Let's talk about Trump’s USDA no longer keeping track of food insecurity....

episode

Belle of the Ranch 3 min 1 speaker 5 chapters transcribed 1 month ago

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the USDA Household Food Security Report and why was it discontinued?

Belle of the Ranch 0:01

Well, howdy there internet people it's Belle again. So today, we're going to talk about Trump's USDA no longer keeping track of food insecurity. For about 30 years, the United States has kept track of whether or not the people in our communities and our country have enough to eat. Through an annual report called the Household Food Security Report. Well The Trump administration has decided that the report is no longer necessary. They said it was costly, politicized, and extraneous.

Why does the host describe the report’s cancellation as fear‑mongering?

Belle of the Ranch 0:40

For somebody who promised an economic golden age and who campaigned on putting Americans first and looking out for the little guy. It seems like you'd want to know whether or not people have enough food. But hey, what do I know, right? I've come to realize that when it comes to numbers and reports, those that get cast as costly or unnecessary or politicized are simply reports that show the policies of the party saying it are wrong, failing and broken. The USDA press release says the reports quote. Do nothing more than fear monger. Fearmongering.

How do Trump’s budget cuts affect SNAP benefits and food‑insecure families?

Belle of the Ranch 1:24

I wonder how the farmers in Iowa feel about the idea that a report counting the number of Americans who don't have enough to eat is nothing more than fear mongering. Tammy Nielsen, who runs Food Bank of Iowa, one of the state's largest food banks, had a thought on the lack of the report. Quote. What are the outcomes of these federal cuts? That is lost by not publishing the data. I feel like she's right on the money. Or the lack of money in this case. See, Trump's cuts through the one big beautiful bill affect SNAP, what used to be called food stamps.

What evidence suggests the cuts were framed as fraud prevention rather than real need?

Belle of the Ranch 2:07

More than forty million people in the United States rely on SNAP. Trump's cuts are expected to kick millions off the program. Republicans sold this plan to their base by telling them that it was about fraud. Next year's report would have likely shown that to be a lie. And that the cuts they implemented against those who literally do not have enough to eat, so they could give tax cuts to the wealthy weren't actually cuts impacting fraud, waste, and abuse, but were in fact taking food out of the mouths of kids in your community. Millions are expected to lose access to food because of the cuts.

What broader political implications does the host see in ending food‑security tracking?

Belle of the Ranch 2:51

At a time when Americans who were considered middle class not too long ago are having trouble making ends meet, and the term grocery loan has entered the American vocabulary. The Trump administration has decided that you don't need to know how bad the problem is. You don't need to know whether or not it's getting worse or if his promises are coming true. I would say this is a real let them eat cake moment for the Republican Party. The problem is that Republicans across the country are making sure Snap doesn't cover birthday cakes. So even that doesn't fit. Anyway, it's just a thought. Y'all have a good day.

Select any passage to copy it with its citation or turn it into a shareable card.