SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
affordable housing
Cutting Medicaid, SNAP, and Housing Assistance Will Harm Low-Income Americans
Members of House committees must carefully consider the benefits that these programs deliver to U.S. families before making decisions about where and how to make the spending cuts required by the latest budget.
Mar 15, 2025
In late February, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a budget resolution that calls for $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and $2 trillion in federal spending cuts. This resolution provides a framework for a more detailed budget bill to come, mandating certain House committees to reduce spending over the next decade on government programs under their purview—for instance, calling on the Committee on Energy and Commerce to find $880 billion in cuts, $230 billion for the Agriculture Committee, and $1 billion for the Committee on Financial Services, among others. These committees will have to make difficult decisions about where to reduce federal spending and by how much as they draft their actual budgets in the coming weeks.
The implications of their decisions will be far reaching. Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and housing assistance programs are all at risk because they fall under the jurisdiction of the committees subject to large spending cuts and comprise a major share of those committees’ spending. Cutting back on these social infrastructure programs would come at a huge cost for the well-being of U.S. families, given the well-documented benefits these programs bring to the health, education, and financial stability of participating households.
The Impact of Cutting Medicaid
The U.S. private health insurance system does not cover large groups of people—for instance, low-income elderly people who need assistance for expensive long-term care, people with disabilities, and low-income children and adults—all of whom turn to Medicaid for healthcare coverage. The Medicaid program is the second-largest program under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and appears to be a bigger target for federal spending cuts than Medicare, the largest program in their portfolio. More than half of Medicaid spending supports seniors or people with disabilities, and approximately a quarter supports low-income children and their parents, making these groups particularly vulnerable to Medicaid spending cuts.
Several decades of research show a wide range of positive impacts of past Medicaid coverage expansions. After Medicaid expansions in the 1990s, for example, the uninsurance rate decreased by approximately 11 percentage points to 12 percentage points for low-income children and their parents; it also dropped by 3 percentage points to 5 percentage points for low-income adults after the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act of 2010. These expansions also reduced the probability of personal bankruptcy by 8% and the amount of debt collection balances by an average of $1,140.
If the House Committee on Energy and Commerce turns to Medicaid to satisfy their obligation to cut spending by $880 billion over 10 years, it would reverse these improvements in the well-being of low-income Americans.
In terms of health outcomes, Medicaid expansions have reduced infant mortality by 8.5%, the incidence of low birth weight by 2.6% to 5%, and teen mortality, too. Research even shows that Medicaid coverage for children has positive health effects into adulthood, reducing the presence of chronic conditions later in life by 0.03 standard deviations. Even the health of second-generation children—that is, the offspring of those exposed to Medicaid in utero—has been shown to be positively affected.
Medicaid coverage for children also improves non-health outcomes later in life. For instance, Medicaid expansions to cover children reduced the probability of being incarcerated by 5% and improved high school graduation rates and adult income—which, together, result in higher taxes paid in adulthood. In fact, research shows that a large fraction, including possibly the entire amount, of the cost of child Medicaid coverage is recaptured by the government in terms of higher taxes paid as adults.
If the House Committee on Energy and Commerce turns to Medicaid to satisfy their obligation to cut spending by $880 billion over 10 years, it would reverse these improvements in the well-being of low-income Americans.
The Impact of Cutting Nutrition Assistance
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is a joint-run federal and state program that covers 40 million low-income U.S. families per month, with each state setting eligibility requirements based on resource or income constraints of applicants. It is by far the largest spending outlay for the House Committee on Agriculture, with federal spending totaling approximately $112 billion in 2023. As a result, funding for the program is at risk as the committee looks for ways to achieve its target of $230 billion in cuts over 10 years.
Research shows that not only does nutrition assistance dramatically reduce food insecurity—by 12% to 30%—but it also has large benefits for the health, education, and long-term well-being of children in SNAP families. For example, SNAP benefits lower the probability of having a low birth-weight child by 5% to 11% and improve standardized test scores in both reading and math by about 2% of a standard deviation. The long-run impacts of receiving SNAP benefits as a child include a 3% of a standard deviation improvement in economic self-sufficiency, a 1.2-year increase in life expectancy, and a 0.5 percentage point decrease in the probability of being incarcerated.
As a result, a decision by the House Committee on Agriculture to reduce spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program risks increased food insecurity in the short run, while also risking long-term effects for health, education, and economic outcomes of low-income U.S. children.
The Impact of Cutting Housing Assistance
The budget resolution requires the House Committee on Financial Services, which oversees housing assistance programs, to reduce spending by $1 billion over the next 10 years. Federal spending on housing assistance was $67 billion in 2023, with $32.1 billion going toward the Housing Choice Voucher program that provides subsidies for very low-income families to find housing in the private market.
Unaffordable housing is already a serious and well-known issue in the United States, with even minimally adequate housing out of reach for millions of people. Housing vouchers have been shown to reduce the percent of income paid on rent from 58% to 27%, which is within the general definition of affordable housing (no more than 30% of family income). By relieving the financial strain of high housing costs, research shows that the housing assistance program has positive effects in other dimensions as well. Housing vouchers reduce parental stress by 7% and hypertension by 50%, as well as reducing behavioral problems in children and increasing child test scores in school.
If the House Committee on Financial Services decides to reduce spending on housing assistance, many low-income families would not be able to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing, which would have a negative impact on the overall well-being of parents and children alike.
Conclusion
A number of large social programs that provide support to millions of Americans may get cut as a result of the House-passed budget resolution, with Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and housing assistance particularly at risk. This would have a profound negative impact on the health, education, and financial stability of many low-income Americans—those who need this assistance the most.
Members of these House committees must carefully consider the benefits that these programs deliver to U.S. families before making decisions about where and how to make the required spending cuts. There are no doubt inefficiencies in social programs, just as in all government programs. But across-the-board cuts of this magnitude would inevitably hurt the vulnerable groups receiving these benefits across the United States.
This piece was first published by the Washington Center for Economic Growth.
Keep ReadingShow Less
DOGE’s Housing Department Cuts Will Make the Homelessness Crisis Worse
The Trump administration’s actions will mean that fewer people who struggle to keep a roof over their heads will get the help they need.
Mar 13, 2025
A record number of people are struggling to afford housing, and leaders from across the political spectrum have called for action.
But the Trump Administration, including Elon Musk and the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) has taken one step after another that will undermine the most effective policies to help people afford housing, including cutting Housing and Urban Development (HUD) staff, withholding urgently needed funds, and making harmful policy changes.
In 2023, 24 million people lived in low-income households that paid over half their income in rent, forcing them to shift money away from other basic needs and often leaving them one setback away from eviction. In January 2024, 770,000 people across the country—an all-time high—couldn’t afford housing at all and were forced to live in shelters, cars, tents, or other unsafe and unstable circumstances.
Rather than squandering resources on costly tax cuts for the wealthy, policymakers should be expanding effective programs toward the goals of ending homelessness and ensuring everyone has a stable, affordable home.
Elon Musk and DOGE have reportedly called for discharging at least half of HUD staff overall, sometimes using tactics that may be illegal. Specifically, the proposals would cut:
- 50% of staff in the HUD office that administers vouchers, public housing, and Native American housing programs, which together help 7 million people afford housing;
- 44% in the office the oversees the project-based rental assistance program, which provides rental assistance to an additional 2 million people;
- 84% in the office that administers homelessness assistance and grants that help communities build affordable housing and recover from disasters; and
- 77% in the office that enforces fair housing laws—one of a series of administration actions that will severely weaken protections for people who face housing discrimination based on characteristics such as race, gender, and age.
Staff in these offices play a critical role in ensuring that tens of billions of dollars of badly needed federal funds are distributed promptly and used efficiently. Layoffs on the scale that DOGE is seeking will lead to delays and waste, resulting in people and communities around the country getting less help to address urgent needs.
In addition, the administration has interrupted the normal flow of HUD funds that are used to address housing needs, again sometimes through means that are likely illegal. HUD attempted in January to withhold funds as part of a broader federal funding freeze, which multiple federal courts have ordered the administration to temporarily halt while they review the action. HUD does not appear to have intentionally withheld funds for vouchers and other rental assistance so far, but the uncertainty created by administration policies has led to payment delays that could cause some landlords to stop accepting vouchers, making it harder for voucher holders to find homes they can rent.
Meanwhile, HUD has yet to deliver any of the $3.6 billion in homelessness assistance funding awarded January 17, which communities are counting on to provide rental assistance, shelter, outreach, and other services to people experiencing homelessness. While HUD notified at least some grantees that they will begin to receive funds soon, the uncertainty has disrupted community planning efforts and the final awards may include abrupt policy changes that could complicate implementation. The administration has also canceled contracts for organizations that help protect people from housing discrimination and provide technical assistance that plays a crucial role in effectively implementing HUD programs—even though the administration provided no evidence that the organizations were failing to perform as required.
Finally, HUD officials have proposed or discussed a series of policy changes that would make it harder for many people in need to receive housing assistance. HUD has said it will publish a rule rolling back non-discrimination protections that guarantee access to safe shelter and housing assistance for transgender and nonbinary people, who experience disproportionately high rates of homelessness. And it has already published a rule weakening fair housing requirements.
HUD officials have also called for evicting or cutting off rental assistance for people who don’t meet burdensome work requirements, a step that would increase administrative costs and expose many children, people with serious health conditions or caretaking responsibilities, and others to severe hardship.
Rather than squandering resources on costly tax cuts for the wealthy, policymakers should be expanding effective programs toward the goals of ending homelessness and ensuring everyone has a stable, affordable home. And they should make targeted reforms to address shortcomings of those programs to make them even more effective at addressing pressing housing needs. The administration’s actions will have the opposite effect, making it harder for people to afford housing and exit homelessness.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Do You Want to Work for Justice? Go to Eviction Court
The closer we get to the millions of people who are facing evictions or already unhoused, the more likely we are to be motivated to do something about it.
Mar 04, 2025
Before the Super Bowl brought global attention and hundreds of thousands of visitors to New Orleans in February, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry cleared out over 100 unhoused people from downtown, busing them to an unheated warehouse miles away.
In our community of Indianapolis, advocates fear similar clear outs will happen when a planned city shelter outside the downtown area is finished.
Which makes me think of Stanley Milgram and Bryan Stevenson.
“On that fifth day, the weather was very cold and rainy. All I could think about was the young dad and his son without a home, with a job disrupted, and the young boy missing school.”
Milgram was the Yale University psychologist who conducted the famous experiments in the 1960s that showed a disturbing willingness of study participants to follow orders to administer what they thought were powerful electric shocks to other study participants.
The unsettling results remain widely known. But one component of Milgram’s experiments is less often discussed: The study participants were far less likely to administer the shocks if they could hear or see the victims of their actions.
Milgram used the word “proximity” to describe that variable. Which is the same term that Bryan Stevenson uses when he describes how we can change the world.
Stevenson is the attorney behind the book Just Mercy and the film of the same name, and founder of the Equal Justice Initiative. Stevenson traces his lifelong devotion to ending mass incarceration and promoting racial justice back to an event when he was still a law student. While interning for a human rights organization, Stevenson was assigned to go to a maximum-security prison in Georgia and deliver some procedural case news to a man on death row.
But the planned brief meeting turned into a three-hour deep, wide-ranging conversation. At the end of his time with Stevenson, the prisoner sang the hymn, “I’m Pressing on the Upward Way.”
Which launched Stevenson on his lifelong trajectory devoted to seeking justice. “It’s because I got close enough to a condemned man to hear his song,” he says. “When you get proximate, you hear the songs. And those melodies in those songs will empower you, they will inspire you, and they will teach you what doing justice and loving mercy is all about.”
What Gov. Jeff Landry, Stanley Milgram, and Bryan Stevenson can all tell us is this: The closer we get to the millions of people who are facing evictions or already unhoused, the more likely we are to be motivated to do something about it.
Carolyn Kingen can tell us that, too.
A retired critical care cardiac nurse, Kingen in 2020 joined some of her fellow members of the Meridian Street United Methodist Church in Indianapolis for a book study group that chose to read Matthew Desmond’s Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City. After reading and talking about the horrors of our nation’s eviction crisis, where 3.6 million households face forced removal from their homes each year, the group decided to see for themselves.
On one of Kingen’s first visits to eviction court, she heard a father of a seven-year-old boy explain to the judge that he had fallen behind on rent because he had not received expected overtime pay from his job. But, the father said, the overtime boost would be coming through in his next paycheck, which was arriving in a week. He could catch up on rent then, and pay late fees too.
The judge, unmoved, ordered the family to be evicted within five days. “The entire case lasted three or four minutes,” Kingen recalls. “In those few minutes, the decision was made that an employed father and mother had to pack their belongings and get out.”
“On that fifth day, the weather was very cold and rainy. All I could think about was the young dad and his son without a home, with a job disrupted, and the young boy missing school.”
“I Could Be That Tenant”
Experiences like this spurred Kingen and the book group to create a Housing Justice Task Force in their church, and then join with other congregations of different faiths to create the Indiana Eviction Justice Network. I teach a law school clinic where my students and I represent people facing eviction in the same area. I can attest that the presence of court watchers changes the tenor of the proceedings, ramping up the respect paid to tenants facing the loss of their homes.
And the eviction court watchers go beyond the doors of the courtrooms. They take the proximity-provided lessons and use them to advocate with elected officials and the judges themselves. Rabbi Aaron Spiegel, who as director of the Greater Indianapolis Multifaith Alliance coordinates the court-watching program, connects the volunteers with lawmakers to push for housing reforms like mediation before eviction orders, sealings of past eviction records, living wages, and more and better affordable housing.
“Court watchers often know more about systemic housing issues than the elected officials they are talking to,” Spiegel says. Earlier this year, court watchers mobilized to lobby Indiana legislators in opposition to a bill that would have criminalized sleeping in public spaces. Last month, the legislation was withdrawn by its sponsor.
Court proceedings are open to the public, and several other communities across the country, in places like Greensboro, North Carolina; Houston, and Chicago, have court-watching programs, often connected to justice advocacy.
Kingen and many of the other court watchers are motivated by their faith or moral principles. “We are called to care for the poor, the orphans, widows—and in today’s society, we would include any group that is shunned or rejected,” she says. “I try to see Christ in the faces of every person I meet.”
Rabbi Spiegel says this same call to action crosses faith and moral traditions. “All religious traditions teach that we must take care of the ‘least among us’ and as such, housing is a human right,” he says.
The proximity Carolyn Kingen experiences in court allows her to see in those facing eviction not just the divine but herself as well. Kingen recalls a time when she could not pay her rent, but was fortunate enough to have a family member step up to help. “Each time I court watch, I try to remind myself that I could be that tenant appearing before the judge,” she says.
Placing herself in the shoes of those facing homelessness is far easier to do when she can be in the same room and hear their stories, Kingen says. Court proceedings are open to the public, and several other communities across the country, in places like Greensboro, North Carolina; Houston, and Chicago, have court-watching programs, often connected to justice advocacy.
Check and see if there is a program in your community. And if there isn’t, maybe consider helping start one yourself.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular