Rejecting Federal Food Assistance; Refusing to Help Hungry People

While there was bipartisan support for maximizing the federal funds available to Minnesota during the past year, when some of those federal funds would allow more low-income working families qualify for SNAP food assistance, Senate Republicans voted unanimously against it.

In the Health and Human Services bill, I backed an amendment to expand eligibility for food assistance up to 200% of the federal poverty line. Because the federal government was providing all the funding, the only cost to the state to get as much as $40 million per year for hungry families, would be about $14,000 for reprogramming and administrative costs.

We heard from a couple in their mid-70s who had retired, assuming their 401k and social security would be sufficient to make ends meet. But they cannot afford groceries and were struggling month after month. For a two-person household, these federal funds would expand coverage for people with a total income between about $28,740 and $34,840 per year.

The people that the Senate refused to help include low-income retirees and working people who are struggling to put food on the table. Here is a clip of my speech in support of accepting these federal funds to help low-income families: https://youtu.be/2uk422MM9s8?t=2294

As one of the wealthiest states in the wealthiest country there is no reason to have hungry people in Minnesota.

 

“Cooking the Books” Undercuts Public’s Ability to be Informed

For almost twenty years, Minnesota law directed state budget forecasters to include the impact of inflation on projected state revenues but not on state expenditures. Counting inflation on only one side of the equation is effectively cooking the books. It distorts budget realities.

When a higher cost of living means businesses pay their workers more, there will be an increase in income taxes coming from those higher wages. However, when the state budget is required to pay more to get the same products or services, the law explicitly prohibits the calculation of those costs in budget projections.

This artificially makes the state budget condition look better than it is; it also enables politicians to twist the truth. For example, when the Senate Republicans offered their proposed education budget, their PR claimed that they were “Fully Funding Education” and they talked about their generosity to schools. However, the $152 million they proposed fell far short of the $518 million impact that inflation has on schools for the next two-year budget period. In effect, their budget would produce a $350 million cut to Minnesota E-12 education. That isn’t what most people would call “fully funding education.”

Inflation is not an “optional” expenditure. Utility costs, contract costs, and health insurance costs significantly rise year after year, whether the budget forecast acknowledges that or not.

Because the DFL House and Governor Walz both proposed significantly more education funding, the final compromise provided about three times as much money as the Senate Republicans, and the new budget will be sufficient for most school districts to keep up with inflation.

All of us, both elected officials and the public, should recognize the importance of using accurate information in setting the state budget. As a result, I introduced SF 2362, which would repeal the provision in law that requires the state budget agency to ignore inflation from one side of the budget forecast. Although I was denied a hearing this year, I will continue pushing it next year.