5 ms·
USDA Threatens Stores Giving Discounts to People on Food Stamps
- duxup 1y agoCitizens offering kindness to people in need will not be tolerated. Christian America's support of these guys has to be a pretty big disappointment to their god...
- shawn_w 1y agoNah, it's right up Supply Side Jesus' alley. https://www.beliefnet.com/news/2003/09/the-gospel-of-supply-side-jesus.aspx https://www.beliefnet.com/news/2003/09/the-gospel-of-supply-...
- taylodl 1y agoUsing poor, hungry people as pawns in their political games is evil. Full stop.
- tigen 1y ago[flagged]
- chasd00 1y agoRead the article and then you'll put away your pitchforks. A basic rule is snap recipients can't be treated differently than non-program members which seems reasonable. "At issue is SNAP’s “Equal Treatment Rule,” which bars stores from either discriminating against people in the program or offering them favorable treatment. "
- decremental 1y ago[dead]
- pseudalopex 1y agoForbidding charging SNAP recipients more is reasonable. Why is it reasonable to forbid charging SNAP recipients less?
- throwaway378400 1y agoI was thinking the same thing, it feels neutral at best, but anything potentially bad about it is probably for non-program members. If you give SNAP beneficiaries a discount that isn't gov subsidised, all things same everyone not in SNAP might theoretically pay more. It sounds reasonable, but tinfoil time, unless they normally have people watching this, it feels like the USDA was told or anticipated this. So much of this gives "Look what you made me do" vibes.
- pseudalopex 1y ago> If you give SNAP beneficiaries a discount that isn't gov subsidised, all things same everyone not in SNAP might theoretically pay more. SNAP increases demand for eligible goods. Increased demand increases prices. People pay taxes to fund SNAP. Private discounts for SNAP recipients could reduce SNAP expenses theoretically.
- datavirtue 1y agoYep, soft drink companies and processed food merchants laugh all the way to the bank.
- datavirtue 1y agoIt was done in bad faith. The Trump administration is well known for this hateful, spiteful behavior. They just have to control everything. No exceptions. This whole thing with SNAP is an experiment by them. They are trying to introduce "temporary" measures and situations to condition people. The Nixon zombies running the Republican party have dreamt of this opportunity for decades.
- anthem2025 1y agoIts not, but we have a government that sees starving the population as a political tool.
- giraffe_lady 1y agoGleefully exploiting a reasonable rule against the clear spirit of its authors to further immiserate the most vulnerable members of our society? My pitchfork is staying out thanks.
- anthem2025 1y agoCan you find any examples, ever, of the government threatening stores for giving discounts? They are trying to starve people as a political tool.
- tpmoney 1y agoNot for food stamps, but here's the feds going after a pharmacy for gift cards and co-pay waivers from 2015: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ednc/pr/pharmacy-company-agreed-pay-5-million-settle-claims-it-gave-gift-cards-and-waived https://www.justice.gov/usao-ednc/pr/pharmacy-company-agreed... Here's one for a pharmaceutical company, the details aren't quite clear but it sounds like they were funding co-pay assistance programs for their medications specifically but not others: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/teva-pharmaceuticals-agrees-pay-425-million-resolve-kickback-allegations https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/teva-pharmaceuticals-agre... Here's a broader NPR article from 2008 covering the same idea: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/05/09/609150868/why-cant-medicare-patients-use-drugmakers-discount-coupons https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/05/09/6091508... Here's a 2024 article on the possibility of subsidizing outpatient housing for drug rehab being a violation of the statutes: https://www.startribune.com/many-minnesotans-in-addiction-treatment-get-free-housing-is-the-aid-illegal/601170124 https://www.startribune.com/many-minnesotans-in-addiction-tr... Here's a attorney website noting that any exchange of cash for EBT benefits is a violation of the law: https://usda.attorney/snap-violation/ https://usda.attorney/snap-violation/ and a discount that is explicitly for EBT users is almost certainly a violation of that. Realistically the fact that there is an entire process for getting a waiver for "incentives" for SNAP recipients (https://www.fns.usda.gov/form/snap-incentives https://www.fns.usda.gov/form/snap-incentives), and that particular site has been up since before Trump took office and this one from 2023 for a government program that specifically says you must apply for a waiver: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/healthy-incentives https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/healthy-incentives suggests that this is another one of these cases in this administration where the brokenness of the system that has always been there is only finally coming to light for a lot of people. Conservatives were not wrong when they said (paraphrasing) that a government powerful enough to give you everything is a government powerful enough to take away everything too. It's just in this weird timeline we find ourselves in, it's the "conservative" party that's being the monster they feared for decades.
- SpicyLemonZest 1y agoI've still got my pitchfork out. As the reminder says, discounts are allowed with a USDA waiver, so they should either offer a temporary blanket waiver or suggest some better way to mitigate the impact on SNAP recipients.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago> they should either offer a temporary blanket waiver or suggest some better way to mitigate the impact on SNAP recipients Without something like this, why should one assume good faith behind the change? The people chanting "the cruelty is the point" seem to be vindicated rather clearly.
- altairprime 1y agoWell, they are slightly off course: both the starvation and general cruelty are the methods, in service of a much uglier point.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago> a much uglier point If not cruelty, what? Power? To do what, if not "be cruel in service to oneself without repercussion"?
- SpicyLemonZest 1y agoI'm not even sure "good faith" is the right word. Trump stated explicitly today that he does not want SNAP benefits to be paid until he wins the shutdown fight. But a lot of people have this idea that being politically earnest is cringe, so it's not an option to simply say it's bad he won't explore other options to pay the benefits. You have to make up some clever reason why the issue is more complicated than it sounds, and maybe Trump had no choice, no matter how much that requires you to ignore context and court orders and the stated positions of the politicians involved.
- tpmoney 1y agoWhat change? Regardless of why the USDA decided to remind people of this, these rules on SNAP benefits and equal treatment have been part of the law since before Trump took office.
- taylodl 1y agoAre you familiar with the term "malicious compliance"? Brought to you by the administration who doesn't see fit to follow any other law, but boy oh boy will they enforce it if it hurts others. Sorry - it's evil.
- tastyface 1y agoNo, don’t put your pitchforks anywhere. Trump has spelled it out plain as day: SNAP recipients will starve until Democrats submit -- and that’s basically a direct quote. (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-says-snap-benefits-will-resume-radical-left-democrats-open-government https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-says-snap-benefits-wi...) Just today, he declared that he would ignore the court order to release SNAP funds. So it should be pretty obvious why the USDA is making angry noises about this issue in particular. It's an incredibly fucked up form of leverage.
- eminence32 1y agoRelevant links: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/ebt/retailer/retailer-notice/reminder-snap-equal-treatment https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/ebt/retailer/retailer-notice/r... https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fr-022124 https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fr-022124 > Coupons shall be accepted for eligible foods at the same prices and on the same terms and conditions applicable to cash purchases of the same foods at the same store except that tax shall not be charged on eligible foods purchased with coupons. Obviously lawyers are going to be involved in interpreting these rules. But as a lay person, I wonder: a store cannot charge a different price to someone who is buying food with a SNAP coupon. But for someone who has SNAP benefits, but isn't using a SNAP coupon to buy food (you know... because the government isn't funding the program), do these rules still apply?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- giraffe_lady 1y ago> But for someone who has SNAP benefits, but isn't using a SNAP coupon to buy food (you know... because the government isn't funding the program), do these rules still apply? The lawyer that does pro bono work for the food bank I volunteer with believes this rule doesn't apply in this case for exactly that reason. But the legal challenges will take time and the threat is effective now regardless so it barely matters.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago> the threat is effective now What is the actual threat? Assuming a grocery chain ignores the interpretation, what troubles could they face?
- pseudalopex 1y agoThey could be disqualified from SNAP or fined.[1] [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-II/subchapter-C/part-278/section-278.6 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-II/s...
- aerostable_slug 1y agoThe USDA notice included the fact that retailers can get a waiver from Equal Treatment provisions, but (of course) the author failed to mention that tidbit. https://www.fns.usda.gov/form/snap-incentives https://www.fns.usda.gov/form/snap-incentives
- FireBeyond 1y agoOh, and just how quickly do you think those waivers will be processed during the government shutdown?
- Simulacra 1y agoI am conflicted a little on all of this. EBT etc should in most cases temporary, outside of disabled, elderly, and children. I would like to see more of that money going to school meals, lunch and breakfast. Feed the kids directly, with another amount going to parents. Ia that feasible? Is there any way to insure kids are being taken care of?
- FireBeyond 1y agoWhat EBT money? This is private businesses choosing to offer discounts to customers who'd otherwise be eligible for using EBT funds that are not available. In other words, a credible argument could be made that it's none of the government's damn business. > I would like to see more of that money going to school meals, lunch and breakfast. Feed the kids directly, with another amount going to parents. Ia that feasible? That's not the alternative here. There's no alternative here. Trump has said explicitly that he has no intention of offering ANYTHING until the Democrats agree to open up the Government again, on his terms.
- BobaFloutist 1y agoWhy do you think people outside of disabled, elderly, and children and without the income to feed themselves shouldn't get a (frankly modest) benefit allowing them to eat?
- fzeroracer 1y agoIt's incredibly disappointing to see HN users flag these stories while the admin is directly admitting to starving people for political gain. It's something that directly and materially impacts me, a tax-paying citizen who has to now spend money out of my savings to support my parents so that they don't starve, who also paid taxes their entire life for these programs to exist and help them. It's something I literally cannot put my head in the sand to ignore. I would strongly advise others do not ignore it either.