Local Nonprofits Tell DC Leaders Not to Govern With Hands Tied

February 1, 2017

Shortly after I published my latest blast against the District of Columbia’s triggered tax law, the DC Fiscal Policy Institute and about 50 other local organizations sent a letter to the Mayor and Council urging them to take the same steps I characterized as first priority defenses against prospective federal spending cuts.

They also recommend changing another law, which requires the District to put any funds not spent by the end of the fiscal year into savings accounts. That makes them unavailable for a wide range of critical needs, including those that may lose federal funds.

The sign-on list is still open. If you work for an organization that would like to join, you’ll find the instructions at the end of the letter. A fairly quick and easy way to support progress in these times of extraordinary uncertainties.


Perilous Time for DC to Trigger More Tax Giveaways

January 30, 2017

We’re into the budget season here in the District of Columbia. The Bowser administration is busy preparing its proposal, aiming to send it to the Council in early April. That will trigger hearings, then votes — first by the committees responsible for the major budget areas and then by the Council as a whole.

Budgets are always somewhat of a crap shoot because officials don’t know how exactly how much the District will collect in taxes and fees.

More importantly, they don’t how much the District will receive from the federal government and for what. But they have to factor some figure in for roughly a quarter of what the District will have to spend.

That figure is much more iffy this year for several related reasons. First, we’ve got a new President — and one that’s set on making major changes that would have both direct and indirect effects on the District’s budget.

Second, it’s doubtful anyone, except maybe insiders will know what’s in his final proposed budget before the Mayor finishes hers. The problem here is that District agencies base their budget input in part on the prospective budgets of the agencies from which they regularly receive grants.

The estimates are always just ballparks, of course. Congress can — and often does — change proposed spending levels. Or makes no changes in what it’s currently approved — something it often does, though rarely for all federal budget areas and the entire fiscal year.

But uncertainty this year will be extraordinarily high. Would be even without Trump’s threat to withhold grants from cities that don’t participate in the federal government’s immigrant deportation efforts.

The Hill reports that the administration aims to send “an initial budget proposal” to Congress long about the second week in March, but that it’s likely to run into big-time flak from some Congressional Republicans, especially in the Senate.

Can’t count on easy sailing through the House either, especially if it reflects, as rumored, either or both the Heritage Foundation’s radical downsizing blueprint and Trump’s promise to invest $1 trillion in infrastructure over the next 10 years.

Well, Congress has to do something by the end of April to prevent a government shutdown. But what that bill will look like is anybody’s guess.

What’s lots more certain are cuts to a range of non-defense programs — not only those that depend on annual spending decisions, but like as not Medicaid. But nobody can know for certain which, how much and when they’ll set in.

And nobody knows how the economy will fare. Dire warnings of a recession — in part, just because it’s time for one, though some economists also cite policies Trump has promised, e.g., new trade barriers.

As always, a recession will drive down local tax revenues, while increasing needs (and eligibility) for safety net programs that the District funds in whole or in part.

One would think that District policymakers would want to make extra sure that the ongoing revenue stream, plus money in savings accounts will cover the community’s critical needs — or at the very least, minimize the need for cuts.

Yet District law requires specified tax cuts whenever projected revenues exceed those projected for the prior fiscal year — this no matter what a longer-term forecast might indicate or what seems likely on Capitol Hill.

As a practical matter, this means that the District could give away millions of dollars — and not just for a single year, but for good, unless the law is changed.

As I’ve said before, Councilmembers didn’t carefully consider the automatically triggered tax cuts before agreeing to approve them.

The Chairman tucked them into the Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Support Act, the package of legislation needed to make existing laws consistent with the budget proper, shortly before the first required vote.

How Councilmembers would have voted after public hearings, written testimony and committee discussions of the triggers is an open question. But that was then, and this now — a very different now from several years ago.

Different not only in ominous prospects for federal funding, but in pressing needs that call for more local funds. They’re mostly not brand new, but more urgent, for various reasons.

They include a remedy for the also hastily-passed rigid time limit on participation in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

Also high on the list are increased investments in affordable housing for the lowest-income residents, both those who are homeless now and those at high risk because they’re paying at least half their income for rent.

The DC Fiscal Policy Institute has cited some others, e.g., more for public schools due to increased enrollment and rising costs, improvements in our aged, hazardous Metro system.

DCFPI and other local advocacy organizations earlier recommended a pause in the triggered tax cuts. It’s surely high time the Mayor and Council do that and set the revenues saved aside to help offset federal spending cuts the upcoming budget didn’t account for.

Didn’t, as I said, because it couldn’t. And sadly, neither the District nor any state can fully offset what they could lose in federal funds.

The DC auditor reports that just the “rollback” of the Medicaid expansion piece of the Affordable Care Act, i.e., the enhanced federal match for newly-eligible beneficiaries, would cost the District $563 million next fiscal year alone.

Just one of many signs that the District needs every penny it now collects in fees and taxes.


First We Kill All the Lawyers for Poor People (Or As Many As We Can)

January 26, 2017

Old story, new chapter. We don’t have enough lawyers to give low-income people an even playing field in non-criminal cases that will have major consequences for their lives. (Not enough for criminal cases either, but that’s a separate story.)

Now we’ve reasons to expect that our newly-elected President will move to deny millions of low-income people free professional legal advice and representation by wiping out the Legal Services Corporation—the single largest source of funding for them.

How the Legal Services Corporation Fits Into the Anti-Poverty Effort

LCS has its roots in the War on Poverty, as one of many initiatives to afford poor people economic opportunities by delivering funds to local organizations. It became an independent, nonprofit corporation during the Nixon administration.

Its purpose, the law says, is to “provide legal assistance to those who face an economic barrier to adequate legal counsel” because that “will serve best the ends of justice and assist in improving opportunities for low-income persons.”

The Corporation ran into trouble when President Reagan took office, bringing with him hostilities from his time as California’s governor. But it survived and recovered lost funding.

During the Clinton administration, however, Congressional Republicans took out after it. And Clinton agreed to new limits on what it could do and for whom as part of the bargain that ended welfare as we knew it.

For this reason, plus funding limits LSC-funded organizations are properly part of a more comprehensive and diverse informal system that helps poor and near-poor people when they need, but can’t afford legal advice and/or representation.

But they’re an essential part. LSC provides financial support to 134 grantees. Collectively, they have somewhat over 800 offices throughout the country. That meant nearly 4,600 lawyers available to help people with incomes no greater than 125% of the federal poverty line in 2015.

Lawyers in LSC-funded organizations handle a range of matters. The two most common types are family matters, e.g., custody cases, domestic violence, and housing issues, e.g., foreclosures, threatened evictions. They also, among other things, help clients secure the benefits they’re entitled to.

Yet they can’t help nearly as many people as seek their aid. They turn away half or more, the Corporation says. And these are only people who come to them and ask—not those who’ve heard it’s probably futile.

These facts and figures all argue, as the Corporation did, for a larger appropriation. What it’s received in the last two years is less in real-dollars than it had before the recession set in, though the number of people whose incomes make them eligible has significantly increased.

A funding increase could help reduce homelessness—and with it, poverty, as Matthew Desmond’s justly-celebrated Evicted shows.

An increase might be even a life-or-death matter, since LSC-funded attorneys represent clients in domestic violence cases. (Lest you think that grants awarded under the Violence Against Women Act would suffice, they too reportedly could be zeroed out.)

Why the Concern for the Corporation

Last week, The Hill reported that Trump transition team staff had been meeting with career White House staff to develop a plan for reducing the federal budget. And by a whole lot — $10.5 trillion in the first 10 years.

This is even larger than what the House Republican Study Committee came up with, but couldn’t get a vote on.

The Trump team reportedly is relying on a budget blueprint the far-right Heritage Foundation published last year. It would have balanced this year’s budget within seven years, while cutting taxes by $1.3 trillion over ten—this without touching the core of defense.

To get there, it would eliminate a host of programs—not only the LCS and VAWA grants, but others that “assist in improving opportunities for low-income persons,” e.g., the job training programs funded under the Work Innovations and Opportunity Act.

It would phase out Head Start. And it would cut the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division by a third because it’s sought to protect voting rights and has “filed abusive lawsuits intended to enforce progressive social ideology in areas ranging from public hiring to public education.”

It would also ensure that we couldn’t measure the impacts so well because it would eliminate funding for the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure — a long-standing target of the Heritage Foundation.

Now, The Hill report may prove nothing but a gift to other news media, which need a constant supply of new angles for Trump stories—and for bloggers of the policy sort. Who knows what Trump will do? He himself often seems not to know.

But the Legal Services Corporation has proved vulnerable in the past — most of all when the lawyers it funds effectively champion the interests of the constituency they’re supposed to serve.

So this inkling of an attack on yet another program to further economic and social justice should, I think, serve as an early warning.


Let’s Not Forget Affordable Dental Care

January 23, 2017

A comment posted some time ago raised an issue about Medicaid that seems even more timely now because it opens to the door to larger current and prospective issues.

Seems the commenter had to have some teeth pulled. Her dentist told she would have to wait for dentures until her mouth heals instead of getting a temporary set. She felt that she and others covered by Medicaid were “treated differently from other people,” who aren’t doomed to toothlessness. Would I look into this?

And I did, learning more in the process about not only the source of her problem, bur dental care in our health insurance system — today and prospectively. Results, as follows.

The commenter is actually quite fortunate. States don’t have to include dental services in their Medicaid programs, except when they administer the Children’s Health Insurance Program by expanding them.

For adults, dental care is an optional benefit, both for those whom states covered before the Affordable Care Act and those who became newly eligible when states opted for expansion. Those states must provide “essential health benefits” for the latter, but dental care isn’t one of them.

Virtually all states and the District of Columbia do cover some dental services, but only fifteen cover a comprehensive mix, the Kaiser Family Foundation reports.

Many cap per person spending or the number of services covered. And thirteen cover only emergency treatment. Even coverage doesn’t ensure affordability because beneficiaries may face high out-of-pocket costs.

Not all states that cover dental services cover dentures. And even fewer cover dentures for all beneficiaries as often as they might need them. They’re responding here to limits the federal government sets on reimbursements.

But low-income adults aren’t treated all that differently from their better-off peers. Traditional Medicare provides no coverage for dental services, except in certain limited cases when the beneficiary is in a hospital.

We who’ve had employer-sponsored health insurance also know that incomplete—or no—coverage for dental services is more common than the commenter apparently assumed.

But better-off people can shell out for dental care or supplementary insurance. Not so for low-income working age adults. Only 19% of those who were officially poor went to a dentist in 2013. And 44% had had untreated cavities in the prior two-year period.

Nearly a third of those with incomes low enough to qualify for an expanded Medicaid program reported an unmet need for dental care last year.

Without it, they may not only lose teeth and have to live with gaps in their mouths. Untreated oral diseases, including cavities can cause or worsen a range of other health problems.

Lack of sufficient coverage is obviously a major barrier, but it’s not the only one. In some places, e.g. rural areas, inner cities, there simply aren’t enough dentists. That’s partly due to an unwillingness on their part to treat low-income patients, especially those covered by Medicaid.

Dentists object to the paperwork and lost income because Medicaid patients—at least, by reputation—often don’t show up for appointments. But dentists also cite low reimbursement rates—sometimes so low as to not even cover costs.

Now, we know that states often cut provider reimbursement rates when economic downturns drive up their Medicaid costs because that’s more politically palatable than tightening up on eligibility or coverage.

And we know they’d face budget crunches—and not only during recessions—if Republicans in Congress convert Medicaid to a block grant and the President agrees.

Not much of an “if” here. The Trump’s campaign’s policy positions included a block grant. And Congressman Tom Price, his choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services, folded a block grant into the House budget plan when he chaired the responsible committee.

Looking at how states now use their flexibility to limit dental care coverage, we could reasonably expect them to make further cuts there.

They might instead (or also) cut dentists’ reimbursement rates. More than half the states did that in the aftermath of the Great Recession. So Medicaid beneficiaries who still had dental coverage may have had more problems finding someone to treat them, as certainly seems the case in Washington and in Florida.

Some states might instead join those that provide no coverage whatever.

The block grant is only one of the clear and present dangers to the health of poor and near-poor people, including the health of their teeth, gums and everything else in and around their mouths.

The impending repeal of the Affordable Care Act would immediately deny higher federal reimbursement rates to the 31 states and the District of Columbia that have expanded their Medicaid programs.

The repeal, in and of itself, would free them to shrink or eliminate dental health benefits for the newly-eligible children they enrolled because they’d no longer have to provide the essential health benefits the ACA specified.

This would also be true for most other insurance plans, unless state regulations required them because the same EHB requirements apply. And if, as predicted, premiums soar, one could expect plans to drop dental care or, at least, radically cut back coverage.

Some of you may recall the boy who died from a brain infection because his mother couldn’t find a dentist to treat him in time—this for wont of Medicaid. We might have more such cases, with or without it.

We’d almost surely have more low-income adults toothless (and not only temporarily) and more dead too because they couldn’t afford dental care—or related medications.

I know this seems a worst case scenario and perhaps an unwarranted leap from a singular problem to a vast array. But when we think about what will happen in the aftermath of health care “reforms,” we need get beyond the numbers, as important as they are.

Price objects to our government programs because they get between doctors and their patients. But, in fact, people who should be patients won’t be.

And when we think of them, we shouldn’t forgot those who need dental care because, as one dentist said, “the mouth and the head are connected to the rest of the body.”


What We Know (and Don’t) About How DC Spends Its TANF Funds

January 19, 2017

Mayor Bowser and the DC Council will soon have to make a critical decision: What to do about the families that have reached the rigid time limit local law sets on participation in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

As I said before, a working group convened by the Mayor has recommended significant revisions to the law. They include both indefinite-term extensions for parents who are complying with requirements set for them and ongoing benefits for their children, no matter what.

This would be probably the single most important thing the District could do now to alleviate poverty. It arguably would save money too — in healthcare costs, for example, homeless services and special education for children who’d suffer brain damages due the high levels of stress that acute poverty can cause.

But sustaining TANF benefits beyond the point that federal block grant funds can be used for them won’t be cheap. So where will the money come from? No one, to my knowledge, has figured that out yet. And it’s certainly beyond my ken.

But it’s worthwhile, I think, to look at where the District’s TANF funds are going now. We have a partial answer from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which publishes annual state-by-state analyses of TANF spending, based on reports states must submit to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The Center proceeds from the view that TANF has three core purposes—cash assistance, work activities and child care. These reflect a widely-shared view that the program should serve as a safety net and help parents get (and keep) jobs that will pay enough to make them more self-sufficient.

The District spent only 63.% of its TANF funds, i.e., its share of the block grant, plus local funds, on the core purposes in 2015.

This is relatively more than states as a whole spent. But it still leaves a lot of money to account for — about $99 million, assuming the reported total spending is right.*

Drilling down, we see that the District spent 26% of its TANF funds — roughly $70 million—on cash assistance.

An additional 14% — somewhat over $37 million — went for work activities, most if not all of this presumably to the organizations the District contracts with to provide services that help parents prepare for and find work.

Another 22% — a generously rounded $60 million — funded vouchers that subsidize child care for low-income families. These need not necessarily all be families in TANF. But TANF families are a top spending priority so long as parents fully participate in their required work activities.

The District used 7% of its TANF funds — nearly $18.7 million — for refunds from its Earned Income Tax Credit, i.e., money paid to workers whose allowable income tax claims exceeded their liabilities.

Needless to say (I hope), few of the recipients were TANF parents. As the name suggests, only people with income from work can claim it. They need not be poor or even nearly so. For example, a parent with two children remains eligible until she earns $45,000.

The EITC is nevertheless generally viewed as a powerful anti-poverty measure — in part because it puts money into people’s pockets and in part because it provides an added incentive to work. To this extent, it’s consistent with the over-arching purpose of TANF.

Those keeping track will note that we’ve got about $80 million left to account for — a larger percent than any core purpose received. It’s also a considerably larger percent left over than states as a whole reported.

The Center puts it all but administrative costs into an “other services” bucket. HHS allows states to report some spending as “other” too, but not spending on as many different things as could be left after what I’ve thus far itemized.

So where did the millions go? I asked the Department of Human Services and have thus far not received an answer. I’m hopeful, however, because looking at those “other” items in light of TANF families’ needs seems a useful exercise.

We — and the DC Council — could then better decide if each and every one of those unspecified programs and/or services should continue to receive a share of TANF funds if that means that core purposes don’t get enough.

And should they continue to receive them if the administration and Council then can’t find enough to extend a lifeline to all the at-risk TANF families?

* The Center reports that the District spent about $267 million in TANF funds. This is nearly $100 million more than its share of the block grant, plus the local funds it must spend. The Center accounts for $2 million as block grant funds left over from a prior year, but that obviously leaves more unaccounted for.


State TANF Spending Raises Red Flags As Republicans (Again) Ponder New Block Grants

January 17, 2017

The latest reports on Temporary Assistance for Needy Family’s spending are a timely reminder of what happens when states receive insufficient federal funds and a lot of flexibility in what they can do with them.

Basically, we expect TANF to do two things — serve as a safety net for poor families with children and enable the parents to get jobs that pay enough to make them more self-sufficient. Not necessarily enough to cover all their family’s basic needs, but at least enough to make cash benefits unnecessary.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which analyzes the annual spending reports, translates these expectations into three core purposes — cash assistance, work activities and child care.

The last of these supports the second in that it frees parents to participate in a job training program and/or other activities that will prepare them for work, look for a job and, in the best of cases, actually work for pay.

The latest analysis, for 2015, gives us new numbers that tell the same old story. States, as a whole, spent barely more than half their share of the federal block grant, plus the funds they must spend to get it on these core purposes.

The remainder went for all sorts of things — some closely linked to a core purpose, e.g., Head Start and Pre-K, some to programs and services that don’t benefit only poor families, e.g., child welfare.

States may have used TANF funds to expand such programs, the Center says. In other cases, they merely used them cover rising costs — or even to replace what they’d been spending out of their own funds.

What they invested in core purposes varied enormously. For example, seven states spent less than 10% of their TANF funds on cash assistance, while eleven spent more than 30%.

Twenty-eight states spent less than 10% on work activities and related supports, e.g., transportation. Only five topped 20%. And twenty states spent less than 10% on child care. while nine spent more than 30%.

One might think that states spent less on one core purpose so they could spend more on another. Not altogether so. Two states — Arizona and Texas — spent less than 10% on each of the core activities.

We know how Arizona managed to free up so much of its TANF funds for other purposes. By 2015 it had cut its TANF time limit three times, kicking families out of its program after they’d participated for 24 months. That’s 36 months less than the time limit on their using federal funds for all participating families.

Arizona has since cut its time limit to a mere 12 months, gaining even more funds to cover budget shortfalls — a predictable need because the state has been cutting taxes for years.

The state realized further savings by reducing cash benefits below the low level paid when TANF replaced welfare as we knew it. The maximum a parent with two children can get now is $202 a month — about 12% of the federal poverty line.

An extreme case perhaps, but not altogether unique. The Center reports that Louisiana spent only 11% of its TANF funds on core purposes. Its very low cash benefits — $230 a month for a three-person family — went to only four of every one hundred poor families in the state.

Tempting as it is to trash on these states (and some others), the fault lies with the federal law, which permits states to economize at the expense of their very poor residents.

In a way, it virtually forces them to do this by holding the block grant at the same funding level as when TANF was created in 1996. It’s lost more than a third of its real-dollar value since. So states that want to do the right thing would have to spend far more of their own funds than the partial match the law requires.

We don’t see that in the spending figures. We instead see that states have used TANF as a slush fund — the term that a prolific conservative critic of the program recently used to rebut claims that welfare reform succeeded.

That claim is hardly new. It’s survived a barrage of evidence to the contrary. That’s because proponents in our Congress don’t actually seek to strengthen the safety net and put very poor people on a pathway to steady, decent-paying work.

Nor, for that matter, do they aim to give states flexibility so that they can develop more effective ways to do this. One need only recall the outcries from the right when the Department of Health and Human Services invited states to request waivers in order to test alternatives to the regular TANF work activity rules.

The House Republicans’ block-granting plans are all about cutting federal spending on non-defense programs, especially those that make up our safety net.

This is why we’re bracing for legislation to block grant SNAP and/or Medicaid. Republicans need to find significant savings as offsets for the tax cuts they’ve promised, plus those they’ll achieve by eliminating the Affordable Care Act.

TANF is a harbinger of things to come — unless supporters can galvanize grassroots opposition. This seems to me doable, though difficult.


House Agriculture Committee Finds a Lot to Like in SNAP

January 12, 2017

When I learned that the House Agriculture Committee planned a top-to-bottom review of SNAP (the food stamp program), I thought it was a setup for legislation along the lines the right-wing majority had already teed up.

But the report the Committee recently issued is remarkably even-handed—and very informative. It does flag problems, including some that right-wingers have cited in attacks on our safety net generally. But they don’t support a major overhaul.

In fact, they bolster arguments against the sort that House Speaker Paul Ryan and fellow travelers have proposed. Here are a few of examples.

SNAP Gives States a Lot  of Flexibility

The report details the many choices SNAP affords state agencies. Most have to do with administration—how often they’ll require beneficiaries to prove they’re still eligible, how swiftly they’ll adjust benefits when income changes, etc.

But some are choices that can make more low-income people eligible, within the confines set by federal law. States may, for example, opt for so-called broad-based categorical eligibility, which opens the door to families whose incomes, before allowable deductions (but not after) exceed the standard cut-offs.

This, says the report, is the most significant of all state options. It does, however, note that states may also opt to exclude the value of certain assets that would otherwise disqualify them—the value of a car, for example, money in the bank.

This too makes more people eligible — and more able to both weather emergencies and achieve greater economic independence.

SNAP Affords Ample Room for Civil Society Organizations

Ryan says that the federal government has “crowded out civil society,” discouraging community-level organizations from engaging in efforts to help the poor.

The report emphatically argues that combating hunger in our country requires the participation of federal programs, as well as a range of local and state-level organizations.

It cites examples of the ways that charitable organizations and federal safety net programs work together, e.g., nonprofit food banks, supported in part by the Emergency Food Assistance Program.

And it quotes testimony from a food bank CEO on the need to keep federal nutrition programs strong so that the dollars from private donations can support innovations.

SNAP Is Not a Hammock

The report embraces the unobjectionable view that work is the best pathway out of poverty. But it cites data showing that nearly two-thirds of SNAP participants can’t be expected to work—because they’re too young, too old or too disabled.

Household-level data do suggest that more of the remaining participants could work, but didn’t during an average month in 2015—or rather, could work if the labor market had enough jobs available and they the skills to qualify.

The report could have veered into time limits at this point. It instead finds two areas where states could improve their programs within the law as-is.

First, some need to do a better job of enforcing SNAP work requirements, it says. The requirements it refers to aren’t those that have caused many thousands of able-bodied adults without dependents to lose their benefits.

They’re applicable to all unemployed adults who aren’t exempt for various reasons, e.g., because they’re responsible for caring for a disabled family member.

These presumptively employable adults must register for work, accept a job if offered and not quit voluntarily without good cause or reduce their working hours below 30 per week. So there’s no penalty if they can’t find a job offering a set minimum number of hours.

The report also strongly suggests that some states — or counties within states — don’t have SNAP employment and training programs, though all receive E&T funds.

“Most,” it says, quoting testimony, “have consisted of a referral to a job search program.” So it’s agencies that need to shape up, not SNAP beneficiaries.

The report provides examples of effective programs and hopefully cites pilots the current Farm Bill is funding.

It strongly implies that effective programs combined with “reasonable requirements, strongly enforced” will suffice to engage SNAP participants in activities leading to gainful employment.

“There is little evidence that harsh provisions are necessary,” it says, again quoting testimony.

On the other hand, the report does suggest that SNAP, combined with other safety net programs can discourage participants from working their way up the income scale because what they gain in pay is offset by what they lose in benefits.

To this extent then, it adopts Ryan’s view that the multiplicity of “welfare” programs, each operating under its own rules creates what’s often referred to as a cliff. For him, this proves that they’re a “poverty trap.”

The report instead notes that states may convert the cliff into downward slope by providing transitional SNAP benefits when families leave Temporary Assistance for Needy Families because they’ve found paying work.

And it includes one important data point that argues against the view that SNAP participants choose to remain poor or near-poor rather than lose their benefits. Specifically, most participants remain in the program for, at most, two years.

The Ag Committee Chair clearly aimed to build bridges between his conservative and progressive colleagues in preparation for the next reauthorization of SNAP.

“You will find nothing in this report that suggests gutting SNAP or getting rid of a program that does so much for so many people,” he and the chair of the Nutrition Subcommittee tell us in their prefatory statement.

At least some of us won’t find everything we’d like to have seen. For example, the report touches only tangentially on the adequacy of SNAP benefits, though it includes a section on promoting healthful eating.

But it does, as the statement says, show “there is common ground to be found both in understanding the needs of the population SNAP serves, and in working collaboratively to improve SNAP.”