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.
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.
Bingo
“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’.
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!
cutting the amount that parasites steal from taxpayers is not stealing
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.
Back asswards rats at it again. Taking the remaining 99% from producers is stealing.
“percent”
Isn’t a 1% cut in DC actually mean a 1% cut in the increase...baseline budgeting it’s called...
Thanks Kaslin.
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.
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.