Tag: economic insecurity

Falling Through the Cracks

By

On August 13, 2026

In cost of living

For the past year and a half, rising grocery prices have made balancing my budget increasingly difficult. I have tried buying less, choosing cheaper products, and watching for sales, but there is only so much anyone can cut from necessities. As food consumed more of my budget, less remained for medication, utilities, and other essential expenses.

On August 12, 2026, I learned that ComEd was preparing to disconnect my electricity. My account balance was $804.74, and I needed to pay $459.33 by the following day to prevent the shutoff.

ComEd offered me a deferred payment arrangement, but it required approximately $250 upfront. I did not have it. At the time, I had only $12.50 in cash, which I was saving for medication. Giving that money to ComEd would not have prevented the shutoff and would have left me unable to purchase my medication.

I contacted LIHEAP but was told my income was too high to qualify. This placed me in a frustrating gap: I did not have enough money to keep my electricity connected, yet I supposedly had too much income to receive assistance.

Over the next day, I contacted local government offices, community organizations, charities, senior services, regional nonprofits, and the Illinois Commerce Commission. I encountered waiting lists, paused programs, geographic restrictions, unaffordable payment requirements, delayed assistance, and referrals to programs I had already tried.

By the evening of August 12, I began preparing to lose electricity. I charged my phone, considered which household systems might continue working, and worried about losing the food in my refrigerator and freezer. Rising grocery prices had helped create the financial crisis, and a shutoff could have caused me to lose food I could not afford to replace.

During the crisis, I reached out to my church community. On the morning of August 13, my church made a $460 payment directly to ComEd—slightly more than the amount required to prevent disconnection.

The institution that provided immediate help was not the utility company, a government program, the state regulator, or one of the large social-service organizations I contacted. It was my church community.

My electricity crisis did not develop overnight. It was the result of basic expenses gradually increasing until a budget that once worked no longer did. Having an income on paper does not mean having hundreds of dollars available during an emergency.

I am profoundly grateful that my church listened and acted. At the same time, no one’s ability to keep the lights on—and protect the food they struggled to afford—should depend upon whether they belong to a community capable of producing hundreds of dollars overnight.

The Hidden Costs of Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill

By

On May 29, 2025

In Donald Trump

WASHINGTON, DC – MAY 22: U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) speaks to the media after the House narrowly passed a bill forwarding President Donald Trump’s agenda at the U.S. Capitol on May 22, 2025 in Washington, DC. The tax and spending legislation, called the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill” Act, redirects money to the military and border security and includes cuts to Medicaid, education and other domestic programs. Johnson was flanked by House Committee Chairmen who helped craft the legislation. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

As a former Senior Program Specialist with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) at the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service, I am deeply concerned about the ramifications of President Donald Trump’s recently passed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBB). While touted as a transformative economic package, this legislation poses significant threats to both the national economy and the well-being of millions of Americans, particularly through its drastic cuts to SNAP.

The OBBB extends the 2017 tax cuts and introduces additional reductions, primarily benefiting corporations and high-income individuals. Proponents argue that these measures will spur economic growth. However, the Congressional Budget Office projects that the bill will add approximately $3.8 trillion to the national deficit over the next decade (Vanity Fair, 2025). This increase in debt raises concerns about long-term fiscal sustainability and the potential for higher interest rates, which could stifle economic growth rather than promote it.

One of the most alarming aspects of the OBBB is the proposed $300 billion cut to SNAP over the next ten years (Kiplinger, 2025). These cuts would tighten eligibility requirements, shift program costs to states, and limit future benefit increases (Newsweek, 2025). Such changes threaten to increase food insecurity among low-income families, children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities.

In Wisconsin, for instance, the state could lose over $300 million in food assistance, potentially affecting more than 700,000 residents (Economic Times, 2025). These reductions not only jeopardize the health and well-being of vulnerable populations but also place additional financial burdens on state governments and local communities.

SNAP benefits are not just a lifeline for recipients; they also play a crucial role in supporting local economies. Every dollar spent on SNAP generates approximately $1.50 to $1.80 in economic activity (KCRG, 2025). Cuts to the program could therefore have a cascading effect, reducing revenue for grocery stores, farmers, and food producers. In Iowa, the president of the Iowa Farmers Union expressed concern that reduced SNAP benefits would hurt farmers by decreasing demand for their products (KCRG, 2025).

The OBBB’s approach to shifting SNAP administrative costs to states—up to 75%—represents an unfunded mandate that could strain state budgets (Newsweek, 2025). States would be forced to make difficult decisions, potentially cutting other essential services or increasing taxes to cover the shortfall. This shift undermines the federal-state partnership that has been fundamental to the success of SNAP.

The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” presents a facade of economic progress while undermining the very foundations of food security and fiscal responsibility. As someone who has dedicated a career to ensuring access to nutrition assistance, I find the proposed cuts to SNAP not only detrimental to individual well-being but also harmful to the broader economy. Policymakers must reconsider these provisions to protect vulnerable populations and maintain the integrity of programs that have long served as a safety net for millions of Americans.

References:

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén