Latest / We Can Do Better / How Millions Are Losing Food Assistance

Transcript

How Millions Are Losing Food Assistance · We Can Do Better

• Fran Quigley: Welcome to We Can Do Better, a podcast about ending poverty in our time. I'm your host, Fran Quigley. I'm a law professor and I go to eviction court each week with my students, where we represent millions, some of the mil some of the millions of people in the United States who are facing the loss of their homes. Many people in our courts and across the country are also forced to skip filling prescriptions, and they often go hungry, despite living in the richest nation in the world. We can do better. Other nations already do far better, and the United States has often done better in the past. So this podcast lifts up the many people and organizations working to make housing, health care, and a decent life and fortaf enforceable human rights for all. So today we are graced with the presence of Catelyn Chaco. Catelyn is one of the top-notch is part of the member of the top-notch Research and Policy Institute Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Catelyn and his colleagues are documenting. the devastating impact of the Trump Republican so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act. As we'll hear from Catelyn, the law has pushed millions of people off of the supplemental nutrition assistance program SNAP, also known as food stamps. Catelyn works in the Center on Budgets Food Assistance Division as a research associate where he focuses on data analysis and research for the food stamp, school meals, and the WIC programs. Catelyn, welcome and thank you for joining us at We Can Do Better. Catlin Nchako, CBPP: ⁓ thank you, Fran. It's a a pleasure to be here. Thank you for having me. Fran Quigley: Well no, we appreciate you. So you and your Center on Budget colleagues have some disturbing but really deeply important reporting on the devastating impact on families and people in need of food support that's been caused by last summer's sometimes sometimes called HR one, sometimes called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Either way it was pushed by President Trump and Congressional Republicans. So before we talk about your findings, what Can can you give us a reminder of what that legislation did regarding eligibility for SNAP benefits? Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Sure, sure. So ⁓ HR one ⁓ was enacted la ⁓ July of last year in twenty twenty five. And there are a couple of different things that it did. so really the the biggest thing is that ⁓ prior to HR one the cost of operating SNAP ⁓ of SNAP of ⁓ providing SNAP benefits was fully shouldered by the federal government. The federal government shared the cost of administ administering SNAP between ⁓ ⁓ it and the states, but it f paid the full price of ⁓ providing SNAP benefits. What HR one did is it basically is making ⁓ states to ⁓ shoulder ⁓ basically shoulder a share of that federal benefits, ⁓ which is something that they haven't had to do before. It's also asking them to shoulder ⁓ a slightly higher share of the ⁓ cost of administering administering benefits as well. But the big thing is really that they are now responsible for ⁓ paying for the stock benefits that the that the recipients that state are providing. ⁓ and that that's a big deal and we can happy to talk a little bit more about why that's a big deal as well. ⁓ mmhm Fran Quigley: Sure, thank you. And there's eligibility restrictions, ⁓ or at least barriers and as also were created by the legislation, right? Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Yes, that's right. That's right. So ⁓ one of the things ⁓ that it does is that ⁓ part of HR one, ⁓ there some categories of immigrants who are lawfully present that are able to ⁓ access SNAP. So HR one also restricts those immigrants as well. So if you think of folks like refugees or people who are in need of help, right, for traff sex trafficking or other reasons. ⁓ that they may be s ⁓ that they may need snaps. So HR one restricts those categories of people who can access SNAP. ⁓ the other thing that ⁓ HR one does is ⁓ it also add new categories of SNAP recipients to people who a group of snap recipients that can get s ⁓ snap in for a very ⁓ amount of time. Fran Quigley: Mm-hmm. Catlin Nchako, CBPP: ⁓ they only limit it to three months of benefits out of every three years. And what HR done is adds new categories of people into that group, including parents with ⁓ children that are fourteen ⁓ or older, which is a group of categories that that did not have to were not included in there in that before. Fran Quigley: Right. So by by that, if they're only eligible three months out of every twelve months, people still need to eat the other nine months, right? So this can be devastating to those families. Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Yeah, three months out of every yeah. Out of every three years. Every three years, thirty six months, yeah. Okay. Mm hmm. Fran Quigley: Okay. ⁓ wow. Okay. And ⁓ something that we see a lot with our clients in eviction court and beyond is folks that get caught up in in paperwork and red tape and for a lot of different government programs. But one of the things that was enacted last summer, and this applies to Medicaid too, and we'll have a s a a subsequent episode. We're not gonna make Catelyn talk about at Medicaid because he has colleagues who specialize in that, but is work requirements, right? And and it sounds like Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Mm-hmm. Ha ha. Fran Quigley: Well, of course we c should require people who are supposed to be able to work to work. Why shouldn't we do that? But it ends up kicking people off the roles who are eligible, right? How how does how's that been a barrier? Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Mm. Yeah, so one of the challenges with the ⁓ requirement that people work is if you think of ⁓ people who are generally ⁓ in need of food assistance, these are a group of folks who ⁓ vulnerable, they're struggling. three quarters of SNAP households include someone who ⁓ include a child, ⁓ someone who has a disability or a senior. So these are vulnerable groups of people. ⁓ and the type of jobs that if you look at data that folks who are in this category are jobs where you have ⁓ inconsistent schedules or low paying jobs. So they have a need for the supplement, the supplement that ⁓ Snap provides to help them keep food on the table. So having such a r ⁓ so having ⁓ really short period of time that they can have benefits out of the out of a three year period is really difficult. So now now when you add even more people into that group of ⁓ of folks, it becomes you're really making it harder to for even more people who need help to ⁓ get the help that they need. Fran Quigley: And and your prior research and your by meaning the center and and other organizations' prior research has shown that a lot of people in government programs get kicked off for not complying with the work requirements, even though they are working, or even though they are they should be exempt, but they just haven't jumped through the right paperwork hoops. This is something that you all warned about last year before this ever passed, right? Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Mm-hmm. That's correct. Yes. Yes, and that's very true. I think part of the if you think of for someone who's coming to a snap office and applying for benefits or getting ⁓ recertified, which means that they need to come in and show ver show ⁓ evidence that they still are eligible for Snap. So there's a lot of paperwork that goes into that. and that can be quite burdensome for ⁓ for folks who are applying to be able to produce, say for example, they have to take time off work to come to the office. If they have children at home, they need to get child care. They may be transportation issues. So there are a lot of litigative barriers that make it difficult for for people applying or trying to stay on SNAP to be able to keep getting some and and demonstrate that they're continuing to be eligible. ⁓ they can still be working. ⁓ fact be for sub for their work requirements, it's not that you you you there's some base level of working that you still have to do. It's just that you you have to be working above a certain threshold. So you what we often say is that SNAP recipients do work. the issue is that ⁓ they just they're just because of the inconsistent of their job, they just may not be working above the threshold that's required and that makes it even more difficult given the logistical ⁓ issues, hurdles that come up. Fran Quigley: Right. And I appreciate you talking about the logistical hurdles because as we see, it's hard being poor, right? You're you don't have good transportation. You oftentimes these are folks with young children, child care issues. Missing a shift of work is is can be c catastrophic for the family income because they're so ⁓ so tight to begin with. So all those barriers that make it difficult to get food stamps and and snap is all all part of the reason they need soup snap, right? They need the benefits and so Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Mm-hmm. Yes. Yes. Exactly. Right. Fran Quigley: It's a it's a very sad irony that that that we've made it so much harder for people who already have so many challenges. Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Right, and we emphasize that Snap doesn't ⁓ Snap is still supplement. ⁓ it's only if you look at the cost ⁓ per person per day, it's only about six dollars per person for the which is not enough, you know, to feed yourself or an entire family. So it's just meant as a supplement. so when you take that away, it's even harder. You you're just really making it hard for folks who are in need. Fran Quigley: Right. And does d your data show what we see anecdotally, which is that folks getting snap benefits are also needing to get food from other you know, they're going to pantries and they're going to soup kitchens and they're getting free trying to just do what they can to get the food on the table 'cause that as you say, six dollars a day is not enough. Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Yeah. Yes, yes. And I think that's what we ⁓ we also ⁓ work with Snap ⁓ advocates on the ground and from what we hear anecdotally as well is because it's up of mint people still need to get other ways to get their food. So they would visit as you're mentioning, the visit food pantry. And what HR does a th w it what HR one of the impacts of HR one is that because people are are losing their access net benefits, that means that there's going to be an increased need for them to go to food pantries and food banks, which I think also anecdotally is also concerned on that. And while we can't fulfill this level of need, I mean there's a role for the federal government to come in and and and actually be ⁓ be a source of assistance for folks in in addition to food banks. Fran Quigley: Right. And and again, you all and your colleagues and ⁓ have warned about this a year ago, ⁓ but the legislation passed anyway. so now we're almost a year later, twelve or eleven months later, and ⁓ you have now on your website, it's ⁓ cbpp dot org, and we'll put the links in the show notes, but ⁓ something called Snap Tracker. People are losing food assistance as the Republican mega bill is implemented. Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Mm. Fran Quigley: And you have the data there for not just the national numbers, but state by state by state, so folks can look up their own individual states. So what ⁓ what are the data showing you eleven months after this took effect? Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Yeah, so ⁓ the data that we have ⁓ is as recent as ⁓ April of twenty twenty six, a little bit lag from today. But and that's about eight months from the ⁓ from the passage of HR one. And what we are seeing is what we are afraid of is that we see that the number of C ⁓ people on SNAP is declining. So ⁓ since July nationally speaking, there's a more than three and a half million ⁓ people. who have lots of snap benefits. There's that many fewer people on ⁓ on Snap. That's nearly nine percent. Fran Quigley: Wow. Can we stop and just underline that for a second? Three and a half million people who were eligible, so therefore they needed food assistance, and now just s less than a year, well less than a year after the legislation passed, they are not getting any food assistance. Wow. Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Yes, exactly. Yes, that's right. And it's terrible. It's actually terri it's it's really terrible. and we have not seen ⁓ ⁓ a drop in this short a time in SNAP participation in thirty years. so it's really it's really notable and it's really it's hard. It's it's ⁓ it's it's hard. Fran Quigley: Right, right. And we can't right, and we just can't ignore the fact that this means are going hungry. This means that seniors are going hungry. Families are not able to to put food on the table. you you again, 'cause you all are experts about this, you you you understood and anticipated what some possible argument would be back. I saw well maybe people aren't getting SNAP because they don't need SNAP benefits, food stamp benefits anymore. but you also compared to the unemployment data. Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Yes. Mm-hmm. Fran Quigley: And ⁓ what did you find in terms of whether people are off snap because they just don't need it anymore versus that the fact that they're getting ⁓ blocked from being on it? Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Right. So ⁓ part of you know, as you mentioned, the the argument is well, the economy is doing better and therefore this is why people don't need ⁓ SNAP anymore. But if you look at the unemployment rate, which is the in ⁓ marker of the economy, ⁓ the nump unemployment rate has stayed flat. ⁓ so it's not actually the case that the economy's doing better and that's the reason why ⁓ SNAP participation is going down. So there's other factors that are affecting it. It's not a function of the economy. ⁓ the other thing to add to what we see in the data is that ⁓ we also look at ⁓ SNAP participation of children. ⁓ we don't have data for all the states, but among the twelve states that we have, we see that out of out of twelve states there's about ⁓ the decline in SNAP participant was about one point Fran Quigley: Right. Catlin Nchako, CBPP: ⁓ six million and we see that ⁓ the children is about half of that. ⁓ my. And that's just that's just children receiving snaps. So it's really I mean, again we're talking about people who are vulnerable children and yeah, it's it is not a good it's not a great picture at all. Fran Quigley: ⁓ my. Right. Right. And that that certainly doesn't fit the narrative of ⁓ these people just don't want to work. They are children, right? They're are children who of course we don't expect to money into the the the coffers to to buy their their families food. The that three and a half million number that you talked that's that's a ⁓ nearly one in ten people who were getting snapped before. But ⁓ in the state of Arizona and that's a Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Right. Mm-hmm. Fran Quigley: It's somewhat like that in in the other states when I look at your your website. But the state of Arizona, it's a very different story. And can you tell a little bit about what's going on in Arizona and why that might matter to the folks in the forty nine other states in in the District of Columbia? Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Yeah. Yeah, so I think what we and ⁓ I think we think of ⁓ Arizona as being a sort of a alarm for what could happen in other states. And so now other preface by saying that ⁓ the case load decline for many states happened before HR one, but what you see is that the case load decline is accelerated p after July. Fran Quigley: Hm. Catlin Nchako, CBPP: ⁓ and then Azor in particular is very stark because ⁓ they have seen a fifty two percent drop in their caseload in the past eight months. if you ⁓ and that's very stark. I mean the ⁓ other states ⁓ after Arizona, other states every state has seen a caseload decline. After Arizona you're seeing declines of over ten percent about thirteen states. But Arizona in particular is a big Fran Quigley: ⁓ my goodness. Catlin Nchako, CBPP: It's a it's a huge it's a huge drop. Fran Quigley: That's more half the people who were on Snap a few months ago are are no longer on it. And ⁓ that of leads to the question of as bad as this is, as disturbing as this is, you you've hinted at this and in your reporting again at cbp dot org talks about it that this could get worse before it gets better, right? Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Mm-hmm. Yeah, I think that's certainly our our fear. ⁓ so part of the part the challenge here is that if w so for state agencies administ administering step now that they have to shoulder this new cost of paying for benefits. they have a limited budget and they have to balance their budget. So if now they're expected to to pay this new cost, you have to get the money from somewhere else. Fran Quigley: Mm-hmm. Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Or they have to reduce their ⁓ their ⁓ roles so people are on Snap or reduce the amount of benefits. ⁓ or adopt policies that in effect it harder for us people to stay on stop, so they're not protecting Snap ⁓ access to Snap that's much. So I think this this is sort of the s incentive that HR one provides and I and we think that this is what we see happening in Arizona and that we think also happening other states. ⁓ we already hear anecdotally about ⁓ how states in response to HR one ⁓ they ha they have ⁓ sh staffing shortages, so it's already hard for them to keep up with the amount of calls that are coming in. or also that they're also requiring ⁓ more to ⁓ to verify their income a lot more, even if even if even as they have ⁓ limited staffing. which increases which makes it administratively more harder for households to keep up with the requirements of thing on SNAP and then that and then you see this this cascade effect of people falling off the rolls because of it. So w there's a lot of bad incentives from our point of view ⁓ for state agencies that result from HR one and has a ⁓ really negative impact on people who need who need to help. Fran Quigley: Right. Right. And I appreciate that because you circle back to what you the first thing you talked about with what the legislation did is kicked the lot of the cost and responsibility to the states and that thing's like, well, what do we care? Federal government, state government, they're both gonna pay. It's like no, if state governments are are are tight on money, one way for them to like you say, to have this negative incentive to keep their caseloads down, less people getting snap benefits, is make it harder to get snap benefits. ⁓ and make it ⁓ less accessible and and Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Fran Quigley: More burdensome barriers to apply and to re as you say, recertification. Any of us who've ever done this work with low income people, you know, a lot of folks are on benefits or getting some kind of support, but then they keep having to prove themselves. And that happen paperwork jump through, especially people, low income people oftentimes get evicted or have to move, and then they're not getting the notices that they have that they need to recertify. They miss that, and all of a sudden they don't have the benefits anymore. So Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Mm. Fran Quigley: ⁓ as you say, the states have an incentive and and I gotta say, in the s our state of Indiana, red state there looking at ways to cut the snap enrollment so that that it can ease the the pressure that puts on on the state budget. So this is something you all again warned about a year ago. You said this was gonna happen. We had lots of politicians saying, ⁓ don't worry, and unfortunately you don't we wish you weren't proven right, but you have been proven right. So ⁓ Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Mm-hmm. Fran Quigley: Catelyn, let's let's say we give those lawmakers the benefit of the doubt, and they sincerely didn't think these horrible things were going to happen, or at least even if they did, now they're disturbed about it. they have an opportunity to ⁓ things. You know, what would be the short-term fix? And then I'll probably follow up and say, what will be the long-term fix, presuming we have a different political landscape at the federal level. But it right now, in June of 2026, July of 2026, what What could and should Congress do to to to stop this enormous damage happening? Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Yeah, I think what we are seeing the short term is that we ⁓ think that Congress should delay ⁓ this cost shift, meaning that the ⁓ the the requirement that ⁓ states ⁓ shoulder a higher of the cost of ⁓ providing benefits by two years. and would ⁓ in the short term that would give states more time prepare. One one thing that's notable about about what we're seeing here is that this decline is happening as states are scrambling to ⁓ to prepare themselves and this is happening before states have even had to s have to pay. They're not paying yet for this higher cost. This is all this decline is happening prior to any them being responsible for any costs. So that's a very notable in terms of the impact before you're actually seeing them having to pay. So we want to delay this. We say, okay Fran Quigley: Right. Okay. Catlin Nchako, CBPP: In the short term, Congress should ⁓ delay this for two years and give states more time. And then hopefully this also stems a case of decline that we're seeing in response. Fran Quigley: So again, you you are part of a non profit research and not an advocacy group, so I won't ask you the question about who should be in charge politically. But if there is a different political climate, if the folks are can together a majority of ⁓ lawmakers the federal level who are concerned about kids ⁓ not food, what could be what's the long term fix to this besides just going back to and presumably repealing Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Mm-hmm. Fran Quigley: some of these ⁓ the most egregious problems. That that's that's I guess step number one, right, is to stop what's what happened with H R one. Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Yes. Yes. Yes, we would advocate for a full repeal. I mean I think HR one is just very ⁓ has a very ⁓ there's a lot of negative impacts. ⁓ both for people who need help, people who are eligible for SNAP, people who need for assistance, and then for state agencies that are administering administering STAP as well. So we can advocate for a full repeal from Congress. Fran Quigley: Okay. And and I'll I will give a little pitch for a future podcast episode. have, I can tell you from the lawyer perspective, when somebody is not getting food assistance, when they're not getting housing assistance, there's very few legal remedies. We don't have an established human right to food, housing, healthcare in the United States. in large part because we have not signed on to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. which the US in my opinion I won't put words in Catelyn's mouth, in my opinion we should and if that happens, maybe we can smooth out this pendulum of when one particular administration or one particular Congress gets in charge and starts slashing the benefits and then, as Catelyn said, maybe in two years, maybe in four years, maybe we can restore them, but when's that gonna happen again? So that's a future podcast episode and future articles, but ⁓ I will leave it at that. And Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Mm. Fran Quigley: And so let me ask you, Catelyn, with the states being this responsibility right now being put onto the states, as you say it hasn't even taken effect yet, but but what can and should states do to prepare for this to happen if it's going to happen, what can a state that doesn't want to see the kind of numbers that we're seeing in Arizona and the kind of suffering behind the numbers we're seeing in Arizona? What what at the state level should advocates do and what should lawmakers at the state level do? Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Yeah, I think for ⁓ lawmakers mean I think ⁓ advocates, just c continuing to show underground what's happening to people who are being affected. Like bring up your stories, highlight stories, this is something that has real life consequences. So you think advocates I think that sort of real life storytelling beyond the data that you're seeing is really important to both make general public and lawmakers aware of what the impact is. lawmakers I I I think this with lawmakers I think it's the same thing as Congress where you know should really be bringing this up ⁓ ⁓ discussing this and really going back to a full to a full repeal of the law. state agencies I think have a harder time because they're really sort of hamstrung by the requirements here. I think that ⁓ state Really there are options that states can do that make to make it ⁓ to make the administrative burden on households easier. There are certain policy options that stages can adopt. They can require, for example, ⁓ households to certify their their eligibility as often, right? So that remov that ⁓ mitigates some of the administrative burden, both for them and then as well for households. ⁓ so definitely some policy options that they can do to make it easier. It's it's a very difficult thing to do in the context of what the law requires. Fran Quigley: Well I appreciate that. And and when we talk about it maybe from the state level or we talk about it as advocates, there there are benefits and and you're a food assistance researcher beyond just SNAP. ⁓ what are the benefits to the community? Again, hopefully everyone listening to this, I believe everybody cares if children go hungry just because morally that's the wrong thing to do. But but is there also benefit to the community from these programs ensuring that our our neighbors and our kids are are well fed? Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Yes. So I mean SNAP is the nation's largest anti-hunger program. ⁓ so I think SNAP, for example, ⁓ there's research that has shown that SNAP helps mitigate food insecurity. when you think about ⁓ f food insecure households, and particularly when you consider households with children, ⁓ we often that they're also impacted by ⁓ food insecurity. ⁓ shows that for ⁓ children that are g are hungry, ⁓ have difficult times paying attention in school, there are a lot of health benefits to not being hungry. I mean and then on and it we know that on a visceral level. And I think that's why ⁓ SNAP is really important. there's also research that shows that the ⁓ even SNAP is a supplement, Fran Quigley: Mm-hmm. Catlin Nchako, CBPP: The fact that people are able to use this to help them get food on the table helps raise them a little bit out of poverty as well. and then the other benefit that comes is also that ⁓ that comes to mind is that Snap also helps the economy. And there's research that shows that for ⁓ every one dollar in Snap that's spent, that contributes about a dollar fifty ⁓ to the economy. Fran Quigley: And how does that work with the the snap benefits of a dollar actually contributing to the economy that way? Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Well think for example of if I'm a SNAP recipient and I go into a SNOR that's authorized to accept SNAP benefits and I'm spending money and then in turn that allows someone else who's working at the SNO store to a job and they're also contributing to the economy. ⁓ So are these sort of rollover effects from people spending. Like if you think about the idea of the economy doing better is that you have people wanting people to spend. And I think that's where ⁓ having SNAP benefits is ⁓ is a c contributor to the economy as well. Fran Quigley: Right. Sure. And they're and SNAP recipients, I'm sure, are disproportionately spending their money in their own neighborhood and community, right? Because these aren't folks who are ⁓ unfortunately for fortunately able to, you know, spend their money out of state, that type of thing. So this is gonna be putting money right back into their neighborhoods. ⁓ an and we see it a lot in in eviction court, unfortunately we see people who are losing their housing and it's usually there's ⁓ a reason behind it that's not connected directly to housing, and that is that Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Yes. That's right. That's right. Fran Quigley: they had to pay for an extra prescription or that they had some some type of with transportation, etcetera. ⁓ if folks I assume if folks have a steady, decent amount of SNAP benefits so they can put food on the table, it makes it more likely that they can pay their rent on time and that they can get their health care. And so therefore it's a more stable, healthy household and a more stable, healthy community, right? Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Mm-hmm. Yes. Yes, yes, no, yes. And and the the the point this also brings up is we can connect us to jobs as well. I think that I mentioned before that a loss the research shows that SNAP recipients are working in jobs that are relatively low in low income. they have ⁓ inconsistent schedules. ⁓ so in some ways if Fran Quigley: Mm-hmm. Catlin Nchako, CBPP: If we can improve the economy and jobs for folks and such f for low income folks, we also make it for them to be able to ⁓ afford their basic needs and therefore they have a little bit less of reliability on Snap. but if you but if that's not gonna happen, then you should help people. And I think that's sort of the values that we are where we're coming from when it comes to ⁓ why we are ⁓ advocating for SNAP. Fran Quigley: Right. And and and you're more familiar with it than I am, but I I've definitely seen polling. I mean in it that like happily most people want everyone to be fed. Well happily most people do not want children and and seniors and and other folks who are struggling to to be hungry. I'd like to ask you a little bit about your own path to this. ⁓ ⁓ I I s I see that you have a master's from Georgetown, you went to Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Yes. Fran Quigley: Cornell, you went to these fancy schools. I just teach at Indiana University, so but I'm I'm so I'm I'm honored to be in the same conversation with you. But I I'm also really intrigued by the the fact you've worked in the past as a researcher for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, which I I think as you say just ties into the fact that most folks who are in need of of SNAP are working, but they're working low income jobs. So Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Mm-hmm. Fran Quigley: What about wages and food insecurity? What kind of connection do you have you seen in in your research in this job and and maybe even previously too? Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Yeah, so I think with with respect to ⁓ I work at the labor union. So I worked at the Fo Food and Commercial Workers Union, which represent workers such as ⁓ folks who work in ⁓ retail stores and grocery store workers. So you can think of these jobs as being that the jobs some there's certain types of jobs there that ha that would fit into the category of the jobs that some people who might need ⁓ food assistance would ⁓ be in those categories of jobs. And I think that ⁓ Fran Quigley: Mm-hmm. Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Part of what we're f as a labor union, what you're fighting for is workers' rights and people have the and for people to have a livable wage. if you ⁓ I think that connects to the work here because goes saying earlier that you want people or from my perspective, you want to have an economy and jobs where people are able to to live, meet their basic needs. Fran Quigley: Mm-hmm. Catlin Nchako, CBPP: and get ⁓ and be able to ⁓ put food on their table and have all the full workers' right protections. if but if we're in a society that does not allow for that, then ⁓ it's seems to then also then deny them the food as the the the food assistance that I need, which is what's connect which how I connect that to the work that I'm doing ⁓ now. Fran Quigley: Sure, sure. And it of course connects to the political theme of HR one and one big beautiful bill act in terms of work requirements. We want people to work. Well, of course, and most ev everyone who is able to work wants to work too. They just need a living wage job where they can put food on the table and they can pay their rent and that's the struggle. Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Yes. Yes. Fran Quigley: Well, I I just so much appreciate what what you do. I appreciate you taking time out of this unfortunately historic moment that you are in. I do wanna commend folks to ⁓ look at the Center on Budgets website. Right on the front of the website is the Snap Tracker because that's such a critical issue. But you all do so much other healthcare and housing and subsistence income research. And so it's Center on Budget Policy Priorities and it's CBPP dot org. We'll put links in the show notes. You all are on social media as well, right? And ⁓ sharing sharing your research and sharing these alerts. ⁓ Calend anything that I didn't ask you about that you'd like to to share with folks before we sign off? Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Yes. Yes we are. ⁓ the main thing I would just reemphasize is that there's a real human cost to ⁓ HR one and think that's the one thing I would want ⁓ your audience to take away with that, you know, beyond the data and the ⁓ news reports they are real life people are being affected by this. And that's important to keep in mind. and to ⁓ let your members of Congress know about. Fran Quigley: I appreciate that. I appreciate both sentiments. Yes, this is real human cost. There's suffering, there's hunger going on right now in our communities because of this. But federal lawmakers caused it. State lawmakers, unfortunately, may be exacerbating it, and they all answer to us. So we need to let them know. So thank you very much, Catelyn, for joining us. Thank you to our listeners for joining us today. We will see you next week. And until then, remember, we can do better. Catlin Nchako, CBPP: Thank you for having.