Sunday, November 9, 2025

Why Trump Is Holding Back On Helping People Who Can't Buy Food

 

(By David A. Super, MSN.com, 9 Nov 2025)

 The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which helps 42 million Americans obtain enough food each month, is currently not issuing benefits. Each day, more and more low-income families pass the one-month mark since they last received assistance and risk running out of food. This appalling state of affairs in one of the world’s richest countries is made all the worse because it is completely unnecessary.   Congress has given the Trump administration all the funds it needs to provide full SNAP benefits, and on Thursday, a judge ordered the administration to fully fund this month’s benefits. But the administration continues to drag its feet.

SNAP is the nation’s largest food assistance program. As I wrote last week, two fifths of SNAP households include at least one employed member, and almost all the remaining households are either elderly, disabled or relying on SNAP during brief periods while looking for work.  Though states operate the program, the Department of Agriculture, or the USDA, funds its benefits. And although the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 requires the USDA to provide food assistance to all eligible families that apply, Congress traditionally has included specific funding for SNAP in its annual appropriations bills. October benefits were funded by last fiscal year’s appropriations act, but when that expired at the end of September and the government shutdown began, the question arose what would happen to SNAP.

The answer seemed clear: Congress set aside a $6 billion contingency reserve to pay SNAP benefits in just this type of situation, and also gave the USDA authority to transfer funds from one food assistance program to another as needed to prevent interruptions in benefits. In October, the Trump administration exercised this same transfer authority to move money from child nutrition programs to keep WIC running.

 The administration, however, refused to tap either source of funds to continue SNAP in November. The USDA even took down a plan it had posted a few weeks earlier promising to pay benefits from the contingency fund. Instead, the department’s website has added a deeply partisan post blaming congressional Democrats for shutting down SNAP. This sequence, without a coherent rationale for refraining from spending the funds, suggests that the administration’s decision was motivated not by legal or operational concerns, but rather by a desire to further pressure congressional Democrats in the current shutdown fight.

The USDA promptly faced several lawsuits, one from a group of states, one from a group of cities and nonprofits worried about how they could feed millions of people whose food aid suddenly stopped and one from SNAP recipients themselves. Two judges separately found the USDA’s withholding benefit unlawful, with a federal judge in Rhode Island ordering the department to allow states to provide at least partial SNAP benefits right away.

Rather than promptly complying, the USDA began foot-dragging. It told the court it had already spent some of the contingency fund on other things but would devote what was left to paying SNAP benefits. It then told states to recalculate every household’s SNAP benefits under a formula that would cut far more than was needed to fit within even what the USDA said was left in the contingency fund. After plaintiffs pointed out that it was not complying with the court’s order, the USDA told states to start over and recalculate everyone’s benefits under a new, modestly less parsimonious formula.  This formula would still cut every family by more than one-third and would leave millions with no food assistance at all. And the repeated changes in direction slowed down getting SNAP to people even more.

 On Thursday, Judge John McConnell expressed frustration with the USDA’s continued delays and found no legal reason why the department could not transfer excess child nutrition funds, as it already had to fund WIC. He therefore ordered the USDA to allow states to deliver full SNAP benefits by Friday. The USDA has sent states a vague statement that it is “working towards implementing” the court’s order while the administration filed an emergency appeal with the court of appeals. The department did not, however, explicitly rescind its previous guidance telling states to recalculate and cut households’ benefits. Some states have read the memo as authorizing them to issue full benefits, but other states are seeking further clarification, further extending the waits of their low-income families. SNAP may be entering a period of chaos, with a supposedly “uniform national” program staying open or shutting down based on the empathy and risk tolerance of individual state governors.

 And despite the USDA’s statement, the administration has not withdrawn its appeal. It claims that it is refusing to transfer the needed funds to SNAP out of concern that Congress might, for the first time in almost 80 years, decide to defund the child nutrition programs — something nobody in either party is proposing to do. Instead, it asked both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court to delay Judge McConnell’s order.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson postponed that order’s effective date long enough for the Court of Appeals to evaluate the Government’s appeal.

One can only conclude from all this foot-dragging without any legal justification that the Trump administration is seeking to maximize the suffering of low-income Americans to gain political leverage on Democratic lawmakers. The USDA’s warning last week that stores cannot offer discounts to households that have lost their SNAP benefits seems to support that conclusion.

 Last weekend, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that it would be his “honor” to provide SNAP benefits if a court told the administration where to find the money. Judge McConnell has done just that. This shameful episode must end.

 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/why-trump-is-holding-back-on-helping-people-who-can-t-buy-food/ar-AA1Q5Hko?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=DCTS&cvid=6910cda36e944ce9bf4e9685e2377b0c&ei=12

Thursday, November 6, 2025

Middle Class Woes: This MAGA Fan’s Complaint Holds The Key To Ending Trump

(By Thom Hartmann, Alternet, 6 November 2025)

 Yesterday was election day in much of America, although the biggest races were in California, Virginia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maine, and New York City. As a bellwether for next year’s midterms, they could could define the fate and future of Trumpism. The stakes were enormous, and were bleeding through into social media.

One of the most viral Facebook posts this week was from a MAGA mom complaining that her Democratic mother-in-law won’t loan her grocery money. She explains that she can’t feed her family because Trump’s government shutdown has frozen her SNAP (Food Stamps) and WIC benefits, and, she wrote of her husband: “He asked his mother to buy a can [of baby formula] until our WIC comes in. Her response was, ‘We voted for this.’” The largest percentage of comments were variations on, “That’s what you wanted when you voted for that orange a–hole, but you must have thought he’d only do it to Black and Hispanic people. FAFO!”

Along those same lines, Trump went on 60 Minutes this weekend and lied to Nora O'Donnell’s face multiple times, including a whopper about grocery prices when she pointed out that they’re going up, up, and up. “No, you’re wrong.” Trump lied with his best “sincere” expression. “They went up under Biden, right now they’re going down. Other than beef, which we’re working on.”

Yeah, tell us about it, Donny. Just like climate change is a hoax, cutting taxes on billionaires helps working people, and you and your sons taking billions in crypto money from foreigners isn’t corruptly peddling influence out of what’s left of the White House. The simple fact is that back in the 1960s you could rent a small apartment, buy a used car, and put yourself through college on a minimum wage job. I know because I did it (pumping gas, washing dishes, working as a part-time DJ), as did millions of my generation. Just ask your grandparents.

So, what happened? Through most of America’s history, our economic life was similar to that of other countries that practiced unregulated capitalism. Charles Dickens wrote about that era in most of his novels, including Christmas Carol. There was a small 1% that owned about 90% of the nation’s wealth. A small middle class of professionals (doctors, lawyers, retail shop owners, etc.) who worked for the 1% making up around 10%-25% of the population. And a very large cohort of the working poor.  In Christmas Carol, the 1% don’t even show up. Ebenezer Scrooge was the middle class: he was a small businessman who owned a company so meager that it had only one employee. Bob Cratchit was the working poor, who couldn’t even afford to cover the cost of healthcare for his son, Tiny Tim.

That was the norm across most of Europe and America from the 16th century right up until the 1930s. After the Hoover administration and their corrupt Wall Street buddies drove the world economy off the edge with the Republican Great Depression, and America elected Franklin D. Roosevelt to put the country back together, conservatives began to worry aloud about FDR’s advisor, British economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynes and FDR (and Francis Perkins) had this wild idea that it should be possible to create a nation where at least two[1]thirds of the people were in the middle class. They’d do it by heavily taxing the morbidly rich (FDR raised it to 77% in 1936), giving union power to working people (Wagner Act, 1935), and providing a solid social safety net — Social Security (1935), a minimum wage (1933/38), unemployment insurance (1935), and Food Stamps (1939) — to create a middle-class floor.

The programs were universally decried by the GOP as socialism, the doorway to communism, and “radically anti-American.” Every major social program since the 1930s has been opposed by Republicans, and in the 1950s Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley Jr., Barry Goldwater and other “thinkers” in the movement provided a rationale for their opposition. They argued, throughout the 1950s, that if the middle class ever got “too large,” American society would begin to disintegrate “under the weight of FDR’s socialist programs.” Kirk and Buckley warned that women would forget their place in the kitchen and bedroom, young people would stop respecting their elders and the value of hard work, and racial minorities would demand social and economic equality with whites. The result would be societal chaos leading to the downfall of America as we knew it.

Their warnings were largely ignored or even ridiculed through the 1950s as the nation’s prosperity steadily increased and we shot past that 50% threshold. And then came the 1960s, as we passed 60% of us in Kirk’s dreaded middle class. The birth control pill was legalized in 1961; within a few years there was a full-blown women’s movement. The Civil Rights movement was embraced by the Kennedy brothers and Black people began to fight back against police brutality, causing multiple cities to erupt into flames. And by 1967, young men were refusing military service, protesting in the streets, and burning their draft cards.

The collective response of the Republican Party was something like, “Holy crap! Russell Kirk, Bill Buckley, and Barry Goldwater were right!! The country is on the verge of something like the Bolshevik Revolution that led straight to communism!!!” Thus, Ronald Reagan came to the White House in 1981 with a simple mandate: cut the middle class down to size to restore social and political stability. To save the nation. He started by destroying the unions that supported high wages and benefits. A third of us were unionized when Reagan came into office; now it’s in single-digits and Trump just de-unionized an additional few-hundred-thousand federal workers.

Then he instituted the first long-lasting freeze on the minimum wage (9 years), cut the top income tax rate from 74% to 27%, “reformed” Social Security by raising the retirement age to 67 and taxing its benefits as income, ended enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine (1987), gutted federal support for colleges, and threw small local businesses to the wolves by abandoning enforcement of 100 years of anti-monopoly laws and securities regulations that forbade stock buy-backs.

Before Reagan, the middle class was thriving and growing and you could get into it with a minimum wage job. A union job, like my dad had at an a tool-and-die shop, was virtually a lifetime guarantee of stability solidly in the middle of the middle of class. Look through newspapers of that era and they talked about “wage-earner income” because most middle-class families were making it just fine with a single paycheck. Today, instead, you’ll find references to “household income” because it takes two or more paychecks to maintain the same standard of living a family could in the 1960s and 1970s with one wage-earner.

In the intervening years, Republicans (and a few “moderate” and “Third Way” Democrats) have continued the Kirk/Buckley/Goldwater/Reagan project of dismantling Keynes’ and FDR’s grand middle class project. As a result, the middle class has shrunk to fewer than 50% of us, and it takes two paychecks to do it. Student debt has frozen two generations out of the American Dream. Healthcare expenses destroy a half-million American families every year. Republicans have kept the minimum wage frozen for sixteen long years as they transferred fully $50 trillion from working-class homes and families into the money bins of the top 1%. Trump’s Big Beautiful Billionaire’s Bill simply continues Reagan’s assault on the American middle class. You could call it, “Making America safe for the morbidly rich like in the 1920s.” He even had a Great Gatsby party at Mar-a-Lardo over the weekend to celebrate his accomplishments, 

We now have more billionaires, and richer billionaires, than any other country in the history of the planet. Trump himself and his boys are setting an example for the pillaging of America: they have taken in at least, by some estimates, $5 billion in just the first 10 months of his presidency. We stand in a pissed-off progressive populist moment, although that movement is up against a massive wall of billionaire-owned media and infrastructure. Five bought-off Republicans on the Supreme Court legalized bribery of judges and politicians. Bondi and Noem are spouting lies to militarize our cities, presumably in anticipation of the 2026 and 2028 elections.

If America is to survive as a democratic republic, our middle class must again become the beating heart of both our economy and our politics. That means restoring strong unions, ending legalized bribery of politicians and judges, breaking up corporate monopolies, providing healthcare and education to everybody, and taxing billionaires enough to rebuild the social contract that made this country great in the first place. Every generation faces a choice between oligarchy and democracy, between government by the people and government by the morbidly rich. We made the right choice in 1932, when my parents’ generation rose up and said “enough.” It’s past time for ours to do the same.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/this-maga-fan-s-viral-complaint-holds-the-key-to-ending-trump-opinion/ar-AA1PVQuB?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=690d5da13b3f4b5dabbf147cab09fd34&ei=19

Sunday, June 15, 2025

Trump Just Got A Wake Up Call As He Tries To Escalate His War On Defiance

(By Sabrina Haake, Raw Story, 15 June 2025)

 Ever since he was ignominiously blocked from shooting George Floyd protesters, Donald Trump has been itching to sic the military on U.S. citizens. Seizing California’s National Guard and sending U.S. Marines into Los Angeles to deliberately escalate violence brings his long-festering fever dream closer to life.

Trump’s former Defense Secretary Mark Esper has recounted how, during a White House meeting in 2020, Trump looked at Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley and asked why he couldn’t just shoot protesters, adding, “It was (both) a suggestion and a formal question. And we were just all taken aback at that moment as this issue hung very heavily in the air.”

Milley pushed back on that suggestion and other illegal Trump impulses, eventually leading Trump to call for Milley’s execution and revoke his security detail. During Trump 1.0, Trump apparently suggested shooting protesters enough times that Esper issued a public statement opposing the use of the Insurrection Act against protesters, enraging Trump.

Trump made sure that would not happen again in his second administration by appointing a dangerously unqualified defense secretary with few moral qualms. As a Fox News host, Pete Hegseth echoed Trump’s desire to deploy the military against protesters. He defended war criminals who ‘killed the right people in the wrong ways,’ advocating “total war against our enemies… All of ’em, you stack bodies, and when it’s over, then you let the dust settle and you figure out who’s ahead.”

A trillion-dollar defense budget to kill whom, exactly?

Even though the U.S. is not at war, and Trump has shamefully abandoned our NATO military alliances, Hegseth waxes hard on “lethality,” and rails against “woke” laws that punish soldiers for indiscriminate killings. Trump/Hegseth seek a trillion-dollar defense budget, not to defend America from foreign enemies who are now Trump’s mentors, but to attack “enemies within,” i.e., Americans who oppose Trump’s agenda.

None of this, including Trump’s deliberate escalation of violence in LA, was unforeseen. Who can forget how Kamala Harris was panned as histrionic when she said Trump would sic the military on U.S. citizens, following his promise to do just that? In October, 2024, Trump said he’d use the military against the biggest threat to America — Americans who don’t support him.

“I think the (main problem we face) is the enemy from within,” Trump said, adding: “We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they’re the big — and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”

 Both he and Hegseth have already weeded out military officers who would honor their oaths to the Constitution over illegal orders from Trump. This week, Hegseth inadvertently confirmed that the military, under Trump, will become a domestic force when he testified before Congress, saying, “We’re entering another phase, especially under President Trump with his focus on the homeland, where the National Guard and Reserves become a critical component of how we secure that homeland.”

It’s galling that no congressman has connected the dots and asked about explosive military spending that Trump/Hegseth have signaled will be used against Americans.  As of this writing, Trump has not declared martial law, but recent Trump history, paired with his glaring mental illness, suggests it’s “when,” not “if.”

Trump’s plan to use troops to impose his domestic agenda is decidedly un-American. Today it includes deportations and manufacturing civil unrest; tomorrow, Trump’s goons will round up journalists who criticize him, judges, Democrats, and political opponents, as just happened Thursday when Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) was tackled to the ground for trying to ask Kristi Noem questions.

If you have any doubt, watch Trump’s illegal and partisan address at Ft. Bragg, where he led troops in uniform to wildly “boo” journalists, California’s governor, and LA’s mayor. If you have any lingering naivety, still hoping soldiers will honor their oaths and not follow America’s Hitler, that speech will erase it.

For now, Trump is acting in LA pursuant to a presidential memorandum deploying the National Guard under a rarely used federal law, 10 U.S.C. § 12406. Under that code, a president possesses the power to federalize the National Guard only when there is “a rebellion or danger of rebellion” against federal authority, or when the president cannot execute federal laws. As Trump sees it, this assessment depends on his own untrained and undisciplined opinion. Under that statute, however, the National Guard can only support other law enforcement officers and defend federal property.

The Posse Comitatus Act also remains in effect, prohibiting the use of the military as a domestic law enforcement agency, except in extraordinary circumstances not yet present in LA despite Trump’s best efforts. The Insurrection Act of 1807, the authority under which Hegseth sent active Marines to LA, is a broader set of statutes granting Trump the power to use military force in specific circumstances, including suppressing armed rebellion, civil disorder, or other extreme circumstances where the states are unable to maintain public order.

Gov. Gavin Newsom formally objected to Trump sending troops, because California in general, and LAPD in particular, have sufficient resources to maintain order. Newsom knows that when US Marines start shooting civilians, whether in LA, Chicago, or New York, violence will ratchet up to the necessary threshold to circumvent Posse Comitatus and allow Trump to declare martial law.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-just-got-a-wake-up-call-as-he-tries-to-escalate-his-war-on-defiance-opinion/ar-AA1GKxio?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=DCTS&cvid=bab17248ede14a09bf947a493cef3d8b&ei=12