Key Takeaways

• Senator Hawley praised food assistance but backed deep SNAP cuts.
• He endorsed a budget that slashed Medicaid, ACA subsidies, and rural hospitals.
• His voting record penalized states with higher error rates and immigrants.
• Today’s op-ed omits his role in harming low-income families.
• Hawley’s words clash sharply with his actions on helping the poor.

SNAP cuts: Hawley’s Claim vs Action

Senator Josh Hawley wrote an op-ed praising SNAP. He said no American should go to bed hungry. Yet, only months earlier, he voted for massive SNAP cuts. His vote would remove at least $120 billion from food aid over ten years. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office put that figure at $187 billion. Clearly, Hawley’s words in the op-ed don’t match his vote.

Hawley backed a huge budget package nicknamed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” He voted yes when every Democrat opposed it. The tie broke only when the vice president stepped in. That act cut more than one trillion dollars from Medicaid. It also added harsh work requirements for those already working. Furthermore, it removed coverage for lawfully present immigrants. Finally, it restricted provider taxes that keep rural hospitals open.

Hawley’s SNAP cuts reveal his real priorities

Hawley warned that rural hospitals would suffer. He even pushed for a $25 billion fix over five years. Yet he still voted for the bill that gutted those programs. He then pointed to his small bills that he knew would never pass. This kind of political theater hides his real record.

The bill’s SNAP cuts pushed harsh work rules and more red tape. It also punished states labeled as having high error rates. Missouri’s error rate stood at 10.2 percent. Under the new law, Missouri would lose 25 percent more funding. Ironically, that state already struggled to manage its SNAP system.

Even more, the same package ended ACA subsidies for 22 million Americans. As a result, the CBO predicted 10 million people would lose coverage. These cuts hit working families, low-income seniors, and lawfully present immigrants the hardest. Yet in July, Hawley spoke against Medicaid cuts in the Times. He said slashing health coverage was morally wrong and politically suicidal. Two months later, he voted for the biggest rollback in U.S. history.

Why is Hawley’s op-ed so misleading?

Hawley cast himself as a modern-day FDR. He even quoted scripture: “remember the poor.” However, he warned of “fraud” and “illegal aliens” abusing SNAP. In reality, fraud rates for the program are minimal. Also, most unauthorized immigrants cannot receive SNAP. His warnings create fear without facts.

Moreover, Hawley suggested only native-born Americans deserve food aid. This tone excludes those who need help the most. It also undercuts the values of charity and inclusion. His op-ed claims to love neighbors yet sets harsh limits on who qualifies.

A closer look at Hawley’s votes

Just recently, the government shutdown threatened food aid for 42 million people. In response, Hawley wrote his second Times op-ed this year. He called for preserving SNAP alone. Meanwhile, furloughed workers and shuttered services waited for help. He offered aid with many strings attached, again pushing work rules and strict checks.

Hawley’s record shows he values partisan loyalty over helping vulnerable people. He could have joined Senators Collins, Tillis, and Paul who rejected the SNAP cuts. Yet he stood with those who voted to punish low-income families. His small charity bills serve as fig leaves to hide his true votes.

How can voters trust his compassion?

Every voter deserves honest leadership. When politicians speak of caring yet vote harshly, people lose faith. Hawley’s double standard on SNAP cuts undermines trust in government. In addition, it wastes the public’s hopes for genuine help.

Therefore, voters should demand real action over empty words. They need to question politicians who promote big-hearted messages while backing cruel policies. Ultimately, compassion must come with clear deeds, not just catchy op-eds.

Moving forward

First, citizens can call or email their senators to oppose harsh SNAP changes. Second, they can join or support local food banks to help neighbors in need. Third, they can follow voting records to hold leaders accountable.

In addition, it helps to share facts about SNAP and Medicaid. That way, legislators face pressure to protect the people they claim to serve. Grassroots action and informed voters offer the best chance to stop harmful cuts.

In conclusion, Senator Hawley’s recent op-ed reads like a call to kindness. However, his votes on SNAP cuts and the wider budget package tell a different story. True compassion requires more than inspiring words. It demands policies that protect the most vulnerable without cruel conditions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are SNAP cuts and why do they matter?

SNAP cuts reduce funding for food assistance programs. They matter because they affect millions of low-income families who rely on affordable groceries.

How did Senator Hawley vote on SNAP cuts?

He voted to slash at least $120 billion from SNAP over ten years. This move would force many families to struggle with less food aid.

Did the budget package affect other health programs?

Yes, it cut more than $1 trillion from Medicaid and ended ACA subsidies for 22 million people. It also limited rural hospitals and added harsh work rules.

Why is it important to track a politician’s voting record?

A voting record shows a leader’s true priorities. It reveals whether their words align with their actions on key issues like food aid and health care.