Thursday, February 15, 2018

President's Budget Would Increase Hunger, Inequality in New Mexico

The New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty conducted an analysis of how President Donald Trump's recent budget proposal would affect poor families in New Mexico. The conclusion was that the budget would increase hunger and inequality in our state. Here is an analysis put together by the NMCLP team.

President Trump’s proposed federal budget calls for deep cuts to and radical restructuring of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) formerly known as Food Stamps.

SNAP is New Mexico’s Most Effective Anti-Hunger Program

>1 in 4 New Mexicans uses SNAP to put food on the table, including forty percent of New Mexican children.
  • 74% are in families with children.
  • 26% are in families with members who are elderly or have disabilities
  • 51% are in working families
>SNAP is linked to long term health and economic benefits, especially for young children. SNAP is proven to increase long term health and learning outcomes for children as well reduce the medical care costs for adults participating in the SNAP program. Children who receive SNAP have increased earnings over time.

>In 2016, SNAP benefits generated $693 Million in economic activity across New Mexico. Every dollar of federal SNAP benefits spent in local businesses generates $1.70 in economic activity.

What are the proposed cuts and how will they impact New Mexicans?

>Federal SNAP benefits would be slashed by over $213 billion dollars, or nearly 30 percent, over the next ten years. Under this proposal, almost 4 million Americans would lose their SNAP benefits altogether. This will result in increased hunger and poverty. In New Mexico, we would lose over $200 Million in economic activity generated from federal SNAP dollars being spent in our local businesses. Charities and food banks are already operating at capacity and cannot fill the gap.

>Shifting food purchasing from families to the government - families receiving $90 or more in SNAP benefits would no longer be allowed to shop for their own groceries. Rather, the budget proposal calls for a conversion to food packages, which would include only shelf-stable staple foods to SNAP households throughout the state. In New Mexico, over 1,600 local food retailers will lose one of their largest sources of revenue. The average SNAP benefit in New Mexico is $270 a month and $410 for families with children. This means that the vast majority of New Mexicans who participate in SNAP will be denied the basic dignity of buying groceries like everyone else and lose the ability to purchase fresh food and vegetables.

>Increased penalties for certain unemployed adults on SNAP by expanding a rule that limits unemployed adults to three months of SNAP if they aren’t working by increasing applying penalty to adults up to age 62 (it currently applies to adults up to age 50) and ends waivers of the requirements for states with high unemployment. New Mexico currently has the second highest unemployment rate in the United States. This is why the federal government has waived this requirement in New Mexico for over a decade. Under the proposal more than 25,000 SNAP participants, most living below 17% of the federal poverty level would lose SNAP benefits if they cannot find work.

>Eliminate the minimum benefit, which would cut benefits to 2 million individuals, mainly low-income seniors and people with disabilities.

> Penalize large families by capping SNAP benefits at the level of household of six, effectively eliminating SNAP to any additional members.

>Eliminating all federal funding for nutritional education for SNAP households.

Tell NM’s Congressional Delegation to take a stand and oppose these harmful cuts!
  • Michelle Lujan Grisham- (202) 225-6316 Contact via website 
  • Steve Pearce- (202) 225-2365  Contact via website 
  • Ben Ray Lujan- (202) 225-6190  Contact via website 
For more information, please contact the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty at (505) 255-2840 or email William Townley (William@nmpovertylaw.org)

No comments: