1. Magnitud y Carácter Histórico de los Recortes Propuestos.
Las propuestas republicanas buscan reducir la financiación de SNAP en cifras sin precedentes, siendo consistentemente descritas como el mayor recorte en la historia del programa. Las estimaciones varían, pero se centran en la marca de los cientos de miles de millones de dólares a lo largo de una década.
- “house republicans are trying to cut snap by 295 billion. This would cut it in third in what would be by far the largest snap cut in history.”.
- “republicans outdo themselves in food stamp cuts house republicans plan to cut a staggering 300 billion from snap, far more than they’d originally planned.”.
- “the budget reconciliation law the republicans passed in july cuts funding to the supplemental nutrition assistance program (snap) by about 20%, or 186 billion through 2034, the largest cuts to snap in its history.”.
- “the house-passed republican reconciliation plan would cut nearly 300 billion from the supplemental nutrition assistance program snap through 2034.”.
2. Impacto Devastador en Millones de Beneficiarios.
Los recortes amenazan la seguridad alimentaria de millones de personas, incluyendo a los grupos más vulnerables como niños, personas mayores, veteranos y familias con bajos ingresos. Se proyecta que millones perderán todos o parte de sus beneficios, exacerbando la inseguridad alimentaria.
- “this would rip food assistance away from millions of people, including households with children as young as 7 years old.”.
- “3.2 million people would lose snap benefits under gop bill, says nonpartisan congressional budget office”.
- “snap serves 40 million people and is the nation’s largest anti-hunger program. Maga republicans’ nearly 300 billion cut to snap will take food away from millions of children, seniors, veterans and americans with disabilities.”.
- “snap helps to ensure 1 in 5 kids in this country have the food they need to learn, grow, and thrive. House republicans' extreme & unprecedented snap cuts would substantially cut or terminate food assistance for more than 2 million kids.”.
3. El Propósito Político: Financiar Recortes Fiscales para los Ricos.
Una crítica recurrente es que los recortes a SNAP no buscan eficiencia, sino que sirven como mecanismo de financiación para grandes exenciones fiscales dirigidas a corporaciones y a los ciudadanos más ricos, priorizando la riqueza sobre la lucha contra el hambre.
- “it is infuriating that republicans in congress are willing to make our children go hungry so they can give tax breaks to the already rich,”.
- “the house bill slashes 300 billion over 10 years to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest households and corporations.”.
- “if enacted, it would be the largest cut to snap in history — taking food from struggling families to give tax cuts to the wealthy.”.
- “republicans cut food assistance by 187 billion so they could give tax breaks to billionaires. The reality is, they dont believe in fighting hunger.”.
4. Mecanismos Legislativos y Consecuencias Adicionales.
La legislación introduce cambios estructurales que incluyen requisitos de trabajo más estrictos y la transferencia de costos a los estados, lo que podría forzar a las administraciones estatales a reducir beneficios o, en el peor de los casos, eliminar el programa SNAP por completo a nivel estatal.
- “the bill would not only strip hundreds of billions of dollars from snap, it would transfer much of the burden of feeding hungry americans to the states”.
- “it would also impose work reqs on people aged 55-64 who benefit from snap.”.
- “the house reconciliation bill makes the largest cuts ever to food assistance. Instead of the fed govt funding 100% of snap, congress would shift costs to the state, forcing them to either fill the funding hole, cut benefits or shut down the state's snap program.”.
- “the bill eliminates snap’s nutrition education program—the piece designed to actually help families make healthier food choices.”.