A recent briefing hosted by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) delivered a stark warning: the U.S. House’s proposed budget legislation could inflict severe damage on food assistance programs and Medicaid, pushing millions of Americans deeper into poverty and hardship. The virtual event brought together policy experts who highlighted how sweeping federal cuts, especially to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps, would destabilize communities, harm working families, and place an unsustainable strain on state governments already grappling with tight budgets.

At the heart of the debate is a reconciliation bill—dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill”—a legislative maneuver intended to hasten budget changes. The legislation would increase defense spending substantially while implementing historic reductions to core social safety net programs. CBPP President Sharon Parrott described the proposal as “an agenda that will significantly increase food insecurity among low- and moderate-income families.”

An independent analysis from Penn Wharton underscores the disproportionate harm the bill would inflict on lower-income workers, including those employed in food service, home health care, and transportation. Those in the bottom income quintile are projected to lose an average of $30,000 in lifetime value and middle-income households are expected to lose about $2,100. In contrast, higher-income households benefit from tax reductions, while all future generations are expected to face lifetime losses driven by weakened safety nets and increased national debt.

Ife Finch Floyd, Director of Economic Justice at the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, highlighted the cascading effects, saying, “We’re looking at increased poverty, food insecurity—especially in rural and underserved communities that already face significant barriers.” Parrott added that the legislation would do little to reduce the federal deficit in the long term but instead set the stage for deeper cuts to public services down the line. “It hollows out public investment in ways that ultimately increase debt, inequality, and economic instability,” she said.

Alabama Faces Severe Economic and Social Impacts

The proposed $230 billion cut to SNAP over ten years would be among the largest reductions in the program’s history. Ty Jones Cox, CBPP Vice President for Food Assistance Policy, explained that these cuts would shift much of the financial burden to states—an expectation most state budgets cannot meet without severe consequences. “Low-income people would bear the costs when states can’t make up for the massive loss of federal funds,” Cox said.

The bill also expands work requirements to include parents with children as young as seven years old. Additionally, all Medicaid recipients would be required to prove eligibility twice per year instead of once, further increasing the risk of coverage loss and doubling states’ bureaucratic workload.

In Alabama, roughly 15% of households received SNAP benefits in 2024, underscoring the potential scale of impact. Beyond individuals and families, these cuts threaten local economies. Research shows that every $1 in SNAP benefits generates about $1.54 in federal economic activity. In Alabama, $1,032,064,886 distributed through SNAP generated $1,754,510,306 in economic activity, meaning a reduction in benefits would lead to significant losses for local businesses, compounding financial strain in communities like Huntsville.

The bill would also reduce Medicaid spending by nearly $700 billion over the next decade. This could leave millions nationwide without health coverage—including hundreds of thousands of Alabamians. Alabama currently covers 1.09 million adults and children through Medicaid, with federal funding accounting for approximately 78% of the state’s $7.9 billion annual spending. The state maintains some of the nation’s most restrictive Medicaid eligibility guidelines, excluding many childless, able-bodied adults, which means cuts would hit an already vulnerable population particularly hard.

SNAP reductions would place an unsustainable burden on Alabama’s already overstretched nonprofit organizations and food banks. Recent cuts to school meal programs and federal food bank funding have further strained these resources, making it unlikely that local charities could absorb additional demand. Alabama ranks as the fifth poorest state in the nation, with one in four children—over 300,000—already facing hunger. Experts warn that private donations cannot replace the scale of federal support, especially as charitable giving declined during the Great Recession and has not fully rebounded, likely due to long-term shifts in attitudes and economic uncertainty. Since SNAP provides nine meals for every one distributed by food banks, even modest cuts would have devastating consequences for vulnerable families.

Budget Choices and Representation

The United States spends more than $877 billion annually on defense—more than the next ten countries combined or the bottom 144 countries combined. By contrast, federal costs for SNAP totals about $113 billion and Medicaid totals approximately $606 billion annually. Critics argue that targeting cuts to these much smaller social programs while increasing defense spending by $150 billion over the next decade reflects a distorted set of national priorities that deepen inequality rather than strengthen the country.

Decades of research consistently show that most public assistance recipients are children, seniors, people with disabilities, or working adults earning low wages. The stereotype of the “welfare queen,” popularized in the 1970s and repeatedly debunked by economists and policy experts, misrepresents the reality of poverty and diverts attention from systemic causes of inequality. U.S. Census Bureau data demonstrates that social safety net programs not only reduce poverty but also stimulate local economies through increased consumer spending and improved health outcomes.

So, where do North Alabama Representatives stand in all this? Rep. Dale Strong’s campaign received $268,500 from defense donors in 2023–24. Rep. Robert Aderholt reported significant contributions from defense and healthcare insurance companies, organizations that stand to gain from both increased military spending and reductions in government-funded health care. Strong and Aderholt both voted in favor of the bill. While campaign donations do not directly dictate legislative votes, the alignment between donor interests and policy outcomes raises important questions about priorities. For constituents relying on SNAP and Medicaid, the legislation’s effects could be life-altering.

CBPP and other policy advocates are calling for greater transparency and accountability as the bill moves forward. Sharon Parrott urged lawmakers to consider the real-world consequences of their decisions: “Kids will go hungry. Families will be forced to make impossible choices.” As the proposal advances through congressional committees, its true cost—measured not just in dollars but in human impact—will come into sharper focus. For many in Alabama, especially those in low-wage jobs or with limited access to health care, the stakes could not be higher. These deep cuts threaten to leave the most vulnerable without the support they need, underscoring the urgent need for compassionate and responsible budgeting.