#Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

After The White House and Republicans in Congress reached a tentative agreement on the debt ceiling, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy went on Fox News Sunday to boast about making struggling Americans work in order to continue receiving food aid.

Although precise details have not been released, the deal will increase the maximum age at which adults must work in order to receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) food stamps from age 50 to 54. There are exceptions, however, for veterans, unhoused individuals, and those with dependents. The deal also includes changes to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) but those details have not been made public.

“We finally were able to cut spending. We’re the first Congress to vote for cutting spending year over year,” McCarthy boasted Sunday on Fox. “So, you cut that back. You fully fund the veterans. You fully fund defense. But you take that non-defense spending all the way back to 2022 levels. Now you get work requirements for TANF and SNAP. The Democrats said that was a red line.”

At another point in the interview, McCarthy claimed that “We’re going to get America working again,” and that the deal includes “work requirements to help people out of poverty into jobs.” At this, host Shannon Bream pushed back on McCarthy, arguing that the work requirements are not tough enough for the most extreme members of the GOP caucus.

"We're gonna get America working again … When Republicans had the Presidency, the Senate and the House, did they ever cut spending? No, they increased it."

“The White House, that’s an area where they’re celebrating,” Bream said of the work requirements. “They say there are no changes to Medicaid. You referenced SNAP and TANF. So basically, SNAP includes an expansion for veterans and people who are homeless. So there’s an expansion there to some extent… and the changes that you did get will lift the age and the requirements and those kinds of things, but they sunset. So they don’t last for very long.”

It should be noted, though, that the vast majority of Americans are working. Unemployment remains extremely low at 3.4% as of this April.

McCarthy also bragged about cutting funding to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). “This is the largest recision in American history,” McCarthy said. “You can add up all the recisions from all the other Congresses. This is greater. And what are we pulling back? CDC’s Global Health Fund. So no longer are we sending $400 million of American taxpayers’ money to China.”

According to the CDC, the Global Health Fund supports HIV/AIDS prevention and care, immunizations, and global disease detection and emergency response. On the heels of a global pandemic, cutting this funding seems dangerous, but after seeing their response to COVID, it’s not surprising that Republicans in Congress don’t take global health seriously.

Returning to the topic of work requirements, McCarthy said, “At the end of the day, it saves more money, ’cause what does a work requirement do? It’s only on able-bodied people with no dependents. Instead of borrowing money from China to pay somebody to sit on the couch, we now give them the process to go get a job. Every study has shown when you do that, it puts people to work. And when they work, what happens? More people are paying into social security and Medicare.”

Sure, it may “save” some money in food aid, but at what cost?

[dr-archeville]

TANF: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) [source]

"John Oliver discusses TANF – a federal program designed to help families with little to no income – who’s currently receiving these vital funds, who should be receiving them, and what it all has to do with Brett Favre.”  [22 mins 44 sec]

[reasonsforhope]

Flint, Michigan, has one of the [United States]'s highest rates of child poverty — something that got a lot of attention during the city's lead water crisis a decade ago. And a pediatrician who helped expose that lead problem has now launched a first-of-its-kind move to tackle poverty: giving every new mother $7,500 in cash aid over a year.

A baby's first year is crucial for development. It's also a time of peak poverty.

Flint's new cash transfer program, Rx Kids, starts during pregnancy. The first payment is $1,500 to encourage prenatal care. After delivery, mothers will get $500 a month over the baby's first year.

"What happens in that first year of life can really portend your entire life course trajectory. Your brain literally doubles in size in the first 12 months," says Hanna-Attisha, who's also a public health professor at Michigan State University.

A baby's birth is also a peak time for poverty. Being pregnant can force women to cut back hours or even lose a job. Then comes the double whammy cost of child care.

Research has found that stress from childhood poverty can harm a person's physical and mental health, brain development and performance in school. Infants and toddlers are more likely than older children to be put into foster care, for reasons that advocates say conflate neglect with poverty.

In Flint, where the child poverty rate is more than 50%, Hanna-Attisha says new moms are in a bind. "We just had a baby miss their 4-day-old appointment because mom had to go back to work at four days," she says...

Benefits of Cash Aid

Studies have found such payments reduce financial hardship and food insecurity and improve mental and physical health for both mothers and children.

The U.S. got a short-lived taste of that in 2021. Congress temporarily expanded the child tax credit, boosting payments and also sending them to the poorest families who had been excluded because they didn't make enough to qualify for the credit. Research found that families mostly spent the money on basic needs. The bigger tax credit improved families' finances and briefly cut the country's child poverty rate nearly in half.

"We saw food hardship dropped to the lowest level ever," Shaefer says. "And we saw credit scores actually go to the highest that they'd ever been in at the end of 2021."

Critics worried that the expanded credit would lead people to work less, but there was little evidence of that. Some said they used the extra money for child care so they could go to work.

As cash assistance in Flint ramps up, Shaefer will be tracking not just its impact on financial well-being, but how it affects the roughly 1,200 babies born in the city each year.

"We're going to see if expectant moms route into prenatal care earlier," he says. "Are they able to go more? And then we'll be able to look at birth outcomes," including birth weight and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions.

Since the pandemic, dozens of cash aid pilots have popped up across the nation. But unlike them, Rx Kids is not limited to lower-income households. It's universal, which means every new mom will get the same amount of money. "You pit people against each other when you draw that line in the sand and say, 'You don't need this, and you do,' " Shaefer says. It can also stigmatize families who get the aid, he says, as happened with traditional welfare...

So far, there's more than $43 million to keep the program going for three years. Funders include foundations, health insurance companies and the state of Michigan, which allocated a small part of its federal cash aid, known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

Money can buy more time for bonding with a baby

Alana Turner can't believe her luck with Flint's new cash benefits. "I was just shocked because of the timing of it all," she says.

Turner is due soon with her second child, a girl. She lives with her aunt and her 4-year-old son, Ace. After he was born, her car broke down and she was seriously cash-strapped, negotiating over bill payments. This time, she hopes she won't have to choose between basic needs.

"Like, I shouldn't have to think about choosing between are the lights going to be on or am I going to make sure the car brakes are good," she says...

But since she'll be getting an unexpected $7,500 over the next year, Turner has a new goal. With her first child, she was back on the job in less than six weeks. Now, she hopes she'll be able to slow down and spend more time with her daughter.

"I don't want to sacrifice the time with my newborn like I had to for my son, if I don't have to," she says."

-via NPR, March 12, 2024

[wileys-russo]

puppy love II l.wienroither x reader

its criminal there isn't more fics for her so let me try to mend the gap. also i know that this timeline of laura and leah's ACL and recovery isn't accurate but we're gonna go with it for the sake of the plot!

puppy love II l.wienroither x reader

pulling up outside beth and vivs home you couldn't get out of the car fast enough, unbuckling yourself and quickly shooting out of your seat, locking your car up after you over your shoulder.

"um hello?" you paused at the front door and your eyes widened, looking back to see your older sister glaring at you through the open passenger window.

"sorry!" you breathed out with a wince, racing back and unlocking the car, grabbing her crutches from the back and helping her out of the car and to her feet.

"i told mum you'd be a shit carer." leah grumbled as she hobbled behind you toward the front door. "hey!" you scowled at her over your shoulder before knocking repeatedly on the front door. "you could always go back to mums leah, the options there." you threatened as the blonde held her hands up in apology but rolled her eyes the moment you turned around.

"you know it's not going to open any faster the more you knock on it woman!" beth pulled the door open with a teasing grin, opening her arms for a hug as you only darted inside and right past her. "get used to it she's useless." leah sighed, accepting beths hug as the shorter blonde chuckled.

"she's in love, what do you expect eh?" "she almost dropped me down the stairs this morning because her phone went off with a text from you know who!" leah recounted with a deeply annoyed frown as beth laughed and helped the taller girl inside.

"hey there is a speed limit in this house you know lieve." your taller team mate teased affectionately as you raced down the hallway, stopping in your tracks to smile at viv apologetically and give her a hug.

"oi why's she get a hug and i don't! you're not supposed to have favorites." beth protested as she and leah appeared, you rolling your eyes playfully and hugging the needy blonde who patted your back. "see? now was that so hard."

"none of you are my favorite. i'm actually trying to get to her now if you don't mind?" you stated bluntly, ignoring their teasing's as you headed down the hall toward your girlfriends temporary bedroom. laura having moved in while she recovered from her acl injury, her family all in austria she'd been somewhat adopted by the two older women she was now living with.

"you two behave and remember she is injured yes?" viv warned semi seriously at your retreating figure. "yeah no funny business, i mean it!" you heard leah yell sternly after you as you paused to flip her off, grateful she was injured as she blonde shot you a murderous glare, knowing if she had two good legs she'd be swiftly after you.

much as you loved one another fiercely you also fought like cat and dog growing up, your older sister relentlessly torturing you at times but if reminded of that she'd simply claim she was 'helping you toughen up'.

and thats not to say she wouldn't and didn't rain down hell on anyone else who dared mistreat you growing up.

now older the two of you got along much better and had played for the same club for years, but you still got on one anothers nerves every now and then as sisters do, especially now you were assigned as her primary carer while she recovered from her own acl.

distance really does make the heart grow fonder so when leah had needed to move in with you to assist with her rehab, the lack of personal space for either of you had meant the silly arguments increased.

then when your girlfriend had gone and done her acl and needed to move in with beth and viv, the lack of quality time the two of you now faced had worsened your mood.

the two of you were a relatively new pairing after crushing shamelessly on one another for months, sharing shy smiles and bashful glances, both assuming the other would never feel the same way.

eventually laura grew tired of wondering and made her move asking you out, much to the relief of your entire team who were fed up with the mutual pining. and now happily dating you were both still very much so in the honeymoon phase, positively obsessed with one another like giggly lovesick teenagers.

escaping the other three women you knocked on your girlfriends door, hearing her call to come in as you stepped inside, the blonde on the bed perking up as you quietly closed the door, ignoring viv and beth who yelled to keep it open.

"hi liebling." laura grinned, pulling herself to sit up as you dumped your bag on the end of her bed. "hello lover." you grinned back, the girl making grabby hands at you as you carefully settled yourself on the bed beside her, the two of you hugging tightly.

"i missed you." you mumbled into her shoulder as the blonde repeated the words back to you and you sat there in one anothers embrace for a moment before disconnecting.

"oh i have presents for you." you suddenly remembered, clapping happily as you shuffled down the bed and grabbed your bag. "but it is not my birthday?" the blonde frowned in confusion, thick accent you had fallen hard for prominent in her words.

"this, and these, and this, and this, and these and this." you unloaded snack after snack onto the duvet, your girlfriends face softening as she practically melted into a puddle seeing all of her childhood favorites spread out on the bed.

"where did you get them?" she breathed out, touching at the austrian treats and picking them up gently as if they could crumble at her touch. "an international sweets store online, they arrived yesterday." you explained, heart swooning at how much the blondes face lit up at each item she touched.

"oh lau." you cooed, leaning in to wipe a stray tear from the girls face as she again pulled you into a tight hug, burying her face into your shoulder as you gently rubbed her back.

"i love you." the blonde mumbled into your top, the three words making your heart skip a beat, the same way they did the first time you'd exchanged them just a couple of weeks ago. "i love you too." you beamed as she pulled away.

"i love you more." the blonde challenged as you settled into the bed beside her, careful not to knock her bandaged leg which was propped up on a pillow. "i love you most." you countered, grabbing her hands and messing around with her fingers as your head slumped to her shoulder.

"i lov-" "god please stop this is disgusting."

"leah! get out." your head swiveled to your older sister with a scowl as the girl leaned against the door frame with her arms crossed. "hi leah!" laura greeted happily, the older blonde unable to refrain from sharing her smile at the younger girls infectious enthusiasm.

"well you've said your hellos. now get out!" you ordered again, pointing behind her as your scowl deepened and lauras warm hand rested on your hip, giving it a gentle squeeze.

"viv said door open, have some manners i'm just the unfortunate messenger." your sister rolled her eyes before knocking on the now open door to prove her point and stepping out. "and you should be using your crutches!" you yelled out sternly after her, her middle finger popping back inside the door frame before she left again.

"hey-" your girlfriend squeezed your hip again to gain your attention, mumbling something in german as her thumbs smoothed out the deep frown embedded in your eyebrows. "hey i'm a beginner i don't know what that means." you pouted, the blonde having been slowly tutoring you to learn the language, however it was indeed a slow process.

"i said stop frowning or you will get wrinkles." she teased making you scoff and gently smack her chest. "excuse me? rude." you shook your head before glancing down to her leg.

"please do not ask, i am sick of everyone asking how it is feeling." the blonde spoke with a rare show of vulnerability before you could, her normally smiley exterior cracking for a second as her eyes glazed over.

you nodded wordlessly in understanding before leaning over to peck sweetly at her lips several times making her laugh. "proper one now meine liebe." she grinned, dipping her head slightly and pressing her mouth to yours eagerly.

"lau." you warned pulling away as she attempted to tug you to straddle her lap. "what? these are not my knee. these are strong!" she smacked at her thighs with a cheeky smile making you roll your eyes playfully at her insistence.

"no." you shook your head firmly, trying to resume the previous kiss as she craned her head back. "yes." she argued still with a smile, your top balled in her fists not allowing you to pull any further away. "no." you repeated with another shake of your head, flicking playfully at her ear.

"why not!" the defender pouted, just wanting your body as close to her own as she could get, the time the two of you were able to spend with just one another less and less since you had both adopted your new roommates and responsibilities.

"you know why." you stated a little more firmly this time, hands moving to rest on her cheeks with a soft smile. "i told you, these are strong! they do not call me tiny tank for no reason yes?" the girl beamed, her hands on your hips still trying to move you as you rolled your eyes and carefully swung one leg over her lap, hovering above her resting on your knees.

"hello!" she greeted happily as you sighed dramatically but leant in to reconnect your lips, your girlfriends hands roaming your body as yours rested on her shoulder.

"dinner!"

you squealed as you fell sideways on the bed, laura quickly shoving you off of her as footsteps sounded down the hall and viv poked her head in. "dinner is ready." the dutch woman announced, narrowing her eyes suspiciously at the two of you as you both sent her an innocent smile.

"mmm." she hummed and motioned for the two of you to get up before she left the room. "babe you almost pushed me off the bed!" you glared at the blonde beside you who smiled charmingly, mumbling an apology as she pressed kiss after kiss to your lips.

"stop the kissing and come and eat before it gets cold!" viv yelled out sternly again from down the hall as the two of you pulled away and paused before breaking out into laughter.

"come on." you rolled off the bed and stood, motioning for your girlfriend to get on your back as she swung her body to face yours. "i worry one day i will snap these chicken legs of yours." your girlfriend tutted but carefully climbed up onto your back.

"hey they're genetic!" you defended, both your siblings also sporting the classic williamson noodle legs. "just you wait, some more time and i will be back to carrying you around again with my strong legs liebling." the austrian patted your head mockingly.

"would you like me to drop you?" "that is my worry yes." "oh shut up!"

~

"and where are you two off to? you don't want to watch a movie?" beth questioned as laura draped her arm over your shoulder and you both began to head back to her room.

"we do want to watch a movie, just not with you." laura answered with a teasing smile and beth gasped, clutching a hand to her chest in mock offence. "did you hear that? i think my heart just broke!" she sobbed, burying her face in vivs shoulder who rolled her eyes at the theatrics and shoved her away.

"vivianne!" "what? you are annoying sometimes, i don't blame them."

"come get me whenever you're ready to leave." you spoke up angling the comment to your sister who raised her drink in understanding, mouth full of popcorn. "door open please!" viv called out as the two of you slowly made your way back down the hallway.

"we're adults!" you and laura yelled back in sync before bursting out into laughter and sharing a kiss, a small smile forming on the dutch womans face at the sight before the pair of you disappeared into laura's room, half closing the door.

after a prolonged argument over which movie to put on you'd settled on something neither one of you particularly wanted to watch, both with the same activity in mind you'd rather be doing instead.

which is how it came to be you peeked your head down the hallway, seeing the other three engrossed in their own movie, and ever so gently closed laura's door.

with a grin you bounded back to the bed, laying down beside your blonde lover and leaning in to press your lips against hers, her arms flushing your bodies closer together as you pulled her hair out of its messy bun and tangled your fingers in the silver strands.

you withheld a moan as her mouth moved toward your neck, the defender nudging your chin up with her pointer finger to give her more space to access.

"we said door open! laura you need to put your leg up!" the two of you jumped apart as the door flew open and viv flew in, crossing her arms and motioning for the two of you to separate. laura muttering in annoyance under her breath in german, sitting up slightly with a huff as you gently moved her leg to prop up on the pillow at the end of the bed.

"behave, i do not care if you are in love you need to be careful!"

and with that she was gone again, laura collapsing into you with a pained sigh, her silver blonde hair tickling at your nose as you pressed an affectionate kiss to her warm forehead.

with either viv or beth popping their head in every ten or so minutes to 'check up on the two of you' it burst the bubble of warm kisses and sweet giggles you tried to let consume you, and so you'd settled for trying the selection of austrian treats you'd bought for the blonde, laura giving a running commentary on each one.

"hey!" you gasped as she held out a piece of chocolate for you but right as you reached out to take it she popped it into her own mouth with a smirk. "want to taste it?" she teased, puckering her lips as you couldn't help but grin and lean in.

"jesus please do not taste it."

"leah!" you scowled at your sister who was once again leaning in the door frame with a look of disgust. "viv said i have to stand here while she and beth do the dishes." leah mumbled with a deep seeded frown, folding her arms over her chest.

"oh my god lee please go away!" you whined, throwing a cushion toward her which bounced lamely across the floor. "oh believe me i want to! but beth took my phone and won't give it back unless i stand here." the older blonde huffed, eyes dropping to the array of food laid out on the bed.

"want some?" laura offered kindly as you smacked her leg unimpressed. "oh fine! come on." you sighed and made room for your older sister to sit with the two of you on the bed, laura's running commentary now repeated toward leah as she handed her various different treats to try.

~

"come on juliet you can kiss romeo at training tomorrow, lets go!" leah yelled out and clapped impatiently from where she was leaning against your car waiting as you exchanged kiss after kiss with the blonde in the doorway.

"i love you." "i love you more." "i love you most." "i love you-"

"we get it you're both sickeningly in love now lets go!" leah yelled out again with a groan, dragging her hands down her face as you placed one more sweet kiss to the austrians lips and turned away.

"honestly you're both so obsessed with one another its disgusting-" leah started as she carefully slid into the car and you placed her crutches in the back, closing the door after you and clicking in your belt.

"-but it's nice to see you so happy." your sister sent you a sincere smile which you returned gratefully as you started up the engine.

"oh look, it has a heart." you wiped a fake tear from your eye, dampening the sweet moment. "leah!" you yelped as she landed a firm punch to your arm at the comment.

"you just couldn't let us have a nice sisterly moment could you." "you just assaulted me and it's my fault we can't have nice moments?" "oh toughen up don't be such a wuss." "when my girlfriend has two good knees again...i'm gonna get her to kick your ass."

[gatheringbones]

[“For some of us, taking a deep breath and a moment to reframe or refocus our thoughts after an upsetting event will be enough to halt our physiological stress response. However, members of populations subject to weathering are rarely—if ever—responding to a single acute stressor. Their bodies are in constant biopsychosocial motion fulfilling their many and compelling responsibilities, which also steals their chances of having “me time.”

A 2004 ethnography of low-income mothers in Chicago (Black, white, and Latina) described the complex puzzle that many face to meet the basic daily necessities for their families. Mothers commuted up to five hours a day (and rarely less than two hours), facing severe weather conditions and patching together the meandering routes of their underfunded public transportation systems. Long wait times and limited hours of availability at public-aid offices meant missing meals in order to navigate their schedules successfully. Not only was their discretionary time scarce compared to their more affluent counterparts, but the consequences of missed obligations were dire. The investigators wrote, “Mothers who received TANF benefits [Temporary Assistance to Needy Families],” for example, “faced work requirements that often did not take into account changing circumstances. If they showed up late for work because of sudden illnesses or emergencies, they often were docked prime hours or even fired. Changing family circumstances had continuing repercussions because public benefits could be cut or terminated when employment was lost.”

All in all, these strangling time constraints meant drastically reduced sleep, less family time, and less time to unwind from the day—the cruel irony being that more-structured stress meant less time to decompress. Two-thirds of the study sample led such “highly challenging” lives. One participant averred she “could never get a break.” Another observed, “With working, the kids, and cleaning, […] you just ‘do’ until you can just sit in a chair and nod off.”

Another study of low-income mothers (Black, white, and Latina), using data from the same ambitious three-cities ethnography, exemplifies the kind of extraordinary stresses and choices faced in the communities most subjected to weathering. Francine, a thirty-year-old mother of three, had no time to attend to her own stomach cancer diagnosis because she had to attend to her asthmatic son, as well as her mother who recently suffered a stroke and heart attack at the age of fifty. Lourdes, a thirty-four-year-old mother with diabetes and glaucoma, was expected to comply with welfare work requirements because her doctor insisted she could still work despite partial paralysis and blindness. As noted, 80 percent of mothers studied suffered from chronic conditions (83 percent of whom were thirty-nine or younger) yet could not afford regular doctor’s visits, owing to either lack of income or “more immediate concerns,” such as the need to attend to their child’s health problems or their need to hold on to jobs that did not give them personal time off. It is hard to imagine a “more immediate concern” than an early-onset cancer diagnosis. That addressing it might not be an immediate priority reflects the constant juggling required in high-effort coping.”]

arline t. geronimus, from weathering: the extraordinary stress of ordinary life in an unjust society, 2023

[morbidology]

In July of 2019, Julia Tomlin reported her two-year-old son, Noah, as missing. Julia's life was a constant struggle to make ends meet. Unemployed and grappling with her mental health conditions, she relied on disability checks as her primary source of income.

Diagnosed with bipolar disorder, attention deficit disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder, Julia's daily life was said to be a battle against her circumstances. The family also depended on various forms of government assistance to survive.

Food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid were lifelines that kept them afloat.

Despite these supports, life in the trailer park was far from easy, and Julia often found herself overwhelmed by the demands of raising three young children on her own. Of her three children, Julia seemed to have a particular concern for Noah.

She believed he might have autism, though no formal diagnosis had been made.

Noah exhibited behaviours that apparently worried her—he frequently rocked back and forth to soothe himself, sometimes banging his head in distress. He had been a late walker, and his speech development was slow, leaving him often silent or babbling words that were difficult to understand.

But after Noah was reported missing, detectives learned some very disturbing truths about Julia, and their suspicions were quickly heightened....

This week’s episode of Morbidology takes a look at the tragic case of Noah Tomlin. You can listen to episode 278 of Morbidology across all podcast platforms:

𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐞: https://bit.ly/4f6W6iL

𝐒𝐩𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐲: https://bit.ly/4f9OvQK

[random-thought-depository]

""Moreover, it turns out that the United States is not all that tightfisted when it comes to social spending. “If you count all public benefits offered by the federal government, America’s welfare state (as a share of its gross domestic product) is the second biggest in the world, after France’s,” Desmond tells us. Why doesn’t this largesse accomplish more?

For one thing, it unduly assists the affluent. That statistic about the U.S. spending almost as much as France on social welfare, he explains, is accurate only “if you include things like government-subsidized retirement benefits provided by employers, student loans and 529 college savings plans, child tax credits, and homeowner subsidies: benefits disproportionately flowing to Americans well above the poverty line.” To enjoy most of these, you need to have a well-paying job, a home that you own, and probably an accountant (and, if you’re really in clover, a money manager).

“The American government gives the most help to those who need it least,” Desmond argues. “This is the true nature of our welfare state, and it has far-reaching implications, not only for our bank accounts and poverty levels, but also for our psychology and civic spirit.” Americans who benefit from social spending in the form of, say, a mortgage-interest tax deduction don’t see themselves as recipients of governmental generosity. The boon it offers them may be as hard for them to recognize and acknowledge as the persistence of poverty once was to Harrington’s suburban housewives and professional men. These Americans may be anti-government and vote that way. They may picture other people, poor people, as weak and dependent and themselves as hardworking and upstanding. Desmond allows that one reason for this is that tax breaks don’t feel the same as direct payments. Although they may amount to the same thing for household incomes and for the federal budget—“You can benefit a family by lowering its tax burden or by increasing its benefits, same difference”—they are associated with an obligation and a procedure that Americans, in particular, find onerous. Tax-cutting Republican lawmakers want the process to be both difficult and Swiss-cheesed with loopholes. (“Taxes should hurt,” Ronald Reagan once said.) But that’s not the only reason. What Desmond calls the “rudest explanation” is that if, for whatever reason, we get a tax break, most of us like it. That’s the case for people affluent and lucky enough to take advantage of the legitimate breaks designed for their benefit, and for the wily super-rich who game the system with expensive lawyering and ingenious use of tax shelters.

And there are other ways, Desmond points out, that government help gets thwarted or misdirected. When President Clinton instituted welfare reform, in 1996, pledging to “transform a broken system that traps too many people in a cycle of dependence,” an older model, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, or A.F.D.C., was replaced by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF. Where most funds administered by A.F.D.C. went straight to families in the form of cash aid, TANF gave grants to states with the added directive to promote two-parent families and discourage out-of-wedlock childbirth, and let the states fund programs to achieve those goals as they saw fit. As a result, “states have come up with rather creative ways to spend TANF dollars,” Desmond writes. “Nationwide, for every dollar budgeted for TANF in 2020, poor families directly received just 22 cents. Only Kentucky and the District of Columbia spent over half of their TANF funds on basic cash assistance.” Between 1999 and 2016, Oklahoma directed more than seventy million dollars toward initiatives to promote marriage, offering couples counselling and workshops that were mostly open to people of all income levels. Arizona used some of the funds to pay for abstinence education; Pennsylvania gave some of its TANF money to anti-abortion programs. Mississippi treated its TANF funds as an unexpected Christmas present, hiring a Christian-rock singer to perform at concerts, for instance, and a former professional wrestler—the author of an autobiography titled “Every Man Has His Price”—to deliver inspirational speeches. (Much of this was revealed by assiduous investigative reporters, and by a 2020 audit of Mississippi’s Department of Human Services.) Moreover, because states don’t have to spend all their TANF funds each year, many carry over big sums. In 2020, Tennessee, which has one of the highest child-poverty rates in the nation, left seven hundred and ninety million dollars in TANF funds unspent."

- The New Yorker: "How America Manufactures Poverty" by Margaret Talbot (review of Matthew Desmond's Poverty by America).

[thebiscuiteternal]

The entire story is brutal and worth reading, but I want to point out some of the fact points interspersed in the second part, because they highlight just how fucking little the assholes who built this post-Roe-reversal system care.

Research indicates access to paid family leave is linked to a decrease in infant deaths and better economic, physical and mental health for new parents. Currently, 13 states have some form of paid parental leave to care for newborns. No states that banned abortion offer paid parental leave.

In 2019, nearly half of Tennesseans lived in a child care desert, an area that has three times as many children as licensed child care slots. In Mayron’s city, Clarksville, more than 3,000 children in 2023 qualified for government assistance for child care, but 941 were unable to access it. Between 2011 and 2020, 13 bills aimed at alleviating child care burdens were proposed in the Tennessee legislature. All of them failed.

In Tennessee, a family of four making less than $39,000 a year should be eligible for food stamps if their current bank balance is under $3,001 and they share their household with a person over 60 or with a disability. Tennessee’s child poverty rate ranks among the worst in the nation, in part, because families who qualify for government help aren’t getting it. About 1 in 10 families eligible for food stamps aren’t receiving them. According to researchers, the program requirements are too punitive and complicated, leaving such families shut out. In 2019, the state was holding nearly $800 million in unspent federal funding designated for temporary assistance to needy families. Since then, monthly benefits for eligible Tennesseeans have barely risen, from $277 to $387 in 2021. That ranks among the lowest in the nation for temporary cash assistance.

[autisticadvocacy]

ASAN is dismayed by the debt ceiling deal recently signed into law. While Medicaid remains protected, ensuring access to Home- and Community-Based Services (HCBS) and healthcare for many members of our community, the deal does harm to other safety net programs.

The debt ceiling negotiations were a manufactured crisis. Congress and the administration were not trying to agree on how the government will spend money in the future. Instead, the negotiations were about whether the US will keep its promises to pay for goods and services it already bought. If Congress had not raised the debt ceiling in time, the government would not pay all of its bills on time and the consequences of this would have been devastating. There would have been a recession in the US and possibly in other countries. Marginalized people— including disabled people— would have been hit especially hard by job losses. Benefits payments to individuals and federal wages might have stopped. Delayed Medicare and Medicaid payments could have caused chaos in the health care system and interrupted the HCBS many of us need to live in our communities. These consequences would have especially affected marginalized communities.

Congress should have raised the debt ceiling without trying to change federal spending, as it regularly did prior to 2011. It was irresponsible for some members of Congress to put Americans at risk of interrupted benefits and health care access, and people around the world in danger of job loss and poverty, just to try to cut benefits programs. Congress should decide what the country will spend in budget negotiations, not put millions of people at risk of hardship by arguing about whether to pay for what the country has already bought. 

The outcomes of the debt limit deal are mixed. We are glad that Medicaid was protected from funding cuts and new work reporting requirements. ASAN sends our thanks to everyone who contacted their legislators to protect Medicaid, and helped keep this vital program unchanged.

We are disgusted at the way the debt ceiling deal harms people who count on other lifesaving programs. The debt ceiling deal caps federal spending on many safety net programs for two years. This means that the programs’ budgets will not keep up with inflation. Because of inflation, these programs will need more money to fund the same amount of services, but the cap makes sure they will not get increased funding. This will work like a budget cut over time, hurting people who are part of these programs now or will need them in the future.

Congress also added more work reporting requirements to the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program and raised the age for work reporting requirements on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). That means that people on SNAP will have to continue meeting work reporting requirements until age 55 from now on, rather than 49. Fewer people will be able to get these critical benefits. Those who can still get help through these programs will have to fill out more paperwork and go through complicated processes that are often inaccessible. While there are some exemptions for disabled people, this ignores the fact that many disabled people cannot get a diagnosis due to disparities in healthcare costs and access. This is especially true for multiply marginalized people, including people of color and trans people. People without a diagnosis will not be able to use these exemptions. 

People will lose access to the benefits they need as a result of the funding caps and new work reporting requirements. Many of those people are disabled or otherwise marginalized. The decisions made during the debt ceiling negotiations will not meaningfully change the government’s debt. What they will do is cause mass suffering for some of the most marginalized people in our society. Parts of the debt ceiling deal, like cuts to funding for tax collection, will increase how much money the government has to borrow to meet its financial commitments. It is clear that the members of Congress who demanded changes to federal spending in exchange for raising the debt ceiling did not prioritize improving the federal government’s finances. Instead, their top priority was slashing assistance to the most vulnerable Americans.

ASAN remains committed to defending programs that serve as a lifeline for our communities, especially Medicaid. The fight for our community’s dignity and access to lifesaving essentials, like food, home- and community-based services, and access to healthcare does not end here — and we remain dedicated to seeing it through.

The Autistic Self Advocacy Network seeks to advance the principles of the disability rights movement with regard to autism. ASAN believes that the goal of autism advocacy should be a world in which autistic people enjoy equal access, rights, and opportunities. We work to empower autistic people across the world to take control of our own lives and the future of our common community, and seek to organize the autistic community to ensure our voices are heard in the national conversation about us. Nothing About Us, Without Us!

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Progressive economists and advocates warned that the tentative debt ceiling agreement reached Saturday by the White House and Republican leaders would needlessly gash nutrition aid, rental assistance, education programs, and more—all while making it easier for the wealthy to avoid taxes.

The deal, which now must win the support of both chambers of Congress, reportedly includes two years of caps on non-military federal spending, sparing a Pentagon budget replete with staggering waste and abuse.

The Associated Press reported that the deal "would hold spending flat for 2024 and increase it by 1% for 2025," not keeping pace with inflation.

The agreement would also impose new work requirements on some recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) while scaling back recently approved IRS funding, a gift to rich tax cheats.

In exchange for the spending cuts and work requirements, Republican leaders have agreed to lift the debt ceiling until January 1, 2025—a tradeoff that House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is pitching as a victory to his caucus, which includes far-right members who have demanded more aggressive austerity.

President Joe Biden, for his part, called the deal "a compromise, which means not everyone gets what they want."

Lindsay Owens, executive director of the Groundwork Collaborative, said in a statement Saturday night that "this is a punishing deal made worse only by the fact that there was no reason for President Biden to negotiate with Speaker McCarthy over whether or not the United States government should pay its bills," alluding to the President's executive authority.

"After inflation eats its share, flat funding will result in fewer households accessing rental assistance, fewer kids in Head Start, and fewer services for seniors," said Owens. "The deal represents the worst of conservative budget ideology; it cuts investments in workers and families, adds onerous and wasteful new hurdles for families in need of support, and protects the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations from paying their fair share in taxes."

The agreement comes days before the U.S. is, according to the Treasury Department, set to run out of money to pay its obligations, imperiling Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments and potentially hurling the entire global economy into chaos.

House Republicans have leveraged those alarming possibilities to secure painful federal spending cuts and aid program changes that could leave more people hungry, sick, and unable to afford housing, critics said.

"For no real reason at all, hungry people are set to lose food while tax cheats get a free pass," wrote Angela Hanks, chief of programs at Demos.

While legislative text has not yet been released, the deal would reportedly impose work requirements on adult SNAP recipients without dependents up to the age of 54, increasing the current age limit of 49. Policy analysts and anti-hunger activists have long decried SNAP time limits and work requirements as cruel and ineffective at boosting employment. (Most adult SNAP recipients already work.)

"The SNAP changes are nominally extending work requirements to ages 50 to 54. In reality, especially as the new rule is implemented, this is just an indiscriminate cull of a bunch of 50- to 54-year-olds from SNAP who won't realize there are new forms they need to fill out," said Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project.

Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, wrote on Twitter that the agreement is "cruel and shortsighted," pointing to the work requirements and real-term cuts to rental assistance "during an already worsening homelessness crisis."

"House Rs held our nation's lowest-income people hostage in exchange for lifting the debt ceiling," Yentel continued. "The debt ceiling 'deal' could lead to tens of thousands of families losing rental assistance... Expanding ineffective work requirements and putting time limits on food assistance adds salt to the wound, further harming some of the lowest-income and most marginalized people in our country."

The White House and Republican leaders also reportedly agreed to some permitting reforms that climate groups have slammed as a boon for the fossil fuel industry. According to The New York Times, the agreement "includes measures meant to speed environmental reviews of certain energy projects," though the scope of the changes is not yet clear.

And while the deal doesn't appear to include a repeal of Biden's student debt cancellation plan—which is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court—it does contain a provision that would cement the end of the student loan repayment pause, drawing fury from debt relief campaigners.

The deal must now get through Congress, a difficult task given likely opposition from progressive lawmakers who oppose attacks on aid programs and Republicans who want steeper cuts.

As the Times reported, "Lawmakers in the House Freedom Caucus were privately pillorying the deal on Saturday night, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus had already begun to fume about it even before negotiators finalized the agreement."

Amy Hanauer, executive director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, said Sunday that "it's a relief to see that congressional leaders and the President have come to an agreement to raise the debt limit and avert an economic disaster."

"But by instituting work requirements for critical assistance programs and rescinding important funding to crack down on wealthy tax cheats, this deal will rig the economy even more in favor of the most well-off Americans while failing to fix the real structural problems that led to the current debt crisis in the first place," said Hanauer. "The deal avoids the elephant in the room: it includes no new revenues even though tax cuts of the past few decades were a primary driver of deficit growth."

"And next up, many Republican lawmakers want to double down on tax cuts by pushing through many more tax cuts that would most help wealthy families and corporations," Hanauer added. "They should do the opposite."

[darkeagleruins]

ILLEGAL ALIEN WELFARE:

Federal agencies under the Biden Administration, consider illegals aliens paroled into the country to be “QUALIFIED ALIENS” This designation opens the welfare state to them. Here is what you pay for:

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

Emergency Medicaid (includes labor and delivery)

Full-Scope Medicaid

Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)

Medicare “Premium-Free” Part A (hospitalization)

Premium “Buy-in” Medicare

HUD Public Housing and Section 8 Programs

Title XX Block Grants

Social Security

This is the tip of the iceberg. You also pay for NGO and FEMA funding that also pays for:

Housing, utilities, and food

Transportation

Health and medical

English language training

Social adjustment and other services

America is 34.5 Trillion dollars in debt.

How do you explain this?

[mariacallous]

The U.S. social safety net is a collection of programs designed to support families experiencing financial hardship. The design of some of the programs is largely determined by the states, while others have structures and benefits largely determined at the federal level. State and federal policies interact to determine benefit levels—for example, state-directed cash transfers reduce eligibility for federally-directed food assistance. As a result, similar families are eligible for substantially different benefit packages depending on where they live.

One might expect that “blue states”—defined here as those that voted for Biden in 2020— have more generous safety net benefits. We explore benefit variation by state political leaning and find that this is true for programs under state control—blue states generally have higher average state-directed benefit levels. However, “red states”—defined as those that voted for Trump in 2020—generally have higher average federally-directed benefit levels. Although total benefit levels are higher in blue states, federally-directed benefits narrow the gap (and close the gap after adjusting for state cost-of-living differences). In other words, the federal government is providing more assistance to residents of less generous states, which largely offsets disparities in state-directed benefit generosity.

Background

While the federal government provides some social safety net support to eligible low-income Americans, states play a major role in structuring certain support programs for their residents. For instance, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program is partially funded through federal block grants, but states have wide leeway in how the money is spent. States also often use state Earned Income Tax Credits (EITCs) to bolster support for low-income families. However, state-level benefit generosity variation isn’t solely determined based on state-directed benefits. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which is funded and directed by the federal government, is partially dependent on how much cash assistance a household is receiving from programs like TANF.

We analyze how state choices for the programs they most directly control—TANF and the state EITC—vary based on a state’s political leaning and impact overall benefit generosity. We focus on 2019 generosity because it excludes pandemic-related safety net expansions that have since expired.

To investigate state-level variation in benefit generosity, we calculate the benefits theoretically available to a fixed group of single-parent families if they lived in different states. Through this approach (described in our data appendix), we hold constant differences in demographic factors and earnings across states. We aggregate average values of food and cash benefits available to this fixed group of single-parent families into an index of generosity reported in 2022 dollars. Therefore, any state-level differences in average benefit amounts can be attributed to differences in benefit rules.

[strictlyfavorites]

At least 59.4 percent of illegal immigrant-led homes use one or more welfare programs, compared with 39 percent of households headed by people born in the United States, according to the Dec. 19 report.

High rates of welfare use among illegal immigrants “primarily reflect their generally lower education levels and their resulting low-incomes, coupled with the large share who have U.S.-born children who are eligible for all welfare programs from birth,” the report reads.

“More than half of all illegal immigrant households have one or more U.S.-born children.”

Children born to illegal immigrants in the United States, also known as “anchor babies,‘ are considered to have automatic birthright citizenship even though the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t explicitly ruled on the matter. Illegal immigrants can’t access most welfare programs, a restriction that eases for their children who are born in the country.

“The American welfare system is designed in large part to help low-income families with children, which describes a large share of immigrants,” CIS states in the report.

A dozen states offer Medicaid to all low-income children regardless of immigration status. Such children also have access to various government food and meal programs.

Programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program, free or subsidized lunch and breakfast for students, and Medicaid for children (Children’s Health Insurance Program) were “explicitly created for minors,” the report states.

The CIS report is based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2022 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP).

“The reality is that illegal immigrants are included in the SIPP, a large share of them are poor, and they or their U.S.-born children have welfare eligibility; and many take advantage of this eligibility,” CIS stated.

“A very large share of immigrants come to America, have children, struggle to provide for them, and so turn to taxpayers for support. This can be seen as especially problematic given that there is already a large number of Americans who are also struggling to provide for their children.”

According to data from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the total number of U.S.-born children of illegal aliens in the United States as of June stood at 5.78 million, a population more than two times that of Chicago.

FAIR estimates that “illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children impose a net annual cost of $150.6 billion on American taxpayers as of the beginning of 2023.” Over the past five years, the annual cost has risen by almost $35 billion.

“This burden will only continue to grow as a result of the Biden administration’s open-borders policies,” the organization warns.

Ending Birthright Citizenship

Multiple GOP members have taken a strong stance against birthright citizenship. In 2018, former President Donald Trump said he would remove birthright citizenship via executive order, which didn’t happen.

In his 2024 campaign, President Trump has reiterated his position on the matter. In a May video, President Trump promised to sign an executive order on day one of his second term to solve the issue.

Such an order would end the “unfair practice known as birth tourism, where hundreds of thousands of people from all over the planet squat in hotels for their last few weeks of pregnancy to illegitimately and illegally obtain U.S. citizenship for the child, often to later exploit chain migration to jump the line and get green cards for themselves and their family members.”

“At least one parent will have to be a citizen or a legal resident in order to qualify,” President Trump stated.

Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy called for an end to birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants during the second GOP debate, in September.

“Now, the left will howl about the Constitution and the 14th Amendment. The difference between me and them is I’ve actually read the 14th Amendment. And what it says is that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the laws and jurisdiction thereof are citizens,” Mr. Ramaswamy said.

“So nobody believes that the kid of a Mexican diplomat in this country enjoys birthright citizenship—not a judge or legal scholar in this country will disagree with me on that. Well, if the kid of a Mexican diplomat doesn’t enjoy birthright citizenship, then neither does the kid of an illegal migrant who broke the law to come here.”

In July, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) introduced a proposal called “End Birthright Citizenship Fraud Act of 2023,” which aims to abolish automatic birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.

Under the legislation, at least one parent of the child must be a U.S. national or a refugee, have lawful permanent citizenship, or be an active member of the military.

“My legislation recognizes that American citizenship is a privilege—not an automatic right to be co-opted by illegal aliens,” Mr. Gaetz said in a statement.

“This is an important step in preserving the sanctity of American citizenship and ensures that citizenship is not treated as a loophole to be exploited but rather a privilege to be earned when legally migrating to our country.”

[partisan-by-default]

Beginning in January 2024, every pregnant person in Flint is poised to receive a one-time payment of $1,500 followed by $500 payments per month for the first year of their child’s life. Made through a new program called Rx Kids, these funds could mean the difference between being able to make rent or pay for utilities, Hurt explained.

“First-time moms need cribs – you name it, we need it,” said Hurt, who has five children, including a 6-month-old baby. “There are so many things this could help with; it could help with transportation, with groceries. I’m really excited; I think it’s really going to help.”

In a city where the childhood poverty rate is approximately 50% – and where 35.5% of the entire metropolis lives in poverty – the United States’ first-ever citywide prenatal and infant cash allowance program aims to improve residents’ health and empower children and families whose experiences with the initiative could in turn dramatically transform public policy in the country, leaders of Rx Kids said during a Monday press conference held outside the Michigan State University College of Human Medicine in Flint.  

Extensive research has found that poverty and low-income status are associated with a long list of health issues, including shorter life expectancy and higher rates of infant mortality, asthma, depression and substance abuse.

At Monday’s event, Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist, state Sen. John Cherry (D-Flint), Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha – a Flint pediatrician whose research helped to expose the water crisis that, beginning in 2014, left the city to drink lead-contaminated water – and H. Luke Shaefer, the director of University of Michigan’s Poverty Solutions initiative who is partnering with Hanna-Attisha to launch Rx Kids, announced that the state’s Fiscal Year 2024 budget includes $16.5 million for the program.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer on Monday signed the $57.4 billion general government budget, which includes the Rx Kids money that’s coming from federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant funds.

[miggylol]

I'm dropping this link for people who haven't seen it. Anyone who meets income qualifications, participates in a variety of federal programs, or meets the qualifications for a particular provider's low-income program can get

$30 off their monthly broadband internet service

$100 off a purchase of a computer or tablet

The page further says: "To deliver maximum cost savings to families, the Biden-Harris Administration has secured commitments from 20 leading internet providers to offer ACP-eligible households a high-speed internet plan for no more than $30 per month. Eligible families who pair their ACP benefit with one of these plans can receive high-speed internet at no cost."

Here are the income guidelines:

Here is the list of qualifying programs. If any one person in the household participates in any of these programs, the household qualifies for the internet discount:

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as Food Stamps

Medicaid

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

Federal Public Housing Assistance (FPHA)

Veterans Pension and Survivors Benefit

Free and Reduced-Price School Lunch Program or School Breakfast Program, including at U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Community Eligibility Provision schools

Federal Pell Grant (received in the current award year)

Lifeline

Certain Tribal assistance programs, including Bureau of Indian Affairs General Assistance, Head Start (only households meeting the income qualifying standard), Tribal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (Tribal TANF), and Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations

Further relevant information and the sign-up directions are available on the page.

[lastweeksshirttonight]

John speaks tonight about TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), a necessary program having its money diverted away from its main purpose of providing cash assistance for families with parents who are looking for work. This is a genuinely infuriating one.

This also has the most baffling pieces of music I've ever heard in my life. I truly didn't know how to react to the music in this.