[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – The Trump Administration announced Thursday that it would seek to put in place stricter work requirements for adults who depend on food stamps, even though the president had signed a major draft of law on agriculture, in which legislators had rejected stricter rules. ] By limiting the ability of states to grant waivers to people who claim they can not make ends meet under the supplementary nutrition assistance program, the Department of Agriculture has found another way to create restrictions, bypassing the Congress and immediately criticizing the proposed project. The rule was sure to hurt Americans living below the poverty line.
The administration, which along with the conservatives, had fought to include stricter work requirements in the agricultural law, continued to argue that food coupons were never intended to be a way of life and that healthy adults should be able to find a job in a healthy economy.
"Long-term assistance on government assistance has never been part of the American dream," said Sonny Perdue, secretary of state for agriculture, in a statement. "Moving people to work is a common sense policy, especially at a time when the unemployment rate is at its lowest generation level."
Farm Bill of $ 867 Billion, Huge Legislation to Help Farmers and the Poor, Conservative Legislators Who Called for an Overhaul of How Food Program Participants Would Be Evaluated , have been facing a number of obstacles this year.
In the end, the Republican and Democratic negotiators decided to abandon two proposals presented by conservatives and publicly defended by President Trump : a project that would impose additional work requirements on adults using SNAP and another that would have closed a loophole allowing states to derogate from requirements in areas with high unemployment rates. [19659002] The draft rule sparked the ire of Democrats, who accused the Trump government of having used a steamroller, a rare bipartisan compromise and ignoring the congressional mandate to leave the United States. places. The program and its 40 million beneficiaries remained unchanged.
"After a very difficult exchange on this particular issue, we left the program unattended, without preventing people from getting it," said Raúl M. Grijalva, Democrat. of Arizona, one of the negotiators of the bicameral committee of the bill. "Now you have the Lost Secretary who basically does what was agreed not to do, bipartisan. He needs to know the purpose of the Congress and to follow it.
Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, a Democratic Democrat from the Senate Committee on Agriculture, accused Mr. Perdue in an unequivocal statement that he "was totally unaware of the bipartite farm". This bill neglects "more than 20 years of history, giving states the opportunity to seek waivers based on local working conditions."
Liberal groups joined the critics. In a statement, Robert Greenstein, chair of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington-based left-wing think tank, said the government's decision threatened to cut basic food aid to hundreds thousands of people, many of whom are between the ages of 18 and 49, who could use the help.
"The administration can present its proposal as a" reasonable work requirement, "said Greenstein. "But as stated, most states do not offer these people a job, a training opportunity or a job-program post, and people who" respect the rules "and seek employment are nevertheless removed . "
In contrast, House Republicans, who had included tougher work demands in their version of the farm bill, hailed the decision and asserted that the final bipartite version left the door open for the first time. intervention by Mr. Perdue.
Representative Patrick T. McHenry of North Carolina, the deputy chief whip of the Republicans, denied that this decision amounts to a partisan bypass of Congress.
"I think the Department of Agriculture has a new vision of this process and this data is an asset," he says. "Was it a partisan gesture when the Obama administration expanded the waivers?"
Texas Republican Representative, K. Michael Conaway, and Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, welcomed the department's decision. Mr Conaway said the proposal demonstrated "the importance of state responsibility and the success of beneficiaries".
But even Mr. Conaway had recently suggested that Mr. Perdue had no place to escape Congress and to "wipe his wits". [19659017] "It's our job to fix the problem," said Conaway in an interview with an agricultural publication during negotiations in September, "and once we set the law, it will be up to Secretary to enforce the new law, do not repair the faulty system that allows the derogations. "
A healthier economy has reduced the use of SNAP from about three million people from November 2016 to March 2018, according to the latest data from the Ministry of Agriculture In election rallies, Mr. Trump used exaggerated terms to describe the reduction, which had begun before he took office.
Parallel its administration targeted the benefits of the program: In February, it aimed to reduce the federal budget by $ 21 billion, and over the next 10 years, the administration proposed a system that would constrain t many participants substitute half of their profits for a "Harvest Box" containing a selected menu of canned products, milk and "keep" pasta. This proposal was immediately rejected.
In September, SNAP recipients received an average benefit of $ 123 per month, compared to $ 245 for families, according to the latest available data from the government. Under the new rules, the Department of Agriculture is targeting non-disabled adults, who have access to SNAP for only three months over a three-year period, unless they work at least 80 hours a month. The proposal would call for a more rigorous examination of the process followed by participants to obtain a waiver, which is often due to poor economic conditions or similar difficulties.
million. Perdue had already indicated that he would use his regulatory power to introduce restrictions.
"I urge all states" to use this waiver, wrote Mr. Perdue in a draft letter to governors last month: review your political choices regarding when and where to apply these derogations. "
[ad_2]
Source link
