Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hoyer says House Democrats are ready to swallow $9 billion in food stamp cuts
The Hill ^ | January 10, 2014 | Mike Lillis

Posted on 01/10/2014 1:46:19 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife

A bipartisan proposal to cut food stamps by $9 billion would likely pass the lower chamber with support from Democrats, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said this week.

"If that is the figure, and if other matters that are still at issue can be resolved, I think the bill will probably pass, and it will pass with Democratic — some Democratic — support," Hoyer said Thursday during the taping of C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" program, which will air Sunday. "Not, certainly, universal Democratic support. … But I think it will pass."

Bipartisan negotiators from both chambers are said to be nearing a deal on a farm bill that would include roughly $9 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps.

The deal would break a yearslong impasse over a five-year renewal of the farm bill that had centered largely around the parties' widely different approaches to SNAP funding. While House Republicans have pushed for a $39 billion cut to the program over a decade, Senate Democrats had proposed $4 billion.

Hoyer said he doesn't support the $9 billion cut, per se, but is "inclined to support it" to enact the larger package.

"I don't like the fact that we went further on the [SNAP] cuts," he said. "But that's over 10 years, so it's not as bad as it could have been, and much better, frankly, than we could have expected."

Hoyer's backing of the $9 billion figure is significant, as House GOP leaders are expected to lose the support of a number of conservative Republicans who feel that anything much less than the $39 billion cut is a nonstarter. The GOP opposition means that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) will almost certainly need Democrats to get the bill over the finish line.

It won't be easy winning Democrat support. While the $9 billion cut is much closer to the Democrats' figure, it still represents a significant reduction in SNAP funding and is sure to be opposed by liberal Democrats already criticizing the Senate's $4 billion proposal.

Hoyer predicted that "the majority of Democrats may feel that they cannot support it because of the SNAP cuts."

The savings comes by making it tougher to receive enhanced food stamp payments through the federal home-heating assistance program. Under current law, some beneficiaries can receive additional SNAP benefits, if they receive as little as $1 per year through the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP.

Hoyer said the deal that farm bill negotiators are considering would raise that threshold to $20 – a provision contained in the House GOP proposal.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D) has been a vocal critic of the SNAP cuts. Still, the California liberal this week remained open to supporting a $9 billion SNAP reduction as part of a broad farm bill agreement, something she said “we very much want."

“I look forward to seeing it and how they arrive at that figure and what their timetable is on it,” Pelosi told reporters Thursday in the Capitol.

“I’ve been very concerned about the food stamp and nutrition cuts that are in the bill," she added. "[But] we very much want a farm bill and hope that the final formulation will be acceptable."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: budget; economy; spending
Friday afternoon dump:

Reid backs down in unemployment fight - will consider Republican amendments

1 posted on 01/10/2014 1:46:19 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

It is not a cut. People were receiving extra...and it was a TEMPORARY increase.


2 posted on 01/10/2014 1:51:42 PM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

what....Democrats care more about votes in farm states and political contributions from ADM and Monsanto than they do about the poor, starving victims of “income inequality”???

Say it ain’t so, Joe


3 posted on 01/10/2014 1:53:41 PM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

That’s a “Washington cut.”


4 posted on 01/10/2014 1:54:23 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

It would be so awesome to see an article that talks about cuts to also talk about previous, current, and next year levels spending. That would be sweet.


5 posted on 01/10/2014 2:06:15 PM PST by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

I smell a RAT. Usually a $9B “cut” means it’s not a cut in the first place, plus they’ve got at least a $10B increase somewhere else.


6 posted on 01/10/2014 2:06:16 PM PST by bigbob (The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

“Hoyer says House Democrats are ready to swallow $9 billion in food stamp cuts “

Well isn’t that f*cking big of you. Now up it to 22 billion and we will talk.


7 posted on 01/10/2014 2:12:32 PM PST by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
"I don't like the fact that we went further on the [SNAP] cuts," he said. "But that's over 10 years,

Let me guess, the $9 billion in cuts will be in 2024.

8 posted on 01/10/2014 2:20:51 PM PST by KarlInOhio (Republican amnesty supporters don't care whether their own homes are called mansions or haciendas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

The food stamp program is a blessing to poor families and seniors. Or should be. But it’s deeply flawed.

I’m reminded of two 30-yr old food stamp carrying women in my local grocery store, so fat they had to ride around in those fat-person carts. They had a four year old boy with them who probably weighted 100 pounds. As they went up the aisle, I watched them pile NOTHING BUT sugar-and-fat laden junk food into the cart, with the kid SCREAMING and pointing to the horrible crap he craved. It was disgusting, infuriating, and sad. Food stamps allowed them to be disgustingly fat, and disgustingly ill at young ages, a terrible burden to themselves and to taxpayers.

If food stamps paid ONLY for fresh dairy, eggs, veggies, fruits, and meats, recipients would be healthier, more able bodied, and within a few years, less of a burden to the health care system.

Show me, please, the politician who would take a stand on this.


9 posted on 01/10/2014 2:33:54 PM PST by Veto!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

“It is not a cut. People were receiving extra...and it was a TEMPORARY increase.”

You clearly don’t understand the new math.


10 posted on 01/10/2014 2:36:39 PM PST by TheThirdRuffian (RINOS like Romney, McCain, Christie are sure losers. No more!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Veto!

I read an interesting story yesterday how cola has become a new currency in poor regions of Kentucky.
The EBT card gets loaded with the typical 400/500 bucks for the month, everyone heads down and purchases cases of soft drinks in cans.
Then they go to other stores and sell them back for 50 cents on the dollar.


11 posted on 01/10/2014 2:37:30 PM PST by nascarnation (I'm hiring Jack Palladino to investigate Baraq's golf scores.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

It IS a cut. The temporary increase ended in October.


12 posted on 01/10/2014 2:39:05 PM PST by steve86 (Some things aren't really true but you wouldn't be half surprised if they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

OMG, that’s criminal.

Some people really need food stamps……sounds like these poor “folk” do. What are they eating? And how soon will they be a drain on the medical system? Mind boggling.


13 posted on 01/10/2014 2:45:32 PM PST by Veto!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Don’t believe it. They have no intention of stopping stealing votes.


14 posted on 01/10/2014 3:06:03 PM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

It’s propaganda.


15 posted on 01/10/2014 3:06:58 PM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Veto!

Years ago, I was behind a couple with plenty of gold bling, fancy cell phones, lobster, crab, steak, etc. in two carts, most expensive dog food, etc. When they got to the cash register, they pulled out the food stamps (this was before EBT). I was SO angry because I was pinching pennies, couldn’t afford anything that was in their cart .... and my tax dollars were paying for their luxurious lifestyle.


16 posted on 01/10/2014 3:08:46 PM PST by MissMagnolia (You see, truth always resides wherever brave men still have ammunition. I pick truth. (John Ransom))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

I’ll say it again: stop food stamps and reopen the soup kitchens

1. creates jobs
2. costs less
3. cannot be resold to pay for drugs, hookers, booze, etc


17 posted on 01/10/2014 3:13:48 PM PST by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissMagnolia

I had the same experience, the obamason ahead of me in line, wearing the very best clothes, shoes, watch, paid for it all with food stamps.


18 posted on 01/10/2014 3:15:28 PM PST by Veto! (OPInions freely dispensed as advice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

There’s been so much food stamp fraud uncovered lately, even offshore use of American’s food stamps that they may be ready to back down instead of get drug through the EBT corruption investigations and hearings.


19 posted on 01/10/2014 3:19:46 PM PST by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Uh-oh. What’d the Republicans give up for that one?


20 posted on 01/10/2014 3:28:50 PM PST by BfloGuy ( Even the opponents of Socialism are dominated by socialist ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy

They don’t have much to give up


21 posted on 01/10/2014 3:34:56 PM PST by GeronL (Extra Large Cheesy Over-Stuffed Hobbit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Less than $1 billion a year out of more than $40 trillion in budgets over a 10 year period.


22 posted on 01/10/2014 3:39:37 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

We want to spend 100 billion. Let’s say we were planning on spending 110 billion. Voila! A 10 billion dollar cut.


23 posted on 01/10/2014 4:50:40 PM PST by BinaryBoy (Socialism is slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...

He’s lying.

Thanks Cincinatus’ Wife.


24 posted on 01/11/2014 4:09:54 PM PST by SunkenCiv (http://www.freerepublic.com/~mestamachine/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson