KJZZ’s Friday NewsCap revisits some of the biggest stories of the week from Arizona and beyond.
To talk about the impending end of federal food assistance, controversy over the location of a state GOP meeting and more, The Show sat down with Matthew Benson of Veridus and Stacy Pearson of Lumen Strategies.
Conversation highlights
MARK BRODIE: So we saw this week, and actually yesterday a federal judge on the East Coast said that it seemed likely that she might get involved, Stacy, in this SNAP controversy, the Supplemental Nutrition Program. Basically, the federal government, the Trump administration has said we are not going to fill the debit cards that food stamp recipients use to buy food come Nov. 1, come tomorrow.
And a number of states, including Arizona, said, “No, that’s not OK. You have this contingency fund that you should be using.”
So it seems, though, that even if the judge says you have to do this, A, there are appeals, and B, it seems like logistically there is some lag time between actually filling the cards and letting folks use them to buy groceries.
So what does that mean for Arizonans here?
STACY PEARSON: Oh, for Arizonans here, as we just heard on some of those clips, there is going to be a major run on the food banks. And I want to again underscore who we’re talking about here. We’re talking about families of three that make less than $36,000 a year. We’re talking about folks that are making minimum wage, that are working as gig workers.
We’re talking about Amazon in Arizona having the largest number of its gig workers also qualifying for food assistance. So the guy dropping off your packages this morning is the guy that’s not going to have food tomorrow. This is absolutely terrifying.
And the examples we’re going to see on the news are foster families, are people that have signed a contract with the state to take care of babies who do not have parental guardianship or have parental guardians. They’re not going to have funding for formula tomorrow.
BRODIE: Yeah, Matt, we’ve been hearing from food banks. We spoke with someone from the Food Bank Association earlier this week. This seems like a pretty significant concern that they have. Especially like in the next, let’s say, week or two. Even if this gets resolved legally, there’s going to be some lag time here.
MATTHEW BENSON: Yeah, I mean, I think we’re talking about 900,000 Arizonans that qualify for this program. So beginning Nov. 1, their EBT cards will not be filled in order to go out and purchase the food and groceries that they need. And everything that Stacy said is true.
And that’s why I think this is creating the political necessity that this logjam, this political logjam is going to get resolved, I believe in the coming week. I think the political risks for both parties have become so high that you’re gonna see this get resolved in a matter of days.
BRODIE: How do you see it getting resolved? Like who? How do the negotiations happen?
BENSON: That’s a good question. Whether you end up with a clean (continuing resolution) or maybe a very short-term CR that allows federal funding to begin to flow again, food stamps and other critical programs to be funded while negotiations on larger ticket items like the health care subsidies continue. I think that’s probably the most realistic option at this point, but I do think that you’re gonna see that resolved very quickly.
BRODIE: What do you think, Stacy? Is this the political issue that gets the sides to the table?
PEARSON: So I think we’ll see a combination of issues that bring people to the table. We got our new insurance rates for the small business that I own that start at the first of the year. They’re up about 28%. I mean, this is significant. And so, as folks are re-upping insurance, health insurance for next year, I think the sticker shock is going to be important.
And this starts now. And certainly kids, the cuts in after school programs, where are 7-year-olds going to go? We’re talking about making it extraordinarily difficult to be poor, having difficulty feeding your family, having difficulty getting after school care or before school care or transportation.
I mean, we are punishing the working poor that keep this country running in a way that we haven’t seen since the Gilded Age. And I think at some point people are gonna get really, really pissed off that there are millions, hundreds of millions of dollars going to a new ballroom and the Amazon drivers are hungry.
BRODIE: Well, Matt, so you mentioned we’ve been talking about SNAP, and Stacy just brought up the Affordable Care Act premiums. Open enrollment, of course, begins tomorrow as well. And this is the main issue that Senate Democrats have said they’re holding out for because premiums are expected to go up and the subsidies are going away.
So that means there have been some estimates that policies could be two or three times as expensive for the same coverage for a lot of folks.
Does it have to get to the point where like sort of — I hate this phrase — but everyday Americans are being affected to get the politicians together and say, look guys, we gotta figure this out.
BENSON: Yeah. And I think some of what’s going on right now are the COVID-era subsidies and extras that were funded that Republicans feel like at this point, look, we’re six years out from COVID. Do these enhanced funding programs have to continue in perpetuity? Like, are they just going to continue forever? So I think there is a good-faith argument to be made that some of these things should phase out post-pandemic.
But this is, of course, the conundrum. You know, when you begin funding things, you start a new program, it’s very difficult to ever take it away. Both parties like to spend, spend, spend, and that’s why our deficit and our debt are what they are.
BRODIE: Well, but Matt, that also kind of raises the question that if there are enough, for example, U.S. senators who believe that, who say it’s been long enough, why do we need to keep doing this? It seems hard to believe that enough Democrats would vote to reopen the government if they don’t think they’re going to get this thing that they’ve been holding out for.
BENSON: Well, and therein is the problem. That’s why we’re in this, having this conversation 30 days in because of that exact dynamic. Which gets at the other thing we have not brought up yet, which is the 60-vote threshold to approve something in the Senate and the president now, as of the last 24 hours, arguing that the Senate should go with the nuclear option, eliminate the 60-vote threshold.
And there’s talk about political risks down the road. I mean, Democrats wanted to do this not so long ago. Now the Republicans are talking about, or at least the president is. Huge political ramifications if they pull that ripcord.
BRODIE: Yeah. I mean, how much chaos does that throw the political calculation in if — and we don’t know if they’re going to, of course — but if the Senate Republicans say “We’re done with the filibuster”?
PEARSON: Well, I’m channeling my inner Sen. Sinema here, but the most deliberative body in the world is the United States Senate. And to get 10 votes from the other team in a closely divided chamber like we have now requires compromise. And those compromises ensure policy lasts beyond so-and-so’s term from Texas.
This typically secured better policy for the country. It’s a little terrifying to have the United States Senate on the same level of whiplash that we see out of the House. And so I think it’s extraordinarily dangerous.
And what the Democrats are asking for is really reasonable. We’re talking about continuing health care coverage for millions of Americans and extending benefits now, food and nutrition benefits to the folks that need it most.
That again, are our lowest wage workers. These are folks that every day are taking care of our kids. They’re my mom’s nursing assistants. They’re keeping my hospice mother alive. I mean, these are folks that are working their tails off that need help. So either raise wages or provide subsidies. But one of the two has to happen.
And wages have not caught up in decades.
BRODIE: Stacy, One of the other outcomes of this shutdown is that Adelita Grijalva still is not sworn in as a member of Congress. She’s now set a record that I’m guessing that none of us really knew existed before, which is the longest time from a special election to being sworn in. It’s about a month now that she’s not been sworn in.
And House Speaker Mike Johnson says that he will not swear her in until the government has reopened. This week, though, we saw a Republican member of Congress from California say she should just be sworn in, like why is this an issue?
Does that change the narrative at all?
PEARSON: Well, if you believe the conspiracy theories that this is tied to the Epstein case, you know, we’ve got that to contend with. What it does do is show how dysfunctional the chamber is, the United States House of Representatives. And it sets a precedent for people to continue to do bad things.
This is not a good place to start. And Grijalva won overwhelmingly. She’s replacing her father. She needs to be installed as a member of Congress. And we saw what happened when we held up Supreme Court nominations and hearings in the Obama administration. And this is really dangerous.
BRODIE: Matt, do you think this makes any difference to have one Republican member of Congress say she should be sworn in?
BENSON: No, I don’t. But I do believe she should be sworn in. And this is a bad precedent to set. And I suspect you’ll see it’s just a race to the bottom. Now that this is happening, you’ll see it likely happen in the not-too-distant future when Democrats are in control of the House, you may see them utilize the same tactic.
And it’s similar to the filibuster. I mean, the argument the president’s making about eliminating the filibuster is that if we don’t do it, the Democrats will. And so around and around we go.
BRODIE: Right. Which is the same argument the Democrats have made, right? If we don’t do it, the Republicans will. So to your point, just this big giant merry-go-round, huh?
BENSON: It speaks to the lack of trust in Washington.
