The Kentucky legislature is pushing forward with House Bill 367, a contentious piece of legislation that seeks to reduce SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits for thousands of Kentuckians while also imposing stricter eligibility criteria. Sponsored by Rep. Wade Williams, the bill aims to address what he perceives as loopholes in the current system, particularly concerning able-bodied individuals without dependents utilizing food stamps.
If passed, HB367 would result in significant changes for SNAP recipients in Kentucky. At least 65,000 individuals, including 21,400 children and 4,400 seniors, could see reductions in their benefits. The bill proposes lowering the income threshold to 130% of the federal poverty level and reinstating an asset test requirement, which opponents argue would create further barriers for vulnerable populations.
One of the most contentious aspects of the bill is its elimination of waivers on SNAP work requirements for able-bodied adults. Currently, these requirements can be waived in areas with high unemployment rates, but HB367 would grant the General Assembly the power to enforce work requirements statewide. Critics argue that such measures unfairly target low-income individuals and fail to address systemic issues contributing to poverty.
Opponents of HB367 have voiced their concerns about its potential impact on food insecurity and the local economy. Organizations like Feeding Kentucky and the Kentucky Council of Churches have spoken out against the bill, highlighting the disproportionate burden it would place on already marginalized communities. They argue that SNAP serves as a vital lifeline for many families struggling to afford nutritious food.
Despite opposition, HB367 passed the House by a margin of 61-33 and now awaits consideration by the Senate. Those against the bill hope to influence the Senate committee’s decision, emphasizing the detrimental effects it could have on vulnerable Kentuckians. As the debate continues, the future of SNAP benefits in Kentucky hangs in the balance, with advocates and lawmakers at odds over the best approach to address food insecurity in the state.