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

Skip to comments.

Democrats: 1% Cut In Food Stamp Funding Is "Stealing"
Townhall.com ^ | February 1, 2014 | Kevin Glass

Posted on 02/01/2014 12:47:37 PM PST by Kaslin

Elected Democrats and movement progressives are up in arms over the meager cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP - commonly known as food stamps). Hot Air's Erika Johnsen covered the non-drama over the farm bill yesterday and noted the very meager reforms included in the legislation, but some Democrats are bemoaning the $800 million in yearly cuts to SNAP in apocalyptic terms. The overall SNAP program costs $70 billion per year.

Hipster congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said "Congress has lost its way" and described the farm bill as "reverse Robin Hood legislation that steals food from the poor." Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) described the 1% of the food stamp budget being cut as "essential nutritional assistance" in a time when SNAP enrollment and spending is at all-time highs. Jim McGovern said that the legislation "increases hunger."

All of this for a program whose expansion and cost has exploded in the Obama years. Some of this comes with the business cycle - the recession depressed many households' income, pushing them onto SNAP rolls - but when the economy is back at full speed the SNAP program is projected to remain at historical highs.

The Congressional Budget Office finds that spending on food stamps has risen from $30 million to $72 million in the Obama years, and it's not all attributable to the 2008 recession:

About one-fifth of the growth in spending can be attributed to temporarily higher benefit amounts enacted in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The remainder stems from other factors, such as higher food prices and lower income among beneficiaries, both of which have boosted benefits.

According to CBO’s March 2012 projections, the number of people who receive SNAP benefits will continue to rise slightly from fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2014 and then decline in the following years, reflecting an improved economic situation and a declining unemployment rate. Nevertheless, the number of people receiving SNAP benefits will remain high by historical standards, CBO estimates.

That can be clearly seen in the chart that the CBO produced:

What these Democrats are saying is that not a single penny can be cut from a program that has ballooned in enrollment and spending over the last six years and will remain at historical highs in the future. It could be the case that the food stamp program is such an important program and that there was a starvation problem in America prior to this massive expansion, but that's not the argument that's being made - Democrats need to face up to the massive expansion in the food stamp program and defend it on the grounds of historical highs.

The SNAP program is indeed one of the least objectionable low-income assistance programs. The "radical" agenda of the Republicans would have cut the SNAP budget by around 3%, rather than the 1% that the final farm bill contains. Republicans don't want to repeal low-income food assistance - they're in favor of a more limited scope for a valuable program.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cbo; farmbill; foodstamps

1 posted on 02/01/2014 12:47:38 PM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

You’re not taking anything away from someone — by not giving them a handout.


2 posted on 02/01/2014 12:48:33 PM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Oh just go ahead and print more money and give them anything they want. We are past the tipping point and things are not going to get fixed.


3 posted on 02/01/2014 12:53:46 PM PST by Starstruck (If my reply offends, you probably don't understand sarcasm or criticism...or do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Really?

Stealing is the ZIRP going on decimating savers and senior citizens.


4 posted on 02/01/2014 12:54:17 PM PST by OpusatFR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

In addition to the 1% cut, the fraud that is rampart in the food stamp program should be attacked vigorously. It could be that reducing fraud by 50% would save more than 1%.


5 posted on 02/01/2014 12:55:34 PM PST by upchuck (Stop this abuse now! Get behind Convention of States: http://bit.ly/1ak1Iz9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

rampart=rampant. Sorry.


6 posted on 02/01/2014 12:58:15 PM PST by upchuck (Stop this abuse now! Get behind Convention of States: http://bit.ly/1ak1Iz9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

These two, short sentences tell us a lot about our government & our culture:

1)
We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works.

And

2)
Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare running out of money? What’s interesting is the first group “worked for” their money, but the second didn’t.


7 posted on 02/01/2014 1:05:56 PM PST by CGASMIA68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck; Kaslin

8 posted on 02/01/2014 1:07:42 PM PST by 4Liberty (Optimal institutions - optimal economy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Go ahead and restore the funding, but make “working” a requirement to receive foodstamps. I don’t care if they go out and trim grass with scissors, but they should do something for that money. Foodstamps have just become another Democrat vote-buying scheme.


9 posted on 02/01/2014 1:12:23 PM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

People pay into Social Security and get little return. People on food stamps don’t pay into a food stamp fund but get better raises.


10 posted on 02/01/2014 1:13:20 PM PST by SkyDancer (Live your life in such a way that the Westboro church will want to picket your funeral)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck; BenLurkin; Kaslin
SCHOOL LUNCH-FOOD WASTE
11 posted on 02/01/2014 1:14:57 PM PST by 4Liberty (Optimal institutions - optimal economy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 4Liberty

I bet most on food stamps are obese. They may always be “hungry” but they aren’t starving.


12 posted on 02/01/2014 1:42:08 PM PST by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Yes they are stealing, but they are stealing 100% of the money that goes into the food stamp program in the first place. Cuting by 1% means they are stealing less.


13 posted on 02/01/2014 1:42:50 PM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

It’s not stealing but it’s stupid.
The right way to cut food stamps is to create jobs. And the right way to create jobs is to raise the import tariffs and cut income taxes by a corresponding amount.


14 posted on 02/01/2014 1:44:00 PM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

i think the article referring to $30 million to $72 million is either meaning people or billions.


15 posted on 02/01/2014 1:44:50 PM PST by wiggen (The teacher card. When the racism card just won't work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

cut or reduction in the increase?


16 posted on 02/01/2014 1:52:43 PM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

entitlement mentality to a T


17 posted on 02/01/2014 1:53:43 PM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Stealing? Here’s what ‘stealing’ is. In 2008, there was a table full of groceries that I could buy for $100. My $100 would purchase the entire table of groceries. Today I now have someone else competing for the groceries on that table. I show up with my usual $100. But now someone else shows up with $40 on their EBT card. This means that it now takes $140 to purchase the entire table of groceries. Yet I only have $100. So now I walk away with only 70% of those groceries, and the guy with the EBT card now walks away with the other 30%. And where did the $40 on the EBT card come from? It came from my paycheck. So as I see it, the guy with the EBT card is stealing 30% of my family’s groceries.


18 posted on 02/01/2014 2:51:58 PM PST by Hoodat (Democrats - Opposing Equal Protection since 1828)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; All
There are actually two major constitutional problems concerning cuts to the supplemental nutrition assistance program in the farm bill imo. In fact, "government" food stamp funding is already being stolen, but in a way that corrupt Congress doesn't want taxpayers to know about. Please bear with the following explanation.

To begin with, the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to tax and spend for foodstamp purposes.

More specifically, and given the remote possibility that some freepers and lurkers aren't aware of this, Justice John Marshall had officially clarified that Congress cannot tax and spend for ANYTHING which it essentially cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.

“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

So the irony about corrupt Democratic federal lawmakers arguing that likewise corrupt RINOs are trying to steal food from needy citizens is the following. Based on Justice Marshall's clarification of Congress's limited power to lay taxes, Congress is already wrongly stealing state revenues that could be used for state food stamp programs, stealing such revenues in the form of constitutionally indefensible federal taxes.

And that's just one major constitutional problem with the vote-winning Democratic federal food stamp program. The other problem is with the farm bill itself.

In more precise terms, the Supreme Court has historically clarified, in terms of the 10th Amendment nonetheless, that the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate agriculture.

“From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden (emphasis added).”—Mr. Justice Roberts(?), United States v. Butler, 1936.

Unfortunately, patriots who have evidently never been taught the federal govenment's constitutionally limited powers are unsurprisingly not seeing the forest for the trees concerning Section 8-unjustifiable earmark spending in this likely constitutionally indefensible federal farm aid bill.

19 posted on 02/01/2014 2:53:21 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Local news coverage on the food stamp cut is atrociously biased leaning leftwards.


20 posted on 02/01/2014 3:07:59 PM PST by RginTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

My late son was on Food stamps had an EBT card that he could only use for food. He tried to stretch it out by buying mostly store brand items, but say his balance on his EBT card was $40, he spend less then the 40 bucks, so he would not get over the amount.


21 posted on 02/01/2014 3:30:00 PM PST by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Bingo


22 posted on 02/01/2014 3:32:50 PM PST by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“Republicans don’t want to repeal low-income food assistance - they’re in favor of a more limited scope for a valuable program...” even though the Fed has NO Constitutional authority to steal from the taxpayer to ‘provide’ for another.

As one had stated, not word ONE about the fraud and abuse, let alone the misnomer of the ‘Farm Bill’.


23 posted on 02/01/2014 3:36:28 PM PST by i_robot73 (Give me one example and I will show where gov't is the root of the problem(s).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
"Democrats:
1% Cut In Food Stamp Funding Is "Stealing" "




Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


24 posted on 02/01/2014 3:40:23 PM PST by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

cutting the amount that parasites steal from taxpayers is not stealing


25 posted on 02/01/2014 4:02:23 PM PST by hecht (america 9/11, Israel 24/7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Eliminate the program. Give the few people who actually need it some stamps. These stamps are only accepted for milk, flour, beans, bread, very basic staples. I bet 75% of the people on the rolls would remove themselves.


26 posted on 02/01/2014 4:07:31 PM PST by Svartalfiar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Back asswards rats at it again. Taking the remaining 99% from producers is stealing.


27 posted on 02/01/2014 4:30:48 PM PST by cableguymn (It's time for a second political party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Rosa DeLauro, the worlds ugliest person by one gazillion present, both inside and out. We should listen to her because?
28 posted on 02/01/2014 6:45:09 PM PST by DAC21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DAC21

“percent”


29 posted on 02/01/2014 6:45:46 PM PST by DAC21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Isn’t a 1% cut in DC actually mean a 1% cut in the increase...baseline budgeting it’s called...


30 posted on 02/01/2014 6:49:36 PM PST by Popman ("Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God" - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

Thanks Kaslin.


31 posted on 02/01/2014 9:10:35 PM PST by SunkenCiv (http://www.freerepublic.com/~mestamachine/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; All
There are actually two major constitutional problems concerning cuts to the supplemental nutrition assistance program in the farm bill imo. In fact, "government" food stamp funding is already being stolen, but in a way that corrupt Congress doesn't want taxpayers to know about. Please bear with the following explanation.

To begin with, the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to tax and spend for food stamp purposes.

More specifically, and given the remote possibility that some freepers and lurkers aren't aware of this, Justice John Marshall had officially clarified that Congress cannot tax and spend for ANYTHING which it essentially cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.

“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

So the irony about corrupt Democratic federal lawmakers arguing that likewise corrupt RINOs are trying to steal food from needy citizens is the following. Based on Justice Marshall's clarification of Congress's limited power to lay taxes, Congress is already wrongly stealing state revenues that could be used for state food stamp programs, stealing such revenues in the form of constitutionally indefensible federal taxes.

And that's just one major constitutional problem with the vote-winning Democratic federal food stamp program. The other problem is with the farm bill itself.

In more precise terms, the Supreme Court has historically clarified, in terms of the 10th Amendment nonetheless, that the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate agriculture.

“From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden (emphasis added).”—Mr. Justice Roberts(?), United States v. Butler, 1936.

Unfortunately, patriots who have possibly never been taught the federal govenment's constitutionally limited powers are unsurprisingly not seeing the forest for the trees concerning Section 8-unjustifiable food stamp spending in this likely constitutionally indefensible federal farm aid bill.

32 posted on 02/02/2014 5:16:18 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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