". Under 2.5% is basically employers begging people to move there territory. It means that extra requirement is utterly meaningless, as states had 100% discretion to waive the 3 month limit and SNAP is payed for 100% by federal funding. The Trump administration wanted to leave the requirements exactly the same except for raising that number to 6%. That's the regulatory change, it just makes the law actually do something. The judge blocked making the law do something. The judge ruled this way in part based on the pandemic. The current unemployment rate nationally is about 8%. All work requirements have been waived anyway until the emergency declaration for covid is rescinded. This judge is a moron.

The states had the ability to waive off that work requirement, Trump was trying to remove their ability to waive off the work requirement. No, the judge is saving lives by preventing trump from doing so, as the 700,000 that were going to lose benefits were counted BEFORE The Pandemic, the millions that will be affected due to the Pandemic will likely still be effected for a long time after the National emergency is over. Trump has been wanting to end the National Emergency Declaration since June. With events cancelled and offices closed, there was not even an option for people to volunteer in many places right now, let alone actual jobs.

Trump administration has considered ending coronavirus emergency, even as cases surge

As Trump seeks a return to normal, his administration has considered rolling back emergency declarations that are key to states' coronavirus responses.

www.latimes.com

They really should rewrite the bill to end the work requirement entirely and cover people of all ages regardless and raise the % of people who qualify.

 

[Houseman]

Trump was trying to remove their ability to waive off the work requirement.

Do you have a source on that?

 

[Agema]

This judge is a moron.

Not necessarily. The law is the law, and it states that the government must justify its actions adequately, irrespective of whether the policy is beneficial or not.

Although I am not convinced by your explanation, seeing as it appears to be different from literally every other explanation I can see, and the US administration itself appears to believe it will save about $20 billion a year by cutting the number of people receiving welfare.

 

[lil devils x]

Do you have a source on that?

Yes, read the OP. That is what this about entirely. We also have the issue of unemployment numbers being manipulated by States dropping people off their unemployment numbers who were not able to find work even after they exhausted their unemployment benefits. The actual number of unemployed is always higher than it being reported. How do you determine the actual unemployment rate when many states are not counting those who no are no longer able to receive benefits? They claim they " stopped looking' but in reality, they just can't find work at all.

Missing Workers: The Missing Part of the Unemployment Story

In today’s labor market, the unemployment rate drastically understates the weakness of job opportunities. This is due to the existence of a large pool of “missing workers”—potential workers who, because of weak job opportunities, are neither employed nor actively seeking a job.

www.epi.org

 

[Agema]

Do you have a source on that?

President’s 2021 Budget Would Cut Food Assistance for Millions and Radically Restructure SNAP | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

President Trump’s 2021 budget proposes to cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) by more than $180 billion — nearly 30 percent — over the next ten years...

www.cbpp.org

I do not care to look that hard for minutae as I'm busy, but the US administration's own figures according to this site suggest savings of ~$20 billion a year on the program. This can surely only come from cutting the number of people receiving aid.

 

[Houseman]

Yes, read the OP. That is what this about entirely.

Your article says "Under the new rule, states would have to prove counties had unemployment rates of at least 6% to waive the restriction."

That doesn't quite match your claim that "Trump was trying to remove their ability to waive off the work requirement."
At best, it's a half-truth.

Their ability to waive wouldn't be removed, they would just have more strict requirements before they can use it.

 

[lil devils x]

Your article says "Under the new rule, states would have to prove counties had unemployment rates of at least 6% to waive the restriction."

That doesn't quite match your claim that "Trump was trying to remove their ability to waive off the work requirement."
At best, it's a half-truth.

Their ability to waive wouldn't be removed, they would just have more strict requirements before they can use it.

It is because they were not required to prove any unemployment claim to waive it off prior because the reported unemployment percentage is inaccurate to begin with and not representative of the reality of jobs available in the region. They were able to waive it off without proving any claim prior, even if their unemployment wasn't at 2.5%. trump was trying to make them prove something they likely were not even capable of doing, nor would it be representative of the number of people needing food in the area. States need to act BEFORE their official numbers are in, not after. Waiting until it reaches a higher point means people are literally starving for weeks, month prior to their state qualifying. It was stupid to try and implement in the first place. We literally have counties not keeping up with their unemployment numbers at all. Small rural counties don't keep up with a great deal that they really should be doing but lack elected officials who can/ will do so

They need to rewrite the bill to make it so MORE qualify, not less as we can see the extreme need by the lines at the food pantry. The food pantry is supposed to be the last resort, not the ONLY option. The food pantry just hands out a box of preselected food that the people they are giving it to may not even be able to eat at all. That was the problem we are having with meals on wheels as well. The poor, sick, elderly and disabled are often on restricted diets and cannot even eat what they are being given so are still doing without.

 

[tstorm823]

Not necessarily. The law is the law, and it states that the government must justify its actions adequately, irrespective of whether the policy is beneficial or not.

Although I am not convinced by your explanation, seeing as it appears to be different from literally every other explanation I can see, and the US administration itself appears to believe it will save about $20 billion a year by cutting the number of people receiving welfare.

The judge is a moron for bringing the pandemic into it, irrespective of the predicted effects prior to the pandemic. It might have saved billions a year before current times, but the idea was to do so through people working, so with the current economic situation, you could end the emergency declaration and put this change into effect and states would still have absolute discretion to extend SNAP benefits to anyone indefinitely based on the unemployment rate at present.

 

[lil devils x]

The judge is a moron for bringing the pandemic into it, irrespective of the predicted effects prior to the pandemic. It might have saved billions a year before current times, but the idea was to do so through people working, so with the current economic situation, you could end the emergency declaration and put this change into effect and states would still have absolute discretion to extend SNAP benefits to anyone indefinitely based on the unemployment rate at present.

Why would they NOT bring the Pandemic into it? They just added millions more on top of the 700,000 already affected prior to the Pandemic. There shouldn't be a work requirement at all. But to make matters worse, the way people live and work make this terrible way to measure need. Some counties have hardly any jobs at all and are primarily residential, other counties have lots of jobs and less residential %. the way this is set up doesn't even make sense to begin with. Trump TRIED to end the national emergency in June and was discouraged from doing so. Trump can end the national emergency and then what are these counites that have a disproportionate amount of residential to employment options supposed to do here? The percentages do not necessarily amount to the same percentages of the population living in each county. Some counties can have a lot of unemployed people and no jobs but still a lower percentage due to how businesses and residential regions are distributed in reality, They are not distributed equally. People do not live and work in the same counties much of the time at all. The DFW metroplex is a prime example. Most who live in surrounding suburbs actually work in Dallas, meaning they live in Rockwall, Kaufman, Tarrant, Collin, Van Zandt, Henderson, Navarro, Ellis, Johnson, Hunt.. ect surrounding Counties and all work in Dallas County and this would inaccurately distribute the resources by going off those numbers at all. Then of course you have the jobs available not matching the skills the workers available have, yet they are supposed to be able to find work in highly skilled jobs they do not qualify for? The entire way they do this does not adequately address the problem at all.

 

[Iron]

"take away food"
You always manage to one-up yourself lil.

I don't know what's up here since I haven't read the thing yet, but I have the opinion that food-aid shouldn't be extended to buying cigarettes and ice-cream. I wonder if this has anything to do with it, or that it's a general limiting of the amount of people eligible for the aid.

 

[Agema]

The judge is a moron for bringing the pandemic into it

??

The legal argument is explicitly that the administration is expected to justify changing rules with reasons and outcomes. Circumstances which will have a potent effect on the outcomes of rules changes sound to me like they'd be pretty relevant.

 

[lil devils x]

"take away food"
You always manage to one-up yourself lil.

I don't know what's up here since I haven't read the thing yet, but I have the opinion that food-aid shouldn't be extended to buying cigarettes and ice-cream. I wonder if this has anything to do with it, or that it's a general limiting of the amount of people eligible for the aid.

You realize you can't buy cigarettes with food stamps don't you? foods classified as "Ice cream" is possible, but even then you can have those as recommended for certain circumstances, for example, after having having a tonsillectomy, physicians suggest it to help reduce the swelling. Pediapops are also used to help counter dehydration and are recommended to those with diarrhea and stomach flu. Popsicles, ice cream and sherbet are also recommended to help reduce fever, even in a hospital setting. Hell now they even have " diet ice cream" recommended for diabetics so it isn't like this is like it used to be.

The problem is when you start trying to pick and choose for others what they allowed and not allowed to have you run into counteracting physicians orders and causing unforeseen conflicts. For example, Blanket rules such as no sugary products could cause a someone with hypoglycemia to die within minutes. Even diabetics who have had too much insulin can die very quickly if their blood sugar drops too low as a result and they are recommended to keep a few pieces of candy in their purse or pocket in case of emergency at al times. People can develop conditions at any point in time thus would not have time to get everything pre approved before an event takes place. The amount of time it takes for someone to get what they need can be a matter of life and death.

Much of the problem is that people do not have equal access to the same foods. Sometimes the only store within access to their home does not have fresh food forcing them into poor diets more on that issue here:

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/04/ucs-race-income-diabetes-2016.pdf?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=tw

Neighborhood Disparities in Access to Healthy Foods and Their Effects on Environmental Justice

Environmental justice is concerned with an equitable distribution of environmental burdens. These burdens comprise immediate health hazards as well as subtle inequities, such as limited access to healthy foods.We reviewed the literature on neighborhood ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

This is especially difficult for those with low income, or disabled as the only store that they can access form their home with their wheelchair or have memorized the route for if they are blind, or have other difficulties because they can only buy what the store sells. If you limit what they can buy with their foods stamps and the store doesn't sell anything of their list of approved items, they will just starve instead. Many of the elderly and disabled cannot even cook from themselves. TBH they really should extend food stamps to precooked food as well that way the disabled, elderly and homeless have options to be able to eat as well.

( Also that has Zero Impact to Trump's policy changes here.)