Rick Santorum, the Food Stamp Senator

Verum Serum ^ | 02/21/2012 | Morgen

[SeekAndFind]

Throughout the primary campaign Rick Santorum has regularly criticized President Obama, pointing at the rapid rise in the number of Americans receiving food stamps under his administration (a 44 percent increase since January 2009). He’s promised to cut the food stamps program significantly should he be elected president, questioning how a nation struggling with obesity can justify doling out a benefit meant to alleviate hunger to nearly one-sixth of it’s population. While Santorum’s position is in line with the other candidates in the GOP field, there may be no one left in the race, including the President himself, who is more directly responsible for the growth in the food stamps program than Rick Santorum.

The last realistic opportunity to rein in federal spending on food stamps came with the Bush Administration’s 2005 budget proposal, when Republicans still held the majority in both houses of Congress . The administration proposed to close out a loophole in the criteria used for food stamp eligibility, a change which would have resulted in $574 million in program cuts over 5 years. An outcry ensued of course from all the the usual sources, accusing Republicans of attempting to “slash” food aid for the poor. In truth, this change would have resulted in a reduction in spending of only three tenths of one percent (.3%) without actually cutting the program at all.

It would, however, have set an important precedent, but the proposal never came up for a vote on the Senate floor. Proudly leading the charge to kill the measure was none other than Senator Rick Santorum, who served on the Agricultural Committee which decided it’s fate. As evidence of this, his office issued a press release touting that Santorum had played a “major role” in defeating the proposal, lauding Santorum for “shielding nutrition programs from funding cuts” for “needy Americans”.

A year later in a promotional flyer (pdf) for his re-election campaign Santorum bragged that he “led the Senate” in protecting the Food Stamp program from the cuts proposed by the White House.

So what exactly was this loophole which the Bush Administration sought to close and which Santorum was so determined to save? The Bush budget proposal from 2005 describes it pretty well (emphasis added):

Historically, households which were determined eligible for comparable means-tested benefits were deemed “categorically,” or automatically, eligible for food stamps. When the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program was established, categorical food stamp eligibility was extended to households receiving TANF cash assistance as well as those only receiving TANF-funded services. However, in practice, TANF-funded services are extremely diverse, and do not necessarily have eligibility criteria that are comparable to the Food Stamp program. In some cases, States have expanded categorical eligibility for food stamps to those who have received a pamphlet published with TANF funds. As a result, in some States, households with income and resources well above the regular eligibility criteria are able to receive food stamps.

The Budget proposes to limit Food Stamp categorical eligibility to households receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash benefits. Households receiving TANF-funded services, but not cash, would no longer be automatically eligible for food stamps, but could apply under regular program rules. This proposal conforms the program’s rules to their historical intent, ensuring that Federal assistance is targeted to individuals who are most in need.

In short, the loophole allowed states to confer automatic eligibility for food stamps by simply handing out an informational pamphlet to potential beneficiaries, and in the process bypassing the means testing required under normal program rules. Rules which were intended to limit the granting of food stamps only to individuals and families with income at or below the poverty level, and with very little in the way of other financial assets. Using this loophole, state-level administrators of the food stamps program could legally grant eligibility to individuals with tens of thousands of dollars in assets or more, lottery winners even.

Notably, the Bush administration was not attempting to eliminate the granting of automatic eligibility in its entirety, but rather only to restrict this status to beneficiaries who were already receiving some other form of cash welfare benefit, where some minimum level of means testing had already been performed. The effort by some state administrators to bypass statutory means testing by simply handing out a piece of paper seems like just the type of regulatory loophole that Congress would have an interest in closing. In the name of fairness, if not fiscal restraint.

But not Rick Santorum, apparently.

In the year following Santorum’s effort to lead the defeat of this proposal in the Senate, 18.7 percent of the households receiving food stamps were deemed automatically eligible under this loophole, which equated to about 2.1 million households (source). By 2010 this figure had grown to a whopping 51.3 percent of all households receiving food stamp benefits, or just over 9.4 million households (source). That’s nearly a 350% increase in only 5 years, and probably accounts for most of the increase in the total number of people receiving food stamp benefits outside of the effects of the economic downturn.

Thanks to Rick Santorum’s “leadership”.

Now that’s not to say that many of these individuals and families would not otherwise be eligible for food stamps. I’m sure many of them would, perhaps even a majority. But with over 50 percent of food stamp recipients now exempt from basic means testing, it’s a safe bet that there is a significant amount of over-spending taking place. Consider that if the 5-year savings number was $574 million in 2006, then 350% of this total (reflecting the increase in the number of recipients deemed automatically eligible since then) would be just over $2 billion. The actual number is probably much higher given that spending per recipient has also increased significantly in recent years.

Rick Santorum promises to cut food stamps spending if he is elected, but he had a prime opportunity to rein in the program when he was in the Senate. Not only did he vote the wrong way, but by his own admission he played a central role in blocking what would have been a very reasonable change in the way the program is administered. If the accusation of being insensitive to the plight of the poor was enough to convince Santorum to oppose such a reasonable, and ultimately nominal reduction in food stamp spending in 2005 – when the unemployment rate was less than 5% – I’m not sure why we should believe that he would resist this same type of pressure in making the more significant cuts he has promised.

[DannyTN]

I don’t know the specifics of why he opposed that particular cut.

But the better solution is to get people good jobs, so that they are off of all of these services, not just food stamps.

[throwback]

Santorum has his problems, but I look at the more important issues where he was not in favor of Tarp or healthcare mandates. I don't agree with him on Afghanistan either, but what's the alternative, Paul?

[entropy12]

I have absolutely nothing against feeding the hungry at my expense. But I do have problem when I see people at the cash register paying with food stamps and have i-phones. Something is out of whack. Since when expensive cell phones became a necessity?

[Fred]

http://santorumexposed.com/

[NEMDF]

Another problem that I have with food stamps/feeding the “poor” is this: over the past several years, the schools (with federal tax money) have gone from giving reduced-cost lunches to the “poor” to now giving free breakfasts, lunches, and sometimes dinners to the “poor”, and sending food home with them on weekends. Plus having programs the whole family can attend in the summer for free meals. But nothing has been done to reduce the amount of food stamps that these same people get. So the taxpayers are feeding these people sometimes two and three times per meal. No wonder obesity is such a problem. And so many of them have those fancy custom manicures....

[BloodAngel]

...Not sure if serious.....

[C. Edmund Wright]

He voted for increased funding for food stamps and then BRAGGED ABOUT IT IN HIS 2006 RE ELECTION CAMPAIGN.

He is the food stamp senator.

[FrankR]

[Marguerite]

“he was not in favor of Tarp or healthcare mandates.”

Fiddlesticks.
He left the Senate in 2006, so he had no say or vote in either.

[DannyTN]

I generally agree.

However it’s not always what it looks like. There are a lot of people who fell on hard times who already had expensive i-phones.

I think that was part of the idea of them removing the asset criteria and leaving only the income criteria. A family with a very nice home, loses their jobs, and quickly gets overextended and needs help just to put food on the table. They didn’t want people having to sell the family home in the middle of a financial crisis.

However, I think if they have non-assets above x, help should be structured as a loan, not a hand out. And if they have liquid assets above y, they shouldn’t be getting food stamps regardless of current income.

[Yaelle]

Exactly. I don’t agree with this decision he made, but I’d like to hear him out on it. There is no candidate I would agree with 100% of the time. Isn’t that what mayor Koch once said, that is so true? If you agree with your candidate 80%, great. 100%, have your head examined.

What are your alternatives? Gingrich has special pity for even poor aliens as long as their are able to push two generations from their loins — something no one has much trouble doing. On soil where they do not belong.

Or you want Paul or Romney?

[throwback]

And when was Newt last in office? He managed to hold the opposite opinions without a vote.

[itsahoot]

Why do you feel moved to continue this circular firing squad, is it at the behest of some one? There is nothing good that can come of all this bashing, except if we bash Romney, which I approve of.

Trashing Santorum in the hopes that the man running 4th in a three man race will benefit is silly. Newt will either do well in the debate tonight and move appropriately in the polls or he will drop like a rock. I personal think he will hit a home run tonight, because he has to, but what if he doesn't?

[CainConservative]

Dude,

Quit your incessant childish whining about our final two conservatives in the race.. Most everyone here is on to your mudslinging and pathetic attempts to split conservatives. Let me guess? Hmmmm.... YOU were a Rombot in 2008.

The seven new polls released today:

Michigan @NBC News/Marist
Santorum 35, Romney 37, Gingrich 8
NEWTORUM +6 OVER Willard

Oklahoma @Rasmussen Reports
Santorum 43, Romney 18, Gingrich 22
NEWTORUM +47 OVER Willard

Wisconsin @Marquette Survey
Santorum 34, Romney 18, Gingrich 12
NEWTORUM +28 OVER Willard

California @Field Polling
Romney 31, Santorum 25, Gingrich 12
NEWTORUM +6 OVER Willard

2012 Republican Presidential Nomination @Associated Press/GfK
Santorum 33, Romney 32, Gingrich 15
NEWTORUM +16 OVER Willard

2012 Republican Presidential Nomination @Quinnipiac Survey
Santorum 35, Romney 26, Gingrich 14
NEWTORUM +23 OVER Willard

2012 Republican Presidential Nomination @Gallup Tracking
Santorum 35, Romney 27, Gingrich 15
NEWTORUM +23 OVER Willard

[SoFloFreeper]

I wonder if this will come up in tonight’s debate.

Just goes to show, I think, that none of the Republicans running for President are perfect.

All of them are better than the clown currently occupying the Oval Office.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Dude,
Change your name.
Cain can’t stand your boi.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

[not in favor of Tarp or healthcare mandates]

Santroum was already voted out of office by the time both issues went up for vote, so giving him credit for being against it, particularly after Santorum had a chance to test the water among the electorate and then take a side, is a far cry form how he would have voted when he was an active Senator.

There is plenty of evidence to go on, in regards to Santorum’s full career that proves he is not the conservative that he, or his supporters say he is.

[georgiagirl_pam]

Maybe you should read this:
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2012/02/13/an-open-challenge-to-supporters-of-rick-santorum/

AND THEN WATCH THIS!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJblJfgXBgw&feature=youtu.be

[entropy12]

I do not agree. These people who own nice homes and have nice cars and have enjoyed vacations and nice clothes, they should have had the foresight to NOT spend every dollar of income. I have watched my spending, for exactly the reason to avoid needing food stamps within a few weeks of losing a job. I do not feel sorry for these people who live for today because we will take care of their tomorrow. Let them learn responsibility and self reliance.

Theoretically I could probably be eligible for food stamps because my cash is earning almost zero income and I am retired. But I will not burden other tax payers so long as I have enough cash assets to buy my own food.