By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks has introduced the “Keep SNAP Funded Act of 2025” to ensure SNAP benefits continue during a government shutdown, aiming to protect the program serving millions. The bill mirrors a Senate companion led by Sen. Josh Hawley, addressing concerns that November SNAP payments may be at risk. With the Department of Agriculture warning of insufficient funds, the legislation seeks to fund SNAP until regular appropriations are in place. The bill faces an uncertain path in the House as Speaker Johnson focuses on pressuring the Senate for a funding stopgap, but has hinted that the House will address the bill if the Senate passes it.
Read the original article here
Bill to fund SNAP in shutdown introduced in House, and the implications are…well, let’s unpack that. It’s a bit of a head-scratcher, isn’t it? The news is that a bill has been introduced in the House specifically designed to keep SNAP – the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps – funded during the government shutdown. That’s a good thing, right? People need to eat. Especially when you consider that SNAP benefits provide crucial food assistance to a significant chunk of the population. We’re talking about a considerable percentage of the US population relying on this support.
Now, here’s where things get interesting. The introduction of this bill is being attributed to a Republican representative. One might wonder, given the current political climate, why a Republican would champion a cause that directly benefits those in need of assistance. Could it be a genuine act of compassion? Or, perhaps, is there something more at play? Considering the recent history, it is difficult to give such a claim full credence, given that the GOP seems to be against any assistance for lower-income families.
The government shutdown, a consequence of political gridlock, puts SNAP funding at risk. The concern is that delays or disruptions in benefits could create hardship for millions of people. It’s not just about the immediate impact on families struggling to put food on the table, it’s about the potential for broader social unrest. Throughout history, reduced food access has been a catalyst for social upheaval, and it’s a topic that should be taken seriously.
It’s crucial to acknowledge that the working poor are particularly vulnerable. With rising food prices and stagnant wages, it’s increasingly difficult for them to feed their families without assistance. Private food banks and charitable organizations, while vital, often can’t meet the sheer scale of the need. We’re talking about a fundamental question of what kind of society we want to be.
The process of introducing a bill during a government shutdown raises questions about its effectiveness and the motives behind it. The concern is that the bill could be loaded with “poison pills” or conditions that the opposing party would never accept. This would allow the sponsors to blame the opposition for failing to support SNAP funding, while having no real intent of providing any help in the first place.
Let’s be clear, regardless of the motivations of the bill’s sponsors, the need to fund SNAP is paramount. The consequences of not doing so are severe, impacting real people and potentially destabilizing communities.
The very fact that this is even a discussion highlights the dysfunction of our political system. Why should something like providing food assistance be subject to political gamesmanship? It’s easy to see how this seems to be a case of Republicans introducing this bill because they know that those in need will suffer greatly from the fallout of their actions.
The bottom line is that funding SNAP should be a non-negotiable priority. Regardless of political affiliations or motives, ensuring that people have access to food is a fundamental responsibility of government. Let’s hope this bill passes, and quickly.