ReportWire

Tag: Government Reform

  • About 1 in 5 kids are at risk of losing SNAP. Centralized control keeps failing low-income families.

    [ad_1]

    The federal government shutdown is disrupting major federal programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Now one in five children nationwide risks losing benefits because Congress has failed to pass a budget. On October 30, a federal judge ordered the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to draw from SNAP’s contingency fund to cover payments, but that fund holds roughly $5–6 billion—barely enough to cover three weeks of payments for a program that spends more than $8 billion each month. 

    The ongoing deadlock highlights SNAP’s fragility due to its near-total reliance on federal funding. More importantly, its chronic dependency on Washington’s one-size-fits-all solutions has left it failing the very children it’s supposed to help. The best way to ensure healthy outcomes for kids and protect them from the partisan crossfire of D.C. politicking is to break the federal grip on nutrition programs.

    Washington has become a permanent fixture of childhood in low-income America. The N in SNAP stands for “nutrition,” but federal food aid has routinely failed to deliver healthy diets for low-income families despite nearly $2 trillion in spending since 2000. Almost one-quarter of food purchases by SNAP households are for junk food, which undermines the efforts of doctors and other federal agencies to promote healthy diets. SNAP participants also have higher rates of obesity and poorer nutrition than nonparticipants, regularly failing to meet dietary guidelines while performing poorly on key health indicators. All of this has helped drive child obesity to nearly one in five children and adolescents as of 2020.

    SNAP may provide assistance to families, but a program that consistently fails to deliver positive outcomes for the children it aims to serve falls far short of its purpose.

    We’ve seen this problem before—and its solution. Like SNAP, Congress designed Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to assist low-income households, but its structure created perverse incentives that encouraged single motherhood, punished work, and trapped families in dependency for years. The 1996 welfare reforms replaced AFDC with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), a fixed block grant program that provided states with much-needed flexibility to innovate and tailor their programs to fit the needs of their residents.

    States leveraged TANF’s block grant flexibility by shifting funds from pure cash assistance to targeted supports such as childcare subsidies, job training, and education programs. These reforms helped parents—especially single mothers—overcome employment barriers and increase their income. The results surpassed everyone’s predictions. Within a decade, more than 1.6 million children were lifted out of poverty. Additionally, poverty in single-mother families fell to record lows, and overall poverty and child hunger declined substantially. All of this occurred while welfare caseloads declined by more than half.

    By converting SNAP into a block grant and gradually decoupling it from federal dollars, states would be able to take on decision-making and responsibility for their programs, controlling funding and tailoring solutions to the needs of their low-income families. Just as TANF prioritized economic independence and employment, state SNAP reforms could prioritize better health and self-sufficiency.

    The current shutdown should serve as a catalyst for Congress to reassess the federal role in welfare. Children shouldn’t go hungry because Congress can’t govern—nor should they be dependent on the D.C. bureaucracy for their food. SNAP’s centralization and reliance on federal dollars have caused it to fail at meeting the nutritional needs of children, and now, millions of families face the prospect of sudden benefit disruptions.

    Congress should stop treating Americans as collateral damage in their fight over extending Obamacare subsidies and end the shutdown immediately. While restoring federal funding will avoid immediate disruptions to benefits, Congress should also reform welfare to ensure it helps rather than hinders the families who rely on it. 

    SNAP is outdated. Congress should devolve funding and administration to the states, allowing them to pursue more effective nutrition policies for low-income families.

    [ad_2]

    Romina Boccia

    Source link

  • Javier Milei wins Argentina’s midterm election, gaining more power to push reforms

    [ad_1]

    The results of Argentina’s midterm elections Sunday were not widely expected. Pre-election polls had predicted a tie nationwide. Instead there was a clear win for President Javier Milei’s coalition, La Libertad Avanza (Freedom Advances), which secured 41 percent of the national vote. The Peronist opposition followed with 32 percent, while regional parties divided the remainder. Voter turnout was 68 percent, below typical midterm participation levels.

    The vote consolidated Argentina’s increasingly polarized landscape, with centrist and third-party options virtually disappearing between Milei’s libertarian-leaning movement and the Peronist opposition. Beginning December 10, Freedom Advances will increase its congressional seats from 37 to 101 deputies and from 6 to 20 senators, surpassing the one-third threshold Milei had set as his minimum goal for victory. “We will have, without a doubt, the most reformist Congress in Argentine history,” Milei said after the results were announced.

    With a stronger representation in Congress, Milei can now block opposition bills that would undermine his veto power and threaten his fiscal austerity program. Although he did not win an outright majority, the results significantly enhance his bargaining power. Milei plans to pursue labor and tax reforms in the coming legislature and will need support from centrist lawmakers and regional blocs to pass them.

    The turnaround in Buenos Aires Province, which represents nearly 40 percent of Argentina’s electorate, was decisive. Milei’s coalition got a narrow victory in the region after suffering a 14-point defeat there in the provincial elections held last month, a vote that Peronist Gov. Axel Kicillof chose to schedule separately from the national contest to boost his own standing ahead of the 2027 presidential race. That early timing reshaped the incentive structure of his party’s local apparatus. Once many provincial officials had already secured their positions in September, the networks that typically drive voter mobilization had little motivation to replicate their efforts in October. The Peronists blame Kiciloff for the underperformance.

    The financial markets reacted favorably to Milei’s victory. Argentina’s country risk index and the dollar exchange rate both fell sharply, while the stocks of Argentine companies listed in New York rose. The outcome eased investor concerns about a possible Peronist resurgence. President Donald Trump, who earlier this month tied a $20 billion financial rescue package for Argentina to Milei’s success, congratulated him on Truth Social, praising Milei as a strong ally and celebrating what he called a “big win” for Argentina.

    But the outcome is not being read in Argentina as a full endorsement for Milei’s politics. The past month has been a political crisis for Milei, and some cabinet changes are already underway. Foreign Minister Gerardo Werthein and Justice Minister Mariano Cúneo Libarona submitted their resignations; Security Minister Patricia Bullrich and Defense Minister Luis Petri were both elected to Congress.

    The reshuffle reflects an internal struggle between Milei’s closest confidants: his behind-the-scenes adviser, Santiago Caputo, and his sister and presidential secretary, Karina Milei. Karina has acted as a bridge to the establishment figures within the administration, while Caputo represents the more radical wing of Milei’s libertarian base. A poor electoral result would have strengthened Caputo’s influence, given Milei’s weakened position in recent weeks. The president’s following appointments will likely settle this internal tension in light of the decisive victory he has just secured.

    Volatility is a constant in Argentina. The country’s direction now depends on whether Milei can push his central campaign promises, including dollarization, into policy before the 2027 election, when he will be eligible to seek another term.

    [ad_2]

    César Báez

    Source link

  • 87% of Americans want politicians to do something before Social Security runs out of money

    87% of Americans want politicians to do something before Social Security runs out of money

    [ad_1]

    Entitlement reform has long been considered a third rail of American politics, even as the insolvency of Social Security and Medicare creeps closer.

    That perception might need some reconsidering. A new poll shows that the vast majority of Americans believe policymakers should make changes as soon as possible to extend the life of America’s two old-age entitlement programs and avoid possible benefit cuts that will hit in the early 2030s if nothing is done.

    That poll, which was shared with members of Congress and staffers at a closed-door meeting on Wednesday morning and obtained by Reason, found that only 5 percent of voters say Congress and President Joe Biden should do nothing to address the looming benefit cuts that will hit Social Security when insolvency hits.

    “Our polling shows that Americans are seriously worried about the solvency of these entitlement programs,” David Williams, president of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA), a free market group that sponsored the survey (it was conducted in August and included about 1,000 likely voters). “Congress can no longer continue to ignore the facts that without action, Social Security and Medicare will face deep and automatic cuts.”

    Indeed, the poll suggests that many Americans have a better understanding of the crisis facing Social Security and Medicare than most elected officials seem to believe. In the survey, 87 percent of respondents agreed that action is needed to extend Social Security’s solvency and avoid benefit cuts, and 89 percent said the same thing about Medicare.

    According to the trustees responsible for overseeing the two programs, Medicare’s main trust fund will be depleted by 2031 and Social Security’s reserves will be gone by 2033. Though those trust funds are largely an accounting fiction, their insolvency will trigger mandatory across-the-board cuts that will affect retirees and anyone who expects to benefit from the programs in the future. The two programs are also the primary drivers of the federal government’s future budget deficits, responsible for 95 percent of long-term unfunded obligations, according to the Treasury’s recent Financial Report. Those looming problems are contributing to the federal government’s declining credit rating and threaten America’s future economic growth.

    Despite that, leading politicians on both sides of the aisle continue to promise that inaction is possible. Biden has used fictional Republican plans to cut Social Security to demagogue against the idea that reforms to the program are necessary—most notably by sparring with GOP members of Congress during this year’s State of the Union address. Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump (the leading contender to be the GOP’s presidential nominee in 2024) has repeatedly promised not to touch Social Security, and other prominent figures on the so-called “New Right” have done the same.

    Realistically, the only serious approach will require some changes to existing Social Security benefits. That could mean reducing benefits for wealthier retirees or implementing across-the-board benefit reductions that would be phased in over time, allowing younger workers to offset smaller Social Security benefits with private savings. Ideally, workers would be able to opt out of Social Security altogether, so they can save and invest for their own retirement without having to pay payroll taxes.

    But none of those options can begin to be considered if a critical mass of elected officials continue to ignore the problem.

    The TPA poll released Wednesday offers some insight into how more serious politicians might proceed. The poll found that 71 percent of Americans find means-testing for Social Security benefits—that is, limiting benefits for wealthier recipients—to be acceptable, while 60 percent would approve of cutting other government programs to fund Social Security.

    (Source: Taxpayers Protection Alliance, Public Opinion Strategies )

    When it comes to Medicare, 66 percent approve of means-testing benefits, and 84 percent are in favor of the always-popular option of reducing rampant fraud and waste within the government-run healthcare system.

    Perhaps most importantly, 90 percent of voters say presidential and congressional candidates running for office in 2024 should discuss the financial challenges facing the entitlement programs. They might take note of former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley’s rise in the Republican primary field, which has followed her willingness to provide some straight talk about the difficult fiscal situation that the government must face.

    (Source: Taxpayers Protection Alliance, Public Opinion Strategies )

    Finding solutions to these highly fraught issues that voters will accept is no easy task, but it can’t start until politicians recognize that ignoring the government’s entitlement-driven debt crisis is not a real option.

    [ad_2]

    Eric Boehm

    Source link