\n<\/p>\n
Last week, Republican lawmakers in the U.S. House Agriculture Committee passed legislation that would cut as much as $300 billion<\/a> from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP, which provides benefits to low-income families to subsidize their food and grocery costs.<\/p>\n More than 42 million Americans rely on SNAP to afford food, but Republicans are looking to gut the program in order to finance President Trump\u2019s \u201cbig beautiful bill,\u201d<\/a> which, among other things, would expand tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.<\/p>\n APR spoke with Alabama Arise\u2019s senior policy analyst, Carol Gundlach, to better understand what the Republican overhaul of SNAP entails and how cutting SNAP could affect Alabamians across the state.<\/p>\n Gundlach began our conversation by detailing how the Republican proposal would shift the cost of administering SNAP from the federal government to the states, a move that would heavily impact Alabama\u2019s General Fund.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cAssuming that it passes in the form that came out of the House Agriculture Committee, the real simple bottom line is it would cost Alabama at least $115 million to $120 million in General Fund money if you wanted to maintain the SNAP program,\u201d Gundlach told APR. \u201cNow, I say \u2018at least\u2019 because what the bill that came out of the Ag Committee does is it increases Alabama\u2019s share of the cost of administering the SNAP program. It basically moves that from 50 percent to 75 percent. We think that would cost us $35 million more or less a year.\u201d<\/p>\n Gundlach explained that states could face even higher cost burdens under the proposal depending on their \u201cerror rate\u201d when distributing SNAP benefits.<\/p>\n \u201cIt would require that states pay for at least 5 percent of the actual cost of the food benefits that are distributed, but it will increase that amount based on the state \u2018error rate.\u2019 The error rate is a really complicated formula that looks at how much states overpaid or underpaid in benefits, and it looks at the timeliness of getting benefits out,\u201d she explained. \u201cIt is not a measure of fraud and, you know, [U.S. Rep. Barry Moore, R-Ala.] during the committee discussion kept talking about the error rate representing fraud \u2014 that is simply a misunderstanding of what the error rate is. Alabama\u2019s got one of the lowest error rates in the nation, but we\u2019re at 7 percent, and we\u2019ve always been real proud that we have such a good error rate. We are worried about how this formula is gonna work itself out. If we even just had to pay for 5 percent of benefits that would be a hit of about $90 million to the general fund.\u201d<\/p>\n According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities<\/a>, Alabama could be hit with additional costs ranging from $86 million to $431 million depending on the state\u2019s future error rates if the Republican legislation passes into law. Between 2003 and 2023, Alabama\u2019s highest recorded error rate was 8.02 percent \u2014 under the Republicans\u2019 proposal, that error rate would carry an estimated $344 million price tag for the state today.<\/p>\n However, it is important to note that these cost estimates are based on the size of the population currently receiving SNAP benefits in Alabama. In reality, those costs would likely be lower than estimated if the legislation were to pass due to other provisions of the bill which would directly cut food benefits and terminate eligibility for many SNAP participants, thereby reducing Alabama\u2019s financial obligation by kicking Alabamians off of SNAP.<\/p>\n Gundlach said she does not know how the state will be able to afford the increased cost of administering SNAP without letting many Alabamians go hungry.<\/p>\n \u201cI simply can\u2019t imagine how we could do this. I spend my life watching the budgets and I have no idea, in a time of slightly declining revenues but also all kinds of other increased costs, how on Earth the general fund could come up with that amount of money every year, year in and year out. And if they push us to more than 5 percent, which is possible, I really don\u2019t see how we could do it,\u201d Gundlach said. \u201cAnd so that leaves the state in a really difficult position. They could try to push people off of SNAP \u2014 and there are some procedural ways that could be done under existing law \u2014 because if you get the population down, the benefits go down\u2026 but it\u2019ll leave people out there hungry.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cAnd so there are implications for the state budget that I\u2019m really worried about, but there are also implications for people who get SNAP benefits, because if they can\u2019t get the SNAP benefits because the state can\u2019t pay their match, then they\u2019re left hungry and they\u2019ve already cut food banks back,\u201d she continued. \u201cI have no idea how Congress thinks people can feed their families if this bill passes.\u201d<\/p>\n Gundlach also expressed that she views the legislation as a way to shift the blame for cutting social services away from federal lawmakers and instead pinning it on the states.<\/p>\n \u201cI think it\u2019s really upsetting that what they\u2019re basically doing is they want to cut access to SNAP, and to Medicaid, and to a number of other programs, but they don\u2019t want Congress to have to take the heat. And so they\u2019re just pushing it to the states, and they\u2019re pushing the cost to the states, and then they\u2019re going to let the Alabama legislature or the governor have to decide who gets hurt and who doesn\u2019t, and that\u2019s pretty awful,\u201d Gundlach said.<\/p>\n Gundlach also lambasted the Republicans\u2019 explicit desire to slash programs like SNAP and Medicaid as a vehicle for financing further tax cuts for the ultra-rich.<\/p>\n \u201cOf course, that\u2019s the the biggest factor here is [Republicans] have got this bill that extends the tax cuts that were passed eight years ago, which are cuts that disproportionately benefit the richest people in the country: millionaires and billionaires. I mean it really is a billionaire tax cut,\u201d Gundlach said. \u201cIt would extend those tax cuts, but they\u2019ve gotta pay for it under Congress\u2019 rules, so how do you pay for it? Well, you could pay for it by increasing taxes on other people, increasing taxes on the rich and not giving them these tax cuts, or you can cut benefit programs for the poor. They\u2019re choosing to cut food assistance for hungry families and hungry children and health care for the sick and the disabled in order to give tax cuts to billionaires, and it\u2019s pretty awful. It\u2019s pretty deplorable.\u201d<\/p>\n In 2024, over 750,000 Alabamians<\/a> \u2014 15 percent of the state\u2019s total population \u2014 received SNAP benefits. SNAP also brought an average of 115,000<\/span> Alabamians, including\u00a051,000<\/span>\u00a0children,<\/span> above the poverty line each year between 2015 and 2019.<\/p>\n \u201cThe people who are on SNAP are disproportionately families with children in the household. They are disproportionately the elderly and the disabled and are just very low-income people. And a lot of them are, you know, the working poor \u2014 people who are working 20 hours a week as a cashier and are working hard to support their families. Those are the people who are going to pay the cost for this,\u201d Gundlach noted.<\/p>\n Gundlach also shared her concerns about the impact that proposed increases in SNAP eligibility requirements might have on families with children, especially in light of Alabama\u2019s distinct lack of accessible and affordable child care<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cParents of really very young children are going to have to decide what to do with those children while they\u2019re out there hunting for a job or working hours that the child is not in school,\u201d Gundlach said. \u201cI worry about an increase in child welfare cases. I worry about bad things happening to children if people are forced to choose between feeding their families and what they do with inadequate childcare.\u201d<\/p>\n Beyond the immediate impact which reducing SNAP benefits would have on poorer Alabamians, Gundlach also highlighted the downstream consequences which these cuts could have on local businesses and the state economy. Currently, around 5,000 retail locations<\/a> are authorized to sell food to SNAP beneficiaries in Alabama.<\/p>\n