Good evening.

Welcome to Kentucky.

Tonight, I'm Renee Shaw, and we thank you so much for joining us.

Our topic tonight, the status of SNAP and other government food assistance programs.

Nearly 600,000 Kentuckians rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Snap, often called food stamps, to buy groceries.

Those benefits are jeopardized by the federal government shutdown.

The Trump administration said earlier today that it would partially fund Snap for November, after two judges issued rulings requiring the government to keep the nation's largest food aid program running.

Tonight, we have several perspectives on this issue of Snap and other federal food assistance programs, and how Kentuckians are affected by these recent developments.

We have four guests in our Lexington studio this evening and Tyler Morgan, a Lexington health care and regulatory attorney and member of McBrayer PLLC state Representative Adam Moore, a Lexington Democrat and member of the Kentucky General Assembly's Make America Healthy Again Kentucky Task Force.

Heather LeMire, state director of Americans for prosperity, Kentucky and Dustin Pugel policy director for the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy.

And we're joined in our Louisville studio by state Rachel Roarx, a Louisville Democrat and member of the House Families and Children Committee in the Kentucky General Assembly and Doctor Eric Schansberg professor of economics at Indiana University Southeast in New Albany, and author of Poor Policy How Government Harms the Poor.

We certainly want to hear from you tonight, and you can send your questions and comments by X, formerly Twitter at Pub Affairs KET.

Send an email to KY Tonight at ket.org ket.org or use the web form at ket.org tonight.

Or you can simply give us a call at one 800 494 70 605.

Before we hear from our panel, this explainer on the Snap program and the Kentuckians who benefit from KET June Leffler.

>> First imagined under Franklin D Roosevelt's New Deal and later made into law by Congress and Lyndon B Johnson in 1964.

The entitlement program, known as food stamps, has been around for decades.

The program is meant to help farmers, grocery stores, and, of course, Americans facing hunger.

Today's Snap recipients make up nearly 13% of Kentuckians, more than a third of whom are children.

The average household received $344 in Snap last month.

Last year, Kentuckians received on average, $6.20 per day in Snap benefits, totaling more than $1 billion in 2024.

While these recipients live everywhere.

Many are concentrated in eastern Kentucky.

According to a march analysis, McCreary County had the highest rate of Snap participation, while Oldham County had the lowest rate.

These recipients use EBT cards, which the state loads money on to once a month.

These cards can be used at participating retailers like grocery stores and even some corner stores, online shops and farmers markets.

So who qualifies for snap?

A single person making $20,000 a year likely qualifies.

So would a couple with two kids making just above $41,000 a year.

Snap also looks at a household's net income.

That's the money left after paying essential bills like rent, utilities and child care costs.

Households must meet both gross and net income limits, not just one or the other.

There are other stipulations for Snap recipients.

They must be citizens or certain legal permanent residents.

Able bodied adults without dependents must work 20 hours a week for long term benefits, though those without work can still receive temporary assistance.

Recipients can only have so much money in cash and savings.

Very low income Kentuckians can be fast tracked for benefits if they make less than $150 a month, if their income does not cover their monthly bills, or if they are, quote, destitute migrants or seasonal farm workers.

Though Snap is a federal program, it is administered by the state.

You can apply online or at one of the State Department for Community Based Services offices, like this one in Louisville.

All successful applicants will eventually wind up at one of these offices for a required in-person interview for Kentucky tonight.

I'm June Leffler.

>> Well, we certainly thank June Leffler for that awesome explanatory piece to help us all understand what we're talking about tonight.

And so I do want to just get a lay of the land where we are now.

And what was not mentioned is that on Friday, Governor Beshear signed an executive order declaring a state of emergency, and Tyler saying a loss of SNAP is a threat to public health and safety.

And he ordered $5 million from the state's budget Reserve Trust fund, or rainy day fund, as it sometimes called, to go to Kentucky food banks.

Now, he even cites in the order 30 nine.

A 100 permits the governor to declare the state of emergency when it exists in the occurrence of a threatened or impending occurrence of public and safety.

So many would say this is unprecedented.

To use an executive order in this way.

How do you see it?

And is the need there for this to actually satisfy that?

Well.

>> That's right, Renee.

You know, programs like Snap are programs that a lot of us take for granted.

As has been explained, these are programs that have been around quite a long time and support so many Kentuckians that we tend to think they'll always be there.

And so it is somewhat unprecedented that the federal government is at such a stalemate that these programs are really at risk.

And it's the first time that an administration has taken the position that these programs must be discontinued during this type of government shutdown.

So we really are in a state of emergency, as the governor has explained, for the sake of Kentuckians health.

And I believe that he did the right thing by making sure that there were funds there to at least continue those funds during this critical time.

>> So I want to go to Representative Rachel Roarx in Louisville and ask you the same.

Do you believe this was the right move at the right time?

And because I think from what I understand from the cabinet's website and looking at the numbers of households in Louisville, there are like 48,000 households that rely on Snap or food stamps there in Jefferson County where you are.

How important is it that the governor made this action at this time?

>> Well, I'll just first of all, say that it was absolutely crucial that he do so right now with the legislature not in session, we have to have governor, Governor Beshear acting to fill these gaps with these programs.

Again, this is unprecedented.

It's historic in the worst way possible.

And when we have folks that are at risk of going hungry in our community, we as government officials have to step up and fill the role to make sure that no family, no child, no senior, no farmer is going without food access.

And so honestly, with the $5 million going to feeding Kentucky, feeding Kentucky is such a trusted organization.

They have the relationships with our food banks.

But let me be clear that while it's going to go to food banks, which we're seeing historic instances where our food banks have empty shelves, SNAP is such an efficient program where we don't have to have this crisis moment.

And so it's so vital that we bring snap back that we get it back to where our families have access to that program, because at the end of the day, our food banks are there for that emergency moment where you're not going to be able to make ends meet with your family and they fill the gaps.

But it is so crucial that our community is stepping up that the governor has stepped up to declare the state of emergency and provide these funds.

>> We know that before the governor made this action, there were some who were calling on the governor to call a special session to deal with this matter.

And this gentleman from Radcliff, Kentucky, Pete Countryman, says, quote, with a state surplus of over $1 billion in the rainy day fund, can't the governor call a special session of the legislature to fund $104 million to fund Snap statewide for November?

Is that something the governor should consider doing?

Representative Adam Moore.

>> I do think that the governor needed to take bold action, Renee, and he's done that by joining on to a lawsuit from Democratic governors and attorneys general from, I think, 25 other states.

And we saw that that resulted in two different judges striking down what has happened and saying, no, the federal government, USDA, you do have to provide these funds.

It is obligated and it is there in a contingency fund.

I believe there's $5 billion in that contingency fund to go towards SNAP as far as needing to call the legislature into session for that.

Again, I think the first thing was getting that official court order done.

He's made that $5 million available to our food banks.

But now we have to see what the administration in Washington, D.C.

is going to do and make sure we're not playing politics with people's tables.

You know, Thanksgiving is coming up around the corner.

We ought to be thankful for having plenty.

And right now we're looking kind of down the barrel of potentially a lot of people going hungry than they need to be going right now due to this fight.

>> And we do know that the General Assembly did put caps on how much the governor can expend during a declared emergency.

So he started at 5 million.

He can go up to what, 50 or 100 million Dustin Pugel.

>> I'm not sure what the cap is, but, you know, I think it's important to point out that we spend about $100 million a month on SNAP here in Kentucky.

$5 million is important.

I think the courts requiring the Trump administration to pay partial benefits is really important.

But in our budget reserve trust fund, we have essentially 37 months worth of Snap benefits.

You know, it's possible that with some help to food banks and these partial benefits, we may be able to get through November without too much disruption in everyday people's lives.

But if we go much past that, I think there's a strong case to be made that we should use some of those rainy day funds for this very rainy day we're facing right now, at least to get us into when the General Assembly comes in for a regular session, when they can take whatever action they need to at that point.

>> And we do know that it is a budget making session, and that usually comes later in the 60 day session, not at the beginning.

So that would be a very interesting to see how they handle that.

I want to go to Doctor Schansberg, who is joining us in the Louisville studio, to get your perspective on this.

Do you think the governor made the right move at the right time?

And what is your perspective about the federal government shutdown and how Snap beneficiaries are kind of caught in the crossfire?

>> I'm not sure about state policy so much in this issue.

It's probably quite reasonable.

We're really talking bigger picture about the role of government.

And if the government is going to be involved in these kind of things, why is it the federal government?

That's really a bigger question.

Why is this not something that state and local governments handle along with nonprofits?

Federal government has got its own problems and it's already sending the money here.

Why don't we divorce the federal government from that and let state and locals handle that?

And we don't have these problems going forward.

>> So that's very interesting perspective.

You say the state should just handle this money altogether, get the federal government out of it entirely.

>> Yeah.

What's the philosophical, ethical, practical reason of the federal government providing it?

I mean, it's an artifact of what we did 60 years ago and the origins of the federal efforts here are to keep USDA bureaucrats with jobs.

That was the main reason we did this federal back in the day.

But what's the reason today to have it a federal program?

Maybe you do block grants and send us the money and let us run it.

But we I think the ideal thing would be for each state to run 50 different Democratic experiments, to see how best to handle poverty, and having the federal government just sending money to states risks the sort of problems we're seeing today.

>> Interesting idea.

How do you feel about it, Miss Lohmeyer?

>> I mean, I think the bottom line here is this is a disaster that is created by Congress.

And really what needs to happen is this clean CR needs to be voted on in the Senate, and we need to reopen the government.

We can we can have all of the more difficult discussions on budget reconciliation and all of those things once the government reopens.

But I mean, the bottom line, and we're hearing this from Kentuckians all across the state, is they're tired of this political game of Republicans versus Democrats.

And and, you know, any legislator using this as leverage.

So they're ready for the government to be reopened.

And for, you know, politicians to stop playing with people's lives in this way.

>> Who are they blaming?

Are they blaming a particular party?

>> I really think with the latest polling, we're seeing almost equal blame across Republicans and Democrats.

I mean, obviously right now Democrats are really the key voters on this CR.

We need the Democrats to vote yes on a clean CR in the Senate.

And 12 times they voted no.

And, you know, are saying that this is leverage for them.

And so that's super disappointing to hear.

And while people are suffering.

>> And of course, we know that those health care subsidies, what Democrats are saying that they're holding out for, expected to really increase in premiums to a significant amount.

Representative Adam Moore that's why they're holding out.

They say.

>> You're right and this and you cannot divorce one issue from the other, because if people do not have enough money to afford groceries, they're not going to have enough money to afford health care, especially when these premiums that we're seeing are exploding 2 or 3 times what a family may already be paying.

And these are not rich families.

We're seeing this impact.

Middle class Kentuckians, working class Kentuckians.

And so we can't just say, all right, well, we can deal with this and then we'll deal with that.

This is a cost of living crisis that we're into, and we've got to have to be able to address these both head on.

>> Yeah.

I do want to come back to you.

You're not trying to discredit the foundations of Snap or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

You believe that that program has a place.

Do you agree with Eric Schansberg that perhaps it should be just all in the state's control and not, and get the federal bureaucrats out of it?

Do you agree with that perspective?

>> I honestly don't know if that's the right solution or not, but I mean, I just I strongly believe that the government just needs to reopen so that we can stop the bleed that's happening right now.

I mean, it's affecting people in the military.

It's affecting federal government workers, it's affecting the airline industry.

This is a very costly shutdown to lots of families.

And people are suffering, especially right before the holidays.

>> Yeah.

Mr.

Pugel.

>> Yeah, I mean, I think it's important to remember that we've known that the expiration of these health care subsidies has been coming for three years now, four years now.

And so it's really important to recognize what that means in everyday people's lives.

I mean, I think the the tragedy of SNAP is, is really important.

And I think it highlights the very important role that government plays.

But, you know, a month ago, the state sent out 75,000 letters to people who get their coverage on connect.

And out of those, about 60% of notices saw increases of $100 or more.

Most of those folks saw their their rates doubling 10,000.

Of those saw rate increases of 500 or more per month, and hundreds saw increases of of $1,000 or more, you know, like Representative Moore said, you know, these folks are largely people who are owning their own business.

They're farmers.

They're folks who work in low wage jobs.

In fact, the church administrator at my church gets her coverage on Kinect.

I wish we could provide her with health insurance.

But, you know, our church just isn't big enough to do that.

And so she receives subsidies there.

And I was talking to her today, and they're going to have to pay $100 more per month for a worse plan where their deductible is going to go up $3,000, they're out of pocket.

Max is going to go up $4,000.

So, you know, I think Congress knew that the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act expiration was coming for some time, and they made that a priority.

I don't see why they can't make these tax credits a priority now.

And that's really what they are.

They're advanced premium tax credits designed to help people afford their health insurance.

>> You were going to say anything there, Representative Moore?

>> No.

I agree a lot with what Dustin has to say, and I'm glad he's bringing a lot of information to this debate.

>> Yeah.

So this comment from Jefferson County, at what point is this spending enough 41 million Americans on Snap?

At some point, we have to stop with continuing resolutions and cut spending.

How can we do that when people kick and scream because their handouts are being taken away?

You want to respond to that on Tyler?

>> Sure.

Happy to.

Renee, I would disagree that most Americans feel that way.

We have a 2025 poll from April that shows that about 64% of Americans are in favor of Snap benefits, and that's fairly consistent among all polling.

This has been a hugely popular program, so I certainly understand that many people want to argue with various levels of spending in the federal government, and there are spending cuts that probably need to be made in the federal government.

I don't think that most people believe that that should come from people's eligibility for Snap benefits.

This is really food for families who are making very little per month.

If you look at the eligibility for Snap benefits, we're looking at folks who have no more than $2,750 a month in cash or assets.

If you look at your own bank accounts, I would beg you to think from from your heart about whether folks should get a little extra food assistance if they have that on hand.

And so most Americans support Snap.

It's a bipartisan effort these days, and I think most Americans would want this to be something that stays intact.

>> I do want to come to you because you kind of wrote the book about poor policy and how government can make people poor, and I want to give you a chance to kind of answer this, this viewer who wonders when is enough, enough and that handouts should be taken away.

Do you agree with that?

>> Well, let me back up a half a step.

So to be clear, the title of the book is about how interest groups often use government to help themselves at the expense of the poor.

Tonight we're talking about a far more complicated issue, which is where government is trying to help the poor.

And that's a that's a very difficult thing to do.

Economists call it the welfare dilemma.

When we help, we also harm because we're subsidizing the very state we don't want them to be in.

And so it's always complicated to to and maybe we'll talk more about that later.

But to the listener's question, I think it's worth noting that food stamps is really a fairly small program.

And so yes, I am worried about the debt and spending and all that as well.

We're not on a trajectory that works in terms of the debt, but it's a small piece of the puzzle, very small piece of the puzzle.

It's the bigger, you know, things like Medicare, Social Security, interest on the debt.

Those are the things that are the real markers in that debate, not food stamps.

>> Well, we do know that on Fox News Friday, the U.S.

Agriculture Secretary, Brooke Collins, called SNAP, quote, a broken and corrupt program, saying that they found 5000 dead people still getting benefits.

And she said, quote, it's time to drastically reform this program to make sure those who are truly needy, truly vulnerable are getting what they need.

Do you agree with that, Miss Lohmeyer?

>> I mean, of course there's always going to be abuse and, you know, any, any sort of system assistance program.

But I believe that this program helps the most vulnerable people in our society.

And I think that clearly, right now, Americans are struggling.

Housing is more expensive, groceries are more expensive.

What we were able to make it on maybe several years ago, people are struggling to make it on that same salary today.

So I think this is something that is much needed for the most vulnerable of our of our state.

>> What are some of the popular misconceptions, Dustin, that that you think people have about SNAP?

I mean, one of the things that June Leffler pointed out in that explanatory piece is about that undocumented are not receiving benefits, but yet we often hear that illegal aliens, the term that's often used, they do receive benefits.

That's true or false.

>> Definitely false.

So undocumented immigrants don't receive Snap benefits.

They don't receive Medicaid.

In fact, there's almost no public assistance program that an undocumented immigrant can qualify for.

As a matter of fact, there are very few programs and even fewer now that many legally residing immigrants can qualify for.

You know, the other, I think common misconception is that adults who participate in the Snap program are not working.

You know, you hear this a lot when there's debate around, you know, who should a work reporting requirement applied to, you know, who is using these programs?

The fact of the matter is, you know, there are about 190,000 workers in Snap participating households.

There's a 1 in 4 chance that the cashier who is helping you purchase your groceries, or the cook who is making your food at a restaurant, is using snap to feed their own families while they're helping feed yours.

So, you know, I think it's really important to recognize the role that snap plays among working Kentuckians.

The remainder are are folks who are disabled.

They're seniors who need help with their groceries or their children in those households.

So, you know, Snap really is an important program that supports working Kentuckians.

And I think the other thing to recognize is that Snap, besides being the most powerful anti-hunger tool we have, it's a pretty powerful economic tool.

So we spent about $1.1 billion through of federal dollars in Kentucky at 4700 retailers across the state.

That money is generated right in their broader economy.

So, you know, grocery store workers and truck drivers and farmers then use those dollars to pay their own bills.

And so it really ends up being an important economic engine, particularly during downturns.

So I think it's really important to recognize the value that snap plays in our society, not just for the folks who use it, but for all of us who then benefit from that greater economic activity.

>> And Tyler Morgan A few years ago, there was a public assistance reform task force and a working group.

I believe you were a part of that.

And there were lots of discussions about how do you get the able bodied to contribute to society through productive work.

And we know that the big beautiful Bill addressed that.

And we'll talk a little bit more about that when we when we hear about fraud and abuse.

Help us understand who's doing that.

Is it the people who are receiving the benefits or who is it?

>> Absolutely, Renee.

Well, you know, there are obviously a lot of compliance tools in place at every level of the government.

So, you know, we've talked a little bit about the federal government's role in administering Snap benefits.

And obviously, one of the biggest roles that the federal government plays is oversight of program compliance.

And that's played in large part by the USDA and FNS.

And, you know, the reason that I bring that up is because there are a lot of studies done by both the agencies involved and by groups that are looking at benefits regularly on both sides of the political aisle.

And they would all tell you that Snap is one of the most compliant programs of the welfare programs available under that heading, because of the way that they're built.

So the benefits are built to be quite restrictive in how they can be used.

It is a food benefit program.

They can only be used on certain types of goods.

They have to be used at certain retailers who accept an EBT card that is populated exactly for that purpose.

And so the program itself, rather than programs that are built a little differently and with fewer restrictions, is really quite a well-structured program.

It's why it's been so highly approved of, again, on both sides of the aisle, because it does suffer less fraud and abuse than most programs.

Now, again, any program that involves government money probably deserves regular look, but I believe it's getting that from the federal government and the state government involvement.

>> The caller Deb, siege and Louisville hope I'm pronouncing your last name correct.

Miss Deb wants to know what people can do to help those in need.

And we're going to cue a story from KET Laura Rogers, who is in Bowling Green and who's been talking to those who are the helpers.

Rotate.

>> We give a box of crackers.

We give a box of instant oatmeal, different packets.

>> Doug Watson volunteers three days a week at the Hillview Heights Church Food Pantry.

>> The only risk of running out is if we underestimate how much to order week to week, which we did this week.

>> They had to make an emergency run to restock as the church gave out well over 100 food boxes the last week of October, close to double an ordinary week.

>> It's just like a mad rush to get here and get some food.

>> A lot of people calling in with concerns about losing their Snap benefits.

>> United Way of Southern Kentucky's 211 connects callers to agencies and resources to help with food, housing, rent and utility bills and numerous other needs and concerns.

>> Since the first full week of October, we noticed an uptick in our calls.

>> Predominantly about food insecurity.

>> One thing with 211 is that we're not even just sharing where to go, but we're already screening them and giving them the list of the ones that specifically can help them.

>> For many of those callers, that's House on the Hill.

>> We have basically doubled in the last month.

>> Executive Director Joel Hawkins says they prepare 350 food boxes a month, helping more than 600 families through their food programs, free grocery pickup and delivery.

>> We've had a lot of people coming who are out of their food stamps.

They know they're not going to be getting, or they believe they're not going to be getting, as we all believe, they're not going to be getting food stamps in the next month.

>> Friday morning, there was a virtual meeting among area food pantries and nonprofits, along with family resource and youth services centers in the school systems to discuss challenges and solutions.

>> Some of the smaller pantries, feeling like they're not going to be able to sustain the need of the community, you know, they're smaller, they don't have a lot of food anyway.

>> We're all working together to try to figure out how do we all maintain one, the clients that were already serving and then the influx that we might see.

>> Hawkins says.

House on the Hill is preparing for that influx.

By purchasing more food.

>> We plan ahead.

We always have extra food on hand.

It's just part of our model.

>> Especially as they plan to make 1000 Thanksgiving boxes for area families in need.

>> We have ordered stocked a little bit of extra food knowing what was going to happen.

>> He says.

There are misconceptions about many people who rely on government assistance.

>> People that are on Snap benefits are not people who are not working.

They're not people who are just sitting around their house waiting for somebody to give them food and do everything for them.

>> Hawkins says.

Many of those they help are employed, but their wages are low and Snap benefits make up a fifth to a quarter of their household expenses.

>> Without those Snap benefits, they're going to have to make up for, you know, between 5 and $600 in their in their monthly budget.

>> And that's difficult for those who may live paycheck to paycheck.

>> We need the government to open back up.

People need their Snap benefits.

>> And then a can of soup.

>> But there are people stepping up and helping out.

Until that happens.

>> Our community is really coming together so that people don't go hungry.

>> For KET chicken.

I'm Laura Rogers.

>> Thank you so much, Laura.

So that's an example of how you can help.

And you can contact your local food pantries to help you see where you can fit in.

So if you're just joining us tonight, we are talking about Snap, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, otherwise known as food stamps.

And we do encourage your comments and your feedback tonight.

You can call us at one 800 494 7605.

And somebody standing by to take your call.

You can email us at KY Tonight at ket.org.

And you can also look us up on X, formerly known as Twitter at Public Affairs KET.

Either way, just give us a call and we'll make sure we get your question in tonight.

So when you hear about the ways and we've we've been reporting all throughout on Kentucky Edition for the last week or so, each night we've we've highlighted a food pantry program or people who are really trying to help during this time.

Perhaps Representative Moore.

That's one of the bright, shining, bright silver linings.

Is that kind of a Fred Rogers motto is look for the helpers and hear where the helpers come in.

>> Right in Kentucky we help one another.

We absolutely do.

And the food banks themselves are stepping up.

People who've never donated to a food bank before are stepping up by doing that.

And we're seeing that there was great reporting today in the Herald-Leader that had people across the state at different food banks, like we just saw in that feature, saying that they were seeing people that either they had never seen before or they hadn't seen in years, both who needed food, but also who were coming and giving food.

And that just shows the compassion and the love we have here for our fellow Kentuckians.

>> Yeah.

I want to go back to something the doctor Schansberg proposed a little earlier, and that's about moving this whole program to the States.

And, Tyler, you've been around for a long time in state government.

Would that work?

>> I think it would be overwhelming at first.

I can at least promise that.

And I'd say there are some state government officials who are sweating right now hearing this suggestion just at the just the mere manpower that's required for this type of program.

You know, I mentioned the great oversight function that's currently served by the federal government.

And of course, theoretically, you can move anything to the state government, but you have to give it the manpower to actually work.

The money is coming from the federal government.

There's a lot of manpower coming from the federal government to work a program like SNAP.

So I would say it would be an uphill battle, but anything is theoretically possible.

>> Doctor Schansberg, I want to give you an opportunity to kind of give a more robust defense of your proposal, sir.

>> Okay.

I just think helping the poor is so complicated.

We want to help, but by by nature, we're subsidizing the very state we don't want people to be in.

And so it's just a tough thing to do.

And you take this dog's breakfast programs.

We have we have housing and Medicaid and food stamps and this, that and the other.

And it's being administered by different levels of government.

And I think just to bring it under the state would be much more effective.

It's so hard to handle this problem anyway, DC Chuck and resources in by itself just makes it more complicated.

So I understand the transition would be exciting, but we've done that with Medicaid, we've done that with other programs, and I think it'd be nice to have all of those things controlled by the state so that Kentucky can try things that work for Kentucky, and Wyoming can try what's good for them.

Oregon can try what's good for them, what's what's good.

Poverty policy in Oregon is not the same as Kentucky.

And so why are we doing federal policy for something that really requires a state and local touch to it?

>> Representative Roarx, I want to get your view on that.

You serve on a committee where that idea might actually be vetted a little bit.

What do you think?

>> Well, there's so many questions.

So I think typically I am always more in favor of local control.

I think the people that are representing local government, state government, they are closer to the problems.

They understand the needs and the solutions better.

And but with a program like SNAP, having a federal oversight, having consistency across states is key, because I think what we've seen over the course of the last few years is SNAP has been politicized.

And when SNAP gets politicized, we see more work requirements.

We see people getting kicked off SNAP that maybe would benefit from it.

And ultimately, again, we've talked about the economic drivers, the health benefits.

What we really need to be talking about is the things that Representative Moore's task force are dealing with in terms of Make America Healthy again, we have the food in the United States to feed everyone.

What we have is a distribution problem, and making sure that we have the financial solutions, the logistical solutions to get the food where it needs to go in a cost effective way is critical.

And I think for myself, I have proposed actually a budget request to allocate more money to feeding Kentucky to allow them to expand farms, to food banks, to make sure that we have healthy local food that includes dairy, meat and eggs, all in the pipelines for our food banks to be able to meet these greater, more expensive needs.

But also at the same time, we know that people want to have more healthy options.

They just can't always afford them or know where to get them.

And so I think creating more pipelines to where we can have greater policy solutions around this subject is key, and we need people to that want to think outside the box.

But I do think moving this program away from the federal government would be extremely overwhelming.

And I would really fear the inconsistencies across states.

So we're already seeing that right now with H.R.

one that's going to be taking effect.

And then also, I think we've just seen attacks on SNAP at the state level in years prior.

>> Yeah.

Anne-Tyler Morgan, I want to go to you about that idea.

What do you think?

>> Well, that's an excellent point.

And, you know, I think, Renee, that's a great segue into what the Kentucky Department of Agriculture has also done for this effort.

You know, we've talked about the governor making sure that money was allocated to cover benefits to feeding Kentucky food banks.

And I know that the Kentucky Department of Agriculture has done something similar, partnering with organizations around Kentucky like the Kentucky Association of Health Plans and others to continue the work that's going to feeding Kentucky food banks.

You know, I think as we've talked about, it's really important for agriculture to be such a driver.

In the conversation about Kentucky hunger and Kentucky health.

And everyone is working together in making sure that Kentuckians are fed in this critical time.

>> Yeah.

And we know the commissioner has called food is medicine.

That's exactly right.

And to be well fed is differently than just eating good.

I mean, or just eating junk, right.

There is a difference.

So I'm really curious, Representative Moore, about this Make America Healthy Again Task force, the Kentucky Task Force, and how this fits in with the work that you're currently doing on on that task force.

>> I really appreciate Representative Rourke bringing that up.

She talked about farm to food banks.

We had Commissioner Shell and people from his organization testifying to us, work that's being done right now, a lot of it through the Appalachian part of the state in eastern Kentucky, in which they're bringing these kind of farm programs to the local hospitals.

And they're setting up there in the hospital parking lots, and they're getting food boxes for the doctors, the nurses.

They're getting food there for the patients and getting food there for those in the community.

What we're seeing is that the doctors and nurses are healthier, which means they take care of people better.

We're seeing the patients.

They're having improved recovery time and not having to get readmitted to the hospital.

So there's a great way to use Kentucky, produce Kentucky agriculture to heal and feed Kentuckians.

>> Right.

And is it enough of it available to do that at scale?

Right, of what's needed?

That's a big question.

>> We have to put some.

That's why there's some good things for the government to take role in.

How can we help?

How can government be a good thing to get more food to more people?

>> Right.

We heard Representative Roarx, you mentioned Representative Roarx about how sometimes this conversation about SNAP and the people who benefit from it are vilified.

Or I want you to tell us more about that, because it seems that everyone who's assembled around this table and the table you are sitting at tonight in Louisville seem to be on some accord that SNAP is a viable program that serves the right people when it's needed.

What are you hearing?

Contrary to that.

>> I think what often perpetuates itself is that the program is abused, that folks use it for luxury items, that they are making poor choices with their spending and a lot of judgment around just basically personal decisions and scrutiny around what food people eat and are choosing to eat when on a government assistance program.

And I often say nobody's monitoring my food intake in that same, same manner.

And some people would argue that maybe there should be held to a higher standard if they're getting government assistance.

But I also think when you are working two jobs just to barely put food on the table and pay your rent, afford to have a family in general, we're seeing a lot more young people and young families wanting to delay having families because of the cost of living increases and grocery bills.

And so when we factor all those things in, I think it's really critical that one of the top issues for voters is always health care.

And when we talk about food being medicine, these conversations are all intertwined.

Because when you need quick meals, where are you going to go?

You're going to go to fast food.

You're going to go to things that are simple to make.

There's a reason why the food banks are asking for pop top canned meals.

It's so that children can make a meal.

My favorite was always Chef Boyardee.

Pop that open.

Be able to heat that up real fast for you and your siblings.

While your family might be at work while your parents are at work.

And I think those are really critical things that people know that there is limited time and resources that go around.

And so I think, absolutely, we need to combat issues of misuse, but also make our systems more efficient.

But honestly, SNAP is one of the more efficient programs that we have.

And my faith teaches me that feeding the hungry is of the utmost importance.

>> Miss Heather LeMire, do you have any issue with folks who may spend their government resources on less than healthy options?

>> I mean, I don't think that's anything that's for me to judge or say.

I think people are probably making the best choices that they can.

And I think that a lot of times, unfortunately, healthier options are more expensive.

And I think that if we started seeing, you know, local farmers being utilized more with food to schools and different places like that, then people would start learning healthier, healthier options.

But it oftentimes is more expensive.

And that's extremely unfortunate.

>> Yeah.

There's a price to health, right?

Eric Schansberg, I want to come back to you to to talk more about what you see as possible improvements in the SNAP program.

You mentioned about the Federalizing it in some capacity.

Where else do you think there could be greater efficiencies to get the food to the people who really need it?

>> Well, economists are agnostic on the question of paternalism, right?

How much are we going to tell people what they can buy?

But one thing is that if government is handing you money, government gets to make the rules.

So some in government want to be more restrictive for decent reasons.

I mean, that's a decent argument.

Others are like, no, let people do what they want.

And that's a perpetual argument we hear in public policy.

Aside from that, I mean, just to be careful not to connect it with so many other programs where it's just, again, very complicated to do poverty.

Well, if it's connected to forming single parent households, you get more money.

If you're a single parent household.

Again, that's dangerous because now you're paying people to be in a state that we're not really excited about.

So just be really careful about how we're giving.

How do we help without hurting?

It's just a constant problem in this arena.

>> Representative Moore.

>> Yes, and the Make America Healthy Again task force we've heard people talk about, well, they shouldn't have the super processed foods or high sugar foods or high calorie foods.

For those who are receiving these types of funds, I would like to see instead of us taking things away from Kentuckians giving more healthy options.

And part of that would be from this kind of agriculture food as medicine program.

How do we address things like food deserts, and is there a way that we can allow for our retailers and our grocers to perhaps incentivize choosing healthier options?

So we're not taking away that more sugary food, but maybe we can find a way to get healthier foods in front of people and teach people how to cook and use healthier foods through things like UC's Cooperative Extension Service, which does that throughout the state.

>> Dustin.

>> Well, what's interesting about that is we actually had a whole federally funded program that was designed to help people understand nutrition better, to give them recipes, to give them opportunities.

Cooking.

It was called Snap Nutrition Education HR one defunded that.

So, you know, here in Lexington, there was a location there off Tates Creek that was there for years and years, and it's gone now.

>> And this is the big, beautiful Bill.

>> This is the one big, beautiful Bill act.

That's right.

So, you know, we have we had opportunities to be able to do a lot of this.

And Congress chose to get rid of those.

I think the other thing that's important to point out when we talk about, you know, potentially restricting what types of foods people can buy with their Snap benefits is that USDA has done a lot of studies to look at what people purchase with their Snap benefits, and what they found is that, generally speaking, people on Snap buy the same things you and I do.

The top ten types of foods that a snap purchaser purchases, the same as everybody else.

And so I think it's important to recognize that, you know, we need to maybe do a lot of work to make our entire food system healthier.

But when when it comes to restricting what somebody who just needs help with their grocery bills can purchase, you know, to some degree, those restrictions already exist, right?

If you ever go to a grocery store and you see, like the hot plate with the rotisserie chickens, and then you see refrigerated ones right next to it, it's because you're only allowed to purchase cold foods, foods that you can prepare at home with your Snap benefits.

So, you know, we've done some of that already.

And, you know, I think there's a lot of discussion you can have around how effective that's been.

But the bigger issue is our food system as a whole.

And I think penalizing Snap beneficiaries just because they need help with their grocery bills isn't the way forward.

>> Well, one of the other elements of the big beautiful bill is it's going to require folks who maybe had gotten these benefits to have work requirements attached to them.

Right.

So now you've got 114,000 Kentuckians, I think, is what the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy could be threatened to no longer be able to get Snap because of the one big beautiful bill requirements.

Is that the case?

>> Yeah, those requirements started Saturday at the same time as when Snap benefits ran out.

So there are a lot of folks who are at risk now of losing those benefits.

You know, I think it's important to recognize that Snap already incentivizes work without having to report work hours.

Benefits are prorated as incomes rise so that you're not creating what's sometimes called a benefits cliff.

And so it really tries to encourage folks to to earn more while they're also receiving these benefits to implement additional requirements to report work hours, to report other types of community engagement.

It's really difficult the populations that the one big beautiful Bill act applied this to are pretty unique as well.

So you know, in one instance, it reduced the age of children in the household that might exempt you from 17 down to 13.

In another case, it expanded the age range up to age 64.

For folks who would have to adhere to these requirements.

And in another, it got rid of the exemptions for folks who are veterans, former foster care youth and people experiencing homelessness.

There are 8000 cases where there are so-called households that are homeless in Kentucky who are currently using that exemption.

How we anticipate that they will be able to meet this requirement, or even get notified effectively that they have to adhere to this requirement, I don't know, and I'm really concerned about what that's going to mean for for them and their ability to to eat at.

>> And this is the 80 hour a month work requirement or participation in a certain training program.

We know that Kentucky has experimented and discussed this for a long time.

What is your take on this Anne Tyler, and what the results you think might be of this particular provision in H.R.

one?

>> Well, like Dustin said, there was already a work requirement and incentive built into the Snap program.

So unlike some other benefits, this is not new.

It's just an expansion to other populations.

One of the things that comes to mind from a state government perspective is at a time when state government is now already going to have to figure a lot out about what to do with partial funding of Snap benefits as a result of the court orders that we saw late last week, the state is also now going to have to and is already in the process of figuring out how to administer these enhanced work requirements for, as Dustin said, populations like the homeless, you know, when you have reporting requirements of people who have trouble receiving mail and who have trouble reporting to work because of of their current situation, their homelessness, it's a very difficult thing for the state to actually monitor and implement.

With some populations, it's somewhat easier.

The former foster care youth are already in the state system, although former foster care youth are at a marked disadvantage for being able to be educated on how to report these types of requirements to the state.

So I see enhanced state administrative hurdles as a result of this.

Now, coupled with the partial funding issue that they're having to deal with.

I also think, you know, we've talked a lot about the kind of merits of the Snap system and whether people should spend their Snap benefits in a quote unquote, more healthy way.

But I think in that we're losing a lot of what's really happening here.

Snap is not being cut right now because of disagreements with the Snap program.

Snap is being cut right now because of the dysfunctionality of Congress.

And so I want to kind of go back to the real point here is that when talking about whether people should spend their Snap benefits in a more healthy way, I can almost guarantee you and I can't present empirical data, but I can almost guarantee that people will not be eating healthier because they have less money to afford food.

>> Absolutely.

>> Snap benefit is the only way they could afford healthy food.

So taking away that benefit certainly won't make Kentuckians healthier.

>> One other thing to to mention too, about these new reporting requirements.

So many states have the ability to give people one off exemptions, one off waivers if their life circumstances change and they need an extra month essentially to be able to get employed or what have you.

House Bill 7 in 2022 took that away from the state.

So in Kentucky state law, that is no longer an option on the table.

So I think as we move into this new chapter of Snap that's required by federal law, you know, if there are any state lawmakers who are interested in fixing that, I think that would be a really worthy next step.

>> For Representative Roarx, do you think that there is the political capital and will to embrace that idea that that Dustin brings up?

>> I think it could definitely be discussed, and I think this is one of those topics that we are really seeing a lot more unity and dialog on, because poverty affects every single county in Kentucky, and some more than others, especially in certain regions and especially in our mountain region.

So when we talk about SNAP and exemptions that used to exist that now work requirements are becoming more present for, we are going to see the unintended consequences down the line.

I think when we think about the teenagers that now no longer their household no longer qualifies for Snap, we're going to then see maybe high schools that are would be less eligible for free and reduced lunch, which then affects how people are getting meals in that entire school system.

So it is there's a lot of trickle down impacts there that I think when times get tough, we can really come together about what is most important for families in our districts.

And I think food access, health care, these are some of the top priorities for every single one of the 100 legislators, legislators in the House and the 38 in the Senate.

And so what I'm hopeful for is that we are going to continue to have more robust dialog, more coalition building, unlike what we've seen in the past, because when the rubber meets the road, these are things that our constituents call us about, that they are telling us that we need to step up and make make these processes work for them.

And I think what is often lost in translation is, you know, federal government will do something.

The state will step in and kind of bandaid it.

But a lot of times people aren't paying attention to who's doing what.

And so I think at the end of the day, you just know that your bills are more expensive and that it's harder to pay your groceries and feed your family.

So I think ultimately us as lawmakers and Kentuckians, I think, are more willing to sit down with each other and say, what is that commonality that we share and what are the solutions?

And how can we work together in a bipartisan manner to fix these problems?

>> I want to widen the aperture just a little bit and ask your seatmate there in Louisville, Professor Eric Schansberg, I mean, from an economic perspective, as an economist, as you are when you think about these programs, we haven't even talked about work for women and infants and children, right.

In TANF, if you think about all of these public assistance programs that we make the economic case for, why they are good and perhaps why they are not so good for the overall economy.

>> Well, we want to help the poor, but we should not do it, imagining that it's going to contribute to economic development.

I mean, take food stamps as an example.

When I was researching a bit, preparing for the program, I saw one report that said A dollar of food stamps creates $1.87 of economic activity.

Well, that's impossible.

If I take $1 from Rachel and give it to me, that's not going to magically create an extra $0.87 worth of economic activity.

So it may be a wonderful thing to do, but we should not imagine that we're going to do it for the sake of economic development.

There's good reasons to help the poor, private sector, public sector, whatever that looks like.

But let's make sure we're doing it for the right reasons.

And again, just be super careful with what the dog's breakfast of programs is doing as we try to help the poor without harming them.

>> Yeah, as we kind of come up on the conclusion of tonight with six minutes remaining and we've talked a little bit about the helpers who are doing this work, and I am curious about what kind of what's happening on the federal level that the states are dealing with, how that will affect the tone and tenor of the legislative session that is coming up on us.

Fast and furious starts January the 6th, I believe.

What are you expecting?

Well, Representative.

>> Moore, staying on this topic right now, I think we have to ask ourselves, like, what does it mean to be American, to be a first world country, the richest nation in the world?

I don't know about the other people sitting here, but we had to memorize the preamble to the Constitution back in, I think, seventh grade civics.

But one of them is, is promote the general welfare.

And part of that means that we are a rich nation.

We're a first world nation.

Do we want our own people going hungry?

If we can do a little bit more to ease that?

And I think that we should keep that in our mind when we go back into session in Frankfort in January.

>> Representative Roarx, I'll come to you since you'll be among those going.

>> To.

>> This is my second, my second budget session.

And I think what is always goes unseen is all the work that has gone into building the budget.

Even before we get back in to the legislative session, it's going to be 60 days.

It's going to be.

It'll go by in the blink of an eye.

But I do think we are all going into this budget session, you know, with these gaps from the federal government in mind, with the way that revenue is right now, looking at, we've reduced the income tax so much that this is going to be a really tight budget year for Kentuckians.

And the question of, are we willing to spend more of our rainy day fund, our budget reserve trust fund to help solve some of these problems that we are seeing because of the loss of federal funding?

Kentucky is a receiver state in a lot of ways, and we benefit from federal distribution of funds.

And so I think it really is a question around what is the state of Kentucky willing to put money behind and continue to program?

And for all those folks out there who are looking for ways to cut red tape, ways for things to be more efficient, this is where the rubber meets the road.

This is where we're going to be looking at this budget year, because the budget's going to be tight.

>> Miss Lohmeyer, we know that Americans for Prosperity Kentucky always talks about practicing fiscal restraint.

Right.

And smaller government is where does that those principles fit into this conversation about food assistance from your view?

>> Yeah.

I'm so glad you asked that.

I, I think that more, more Kentuckians are even needing Snap benefits because of different issues like housing expenses.

I mean, you know, it's becoming where Americans cannot even dream of having or owning a home.

A lot of kids who get out of college, that's something that they don't even see for their future.

And that's really, really a shame.

And so there that's our main priority going into legislative session this year.

We're going to be focused on affordable housing and cutting zoning requirements and permitting issues and all of those different things to really make it easier for Kentuckians to buy a home.

>> Well, as a regulatory attorney, Anne-Tyler Morgan, I would think that some of that sounds pretty good to you.

Perhaps.

>> Certainly.

And Renee, I work with a lot of groups that are focused on affordable housing and housing in general.

We, you know, have had a shortage, and certainly that's a very important issue.

I think child care, obviously, is another focus for making sure that Kentuckians have a certain level of welfare and can afford to work and keep their kids safe while they're doing so.

>> Yeah.

Dustin, what is what do you hope lawmakers will consider, particularly when it comes to these public assistance programs and how it should respond?

>> I mean, I think everything that's been mentioned is important.

I also think that the General Assembly, in many ways, may have their work cut out for them.

This shutdown is not over yet, and there are a lot of programs that still have a little bit of runway, but we're we're sort of meeting the end of that.

SNAP was the first sort of program to to see the expiration of those dollars.

But, you know, there are programs like that you mentioned where 107,000 Kentuckians receive nutrition assistance, including 38% of infants who are formula dependent and get their formula through Wick.

So, you know, that's a program that could run out of money soon.

>> What about TANF?

Temporary assistance for Needy.

>> Families is another one we're seeing.

>> And what's the difference between that and Snap.

>> Yeah.

So so TANF is the federal grant that funds our one and only basic cash assistance program.

And it goes to households with children who are around half the poverty line.

So very the poorest of the poor kids in Kentucky.

And it provides a very meager benefit, even more meager after recent cuts from the state government to to deal with some child welfare shortfalls.

We're also seeing the expiration of housing assistance funds through through the end of the year.

So there are a lot of ways in which this is potentially going to hurt people, which is to say nothing.

Of the 23,000 federal employees, many of whom have gone a month without a paycheck now, that includes air traffic controllers that work in 53 general aviation airports in Kentucky.

So there are a lot of significant needs.

And I hope, if nothing else, the shutdown has really showed us the value and importance that the federal government plays in our state and the many, many ways that it helps our families, our friends and our neighbors, and that when we move forward making decisions at the state and federal level, we'll kind of keep this moment in mind, because these are really critical programs that help a lot of folks.

>> Well, thank you all very much for your attention to this and sharing your thoughts with us.

And same to you all in Louisville.

We thank you for being with us tonight and next Monday night on Kentucky Night.

More about food insecurity and the work of agencies to help families in need.

Be sure to join us for that next Monday and for Kentucky Edition each weeknight at 630 eastern, 530 central, where we inform, connect and inspire.

And of course, Bill Bryant and a team of working journalists will be right here on Friday night for comment on Kentucky to wrap up the news of the week.

Thanks for watching tonight.

I'm Renee Shaw.

Take really good care and I'll see you soon.

So bad was it.

>> Great job.