“Senate Republicans will block a Democratic bill that would keep federal food aid flowing to 42 million Americans as they try to build pressure to reopen the government, Majority Leader John Thune said Wednesday.
…
Thune separately told reporters that if the Senate starts “going down the road of … take care of this group or that group … it just begs the larger question, how long is this going to drag on?”
…
Democrats and even privately some Republican lawmakers argue the Trump administration has the legal authority to tap a $5 billion contingency fund, or other USDA funds, to ensure SNAP benefits keep flowing during the shutdown. Dozens of Democratic governors and attorneys general have sued the administration over its decision not to tap those funds.”
“The plaintiffs are disputing the Trump administration’s statements that it doesn’t have the legal authority to use the $5 billion it has in emergency funds to pay for at least part of SNAP, which requires more than $8 billion to pay for November benefits. They also argue that USDA could tap Section 32 funds, which it did to tide over the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, to fully fund SNAP next month.”
“the 2025 trustees reports for Social Security and Medicare are out. Once again, they confirm what we’ve known for decades: Both programs are barreling straight toward insolvency. The Social Security retirement trust fund and Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund are each on pace to run dry by 2033.
When that happens, seniors will face an automatic 23 percent cut in their Social Security benefits. Medicare will reduce payments to hospitals by 11 percent. These cuts are not theoretical. They’re baked into the law. If nothing changes, they will be made.
…
legislators could raise the payroll tax from 12.4 percent to 16.05 percent. That’s a 29.4 percent increase. Or they could restructure Social Security so that only people who need the money would receive payments. But because facing this problem in an honest way is politically toxic, legislators are ignoring it.
…
Policymakers could gradually raise the retirement age to reflect modern, healthier, longer lives. They could cap benefits at $2,050 monthly, preserving income for the bottom 50 percent of beneficiaries while progressively reducing benefits for the top half. They could reform the tax treatment of retirement income to encourage private savings, as Canada has done with its tax-free savings accounts. Any combination of these reforms would help.
But that would require admitting that the current path is unsustainable. It would require telling voters the truth. It would require courage. So far, these admirable traits have been sorely lacking in our politicians.
…
Waiting until the trust funds are empty will leave no room for gradual, targeted solutions. It will force crisis-mode slashing that will hurt the most vulnerable.”
“The sum of statistical lives saved vastly exceeds the number of actual lives.
Think of all the things that have saved your life. Every breath you take, every heartbeat, every car and lightning bolt that didn’t hit you. Yet, you’re only alive once. Even if we restrict ourselves to the effects of government programs, the total statistical lives saved by all programs is far greater than the population.
…
Wyse and Meyer only show one side of the ledger—the reduction in mortality among people who gain Medicare eligibility. On the other side are the statistical lives lost from the people the money is taken from, or the programs cut.
…
Counting statistical lives saved or lost is a debased currency, because it counts each actual life multiple times. And citing only the good side of the ledger makes it impossible to evaluate.
…
after the Medicaid expansion, total expenditures increased by more than $1 trillion. That spending also costs statistical lives
…
the money could have remained in taxpayers’ bank accounts, which also could promote good health. Mortality declines with income. Even if the Medicaid expansion were a cost-effective way to improve mortality, you have to consider the other side of the ledger.
…
The lifesaving medical measures with the biggest impact, such as vaccinations and antibiotics, are relatively cheap. The Medicaid expansion may have relieved financial stress and made the program’s beneficiaries more physically comfortable, which are better criteria for evaluating its impact.
Now consider the 2013 NEJM study trumpeted by conservatives, which examined various health measures. It found that Medicaid enrollment resulted in large and statistically significant improvements in patients’ subjective estimates of their health and quality of life, as well as significant reductions in their financial stress. But it did not find a statistically significant impact on mortality.
…
The two studies are more valuable in combination than individually. The NEJM study had the advantage of random assignment and detailed individual data. The NBER paper had a much larger sample size and time interval. Both found significant benefits to Medicaid recipients, although they did not establish that these benefits were any greater than could have been obtained by simply giving each recipient several thousand dollars per year. Neither study convincingly answered whether Medicaid improved health or saved statistical lives.”
“Most Medicaid recipients (92 percent) under the age of 65 already work full- or part-time jobs, according to KFF.”
…
“States have attempted to implement work requirements for their Medicaid programs, but have faced challenges to successful implementation. In 2018, when Arkansas attempted to implement similar Medicaid work requirements, confusion with paperwork resulted in 18,000 people losing health care, and there was no improvement in employment rates. Georgia’s work requirement program, which began in 2023, spent $55 million verifying eligibility. It enrolled only 2.3 percent of the estimated 240,000 Georgians who were eligible for the program.”
“Forcing states to cover some of the cost of food stamps would be a big change for how the program operates, and one that is long overdue. “The federal government pays for 100 percent of the benefits, so state administrators have little incentive to crack down on theft,” Chris Edwards, chair of fiscal policy for the Cato Institute, and a longtime advocate of food stamp reform, tells Reason. While most states are not swindling federal taxpayers as often as Alaska does, more than $1 in every $10 spent through the food stamp program last year was paid out in error.
…
to get Murkowski and Sullivan on board with the bill, the Senate added a sweetener: Any state with a food stamp error rate of more than 13.3 percent will be exempt from the federal-state cost-sharing measure for two years.
…
Imagine that you’re administering the food stamp program in a state like Delaware, which last year had an error rate of 12.37 percent. If the Senate version of the tax bill becomes law, you’d have a pretty strong incentive to simply let that error rate rise a bit for the rest of this year, thus buying you two more years of a fully federally funded SNAP program with no mandatory state spending.”