Senate GOP Eyes Fewer Penalties for States Over SNAP Mistakes Compared to House Plan

WASHINGTON — In a move reflecting differing political strategies, U.S. Senate Republicans unveiled a proposal aimed at revising the federal food assistance program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Senate Agriculture Chairman John Boozman announced this moderated approach on Wednesday, contrasting it with a more stringent version approved by House Republicans.

Both the Senate and House’s budget reconciliation bills contemplate that states may bear some costs associated with SNAP, potentially starting in 2028. However, the Senate’s plan offers a more lenient framework. States could avoid penalties by meeting certain efficiency benchmarks, a provision not present in the House’s approach.

Under the Senate proposal, states would be liable for a maximum of 15% of costs, a significant reduction from the 25% outlined in the House bill. “This proposal offers a balanced solution,” Boozman remarked, which allows states to mitigate expenses through improved efficiencies.

The House measure, by contrast, mandates a minimum cost-share of 5% from all states, escalating costs by approximately $5 billion annually. Analysts project that this could ultimately result in closer to $14 billion in new state expenses since many states would likely exceed the minimum cost-share.

The changes proposed are part of a broader Republican legislative agenda, which includes tax cuts, enhanced border security funding, and modifications to Medicaid. GOP leaders are navigating the complex reconciliation process, aiming for a seamless passage through both chambers.

Currently, the federal government covers all SNAP costs. House Republicans argued this model provides no incentive for states to reduce administrative errors. In conjunction with this effort, the Senate proposal suggests linking state costs to their error rates, though overall costs remain lower compared to the House version.

At present, the national error rate for SNAP benefits stands at 11.7%, with many states exceeding 10%. Notably, states that maintain an error rate of 5% or lower would continue to pay no costs under the Senate’s proposal.

Despite differences, the Senate’s changes could yield about $52-53 billion in savings, which is approximately $20 billion less than anticipated savings under the House plan. Further negotiations will determine the precise allocation of these savings, as the reconciliation process necessitates cooperation among various committees.

While Senate Republicans aim to navigate these obstacles, the delicate balance of securing a bipartisan consensus remains crucial. With narrow majorities in both chambers, crafting a cohesive bill could prove to be a significant challenge.