Resource: Fact Sheet

Medicaid expansion by the numbers

By Jim Carnes
  • ± 223,000 Alabamians are caught in the coverage gap, unable to afford health insurance. Another 120,000 or more are stretching to pay for private or employer-based coverage.
  • 13 Alabama hospitals – including 7 rural ones – have closed since 2011.
  • 88 percent of Alabama’s rural hospitals operate in the red.
  • If we expand Medicaid to cover low-income adults, the permanent federal match is 9:1.
  • The first four years of federal match would generate $11.4 billion in new economic activity:

— $6.7 billion in direct federal spending

— $4.6 billion in indirect economic activity

  • Over four years, the enhanced match would free up $316 million in current state spending to address additional unmet health care needs:

— Existing Medicaid groups – $87.1 million

— Mental health & substance abuse – $121.6 million

— Corrections – $46.8 million

— Public health – $60.6 million

  • Expansion-related economic activity would generate $446 million in state tax revenues over four years. New local tax revenues would total $270 million over four years.
  • Net cost to the state would be $168 million in the first year, dropping to about $25 million annually in the following years because of savings and revenues, for a total of $239 million over four years. (This figure does not include local revenue gains.)

Bottom line

Medicaid expansion would help more than 340,000 Alabamians get health coverage, stabilize our rural hospitals and jump-start our economy – all for a dime on the dollar. It’s a bargain Alabama can’t afford to pass up.

(Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Alabama Hospital Association; David J. Becker, “Medicaid Expansion in Alabama: Revisiting the Economic Case for Expansion,” January 2019; Manatt, “Alabama Medicaid Expansion: Summary of Estimated Costs and Savings, SFYs 2020-2023,” February 2019.)

How the state grocery tax hurts struggling Alabamians

By Carol Gundlach

No matter how much or how little money we have, we all have to eat to live. But the share of earnings that people must devote to securing basic survival is not the same for everyone. Food takes a much bigger bite out of the household budget for low-income families than for richer ones. And that means sales taxes on groceries hit harder at lower incomes. Most states either exempt groceries from state sales taxes entirely or have other ways to help offset grocery taxes for low-income people.

Alabama is one of only three states with no tax break on groceries. (Mississippi and South Dakota are the others.) Our state sales tax rate is 4 percent, but local taxes have driven the total rate to 10 percent or even 11 percent in many areas of the state.

Sales taxes are especially regressive in Alabama, because they apply to many kinds of spending that are not optional.

A gallon of milk plus sales tax costs the same for a family at the poverty line as for a millionaire. But that sales tax makes up a much larger share of income – and has a greater effect on the household’s standard of living – for a low-income family than for a richer one. That means Alabama’s state grocery tax disproportionately affects households struggling to make ends meet.

Ways to untax groceries

Other states offer a range of options for how to reduce or end grocery taxes. Full exemption would ensure an immediate tax break on groceries for all state residents. (Food bought with benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is not taxed, but those benefits cover only a portion of food costs for most participants.) The state also could tax groceries at a reduced rate or create a targeted Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to help offset grocery taxes for residents with low incomes.

No matter how Alabama seeks to untax groceries, the state should replace the revenue. Most state sales tax revenues in Alabama support K-12 education. Removing the grocery tax without replacing that money could cost schools more than $300 million a year. Alabama could recoup those funds by limiting or ending its state income tax deduction for federal income tax payments, a tax break that overwhelmingly benefits the richest households. The state also could expand sales taxes on more services and luxury goods.

It’s time for Alabama to join 47 other states in giving a tax break on groceries. It would make our state’s upside-down tax system more progressive. And it would be an important step toward boosting economic security for all Alabamians.

Ensuring basic fairness: Civil asset forfeiture reform in Alabama

By Dev Wakeley

Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is a basic guarantee of both the U.S. and Alabama constitutions. But Alabama’s civil asset forfeiture policies allow police to seize cars, cash or other personal property without a conviction – or even a criminal charge – if they find probable cause to link the property to a crime. In most cases, owners can’t get their property back unless they then prove it wasn’t connected to a crime.

Civil asset forfeiture disproportionately harms communities of color and low-income people, who often can’t afford to challenge seizures in court. The centuries-old practice surged into common use in drug trafficking cases in the 1980s, but its reach quickly grew. Many Alabamians affected today are charged with marijuana possession or other low-level crimes.

And in many cases, the property owner isn’t charged with a crime at all. Alabama Appleseed and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) reviewed 1,110 civil asset forfeiture cases filed in Alabama in 2015. In one in four of those cases, property owners weren’t charged with a crime. (The head of the Alabama District Attorneys Association said many of the seizures resulted from informants but didn’t cite a percentage.)

In half of the cases that Appleseed and SPLC reviewed, the amount of cash involved was $1,372 or less. That’s more than a month’s pay for a minimum-wage worker – but far less than it would cost to hire a lawyer to fight the seizure in court.

Solutions in other states

Every state allows asset forfeiture, but many have implemented meaningful reforms to lower the risk of unjustifiable seizures. Florida’s civil forfeiture law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the property was involved in a crime. North Carolina requires a conviction with evidence of the property’s probable connection to crime. Fourteen states, including Georgia, make forfeiture records available to the public online. All these protections make unjust forfeitures less likely.

What Alabama can do

Alabama’s civil asset forfeiture practices need numerous changes to protect due process and ensure basic fairness. Here are a few options:

  • Require a criminal conviction to transfer property ownership.
  • Place all proceeds in the General Fund rather than letting agencies keep them.
  • Require proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the property’s connection to a crime.
  • Require judges to consider the hardship that loss of a primary residence or vehicle would cause for families or others.
  • Eliminate “abandonment” forms that can be used to urge drivers to give up their property rights during a traffic stop.
  • Award attorney fees to anyone who prevails against the government in forfeiture cases.
  • Require forfeiture records to be made publicly available online.

Alabamians deserve a fairer and more transparent civil asset forfeiture process. These reforms and others would add needed protections and help deter abuses of civil asset forfeiture in Alabama.

Automatic voter registration: Streamlining a basic right

By Dev Wakeley

Voting rights are a flashpoint in Alabama’s history. The long denial of those rights to African Americans led to Bloody Sunday in Selma, the march to Montgomery and eventually passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In the half-century since, our state has taken a few steps that increase voting access for communities of color. But our system remains cumbersome and expensive. Automatic voter registration (AVR) would be a major step toward bringing our state’s system into the 21st century.

Before every major election in Alabama, a surge of activity focuses on voter rolls. For people seeking to exercise one of the most basic rights of democracy, getting registered and keeping that registration current can fall prey to busy schedules and confusing rules. Signing up eligible voters and ensuring lists are up-to-date are important responsibilities that cost Alabama advocates, civic groups and state officials a considerable amount of time and money.

There is a better way. Since 2015, sixteen states (including Georgia) and the District of Columbia have approved AVR, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. AVR registers eligible people when they apply for a driver’s license or share information with agencies in other routine ways. (People who do not want to register can opt out.) AVR saves money and removes barriers to civic participation.

A common-sense change

Voter registration in Alabama is outdated. In many places, the state uses the same pen-and-paper methods in operation for more than a century. Registering voters this way requires paying for printing, postage and staff to process the forms. If a person moves, the process is repeated, with those costs paid again. Some counties do conduct registration electronically. That requires less paper, but the kiosks are a considerable expense and still require staff.

Alabama could have saved about $2 million a year since 2015 by automatically registering all voters, according to estimates based on Oregon’s registration costs. Registering a new voter or updating records cost $7.67 per transaction in 2008, according to an Oregon study by the Pew Center on the States. But using data that agencies already have to register that voter automatically would have cost just 3 cents, Pew found. In Alabama, more than 1 million people have registered to vote since January 2015.

Building on previous gains

Alabama already offers voter registration services at several state agencies. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (aka “Motor Voter Act”) requires states to give people the chance to register to vote when they apply for a driver’s license. It also requires state agencies that provide public assistance, or that offer state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to people with disabilities, to offer voter registration services. Armed forces recruiting stations must provide registration services, and states must designate additional agencies of their choice to do so as well. Registering all eligible citizens automatically would increase the efficiency of a task the state already performs.

AVR would save time for citizens and public agencies across Alabama. Automatically registering people electronically would be less costly and time-consuming than processing paper forms. AVR also would build on Alabama’s recent improvements to streamline voter registration at Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices. Those important changes have made it faster and easier for Alabamians to register to vote, but making registration automatic (with an opt-out choice for people who don’t want to register) would make it even faster and even easier. AVR would save people time at the courthouse. More importantly, it would encourage civic engagement by breaking down barriers to voting.

Civic boost, lower cost

Just 50 percent of people registered to vote in Alabama did so in the 2018 general election – and even that turnout exceeded expectations. Low voter participation weakens democracy in our state. People who don’t vote are less likely to be engaged in their communities in other ways, and less likely to feel their voices are heard.

Other states have seen significantly higher voter participation after implementing AVR. Georgia, which put AVR in place before the 2016 election, saw voter turnout increase 11.4 percent from 2014 to 2018. By taking similar steps to remove paperwork barriers to democracy, Alabama can increase the number of people who participate in electing government officials.

Many states with AVR have seen large cost savings as well. For example, Oregon used AVR in 2016 to re-register 35,000 people with lapsed registrations and to register more than 220,000 people overall. Those moves saved an estimated $264,400 and $1.7 million, respectively, compared to doing so by hand.

AVR would be a cost-effective way to register, re-register or update voter registrations for hundreds of thousands of Alabamians. Alabama has nearly 300,000 voters on the inactive voter list, plus tens of thousands of people who are eligible but not yet registered. AVR would get those folks on the voter rolls at a much lower cost than traditional paper registration. It also offers a more efficient way to update records for people who have moved or changed their name. The money saved through AVR could be used to meet a range of other needs in Alabama. That could include expanding opportunities in underfunded schools, improving aging infrastructure or providing state funding for public transportation.

How to implement AVR

Alabama shouldn’t wait for federal action to boost civic participation. Three big policy choices could decide the scope of state-level AVR here:

— Legislative or administrative? Alabama can implement AVR through the Legislature or administrative rulemaking. States have used both options for automatic registration. Legislative implementation, used in most states, allows more input from elected officials in decision-making. Rulemaking can have a quick turnaround. Georgia, for example, conducted its rulemaking in 2016 and implemented AVR the same year.

— DMV-only or through all agencies? Every state with AVR, other than Alaska, uses its DMV to register voters, according to the Brennan Center. DMV implementation requires only one agency to modernize its procedures, and DMV users are a broad cross-section of society. But DMV-only implementation is likely to leave out many seniors, people with disabilities, and other people who are less likely to drive. Because DMV registration does not serve some people, some states offer automatic registration at other agencies as well.

— Pre-registration for citizens under age 18? Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia allow citizens to pre-register to vote before their 18th birthdays. Automating pre-registration would reduce paperwork and allow more young Alabamians to participate in democracy.

Bottom line: AVR by 2020

As our state enters its third century, Alabama should launch a new era of strengthened voting rights by implementing automatic voter registration in time for the 2020 general election. AVR would cut red tape, save taxpayers millions of dollars a year and, most importantly, increase participation in the democratic process. Ensuring everyone’s voice is heard is an essential step toward building a better Alabama for all.

Public transit is an investment in Alabama’s future

By Dev Wakeley

It’s time to jump-start public transportation in Alabama. Our lack of state support for this vital service is hurting people, communities and the broader economy. Many Alabama seniors, people with disabilities, and people with low incomes rely on public transit to go to work, get to the doctor and run essential errands. Yet unlike almost all other states, Alabama provides no state money to help meet those needs. Alabama can fix this problem with a General Fund appropriation to the Public Transportation Trust Fund.

Lack of investment leaves Alabama behind

Alabama’s gasoline tax brought in more than $430 million in 2018. But not one penny of that money is available to public transit agencies. A 1952 constitutional amendment prohibits the use of gas tax revenues for anything other than road and bridge construction and maintenance, law enforcement, and highway-related debt payment. Alabama spends about $7 of every $100 of its state budgets on transportation, but none of that money goes to public transit.

Public transportation is vital to the well-being of families throughout Alabama. In the Birmingham metropolitan area alone, 3 million bus rides per year help take people where they need to go. But a lack of funding severely limits the bus schedules and routes there and elsewhere. No public transit system in Alabama operates past 11 p.m., even on weekends. Many rural lines operate only from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays, and they often are booked weeks in advance. Maintenance problems can cause hours of wait time between buses on the lines that do exist.

Alabama is one of only five states to provide no state funding for public transit, unlike all four of our neighbors. By failing to invest in these services, Alabama leaves millions of dollars in federal matching funds on the table yearly. If public transit agencies in the state invest in new buses or vans, the federal government can contribute $4 for every $1 that Alabama invests. For other necessary public transportation expenses, the federal government can double any state investment.

Transit funding expands economic opportunity

Stronger investment in public transportation could create hundreds of good-paying jobs in every part of our state. Every $1 million spent on public transit capital improvements creates 24 full-time jobs, and every $1 million spent on operation creates 41 full-time jobs, according to the American Public Transportation Association. These are stable, long-term jobs with benefits and a 2017 median salary of $58,000.

The economic benefits of state public transit funding would stretch across Alabama. Reliable public transportation systems greatly improve the economic opportunities available in an area. Companies often determine whether to expand to a location based partly on the health and availability of public transportation there. State support for the Public Transportation Trust Fund would mean much more than just money for buses, vans and trains. It would be an investment in Alabama’s economy and quality of life. It would be an investment in our people. And it would be an investment in our state’s future.

Medicaid work requirement hurts struggling families

By Alabama Arise

Alabama Medicaid is trying to take health coverage away from our state’s poorest parents struggling to make ends meet. Gov. Kay Ivey has to get federal permission to make this harmful change. Here’s why that shouldn’t happen:

The work requirement creates a no-win, catch-22 situation.

  • It targets 75,000 of the poorest Alabamians.
  • It’s a trap: They lose coverage if they don’t work AND if they do.
  • Without Medicaid expansion, it’s a work

The work requirement hurts families and children.

  • It targets people who are already working at home, taking care of children.
  • It ignores the shortage of affordable child care and public transportation.
  • Taking away parents’ health coverage will put their children’s health at risk.

The work requirement hurts the state budget.

  • Keeping track of who’s working, who’s looking for work, who’s not working and who’s exempt is hard and expensive. Those extra administrative costs will threaten other services like mental health and child protection.
  • If the state expands child care to help the new working parents, as it should, that’s another big cost to the state.
  • The plan does not show total state costs – which taxpayers deserve to know.

The work requirement goes against the mission of Medicaid.

  • Congress set up Medicaid in 1965 to provide health coverage for people with low incomes and medical need.
  • Cutting off health coverage in the name of promoting work violates Medicaid’s core purpose.

It’s vital to keep up the drumbeat of opposition. Alabama Medicaid got more than 800 public comments in Round 1 and more than 650 in a surprise Round 2. Next comes Round 3, the crucial federal comment period. Stay tuned for details!

Proposed Alabama Medicaid changes are ‘a catch-22 that forces people into the coverage gap,’ Alabama Arise tells officials

By Alabama Arise

Alabama’s proposed new Medicaid work requirement waiver would be costly, counterproductive, ineffective and harmful to thousands of families who live in deep poverty, Alabama Arise wrote in official comments submitted to state Medicaid officials on Thursday, Oct. 11, 2018.

“Threatening loss of health care in an attempt to force work efforts, without providing the supports that would make those work attempts successful, is flagrantly cruel and will result in no outcome other than poorer, more desperate and less healthy Alabama families,” Arise’s comments concluded.

Medicaid covers about 1 million Alabamians. Of that total, the waiver would target 7.5 percent of them – about 75,000 adults with extremely low incomes who qualify for Medicaid as parents or other caretaker relatives of children. Alabamians in this group are ineligible for Medicaid if their incomes exceed 18 percent of the federal poverty level (about $312 a month for a family of three).

Because Alabama has not expanded Medicaid to cover adults with incomes below the poverty level, the state’s work requirement plan would create a “work penalty, a catch-22 that forces people into the coverage gap,” Arise wrote. About 300,000 Alabamians already are caught in the coverage gap, earning too much for Medicaid but too little to qualify for federal subsidies for Marketplace plans.

Parents who work just 10 hours a week at minimum wage earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. But the state’s proposal would require them to engage in work-related activities between 20 to 35 hours a week. That would leave thousands of Alabama parents in a no-win situation: They would lose their Medicaid coverage if they don’t work – and also if they do. Of the parents who would not qualify for an exemption – about 1.7 percent of Alabama’s total Medicaid population, by the state’s estimates – virtually all of them would end up uninsured, without access to employer-provided coverage or an affordable private plan.

Alabama’s proposal does not project the state’s cost to track Medicaid enrollees’ work activities and exemptions. It also does not identify whether or how the state would invest in child care, job training, transportation and other supports that low-income parents need to get and keep work.

Payday lending reform: Ending a debt trap in Alabama

By Dev Wakeley

On busy highways and run-down streets across the state, you can’t miss them: big, bright signs promising easy money. From payday loans to auto title pawns to anticipation loans on tax refunds, Alabamians face a dizzying array of credit services designed to trap consumers in financial quicksand. This fact sheet highlights the pitfalls of payday loans in Alabama and offers policy solutions to address them.

Legalized usury?

Payday loans allow borrowers with a bank account to use a check dated in the future (usually two weeks later) as collateral for a cash loan. To qualify, all a person needs is proof of income (a pay stub or verification of government benefits). Research shows the payday lending business model is designed to keep borrowers in debt. Borrowers who receive five or more loans a year account for the large majority of payday lenders’ business, according to research by the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL).

Most states have laws against usury, or excessive interest, but in some states like Alabama, lawmakers have carved out special exceptions for certain types of loans, including payday loans. The catch, however, is the huge profit that high interest rates pull from the pockets of vulnerable borrowers. Predatory lending promotes poverty by exploiting those caught in the gap between low wages and the real cost of getting by.

Each $100 borrowed through a payday loan in Alabama carries a “loan origination fee” of up to $17.50, and those charges occur with every renewal of the loan. With a 14-day loan period, this works out to an annual percentage rate (APR) of 456 percent. Loans that a customer cannot pay off entirely on the due date are rolled over, with no wait required for the first rollover and only a 24-hour wait required before the second. At triple-digit annual interest rates, even a short-term payoff for a payday loan can take a big bite out of a borrower’s bank account.

Details of the debt trap

Using payday loans doubles the risk that a borrower will end up in bankruptcy within two years, according to the Consumer Federation of America. It also doubles the risk of being seriously delinquent on credit cards and makes it less likely that consumers can pay other household bills. Payday loan use also increases the likelihood that a consumer’s bank account will be closed involuntarily, which may subject the borrower to criminal prosecution under worthless check laws.

Alabama’s payday loan database reveals the depth and details of the debt trap. A meager 22 percent of all payday loans go to borrowers who have more than 12 loans a year. Yet these borrowers are trapped into paying $56 million in fees, nearly half of all fees collected on payday loans in Alabama each year.

Serial borrowers are the bread and butter of payday lending, CRL research shows. Among payday borrowers who conduct multiple transactions, half take out new loans at the first possible opportunity, a process called “churning.” This cycle of deep debt is big business. After six loans, borrowers typically have paid more in fees than the amount of the initial loan.

Struggling Alabamians are common targets of payday lenders. Payday lenders are located disproportionately in low-income neighborhoods, especially ones with large black or Hispanic populations. Lenders often target seniors, people without a high school education, and families who are likely to be living from paycheck to paycheck.

Understanding opposition to payday reform

Alabama’s payday loan industry rakes in more than $100 million a year in fees. Lenders have used a portion of that money to hire a fleet of lobbyists to oppose reform in Montgomery. In 2017, a proposed state constitutional amendment to cap all consumer loans at 36 percent APR failed in the House Constitution, Campaigns and Elections Committee. And in 2018, the House Financial Services Committee killed a bill that would have given Alabama borrowers 30 days to repay payday loans (up from as few as 10 days under current law), even though the Senate voted for the measure by a significant margin.

Lenders’ inflexibility facilitates a status quo that benefits them financially. Many legislators assert that they will not consider a reform bill without input from both consumer advocates and lenders. This allows lenders to preserve their existing advantage simply by opposing even small, reasonable changes.

Straightforward solutions

No state has legalized payday lending since 2005. In fact, 18 states and the District of Columbia essentially have banned payday loans. In 2006, Congress outlawed predatory lending to military personnel and their dependents, capping interest rates at 36 percent APR and barring loans based on holding checks or debit authorization for future payment. And the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s new rule requiring lenders to assess consumers’ ability to repay could help prevent defaults (if the agency doesn’t weaken it).

Alabama could build on this momentum for change by enacting several reforms to improve the lending landscape for the state’s borrowers:

  • Capping the interest rates on all consumer loans in Alabama at 36 percent would broaden the protections that now apply to military borrowers.
  • Cutting the fee for originating a loan from the current $17.50 per $100 would lessen the financial burden on borrowers.
  • Restricting the borrowable amount to 10 percent of the borrower’s income would reduce the risk of borrowers becoming trapped because they cannot repay the entire loan amount at once.
  • Allowing borrowers to pay loans off in installments would let people work themselves out of debt gradually instead of making them pay a loan off all at once.
  • Giving borrowers 30 days to repay payday loans would cut the effective APR from 456 percent to about 220 percent. It also would reduce the administrative burden on lenders, borrowers and the state.

Bottom line

Payday lenders are on track to pull more than $1 billion in fees out of Alabama communities over the next decade. Nearly all of their profits will flow to out-of-state companies. Advocates of payday lending reform will have to build massive public support to fight the well-funded lenders, who often target legislative leaders and committee members to help protect the status quo.

The challenges may be great, but real payday lending reform for Alabama borrowers can and will happen. Proof came in 2015, when the state Banking Department responded to years of public pressure by creating a uniform statewide payday loan database and requiring lenders to check it for outstanding loans. That move kept thousands of Alabamians from sinking even deeper into debt by finally enabling the state to enforce its $500 limit on the amount of payday loans that an individual can have at one time.

Now it’s time for Alabama to take the next big step for borrowers by cutting the APR on payday loans to a more reasonable level. This simple but important change would be a great way to keep more money in our state’s economy, encourage household financial stability, and strengthen communities across Alabama.

Proposed new SNAP work requirements would harm struggling families across Alabama

By Alabama Arise

Congress is considering legislation that would impose harsh work requirements on participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). SNAP, also known as food stamps, is part of the U.S. Farm Bill that must be reauthorized by Sept. 30, 2018. The version of the Farm Bill that has passed the House Agriculture Committee contains harmful and unworkable work requirements that would cut off food assistance to as many as 2 million people.

Most SNAP participants without a disability will be subject to harsh new work requirements.

  • Every SNAP participant who does not have a disability and is not taking care of a child under age 6 would either have to work or participate in a work program for a minimum of 20 hours a week.
  • This requirement would apply to non-disabled participants between ages 18 and 59.

Participants fall through the cracks when work requirements are put on safety net programs.

  • People receiving other assistance that requires work (like TANF) often lose assistance because of missed appointments, lost paperwork or confusion, not because they refused to work.
  • SNAP participants also could lose assistance because an employer cut their hours or because they missed work due to illness or a family emergency.

People who can’t comply with the limits would lose SNAP benefits for a year or more.

  • A person who couldn’t comply would lose his or her SNAP benefits for between one year and three years depending on the number of violations.
  • The only way a failure to comply could be cured would be to work for a full month before reapplying for SNAP or to be exempted from the work requirement due to disability or another reason.

Funding for states to run work programs would be totally inadequate.

  • States would be expected to set up complicated and costly systems to track participants’ compliance with work requirements and to sanction people who don’t comply.
  • Funding given to states to provide work opportunities would be totally inadequate for real job training – possibly as low as $30 per month per recipient.
  • Both participants and state SNAP agencies will be set up to fail under this proposed law.

These work requirements are unnecessary and counterproductive.

  • Most SNAP participants who can work already do, either while receiving SNAP or in the year immediately before or after using SNAP to get through a period of unemployment.
  • Most SNAP participants who don’t work can’t work because of employment barriers like bad health, lack of child care or the need to care for an older relative.

Call your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators Richard Shelby and Doug Jones at 202-224-3121 and ask them to oppose new SNAP limits that would harm struggling Alabama families.

Why SNAP and the Farm Bill matter to Alabama

By Carol Gundlach

The Farm Bill is a federal law that funds and governs many food and agricultural programs. It must be renewed about every five years and is up for reauthorization now. The largest program in it is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). SNAP provides vital food assistance to people with very low incomes. It also plays an important role in supporting farmers, which is why it is included in the Farm Bill.

The latest proposed Farm Bill includes harmful SNAP cuts. On April 12, 2018, U.S. Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, released his proposed 2018 Farm Bill. It would increase hunger by taking food assistance away from many struggling Americans, including children in working families.

Arise believes we have a shared responsibility to keep our neighbors from going hungry. SNAP should support families and help create jobs and increase wages, not punish people who already have very low incomes. Efforts to cut SNAP when the Farm Bill is reauthorized will put hungry families and rural communities at risk.

Alabama congressmen have an important role to play in reauthorization of the Farm Bill. U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers is a member of the House Agriculture Committee that approved Conaway’s proposal on April 18, 2018, and will continue to play a role as the Farm Bill moves through Congress. U.S. Sen. Doug Jones is an important member of a bipartisan group of Senate moderates. And U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby is the new chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee. As our members of Congress consider the 2018 Farm Bill, they should ensure SNAP stays robust to help small farmers, boost the retail economy and keep food on the tables of struggling Alabama families.

Read policy analyst Carol Gundlach’s fact sheet for more on how SNAP works, how SNAP and its participants contribute to the economy, and how proposed new SNAP limits would hurt Alabama.