Republicans defend tougher work requirements but challenge cost estimates

Republicans are defending changes to work requirements for recipients of food stamps included in a legislative deal hashed out by GOP leadership and the White House to raise the debt limit, challenging estimates that show the push could ultimately lead to more spending for the program.

As part of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, both sides have agreed to tighten work requirements by raising the age threshold for recipients subject to the rules, as well as some exemptions for certain groups, including veterans and those experiencing homelessness.

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), one of the top GOP negotiators, told The Hill Tuesday that the exemptions were made because of Democratic concerns, as work requirements remained a major sticking point toward the end of discussions with the White House this past week.

But those changes did not come without cost. Hard-line conservatives have raised alarm about estimates from federal budget analysts who say the final deal could actually wind up increasing spending for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by billions.

“Other than the $12 billion cut on nondefense discretionary spending, there’s no other real major adjustments here,” Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) told reporters this week, while noting figures from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that showed “with the new exemptions the SNAP program’s going to be bigger.”

“So, I’m trying to figure out exactly what conservatives should be happy about,” Donalds said, adding to the growing criticism leveled by hard-line conservatives since the bill’s unveiling over the weekend. 

In addition to changes to SNAP, the bill also sets budget caps for fiscal 2024 and 2025, raises the debt limit through next year, claws back some unused coronavirus funds, and makes changes to work requirements for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

CBO projects higher SNAP spending

The CBO, Congress’s nonpartisan budget scorekeeper, estimated the bill could reduce projected deficits by about $1.5 trillion over the next decade. But its projections that spending on SNAP could rise by more than $2 billion as result of the outlined exemptions has gotten pushback from Republicans.   

On call with reporters Wednesday, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.) singled out the scoring as “wrong,” claiming the budget office double-counted in its estimates.

“It was a factor of double counting these individuals with the new exemption areas, with veterans, homeless and those aging out foster youth, they’re largely already counted,” he said. “They’re already eligible, and so there was certainly a double counting that occurred.”

The Hill has reached out to the CBO for comment. 

Division over work requirements

In the end, Thompson said the changes to SNAP should’ve added up to “a wash,” while arguing that the bill would ultimately help grow the economy and lead to a “positive flow of income coming in, which is not captured today, in any of the studies that are done on the financial impact.”

“We’re going to return these programs to being a life vest, not a lifestyle,” Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), vice chairman of the House Republican Conference, said on the call Wednesday, arguing the reforms will help “end the cycle of dependency for children and families grown up on welfare.”

However, some conservatives reacting to the CBO estimates have used the projections as ammo to attack the bill, which some say didn’t go far enough in deficit reduction. 

“The gang can’t shoot straight, folks. Work requirements are supposed to save money,” Russ Vought, president of Citizens for Renewing America, tweeted of the recent estimates Tuesday afternoon.

The proposed work requirements for SNAP in the final deal mark a shift from what House Republicans previously sought as part of their partisan bill to raise the debt limit that passed the lower chamber last month — which some estimates say would have helped cut about $11 billion in spending over the next decade. 

But defending the proposed changes to work requirements in the bill, Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) told The Hill Tuesday that, “Republican motivation on the welfare reforms was not about saving money.”

“It was about moving people out of poverty and helping them get ahead,” he argued. 

At the same time, liberals and advocates have come out against the proposed changes to work requirements, with Congressional Progressive Caucus Chairwoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) sharing her opposition to the push in remarks to reporters Tuesday.

“I think work requirements are bad. Period, full stop. And they are bad whether they’re applied to Medicaid, whether they’re applied to snap or whether they’re applied to TANF,” Jayapal said, while also telling reporters that she thinks Democrats should have held a stronger line to prevent the changes from being added to the final deal.

Mike Lillis contributed.