National Review
Biden is setting a dangerous precedent
President John Biden’s U.S. The recent executive order to expand food aid to households, while well-intentioned, represents the significant progress of the executive branch and the futile effort to impress Congress. If successful, this dangerous precedent would pave the way for a massive expansion of the social security net area without congressional approval. Congress must resist the president’s attempts to undermine the purpose of the existing law. Less than a week after Biden’s presidency, the new administration issued a series of administrative orders focused on COVID-19 economic relief. One such order seeks to expand food aid through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or Food Stamps. In it, President Biden instructed the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to “take immediate steps to register significant liberalized food and nutrition assistance for severely affected families and to facilitate further litigation.” In reality, the executive order calls on the federal agency – the USDA – to deliberately misinterpret the Families First Act and to overturn congressional constitutional authority over the legislative process. The Families First Act, which was passed in March 2020, explicitly states that states can seek an apology from the Department of Agriculture if they do not comply with the SNP. Allocate emergency to homes, “not exceeding the maximum monthly allocation applied to the size of the home.” In normal times, 60 percent of households registered with SNAP do not receive the maximum benefit because they have income from another source – such as earnings – that they can use to buy food. The emergency allocation recognized that the epidemic caused millions of people to lose their jobs or face other employment disruptions, and those admitted to SNAP were particularly at risk of losing their jobs in the early stages of the epidemic. SNP Rather than requiring households to report a job or income change to their state agency and wait for bureaucrats to calculate their benefits, emergency allocations allowed each SNAP recipient a maximum. Admittedly, this was not a very targeted effort. Some families have seen an increase in SNAP dollars without a change in household income or financial circumstances. But the proximity of the economic shock brought on by the epidemic, and the employment instability that continues today, required a similar employer response. The Department of Agriculture, led by President Trump, covers all 50 states, including the District of Columbia, Guam and the U.S. Emergency allocation plans for the Virgin Islands were approved – but only by law. The department extended the emergency-allocation waiver several times, most recently to January 2021. The USDA – and Congress itself – also offered relief to states after the epidemic. According to the federal government’s spending figures, SNAP benefits have increased by more than 0% in the fiscal year compared to FY01 S, with more than N S 31 billion spent in FY01. Class-action lawsuits have been filed by people who disagree with the interpretation of USDA law: Pennsylvania and California: or regular SNP. Plus emergency allocation cannot provide benefits beyond the maximum benefit level. Proponents of her case have been working to make the actual transcript of this statement available online. Proponents of her case have been working to make the actual transcript of this statement available online. A California federal judge agreed with the USDA while the Pennsylvania case is ongoing. The Biden administration’s executive order is encouraging its USDA to misinterpret the 2020 law. The legal text is not vague. It’s hard to imagine a clearer Congress than that, “Temporary foods shouldn’t exceed the maximum monthly allocation applied to the size of the house.” If Congress wanted to give SNAP to as many people as possible, it could not. In fact, Congress eventually did just that – increasing the benefit by 15 percent in the COVID-19 relief package passed last month. If the Biden administration succeeds in this endeavor, it will pave the way for a number of business actions aimed at expanding the security net without congressional action. If political appointments in the Biden administration seem to be regulated by law, we will see huge benefits for a growing number of people. Such action only undermines the integrity of the maintenance of social security by going around Congress, ignoring the division of powers imposed in the founding documents of our republic. Efforts by Congress to provide economic relief to conflict-affected households are largely supported by the American people. Let’s put that power in its proper place.
