Ahead of Wednesday’s House vote on the debt ceiling deal, progressive lawmakers have introduced a pair of amendments to remove provisions that would hurt the nation’s most economically vulnerable populations.
On Tuesday, Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Massachusetts) filed an amendment to the legislation that would strike a provision buried in the bill that would restart student loan payments at the end of this summer and prohibit the Biden administration from further extending the pause.
“The student loan payment pause has been an essential lifeline for workers and families struggling to make ends meet,” Pressley said in a statement on the amendment. “Republicans continue to play games with our economy, with disregard for our most vulnerable families.”
Pressley’s proposal is popular among the public. According to polling released by the Student Borrower Protection Center and Data for Progress on Tuesday, 61 percent of voters say that the payment pause should be extended if the Supreme Court strikes down Biden’s cancellation plan, which it appears poised to do.
“The pause on student loan payments remains one of the most durably popular pieces of economic policy because the American people recognize what Washington has long struggled to understand: the student loan system is broken and the burden of student debt creates a barrier to economic opportunity for all of us,” said Student Borrower Protection Center executive director Mike Pierce in a statement. “The debt limit deal raises the stakes even higher for millions of working people with student debt.”
Also on Tuesday, Representatives Cori Bush (D-Missouri) and Barbara Lee (D-California) introduced an amendment to the debt limit bill that would remove an expansion to work requirements for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps.
Republicans have proposed extending the age range in which people have to prove that they’re working in order to receive SNAP benefits — which are already notoriously hard to receive — from 49 years to 54 years old. The proposal has been harshly criticized by progressives and anti-hunger advocates, who say that such a proposal could leave thousands of people to experience food insecurity just because Republicans didn’t think they deserved to eat.
“Republicans’ insistence that the federal government rip food from vulnerable people’s mouths in order to solve their manufactured crisis is despicable and frankly outrageous,” said Bush and Lee in a joint statement about their amendment. “Work requirements are ineffective at best, and deadly at worst. Allowing people to starve and children to go hungry is not a solution to any problem — it’s racist, classist, and inhumane.”
The amendment has been cosponsored by Representatives Jamaal Bowman (D-New York), Gwen Moore (D-Wisconsin) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan).
The debt ceiling deal struck between House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-California) and President Joe Biden furthers Republicans’ objective of weakening SNAP and reducing the number of recipients through more work requirements, though the GOP says their goal is to reduce government spending.
A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report out Tuesday night found that, contrary to Republicans’ supposed fiscal responsibility, the SNAP changes would actually end up costing $2.1 billion more within the next ten years, while an estimated 78,000 more people would be eligible for SNAP benefits, due to new exclusions to work requirements like for veterans and people experiencing homelessness. (Bush and Lee’s amendments are targeted at getting rid of the age hike and would keep the new exclusions.)
But CBO’s findings may be overly simplistic, progressives and experts have said. The finding is “HIGHLY theoretical,” wrote The American Prospect executive editor David Dayen on Twitter on Wednesday. “There’s no funding to identify eligible people without benefits or to help them apply or find the necessary documentation. I obviously haven’t seen the model but it seems like wishful thinking to me.”
Dayen further pointed out that it is highly unlikely that SNAP would be able to inform all unhoused people, for instance, that they were newly eligible for the program, and that it could distribute and process all the paperwork necessary to prove their eligibility.Lawmakers have also expressed skepticism over the CBO finding. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Massachusetts) told Politico that kicking hundreds of thousands of people aged 50 to 54 off of SNAP couldn’t be balanced out with the new work requirement exclusions. “This is a food benefit. So moving the deck chairs around and saying, you get food, but you don’t — that’s not a very convincing argument to me,” McGovern said.
Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn
Dear Truthout Community,
If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.
We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.
Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.
There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.
Last week, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?
It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.
We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.
We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.
Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment.
We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.
With love, rage, and solidarity,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy