Bulwark Takes: Murkowski’s Absurd Plan Could Leave Millions Hungry
Release Date: July 2, 2025

In this compelling episode of Bulwark Takes, host Sam Stein engages in a critical discussion with Arthur Delaney, a respected HuffPost reporter, about the Republican-led legislative efforts to cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The conversation delves deep into the mechanics of the proposed bill, its implications for rural America, and the controversial maneuvering involving Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. The following summary captures the essence of their conversation, enriched with notable quotes and structured insights.

1. Introduction to the SNAP Program

Sam Stein initiates the conversation by highlighting the significance of SNAP, setting the stage for a nuanced discussion on its potential dismantling.

Sam Stein [01:01]: "We're talking about the big beautiful bill, but specifically a provision in it to go after SNAP, which is food benefits for poor people."

To clarify, Arthur Delaney explains:

Arthur Delaney [01:52]: "SNAP is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It's the federal government's biggest flagship food security program. It basically eradicated starvation in the United States after it was ramped up in the 20th century."

He emphasizes the program's impact:

Arthur Delaney [02:09]: "20 million households get SNAP benefits, which are a few hundred dollars a month depending on how many people are in the household. So it's a big, important and very responsive program."

2. Understanding SNAP: Importance and Cost

The duo delves into the financial aspects of SNAP, underscoring its role and the fiscal responsibilities tied to it.

Arthur Delaney [02:30]: "The federal government entirely pays the cost of benefits while states administer, you know, check eligibility and sign people up."

Discussing the annual expenditure:

Arthur Delaney [02:42]: "It's about $100 billion annually. So it's a big program and its cost has gone up a lot."

He traces the expansion of SNAP:

Arthur Delaney [02:42]: "It was expanded a little bit under Barack Obama and a lot under Joe Biden. They, you know, Congress ramped it up in response to the pandemic, and then Joe Biden essentially made those expansions permanent."

3. Republican Proposals to Cut SNAP

The conversation shifts to the Republican strategy of targeting SNAP to finance tax cuts, highlighting the legislative maneuvers involved.

Sam Stein [03:03]: "Big pool of money going to needy people. Naturally, it's ripe to get raided for this Republican bill, which they needed to finance tax cuts for."

Arthur Delaney elaborates on the proposals:

Arthur Delaney [03:20]: "So Republicans have always wanted to kill SNAP, basically, but they can't ever do it because everyone likes it. And they're not usually working in budget reconciliation, but this time they are, and they have these, you know, $4 trillion in tax cuts. So SNAP went along with Medicaid in the pool of things they wanted to raid to help offset the cost of the taxes."

He explains the core of the House and Senate proposals:

Arthur Delaney [03:53]: "The big one was to make states have to pay a share of the cost of SNAP benefits... House proposal would have every state do this automatically. And the Senate proposal would only do it for states that have high error rates, which is high rates of improperly overpaying SNAP."

4. The Murkowski Provision and Its Implications

A pivotal moment in the discussion revolves around Senator Lisa Murkowski's involvement and the intricate provisions introduced to secure her support.

Sam Stein [05:03]: "They needed to win Lisa Murkowski's vote for this bill. And in order to win her boat vote, they needed to essentially carve out SNAP cuts for Alaska to make sure that the state wasn't screwed, or at least that was her request."

Arthur Delaney explains the legislative complexity:

Arthur Delaney [05:55]: "They put in this whole formula to make it look even more obscure from what was their obvious intention. And the parliamentarian said, okay, you've jumped through enough hoops here that we'll keep this in. They finished this up like a minute before the Senate voted on, and they passed it."

5. Reactions and Controversies

The episode highlights the backlash and confusion within the Republican ranks regarding the murky provisions introduced.

Sam Stein [10:37]: "They tightened it on Murkowski's behalf. But it's not only benefiting Murkowski, by the way that they wrote it, it's going to benefit... other states, bigger states."

Arthur Delaney critiques the legislative haste:

Arthur Delaney [11:15]: "It was for Murkowski. And with these... it's really the slapdash, ad hoc nature of the legislative process for this bill. Like it's really rushed for no reason and as a result, it's very sloppy."

The House Rules Committee's reaction is also discussed:

Arthur Delaney [10:09]: "The House Agriculture Chair was there as a witness. He's just like, well, you have to ask the senators why they did that."

6. Potential Outcomes and Consequences

The dialogue shifts to the possible ramifications of the bill passing, especially for states caught in the middle of the proposed error rate thresholds.

Arthur Delaney [07:19]: "They put in this whole formula to make it look even more obscure from what was their obvious intention."

Arthur Delaney [08:03]: "It's billions of dollars. It's just a massive."

The concept of “donut holes” is introduced to explain the catch-22 faced by medium-performing states:

Sam Stein [08:27]: "There's a donut hole in the middle of medium performing states who will just either have to say, you know what, we got to get our shit in order and make sure that there's less errors, or we should just absolutely go in the opposite direction and make this error ridden so that we don't lose money."

7. Conclusion and Insights

Wrapping up the discussion, Sam Stein and Arthur Delaney reflect on the broader implications of the bill and the challenges ahead.

Arthur Delaney [12:41]: "This would reduce enrollment by several million... millions of people would have fewer benefits. It's I think it's best to think of it as really rolling back the gains from the Obama and Biden eras, or at least trying to."

Sam Stein [13:13]: "It's really a difficult to watch time. Critically important reporting from you and others. Thank you."

Key Takeaways

• SNAP's Significance: As the largest federal nutrition assistance program, SNAP plays a crucial role in eradicating hunger and supporting millions of American households.

• Republican Strategy: The GOP's attempt to slash SNAP funding is part of a broader agenda to finance substantial tax cuts, leveraging budget reconciliation to push through contentious provisions.

• Legislative Maneuvering: The introduction of complex formulas to secure Senator Murkowski's support underscores the ad hoc and rushed nature of the bill's creation, leading to widespread confusion and criticism.

• Impact on States: States are poised to bear significant financial burdens under the proposed changes, especially those with high error rates in SNAP administration. This could result in millions losing benefits and exacerbate food insecurity.

• Future Implications: If enacted, the bill could undo decades of progress in food security, highlighting the precarious intersection of politics and vital social programs.

This episode of Bulwark Takes serves as a crucial examination of the interplay between legislative tactics and social welfare programs, shedding light on policies that could have profound impacts on millions of Americans.