Newsflash: reduced spending on the poors will reduce the income of the poors

The Congressional Budget Office presents, in extremely neutral language, the impacts of three options for reducing spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP or the program formerly known as Food Stamps). Why? Because "some policymakers have expressed a desire to scale back the program significantly to reduce federal spending." Are these the same "some policymakers" who don't want women to have access to birth control or any kind of family planning, too? The smart bet is on yes. Why do I mention that? Well, it turns out that a majority of the recipients of SNAP are children. Unfortunately for them, they are post-born children, the kind our elected leaders somehow care less about than the pre-born. Three quarters of recipient households have children, people over age 60 or disabled members. What will happen if benefits are cut? Spoiler alert: the earth-shattering conclusion of the CBO analysis: cutting spending would hurt either the bottom 20% of households or the second-lowest 20% of households by after-tax income, the most, depending on just how you cut the spending.