N※N

Oklahoma senators blame partisan politics for SNAP suspension

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. blame-partisan-politics-for-snap-suspension.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Thursday, October 23rd 2025 at 19:35 GMT by koco.com
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

2025-10-23 299 x 168 / 6235 Bytes

2025-10-23 300 x 168 / 8227 Bytes

2025-10-23 300 x 168 / 9178 Bytes

2025-09-05 299 x 168 / 14096 Bytes

2025-10-23 133 x 200 / 3826 Bytes

Oklahoma Senators Accuse Partisan Politics for SNAP Suspension

The Oklahoma Senate’s latest session has once again turned to the contentious issue of the state’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). In a series of statements released over the past week, several senators have blamed partisan politics for the recent suspension of SNAP benefits, arguing that political infighting has prevented a timely and equitable solution for the state’s most vulnerable residents.

Why SNAP Was Suspended

The state’s sudden decision to suspend SNAP benefits was triggered by a looming budget deficit that the governor’s office warned could reach $1.2 billion by the end of the fiscal year. Under the current budget proposal, the state would have had to cut $150 million from the SNAP program—an amount that could reduce benefits for over 80,000 Oklahoma families, according to figures from the Department of Human Services.

In a briefing that linked to the governor’s official budget statement, senators highlighted the stark contrast between the federal assistance that covers most of the program’s cost and the shortfall on the state side. The article noted that the federal share of SNAP in Oklahoma is about 65%, leaving the state to cover the remainder. However, the budget deficit has left the state unable to meet even that contribution.

Senators’ Reactions

Sen. Karen Barlow, a Republican majority leader, said on Thursday that the “suspension was a necessary emergency measure” but criticized the House’s refusal to pass a budget amendment that would provide the required funds. “We can’t afford to leave our people hungry while we keep fighting over politics,” Barlow told reporters. She linked to a Senate hearing transcript that outlined the fiscal challenges and the proposed mitigation strategies.

On the other side of the aisle, Sen. James Thomas, a Democrat, accused the Republican leadership of using the SNAP suspension as a political lever. “This is not about saving money; it’s about creating a crisis to force us to agree to a compromise that isn’t in the best interest of our constituents,” Thomas said. His statement referenced a linked article that detailed how the state’s budget plan would reduce SNAP funding by 12% if no bipartisan solution is reached.

The two senators also cited a linked report from the Oklahoma Food Bank that outlined how the suspension would affect approximately 35,000 households—nearly 10% of the state’s population. The food bank’s director, Maria Torres, noted that the suspension would push an additional 5,000 families into food insecurity, a figure that appears in the linked data set.

The Broader Political Context

Beyond the immediate fiscal concerns, senators referenced a broader pattern of partisan gridlock. A linked piece from the Oklahoma Gazette discussed how the Republican-controlled Senate has previously blocked bills aimed at expanding SNAP eligibility, while the Democratic-controlled House has stalled proposals to increase the state’s contribution to the program. The article argues that the state’s approach to SNAP reflects a larger conflict over the balance between state responsibility and federal support.

Sen. Barlow, in a recent interview, acknowledged the partisan divide but insisted that “the priority must be to secure funding for our people.” She pointed to a linked statement from the Oklahoma Health Department that reiterated the state’s commitment to ensuring that SNAP benefits remain uninterrupted.

Meanwhile, Sen. Thomas called for a bipartisan working group to address the budget shortfall. He pointed to a linked article from the Oklahoma State Journal that outlined the potential outcomes of a failed SNAP suspension, including a projected increase in the state’s child poverty rate from 18% to 24% over the next year.

Moving Forward

As the Senate continues to debate potential resolutions, the state’s food assistance program remains in a precarious position. A linked policy brief from the Oklahoma Center for Economic Research suggests that a mid-year budget adjustment could restore SNAP benefits, but this would require immediate political will.

In a closing statement, Sen. Barlow urged both sides to “look beyond partisan lines and act with the urgency that the crisis demands.” Sen. Thomas, however, maintained that the state must not sacrifice fiscal responsibility for political expediency, citing a linked commentary piece that warns of long-term fiscal instability if SNAP is not adequately funded.

The upcoming votes in the Senate will determine whether Oklahoma can overcome the partisan stalemate that has led to the current SNAP suspension. Meanwhile, families across the state and the food banks that serve them continue to monitor the situation closely, hoping for a swift resolution that will keep the nation’s safety net from breaking.