This is a large country, and people in different states take on different customs, cultural preferences and political beliefs. But despite all the diversity, everyone has to eat in every state.

In recognition of this, America has long treated hunger as a national concept. Unfortunately, a Slittleordood determination in the legislation of reconciliation by the budget would be accelerated by the conflict. Within a few years after his passage, we would like to see a considerable number of countries without a family food aid program for Americans who cannot buy.

In the middle of the 20th century, the US Agriculture Ministry distributed farms and, wherever they were, distributed it to people in need. If this was not processed, the distribution of goods converted into food brands, which could buy food for other families in reauular supermarkets with low Indian households. President Richard Nixon saw the advantages of this program and urged the legislation that made the food brand program nationwide.

In the following decades, the Food Stamp Program was expanded to help more bad and reduced work if the commitment was cut. Some of his greatest supporters were Republicans like Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) And Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) As well as Rep. Bill Emerson (R-Mo.). As technology progress, electronic debit cards replaced the old paper food stamps and the program changed its name to the supplemental Nutrition Assessment Program or Snap.

But even if the congress had the need to cut food brands, he has rejected the principle that hunger is a national concept. Budget cuts that are easy in New York will also come into force in Arkansas. However, the pending reconciliation law would change, which it probably does that most food aid must be fully rolled.

Both the legislative template and the wound outstanding in the Senate have to contribute to the costs of the food aid measures for the first time. The percentages in the two versions vary, but the hit would be great. If the final legislation demands the states Almost 90 billion US dollars.

Poorr states will be particularly hard: Alabama has to pay $ 1.64 billion, Arkansa’s wound, with $ 521 million, and West Virginia would be $ 536 million in his budget.

Because the Determination Prohibits the Federal Government to pay for its payment, unless the state pays the required amount, states that are not willing or are unable to produce the requested match in order to escape from SNAP.

This is a real option. Out of Federal reserve and many private Prognostic See signs that economic growth slows down, with a complete recession has a clear possibility. Even if we carry out a recession, a slowdown economy will reduce the income of the states and increase the number of people who lose their work and need food associations. At a time when it comes to important programs and thinks about undesirable tax increases to keep your head over water, only a few space for Ablorbes or millions of dollars have new costs for maintaining existing nutritional support programs.

As soon as the food aid is no longer available for families in some somes, regardless of the need, we will have lost a certain important thing about what makes us count.

The consequences will indeed be serious. Abundant Research Shows that children who grow up with inadequate moods do paths and have a lower life at school. Since some countries end the federal food aid, vote in the neighboring countries vot for the lawyer for the drop of the program. Members of Congress from States, which are missing, have an easy reason to support the financing for a program that is only active in other states.

The effects extend far beyond food aid. Snap, along with unemployment insurance, is one of our most important “automatic stabilizers” that brings more money into the economy when the nation is typing a recession. This is a crucial Benuse congress often takes months to issue incentive legislation – or Overall fails. A shrinked snapshot means less effective incentive to pull the district out of a down run, and a snapshot that only works in some countries with couch contributes to an uneven reception with the count. In fact, all states can also compensate for their budgets in recessions, since falling income can force a hundred countries to expire the massilies if they need help and if the economy is needed.

There is no good reason for postponing the costs of SNAP advantages for the state. States already spend large amounts to meet human needs that have been ignored by the federal government and even more suitable subjects for subicaid and childcare subsidies. The sources of income of the states are less effective and far more susceptible to regional and national economic ascent. Suddenly, the costs of the states in states’ programs increase the type of “non -financed mandate”, which caused the Republicans of the congregations to issue them Uninfected mandate Reform Act In 1995 and that led the Republicans Criticize The Affordable Care Act of Medicaid expansion.

Dumplings of fiscal fiscal failures in the states are against the value of federalism. It is a shameful practice that is considered by political decision -makers in the currency in order to put the Federal Government’s own fish in order.

The congress should drop this cost change. At least it should be recognized that the federal share of food aid services remains available in the states that they are not willing or are unable to build up the millions of their own millions.

David a. SuperTeaches at the Georgetown Law.