1man1vote – Page 4 – click to view current story

The Fight For Food

Congresswoman Maxine Waters, on Friday sharply condemned the federal government’s handling of food-assistance payments as part of the ongoing funding standoff, and directed families in her district to local relief resources while the legal fight over SNAP continues.

Ms. Waters — the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee — issued a statement in early November criticizing the administration’s move to withhold or limit November Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits during the partial government shutdown and urging residents to seek immediate help from community programs. Her office emphasized that people who rely on SNAP should also look to local food banks, school districts, and municipal services for emergency assistance.

The dispute over November SNAP funding has been resolved only temporarily by the courts, leaving many households uncertain. The U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency order earlier this month that briefly paused a lower-court mandate requiring full SNAP disbursements; the administration has continued to press the matter in the appeals courts. At the same time, appeals judges and lower courts have issued competing rulings and injunctions, meaning distribution practices have varied by state and some jurisdictions moved quickly to process full payments while others provided partial benefits or used state funds to fill gaps. These legal developments have affected roughly tens of millions of recipients nationwide.

Waters’ statement pointed constituents to concrete, actionable resources in Los Angeles County and in the cities that fall within California’s 43rd Congressional District — including Inglewood, Hawthorne, Gardena, Lawndale, Compton and Torrance — where municipal and nonprofit networks are expanding emergency assistance while the federal picture remains unsettled. Her office listed phone and web contacts for food help and programs that serve seniors, families and young children.

Practical options for Angelenos in need right now include dialing 2-1-1 (the county’s social-services directory) or visiting the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank’s online pantry finder to locate nearby partner agencies and pop-up distributions; the food bank’s locator lets users search by ZIP code for up-to-date pantry hours and contact details. City residents can also call 3-1-1 to learn about FamilySource Centers and weekly food distributions for qualifying low-income families.

Families with infants or young children are reminded that WIC — the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children — continues to operate separately from SNAP and may provide immediate nutrition support, breastfeeding assistance and referrals. California’s WIC program maintains a toll-free line (1-800-852-5770) and local WIC clinics where eligibility can be confirmed and enrollment expedited.

Congresswoman Waters’ release and multiple community partners underscored a final, practical point: while courts and officials litigate funding questions, many relief systems remain active at the county and city level. Residents in need are advised to contact 2-1-1, the LA Regional Food Bank’s pantry finder, their school district or local FamilySource Center, and WIC if they qualify — and to call municipal aging or social-service lines for senior-specific referrals. Waters’ office also encouraged community members to share information about local distributions, so neighbors know where to find food now.

UPDATE
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has given the Trump administration until 4 p.m. ET on Monday to submit an additional brief to support its request for a stay on a lower court’s ruling that it must pay the November Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits in full by using funds from other Child Nutrition Programs during the federal government shutdown.

Ms. Waters written Statement

Prepare To Be Primaried

EDITORIAL

The Democratic senators who voted to advance the funding bill, handing the MAGA Republicans an opportunity to end ACA were Dick Durbin (IL), John Fetterman (PA), Maggie Hassan (NH), Tim Kaine (VA), Catherine Cortez Masto (NV), Jacky Rosen (NV), and Jeanne Shaheen (NH). Independent Senator Angus King (ME), who caucuses with the Democrats, also voted in favor.

The Senate has advanced the funding bill (by procedural vote) but it has not yet passed Congress or been signed into law. It still needs a final vote in the Senate and then must be approved by the House of Representatives.

President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law on March 23, 2010, and next to Roe –v- Wade, the ACA has been on the resident’s seek and destroy list every since President Obama “clowned” Donald Trump was at the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner, where he heavily mocked trumplethinskin over the “birther” conspiracy theory.

Catherine Cortez Masto, Jacky Rosen, Maggie Hassan, Tim Kaine, and Angus King (I)—are up for re-election in 2026, and could face formidable primary challenges. Dick Durbin and Jeanne Shaheen are retiring and not seeking re-election in 2026. Unless John Fetterman switches to the MAGA party, he will not face his primary challenge until 2028.

Thank you all for your service, albeit a service to which no snitch will be rewarded.

SNAP No More

Supreme Court Ruling Deepens SNAP Uncertainty Amid Government Shutdown

As the federal government shutdown drags into its fifth week, the Supreme Court’s decision late Friday to temporarily block a lower court order requiring full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) payments has left millions of low-income Americans uncertain about where their next meal will come from. The ruling, issued by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, pauses full benefit disbursements while an appeals court considers the Trump administration’s request to limit payouts to available contingency funds.

The dispute centers on how far the administration can stretch limited federal reserves during the shutdown. Two district courts had ordered the government to use a $4.6 billion emergency fund — and other resources if necessary — to fully fund the roughly $9 billion monthly SNAP program. The administration pushed back, arguing that spending beyond that reserve would overstep executive authority and violate congressional power over appropriations. Solicitor General D. John Sauer warned that once states drew down federal funds, “there is no ready mechanism for the government to recover those funds.”

Despite the legal limbo, some states acted swiftly to protect residents from hunger. Governors in Oregon, Wisconsin, and Hawaii ordered their agencies to release full November benefits immediately after the lower court’s Thursday ruling. In Wisconsin, $104 million in aid reached more than 300,000 households within hours. Oregon’s governor praised overnight efforts by state employees to ensure families could shop for groceries by Friday morning. Similar actions occurred in California, New Jersey, and Washington state, while others like Colorado, New York, and Massachusetts said full payments could be distributed over the weekend.

But for many families, the relief has been inconsistent. Recipients in states waiting for federal guidance faced empty electronic benefit transfer (EBT) accounts, forcing them to line up at local food pantries. At an emergency food distribution in Philadelphia, volunteers with the Mitzvah Food Program reported surging demand on Friday. In Newark, New Jersey, college student and single mother Jasmen Youngbey said her balance showed “$0” as she waited in line for groceries. Later that day, she finally received her November SNAP benefits — a temporary reprieve amid ongoing confusion.

The stakes are high: SNAP, once known as the food stamp program, serves about one in eight Americans. The program’s beneficiaries include working families, seniors, and children — many of whom rely on consistent monthly support to make ends meet. For a family of four, full SNAP benefits can approach $1,000 per month, though most receive less based on income levels. A 35% reduction, as initially proposed by the administration, would have forced millions to skip meals or depend entirely on charity food banks already stretched thin.

The administration maintains that it cannot legally expand spending without congressional authorization. However, critics argue that the government’s reluctance to use discretionary reserves reflects misplaced priorities. The website 1man1vote.com reported that the construction of a privately funded “White House Ballroom” has continued uninterrupted during the shutdown — an image of opulence that drew criticism as families nationwide faced food insecurity. Lawmakers from both parties questioned the optics of luxury renovations proceeding while essential nutrition programs teetered on the edge.

Meanwhile, several states, including Delaware, took independent action to cushion the blow. Delaware Governor Matt Meyer announced the use of state funds to provide emergency food aid, describing it as a stopgap while Washington sorts out the legal battle. Other states, like North Carolina and Louisiana, opted for partial payments while preparing to distribute the remainder if courts reaffirm full funding.

The broader crisis highlights how dependent modern food security has become on the stability of federal governance. As the appeals court weighs its next move, Justice Jackson’s order will remain in effect for at least 48 hours after that ruling, giving the administration an opening to return to the Supreme Court. Until then, SNAP households exist in a holding pattern — their access to food determined not by need, but by the pace of legal procedure and political impasse.

At a time when food inflation remains high and food pantries are overwhelmed, the delay in SNAP funding underscores the human toll of bureaucratic gridlock. Whether full payments resume or partial distributions continue, the episode has already exposed deep vulnerabilities in the nation’s safety net — and the lives that hang in the balance when politics disrupts the most basic necessity of all: food.

The MESSAGE to America

If you live within the boundaries of Los Angeles’ 43rd congressional district that encompasses a significant portion of the South Bay and South Los Angeles.

Your district includes:

The entire cities of Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lawndale, Gardena, and Lomita.

Portions of the cities of Los Angeles (including LAX and the neighborhood of Watts) and Torrance.

Census-designated places like Lennox, Del Aire, Alondra Park, West Athens, and Westmont.

In light of the longest and most destructive government shutdown in United States history, your United States Congressional representative, Maxine Waters addresses the nation with a message for you.

The Message

Click Here

https://iqconnect.house.gov/iqextranet/view_newsletter.aspx?id=107266&c=CA43MW

Calling All Cars

During a recent meeting of the Carson City Council in the City of Carson, California, a heated discussion emerged around the city’s paratransit service program — specifically the contract for its “Dial-A-Ride” service for seniors and disabled residents. The focal point: the proposed shift in contract from the longtime local provider Yellow Cab of Los Angeles (and its affiliate) to the ride-hailing giant Uber. From the remarks of Councilman Jawane Hilton of District 1, who anchored much of the discussion, the decision appears to have been shaped by resident testimony, service-quality concerns, and the unique transportation needs of seniors and disabled individuals.

Councilman Hilton opened by noting that Carson residents spoke “clearly and passionately” about the dependable service they have received from Yellow Cab over decades — especially for seniors and disabled riders. According to his account, Yellow Cab has built relationships, trust, and service protocols familiar to clients who rely on curb-to-curb rides for medical appointments, trips to visit loved ones, and maintaining a quality of life. From his viewpoint, the motion to award the Dial-A-Ride contract to Uber — even though Uber currently lacks handicap-accessible vehicles and has a record of service complaints — risked undermining those relationships.

Hilton proposed a compromise: rather than sole-sourcing the service to Uber, split the contract so that Yellow Cab would continue providing transportation specifically for the seniors and disabled passengers, while also launching an outreach and education initiative to boost awareness of the service, aiming to improve access for residents who may not yet be familiar with how to use the program. His substitute motion prevailed after debate, ensuring that the senior and disabled segment would remain protected rather than shifted entirely to a new vendor.

The significance of the issue extends beyond the simple vendor choice. At stake is access, continuity of care, and service equity. Riders with disabilities or mobility constraints often rely not only on a ride being available, but on the driver’s familiarity with their needs, the timing and reliability of the ride, and the ability to book via phone rather than purely through smartphone apps. During the council meeting, residents and disability advocates emphasized that the ability to call in, the familiarity of the driver, and the consistency of service matter as much as cost or app-based convenience.

From publicly available meeting summaries, staff had recommended awarding the contract to Uber as the single contractor after a standard RFP. But following vigorous public comment and council debate, the Council directed city staff to develop a dual-provider approach, allocating trips between two vendors and returning to the Council with revised contract drafts. The city emphasized that any interim contract must include termination and performance remedies, ensure phone-based booking for residents unable to use apps, preserve the role of local taxi drivers, and prevent service disruptions during the transition.

From the resident perspective represented by Councilman Hilton, the key concerns were: (1) whether shifting to Uber alone would disrupt the continuity of service for seniors and disabled riders; (2) whether Uber’s fleet is equipped (or lacking) in terms of accessible vehicles for those who use wheelchairs or other mobility aids; (3) whether an app-based dispatch-only model sufficiently addresses the population in Carson who depend on low-cost, accessible transportation and might struggle with smartphone-only scheduling.

By securing a split contract and preserving Yellow Cab’s longstanding role, the council effectively hedged against the risk of service gaps or degradation. Councilman Hilton’s argument was that while innovation and new service models can offer efficiencies, the city cannot compromise the quality of service for vulnerable populations in the name of cost or modernization alone.

At the same time, the decision reflects a balancing act in municipal procurement: on the one hand, the possibility of integrating ride-hail platforms like Uber which may promise more flexibility or lower cost; on the other hand, the imperative to maintain local vendor capacity, ensure equity of access (especially for non-smartphone users), and preserve service relationships tailored to vulnerable users. The outreach and education component proposed by Hilton also signals a recognition that simply changing providers is not enough — residents need to know how to navigate the service.

One of the broader themes here is the intersection of public procurement, senior and disability services, and the evolving ride-share economy. As traditional taxi services face competition from app-based alternatives, municipalities like Carson are tasked with ensuring that vulnerable riders are not left behind in the transition. Issues of accessibility, trust, reliability, and digital literacy become just as important as pricing and vendor innovation.

Councilman Hilton’s emotional tone (“Yes I was passionate but at times that is what is required,” as he put it) underscored the stakes from his perspective: that seniors and disabled residents of Carson must not see a drop in service simply because of a shuffle in vendors. It was not about rejecting Uber outright, but about preserving local service infrastructure and ensuring that the replacement or addition of vendors does not erode service quality.

In sum: The City of Carson Council’s decision — guided by Councilman Hilton’s advocacy — reflects a cautious approach to modernizing paratransit services. By approving a substitute motion to split the contract rather than awarding it solely to Uber, the council upheld continuity for seniors and disabled riders via Yellow Cab while opening the door to new service models and outreach efforts. The resolution therefore attempts to balance innovation with equity, responsiveness with reliability, and cost-efficiency with human needs. The key test ahead will be the implementation: whether the dual-provider model maintains the service levels residents expect, whether the access and education programs reach the intended audience, and whether the transition avoids disruptions for those most dependent on the service.

As the writer of this story, I try to avoid editorialising and conflating personal perspectives into a piece, however I put myself through college, driving a yellow cab, and spent considerable time behind the wheel of a Super Shuttle, or Uber and recently retired as a Metro driver. I was often in the seat, servicing Carson residents on the 246 line down Avalon.

As a rule, passengers with disabilities will most always find comfortable accommodations on Metro buses, but the few times that I needed to accommodate a wheel chair when driving an Uber – it was not a great experience, because my vehicle was a compact SUV, when they should have ordered a Comfort, or even an Uber Black. The range and size of vehicle requests, sight unseen can sometimes vary, and cancellation is not always pleasant. When Councilman Hilton reached out to me, I was intrigued by the opportunity to help spread the word about such a dynamic issue, that while smoothed over in compromise, it may yet face continuous debate.

Stay Tuned.

Food Bank

Excus my attempt at translating Spanish. As I understand it, this organization donates meals, but you will have to call for information.

SUNDAY FOOD BANK

HELPING PEOPLE

AT 9:30 AM

RECEIVE FREE FOOD

4434 LENNOX BLVD

INGLEWOOD CA 90304

On this occasion you will receive a free bag of food and a prayer.

CALL (631) 339-2080

TO RESERVE YOUR BAG

Soul Train Cruise!

Website

________________________

Cjax53@gmail.com

Government Shutdown -V- Childhood Education

On the seventeenth day of the government shutdown, Maxine Waters introduced the Head Start Shutdown Protection Act of 2025 (H.R. 5790) in the House of Representatives. The proposed legislation seeks to shield the nation’s early-childhood education programs from disruption when federal funding lapses.

The bill addresses a pressing concern: without federal allocations during a shutdown, local providers of the Head Start program face an immediate loss of access to critical support—placing children, families and staff in jeopardy. According to Waters’s office, these setbacks “grow worse over time.”

Under the act, state and local governments—as well as school districts—would be reimbursed for funds they expend to maintain Head Start or Early Head Start operations during a shutdown. The mechanism requires entities to front the cost and seek federal reimbursement after funding is restored.

Congresswoman Waters, a former assistant teacher and volunteer coordinator for the Head Start program in Watts, starting in 1966, emphasized the human dimension. She noted that vulnerable children, their families, and the dedicated teachers and staff who serve them should not suffer because of a funding impasse beyond their control. The intent, she said, is to ensure that grant-recipients remain open and can continue to serve.

While the bill responds to a specific shutdown scenario, its implications reach further: it underscores how early-childhood education programs operate at the intersection of federal, state and local systems—and how a lapse in one link can ripple across the system. For example, even temporary disruptions in Head Start programs can affect developmental milestones, parent-education supports, nutrition services and readiness for kindergarten.

Social-media and crowd-sourced reports from local programs during the shutdown underscore the urgency: some Head Start centers report mounting unpaid bills, staff uncertainty, and concern about continuity of service. These snapshots mirror what Waters’s office described—programs losing access to funding and facing mounting challenges as the shutdown extends.

From a policy-perspective, the bill raises questions about the role of federal contingency mechanisms in essential services. If local entities bear the upfront cost of continuity, states and districts with fewer resources may be disadvantaged—raising equity concerns. And while reimbursement after the fact provides relief, it does not necessarily mitigate the risk of short-term service interruption or cash-flow stress.

Legislatively, securing co-sponsors and passage in the current political environment will be challenging. The bill’s fate depends on the broader shutdown resolution, appropriations discussions and negotiations over federal priorities. However, its introduction signals a push to protect early-education infrastructure from future funding volatility.

The Head Start Shutdown Protection Act of 2025 positions itself as a safeguard for one of the nation’s most vulnerable populations—young children and families reliant on federally-supported early learning programs. With the shutdown now well into its fourth week, the legislation highlights how early-childhood education can become collateral damage in budget impasses—and offers one pathway to shielding these services from the effects of federal gridlock.

The Head Start Shutdown Protection Act is also cosponsored by:
Representatives Gabe Amo (RI-01), Yassamin Ansari (AZ-03), Joyce Beatty (OH-03), Wesley Bell (MO-01), Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. (GA-02), Nikki Budzinski (IL-13), Andre’ Carson (IN-07), Emanuel Cleaver, II (MO-05), Angie Craig (MN-02), Jasmine Crockett (TX-30), Danny K. Davis (IL-07), Debbie Dingell (MI-06), Dwight Evans (PA-03), Cleo Fields (LA-06), Shomari Figures (AL-02), John Garamendi (CA-08), Jesús “Chuy” García (IL-04), Sylvia R. Garcia (TX-29), Dan Goldman (NY-10), Vicente Gonzalez (TX-34), Steven Horsford (NV-04), Glenn Ivey (MD-04), Jonathan Jackson (IL-01), Hank Johnson (GA-04), Greg Landsman (OH-01), Summer Lee (PA-12), April McClain Delaney (MD-06), LaMonica McIver (NJ-10), Seth Moulton (MA-06), Kevin Mullin (CA-15), Joe Neguse (CO-02), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-00), Jimmy Panetta (CA-19), Emily Randall (WA-06), Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), Terri Sewell (AL-07), Bennie G. Thompson (MS-02), Dina Titus (NV-01), Rashida Tlaib (MI-12), Ritchie Torres (NY-15), Juan Vargas (CA-52), Nydia M. Velázquez (NY-07), and Frederica S. Wilson (FL-24).

https://share.google/CzwLlg6O7mqdfd4v2

Urgent Communication

Urgent Communication

The office of Maxine Waters (D-CA) has issued a strong condemnation of what it describes as a “mass firing” at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) during the current federal government shutdown. On October 14, 2025, Waters — ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee — released a statement asserting that roughly 442 HUD employees have been terminated, citing figures from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

According to the figures shared by Waters’ office, the breakdown of the terminations includes: 103 employees from HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing; 36 from Housing Counseling; 50 from Housing Operations; 114 from Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity; and 30 from Community Planning and Development.

The statement alleges that the firings occurred amid the ongoing “Trump-Republican shutdown,” linking the move to broader efforts by the federal government to reduce workforce numbers and weaken HUD’s ability to deliver on its mandate. Waters characterized the action as “cruel, dangerous, and disgraceful,” and argued that it jeopardizes assistance programs relied on by millions of Americans.

Earlier this year, Congresswoman Waters raised concerns about field-office closures at HUD, including allegations that the agency under Scott Turner may be planning to shutter a significant portion of its regional presence. In April 2025 she sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and HUD’s Office of Inspector General seeking inquiry into whether HUD was meeting its legal obligations to maintain regional offices.

A protest at HUD’s Washington, D.C. headquarters earlier in March backed the concerns. Federal workers and community advocates gathered to protest workforce reductions and warn that staffing cuts could delay housing assistance and negatively impact vulnerable households. Waters participated in delivering a letter to HUD, according to local coverage.

In her press release Waters emphasized that HUD’s key programs support extremely low-income households, noting that wide-scale terminations of staff would hamper the agency’s ability to carry out its mission: “Millions of Americans depend on,” she said, “federal assistance to keep a roof over their heads.”

While the press release makes strong claims about the legality of the action — stating that the firings were “illegal” because Congress has already appropriated funds and the President cannot eliminate mandated programs — external independent sources have not yet fully verified all aspects of the firings, such as the exact number or each affected office.

For Angelenos and other Americans who depend on programs administered by HUD — such as tenant-based housing vouchers, project-based rental assistance, and public housing — the staffing reductions, if accurate, could mean slower processing of claims, fewer enforcement actions for housing discrimination, and increased workload on remaining staff. Waters’ office places the number of Americans who rely on HUD programs at roughly 9 to 9.3 million, nationwide.

As the shutdown continues, and as congressional Democrats press oversight of HUD’s actions, the outcome of these staffing changes — including any legal challenges and operational impacts — will bear watching. Congresswoman Waters has pledged to “hold this Administration accountable” and to continue fighting for safe and affordable housing access “regardless of race, zip code, or income.”

Full Press Release

https://1man1vote.com/wp/full-press-release/

American Pay Day

Whoopi Goldberg urges lawmakers to forgo pay as shutdown’s human toll deepens

As the federal government shutdown that began on October 1, 2025 stretches into its third week, public frustration is widening — and some high-profile voices are calling for an unusual form of accountability. During the October 15 episode of The View, cohost Whoopi Goldberg publicly asked both Republicans and Democrats to “not take their salary” until lawmakers reopen the government, a plea that drew loud applause from the studio audience and quickly spread across social media.

Goldberg framed the demand in starkly practical terms: until lawmakers feel the financial pinch their constituents are experiencing, she argued, there is less incentive to settle the impasse. Her remarks came amid broader coverage of the shutdown’s effects on federal operations and workers — from furloughed employees missing paychecks to staffing shortages that have disrupted air travel and other services. Journalistic accounts show the shutdown began at 12:01 a.m. EDT on October 1 and, by mid-October, had furloughed or left unpaid hundreds of thousands of federal workers.

The reaction on crowdsourced social platforms was rapid and varied. Clips of Goldberg’s remarks circulated widely on Instagram and Facebook, with users amplifying the segment and many commenters echoing the sentiment that elected officials should share the immediate consequences now borne by rank-and-file federal employees. On Reddit and in other comment threads the response mixed praise, calls for broader ethics reforms, and criticism that refusing pay is more symbolic than structural.

The shutdown has also produced other high-visibility flashpoints that fueled the online conversation. Airports in several cities declined to run a video produced by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem that blamed Democrats for the funding lapse; airport authorities cited concerns about partisan messaging in public spaces. That episode, covered by national outlets and shared across social feeds, became another focal point in debates about blame, messaging, and the appropriate role of government communications during a funding crisis.

Experts and advocates who have followed previous shutdowns note that voluntary refusals of salary would not by themselves solve underlying budget and policy disputes. Congressional pay is governed by law, and proposals to condition or withhold pay have surfaced in past impasses; legal, logistical, and political questions remain even where public appetite for punishment or sacrifice is high. Reporting on the current shutdown stresses the real-time human consequences — delayed paychecks, potential layoffs, interrupted services — that make symbolic gestures resonate with a broad audience even as they may have limited immediate policy effect.

What is unmistakable in the public record is the intensity of sentiment across platforms: broadcast segments like Goldberg’s have become catalysts for online debate, and social media has amplified both first-hand accounts from affected workers and broader calls for accountability. Whether Goldberg’s proposal will translate into legislative action, or remain a galvanizing public plea, will depend on the same political calculations that led to the shutdown — and on whether lawmakers decide to respond to public pressure in ways beyond rhetoric. For now, the conversation underlines how a prolonged funding gap can shift civic discourse as quickly on daytime television and social feeds as it does on the floors of Congress.

Play Ball