Comments
MY VIEW - The new federal budget says more about the priorities of this country’s rulers and the politicians who front for them than any campaign speech. The Pentagon’s budget now exceeds $1 trillion, with another half trillion for agencies, like the Veterans Administration. To pay for this, SNAP food assistance and health care for millions of poor and working-class people are being cut. This is not a mistake or bad planning. It is class policy.
On Dec. 2, 2025, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent promised substantial 2026 tax refunds to the wealthy and “real wage increases” for the well-off. At the same time, Goldman Sachs predicts “continued underperformance in low-end spending.” This is how the US government talks to us. Officials and “experts” say things are getting better, even when life gets harder.
The Federal Government’s budget offers a clear picture of these bipartisan class priorities. During the government’s recent shutdown the Senate voted 77—20 to approve a $32 billion increase for the Pentagon. That came on top of a $156 billion increase. Together, these hikes pushed annual military spending to over $1 trillion.
Much of this money will flow straight into the hands of the large corporations that build weapons and military equipment. Many of these contracts are also “cost-plus,” which means the companies receive a guaranteed profit.
At the same time Congress refused to extend subsidies for the Affordable Care Act. It would cost around $35 billion, a small fraction of the Pentagon increase. As a result, health insurance premiums for millions will dramatically increase. As many as 17 million people will lose health insurance coverage -- if Medicare cuts are included.
When a government allocates billions for war while claiming it cannot afford basic health care, it is a clear sign of whose interests are served. The Pentagon budget guarantees profits for military contractors, backs up U.S. corporate power, and finances research that later becomes private technology and private profit.
Turning hunger into a weapon: The Trump administration has escalated its attack on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a food stamp program that helps 42 million people. Their rationale is the fight against fraud. Nevertheless, a 2023 report from the Department of Agriculture found that only 0.1% of households receiving SNAP benefits were referred for fraud investigations. The real question is if fraud is so rare, why is this excuse used for SNAP cuts?
This answer is this is not the first time that selective cutbacks have appeared. During the recent six-week government shutdown, the administration carried out an unprecedented 13-day halt in SNAP benefits.
Shifting costs to the states: Beginning October 1, 2026, the states will be required to pay 75% of administrative costs. At present the split is 50—50. The states will also pay part of the benefits if their administrative error rate is too high. State officials will predictably claim they “have no choice” but to restrict access, reduce benefits, and limit eligibility.
This is a familiar pattern. When capitalism runs into crisis, elites push costs downward and keep profits flowing upward. The human impact of this practices is enormous. Households that include at least one disabled person experience food insecurity twice as much. For them, delays and cuts are not abstract policies; they are a question of whether there will be enough to eat.
Economic warfare: SNAP also supports local economies. Every dollar in SNAP benefits generates about $1.80 in economic activity. In some rural communities, SNAP purchases make up 20% of a store’s sales.
When the SNAP program that supports poor and working-class communities is reduced, the Pentagon budget concentrates money into giant military corporations. That is a deliberate class policy. A $1 trillion Pentagon budget and 42 million people getting reduced food assistance are linked together.
The Federal Government pours money into weapons, war, and corporate profits to keep a crisis-ridden economic system afloat. This, in turn, produces mass poverty and hunger, while blaming the victims for the SNAP cuts that keep them alive.
Political implications: The underlying question is whether working-class resistance – from food justice campaigns, union struggles, and antiwar organizing – can become a political force that challenges immediate cutbacks and the system that claims these cuts are necessary.
That is the choice facing us: a future of permanent war and deprivation, or a fight for budgets that meet human needs, not military-dependent corporations and the small economic strata whose wellbeing relies on them.
(Victor Rothman is a California-based policy analyst. This column relied on a December 9, 2025, article by Gary Wilson.)
