House Republicans readying to propose $40 billion in food stamp cuts

posted at 2:21 pm on August 1, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor promised his Democratic colleagues that they would put the food-stamp portion of the traditional “farm bill,” which they split from its usual “agricultural policy” copilot earlier this month, on the agenda in short order. Republicans, however, have been cooking up a new plan for the food-stamp program just about certain to send all Congressional Democrats into an almighty uproar, via Reuters:

U.S. House Republicans plan to propose a $40 billion cut to the nation’s food stamp program, the head of the House Agriculture Committee said on Thursday, twice the cuts previously sought by conservatives.

Committee Chairman Frank Lucas said legislation on the food assistance program, known as SNAP, would be the second part of any talks on the U.S. farm bill with the Senate.

Lucas told lobbyists that a Republican working group agreed on cuts expected to total $40 billion and could include steps such as mandatory drugs tests and employment rules.

If this idea makes into the proposed legislation, I’m thinking it will easily make its way out of the Republican-controlled House, and then they’ll have both a food-stamp bill and the disgrace of an agriculture bill they already passed to send into conference with the Senate’s still-omnibus version. That will not go well.

Democrats are going to be having the obvious hissyfits about how Republicans don’t care about poor people and want to gut a program whose enrollment has grown by 70 percent in less than five years, the horror, and the White House will almost certainly issue their usual veto threat on anything that makes even the slightest attempt at reforming our broken welfare state. I can see Harry Reid now, with all of the moral outrage of one fighting a completely fictitious evil demon: “Youuuuuuuuu! Shall not! Paaaaaaaaass!”

Clarification, h/t to our trusty commenters: That’s $40 billion worth of cuts in total over ten years, out of a program that is projected to spend an annual average of $77 billion… every year. I believe that amounts to about a 5 percent cut, correct? Whomp.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Tie the eligibility to BMI, but then their would be a new Body Mass Index.

Oil Can on August 1, 2013 at 2:28 PM

…but, but, the children! /

Free ride is over, leeches!
Get to work?
No jobs?
Then, stop voting democrat, idiot!

HornetSting on August 1, 2013 at 2:29 PM

Here’s an idea: no farm bill and no food stamp bill

EddieC on August 1, 2013 at 2:29 PM

“Cut” cuts, or DC “cuts”?

Steve Eggleston on August 1, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Cut the congress/senate and their staffers’ 75% gov’t paid health’care’ and put them on obama’care’, like they force the rest of the land to do.

Plus, this thug is the same as the old one was.

Schadenfreude on August 1, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Alternate (i.e., sane) universe headline:

House Republicans readying to propose $40 billion in food stamp federal payroll cuts

Joe Mama on August 1, 2013 at 2:32 PM

How about killing the regulations that are killing jobs?

Ooops. What am I thinking. That would require the GOP grow a collective spine.

bloviator on August 1, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Oh SNAP.

Sorry, had to do it.

HornetSting on August 1, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Go for it.

libfreeordie on August 1, 2013 at 2:34 PM

I’m with EddieC and add Obamaphones to the cut list as well

DanMan on August 1, 2013 at 2:34 PM

What is the period of these ‘cuts’ of $40 billion — ten years?

Liam on August 1, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Leftists, obama on top, are poverty pimps and racists. They want the middle class moved to the lower class. They want the poor to be more of…they need them for votes.

As soon as someone gets out of poverty they no longer vote against themselves and their slavery.

Trillions have been thrown at ‘poverty’.

It is a shame that even one child in the US has to have a subsidized lunch. Feed your own children if you have them. In America only dummies go hungry.

Start measuring the ‘success’ of throwing money at ‘poverty’.

Quit listening to the poverty and racist pimps of the US: obama, Sharpton, Jackson and the HA trolls, for starters.

obama killed the last shred of dignity in the US, but the Rs are spineless creeps who enable him, most of them. Thus, they are more culpable.

Schadenfreude on August 1, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Be careful. This is a relatively minor part of discretionary spending, even though it sounds like a lot. I mean, what do we gain by going after the poor guy? Are we the party of the rich? Come on. What about the billions spent on social security payments to the affluent? Defund Obamacare, but walk carefully here. I don’t know the whole story, but of course people need to eat. What does the independent voter feel about this?

anotherJoe on August 1, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Go for it.

libfreeordie on August 1, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Slave azzhole. Why do you want so many millions in squaller and poverty, sans dignity, Jeantels of the US, Detroits on display.

You are the creepiest azzhole on Earth. Otherwise you’d be for freeing people form their miserable lot. Alas, you hate the poor and the minorities, while you lecture more of it.

Schadenfreude on August 1, 2013 at 2:37 PM

OT: Ummm…the police surveillance state is here.

Chris of Rights on August 1, 2013 at 2:37 PM

anotherJoe on August 1, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Even though food stamps appropriations need to be occassionally renewed, they are “mandatory” because the 5-year appropirations do bind future Congresses.

Steve Eggleston on August 1, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Oh the horror—fat, poor people become proportionate! Should get ‘em an Obamacare discount, don’t ya think?

hillsoftx on August 1, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Way overdue. Making up for…………

Bmore on August 1, 2013 at 2:38 PM

But … but … but … how are all of those “poor” folks gonna get their Skittles and Arizona iced tea? I gues they are going to be FORCED by the evil GOP crackas to shoplift to eat and stuff.

Pork-Chop on August 1, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Schadenfreude on August 1, 2013 at 2:37 PM

; )

Bmore on August 1, 2013 at 2:39 PM

If I ran the House GOP, I wouldn’t have passed a farm bill at all…but given what they’ve already passed (and are likely to pass), I’d tell Obama and the Dems they can take what we give them – or get nothing at all.

I’d actually like to cut off all the food stamps cold turkey. If the recipients riot, so be it. Let it burn. I’m tired of Democrats taking my money (and my kids’ money) to feed lazy-assed moochers.

DRayRaven on August 1, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Food stamps are paying for trans-Atlantic takeout — with New Yorkers using taxpayer-funded benefits to ship food to relatives in Jamaica, Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

Welfare recipients are buying groceries with their Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards and packing them in giant barrels for the trip overseas, The Post found.

The practice is so common that hundreds of 45- to 55-gallon cardboard and plastic barrels line the walls of supermarkets in almost every Caribbean corner of the city.

from the NY Post a week ago.

Flange on August 1, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Go for it.

libfreeordie on August 1, 2013 at 2:34 PM

It might improve the obesity and diabetes rates of American blacks.

Seriously, it’s not as if blacks would vote for Republicans even without food stamp cuts, so, yes, go for it.

sentinelrules on August 1, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Lets hope they tie in this program .

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/354867/me-and-my-obamaphones-jillian-kay-melchior

Lucano on August 1, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Tie the eligibility to BMI, but then their would be a new Body Mass Index.

Oil Can on August 1, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Good. Then my doctor will stop telling me what a fat slob I am.

CurtZHP on August 1, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Oh no’s—they are going back to 2008 spending levels—uhhh, who controlled Congress then? A convenient fact they wont want to point out, much less if the economy is so awesome under Useless’s leadership, why are so many needing food stamps? Over to you, mainstream media….

hillsoftx on August 1, 2013 at 2:42 PM

What is the period of these ‘cuts’ of $40 billion — ten years?

Liam on August 1, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Good question.
Reid will say just next year and media will go along.

Jabberwock on August 1, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Lucas told lobbyists that a Republican working group agreed on cuts expected to total $40 billion and could include steps such as mandatory drugs tests and employment rules.

The claims of wanting children to starve are predictable. But when the parasites find out that they might acually have to work and get off the drugs- The howling will be epic.

Happy Nomad on August 1, 2013 at 2:46 PM

With a growing libertarian feeling in this country, there’s a large fraction of voters that are going to be teed off about the “authoritarian” Repubs putting drug tests in there. Give them their stamps, or don’t. But don’t make it look like we are a party to this authoritarian surveillance state type of thing gone wild. Also, is it true that the Repubs want fatness tests? What, are we Bloomberg? I probably misheard.

anotherJoe on August 1, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Be careful. This is a relatively minor part of discretionary spending, even though it sounds like a lot. I mean, what do we gain by going after the poor guy?

anotherJoe on August 1, 2013 at 2:36 PM

The poor guys I want to go after are the ones who hate that they have to be on food stamps in the first place. We need to get those people jobs and off the public dole.

The ones that see it as an entitlement are a lost cause. Libfreeordie’s people. But with the massive increase in enrollment, I am sure there are more than a few that have the kind of self-respect you don’t find among the parasites of Libfree’s world.

Happy Nomad on August 1, 2013 at 2:50 PM

but then their would be a new Body Mass Index.

Oil Can on August 1, 2013 at 2:28 PM

At least that would solve the problem of obesity in one fell swoop.

The Rogue Tomato on August 1, 2013 at 2:50 PM

But … but … but … how are all of those “poor” folks gonna get their Skittles and Arizona iced tea? I gues they are going to be FORCED by the evil GOP crackas to shoplift to eat and stuff.

Pork-Chop on August 1, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Watermelon drink.

The Rogue Tomato on August 1, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Lucas told lobbyists that a Republican working group agreed on cuts expected to total $40 billion and could include steps such as mandatory drugs tests and employment rules

It is because of examples like this that I became an Independent after many years as a devout Republican. The messaging is awful and idiotic.

We are going to cut $40 billion, but then spend insane amounts of money on drug testing for each applicant. I agree with drug testing, but seriously….it should be part of a random drug testing program so it can curb some of the costs of testing everyone on a routine basis. Also testing each person on a regular basis makes it easier to avoid detection for actual drug users.

The 2nd idiotic thing is that if you are going to go after an entitlement like this that is specifically designed for the poor, there needs to be a better message than “we are broke”, “food stamp recipients are on drugs”, and “food stamp recipients don’t even look for work, aka food stamp recipients are lazy”.

Food Stamp enrollment grew 70% under this President. Opposing a cut in food stamp spending is an admission by the Administration and Dems that they have failed to turn the economy around. If the economy is getting better, less people need assistance. Alas, this is not the message being sent from the idiots in the GOP on the Hill. The increase in enrollment is Obama’s failure in turning around the economy. To argue against scaling back part of the increase is to admit that he has failed.

weaselyone on August 1, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Why? What is to be gained? Seems like a PR nightmare, it won’t pass, it doesn’t address most people’s concerns (our RINOs will sure as hell not make an effective case to the public that reform of welfare state equals prosperity), and it will cement the idea in the minds of LIVs that eeeevil Rethuglicans hate everybody and exist to inflict pain. What is the logic behind doing this? As Obamacare looms, is this a hill to die on? WTF?

unclejack on August 1, 2013 at 2:52 PM

The claims of wanting children to starve are predictable. But when the parasites find out that they might acually have to work and get off the drugs- The howling will be epic.

Happy Nomad on August 1, 2013 at 2:46 PM

The idea of drug tests bugs me. Who is going to pay for them and what will be the Federal agency to which the test results are sent?

The idea is totally unworkable. Hopefully it’s one of those throwaway ideas when Pubs negotiate for a final bill.

Liam on August 1, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Go for it.

libfreeordie on August 1, 2013 at 2:34 PM

The horrors! You might have to buy your own cheese for all your whine.

HornetSting on August 1, 2013 at 2:54 PM

What is the period of these ‘cuts’ of $40 billion — ten years?

Liam on August 1, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Quite possibly, even though food stamp appropriations are approved 5 years at a time. It’s also DC “cuts”, i.e. what would have been paid out if the program continued to grow unchecked.

That makes it either $40 billion in DC “cuts” over 5 years or $40 billion in DC “cuts” over 10 years. Pitiful either way.

Steve Eggleston on August 1, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Also, is it true that the Repubs want fatness tests? What, are we Bloomberg? I probably misheard.

anotherJoe on August 1, 2013 at 2:46 PM

I never heard of that idea, but how will that be paid for if it’s a serious consideration? It would be easier to declare ‘fattening’ foods and drinks as ineligible for purchase with food stamps, like are cigarettes and alcohol.

Liam on August 1, 2013 at 2:56 PM

If I ran the House GOP, I wouldn’t have passed a farm bill at all…but given what they’ve already passed (and are likely to pass), I’d tell Obama and the Dems they can take what we give them – or get nothing at all.

I’d actually like to cut off all the food stamps cold turkey. If the recipients riot, so be it. Let it burn. I’m tired of Democrats taking my money (and my kids’ money) to feed lazy-assed moochers.

DRayRaven on August 1, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Many in the House GOP either financially benefit from the farm bill (like Mr. Lucas) or represent districts that contain farming companies.

The GOP is against food stamps but apparently favors handouts to large farming companies.

JR on August 1, 2013 at 2:56 PM

“Cut” cuts, or DC “cuts”?

Steve Eggleston on August 1, 2013 at 2:31 PM

No kidding.

“We were going to increase that spending by $60billion, but we’ve decided to cut that by $40billion. Aren’t we wonderful at this spending cut thingy?”

Midas on August 1, 2013 at 3:00 PM

The GOP is against food stamps but apparently favors handouts to large farming companies.

JR on August 1, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Oh, I’m sure you’ll find plenty of GOP squishes horrified at the thought of passing a food stamp cut Obama might veto.

There’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around – like Dems who support teacher unions and handouts to public schools “for the kids” but oppose helping parents take their little tykes out of failing schools. Or how they favor “the little guy” but pass regulations and laws (not to mention bailouts) that help big banks and big corporations while erecting expensive barriers to entry that keep goods & services nice and expensive for “the little guy.” Or how they help “the little guy” with high corporate tax rates that get passed along to the “little guy” while simultaneously hiding just how much big government really costs him.

DRayRaven on August 1, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Queue the lsm outrage

cmsinaz on August 1, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Let’s have a poll and ask whether you want increased welfare and food stamps or require people capable of working to get a job. Libs will be disappointed in the results of that poll.

Ta111 on August 1, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Lucas told lobbyists that a Republican working group agreed on cuts expected to total $40 billion and could include steps such as mandatory drugs tests and employment rules

It is because of examples like this that I became an Independent after many years as a devout Republican. The messaging is awful and idiotic.

We are going to cut $40 billion, but then spend insane amounts of money on drug testing for each applicant. I agree with drug testing, but seriously….it should be part of a random drug testing program

Exactly. Out of all the targets we go after the people that don’t have money to eat. That might be false, that they don’t have money to eat, but pick our battles because that will an easy advertisement for the opposition to make.

And drug testing? People, Tea Partyers included, are simply fed up the govt strong arming people. Think of the bureaucracy, the friggin hassle of these test for the people that are down on their luck. Give him their food stamps, or don’t. But not this. We’re setting the stage for the Dems to take the house in 2014, or small potatoes too, and then they’ll just put the food stamps back.

anotherJoe on August 1, 2013 at 3:09 PM

But … but … but … how are all of those “poor” folks gonna get their Skittles and Arizona iced tea? I gues they are going to be FORCED by the evil GOP crackas to shoplift to eat and stuff.

Pork-Chop on August 1, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Watermelon drink.

The Rogue Tomato on August 1, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Drank.

HornetSting on August 1, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Let’s have a poll and ask whether you want increased welfare and food stamps or require people capable of working to get a job. Libs will be disappointed in the results of that poll.

Ta111 on August 1, 2013 at 3:08 PM

While we’re at it, let’s take long hard look at the disability rolls.

And maybe we should cut unemployment back to its original 26 weeks of benefits. The Dems and the MSM would scream holy murder…which would be kind of odd, considering we’re in the midst of such a phenomenally successful recovery.

DRayRaven on August 1, 2013 at 3:11 PM

This is a bad approach.

Stamps have exploded because of the economy, yes, but just like disability, it’s due to how we’ve been dealing with unemployment benefits.

When Bohener tied unemployment to the phantasm known as the unemployment rate, both sides knew what was going to happen; long-termers were on the verge of getting bumped, which was going to shrink the percentage. Once the percentage dropped, the federal extensions were going to be cut.

So the people who lost Unemployment were moved to stamps, disability or a combination of programs.

In other words, the House keeps targeting the same group of people which is not going to solve anything. And Barry knows this.

What they needed to do first is rename/restructure all “benefit” programs and clear out the redundancy. That alone would have a better effect on how to manage and deflate the programs than flat cutting.

Besides, the enrollment numbers won’t shrink with this cut. It’s only going to reduce the payouts. And that’s only going to piss off the grocers and suppliers – who are the real beneficiaries of food stamps.

In essence, this bill is designed to absolve the farm bill and whatever insanity they have planned that we’re not going to like.

budfox on August 1, 2013 at 3:11 PM

I’d like to see every budget for every federal department/agency/program returned to 2007 level.

D-fusit on August 1, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Cantor must have been photographed partying with Lindsey Graham. This is the only explanation I can imagine why I cannot recognize my old “party” anymore. Washington is not red and blue, it is Blue and Blackmail.

RushBaby on August 1, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Why is it perfectly okay to make cuts to Medicare, saying that you will make up the cuts by eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse”, but God help you if you suggest the same measure for Food Stamps?

slickwillie2001 on August 1, 2013 at 3:27 PM

It might improve the obesity and diabetes rates of American blacks.

Seriously, it’s not as if blacks would vote for Republicans even without food stamp cuts, so, yes, go for it.

sentinelrules on August 1, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Are you under the delusion that black people represent the majority of Americans on food stamps? By even a close margin?

libfreeordie on August 1, 2013 at 3:29 PM

bloviator on August 1, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Invertebrates don’t have spines so the GOP isn’t going to grow one.

chemman on August 1, 2013 at 3:31 PM

That’ll work well…burger flippers are demanding 15/hr. Cut food stamps? The streets would be full of whingers with I-pads, nail art and Al Sharpton screaming something about Greek homoz and diamond merchants.

Mimzey on August 1, 2013 at 3:33 PM

libfreeordie on August 1, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Numbers or percentage of demo group?

Mimzey on August 1, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Steve Eggleston on August 1, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Nothing is mandatory. If congress made the law can vote the Law out.

chemman on August 1, 2013 at 3:35 PM

All you guys have to do is come up to MA and find all of Duval Patrick’s fraud, and you could save a couple billion right there. But seriously folks, there is a lot of fraud, and people who have assets and work under the table and are not American Citizens taking advantage. And then there are those that cash theirs in for their drug money and other vices.

It should be no prob to cut food stamp use, just by making people show their documents to get it; and we can end that Obama phone thing, the election is over, he doesn’t have to call anyone now.

Fleuries on August 1, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Are you under the delusion that black people represent the majority of Americans on food stamps? By even a close margin?

libfreeordie on August 1, 2013 at 3:29 PM

No, but blacks certainly over-index in proportion to their population.

Blacks: 12% of the population, 28% of all food stamp recipients.

35% of blacks are on food stamps and sadly that’s not delusional.

sentinelrules on August 1, 2013 at 3:40 PM

libfreeordie on August 1, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Numbers or percentage of demo group?

Mimzey on August 1, 2013 at 3:34 PM

The later isn’t relevant to sentinel’s casual racism. To assume that food stamp cuts would only impact black people, continues a longheld conservative tradition of framing welfare as black/latino and ignoring that the vast majority of people who use federal welfare programs always has been whites. This is from the New Deal forward. We’ve spent far more taxpayer money housing, feeding and paying welfare to white people than any other group. But, people like Happy Nomad know that white recipients secretly in their hearts hate it and don’t feel entitled or something.

libfreeordie on August 1, 2013 at 3:41 PM

It might improve the obesity and diabetes rates of American blacks.

Seriously, it’s not as if blacks would vote for Republicans even without food stamp cuts, so, yes, go for it.

sentinelrules on August 1, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Are you under the delusion that black people represent the majority of Americans on food stamps? By even a close margin?

libfreeordie on August 1, 2013 at 3:29 PM

The race baiting bigot gets an F for reading comprhension. He did not say that.

But it gets an A for race baiting and trolling.

farsighted on August 1, 2013 at 3:42 PM

the stupid party indeed

unseen on August 1, 2013 at 3:43 PM

How many Hispanics are they going to win with this? Amnesty sure but we will let your children go hungry vs amnesty and free food. Who do you think the Hispanics will vote for?

Yeap the bigger santa clause.

unseen on August 1, 2013 at 3:44 PM

It might improve the obesity and diabetes rates of American blacks.
Seriously, it’s not as if blacks would vote for Republicans even without food stamp cuts, so, yes, go for it.

sentinelrules on August 1, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Are you under the delusion that black people represent the majority of Americans on food stamps? By even a close margin?

libfreeordie on August 1, 2013 at 3:29 PM

The race baiting bigot gets an F for reading comprhension. He did not say that.

But it gets an A for race baiting and trolling.

farsighted on August 1, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Libtardmustdie managed to turn it into race…I’m betting he just pulled a 10 second weiner.

HornetSting on August 1, 2013 at 3:45 PM

All you guys have to do is come up to MA and find all of Duval Patrick’s fraud, and you could save a couple billion right there. But seriously folks, there is a lot of fraud, and people who have assets and work under the table and are not American Citizens taking advantage. And then there are those that cash theirs in for their drug money and other vices.

It should be no prob to cut food stamp use, just by making people show their documents to get it; and we can end that Obama phone thing, the election is over, he doesn’t have to call anyone now.

Fleuries on August 1, 2013 at 3:39 PM

You want some? Check your local craig’s list. In every city there will be someone selling food stamps for cash discounted.

slickwillie2001 on August 1, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Libtardmustdie managed to turn it into race…I’m betting he just pulled a 10 second weiner.

HornetSting on August 1, 2013 at 3:45 PM

The low-information perfesser and the rest of the race-huckster community see food stamps and other goodies as reparations.

slickwillie2001 on August 1, 2013 at 3:47 PM

The later isn’t relevant to sentinel’s casual racism. To assume that food stamp cuts would only impact black people, continues a longheld conservative tradition of framing welfare as black/latino and ignoring that the vast majority of people who use federal welfare programs always has been whites.

libfreeordie on August 1, 2013 at 3:41 PM

There it is, the racism card — “sentinel’s casual racism”.

And then….”To assume that food stamp cuts would only impact black people, continues a longheld conservative tradition of framing welfare as black/latino and ignoring that the vast majority of people who use federal welfare programs always has been whites.”

He did not say that. You are claiming he did. That’s beyond “intellectually dishonest”. That is a lie.

You are putting words in his mouth and then pointing out how it’s racist to say that.

You are a race baiting bigotted troll.

farsighted on August 1, 2013 at 3:49 PM

The later isn’t relevant to sentinel’s casual racism. To assume that food stamp cuts would only impact black people, continues a longheld conservative tradition of framing welfare as black/latino and ignoring that the vast majority of people who use federal welfare programs always has been whites.

libfreeordie on August 1, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Casual racism? Aren’t you the bigot that hates Israel and likens all Cubans as racist? Your opinion on racism means jack to me.

So, when GOP candidates refer to ‘welfare queens,’ why does the NAACP and the CBC also assume racism?

sentinelrules on August 1, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Nothing is mandatory. If congress made the law can vote the Law out.

chemman on August 1, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Apparently you missed the scare quotes around “mandatory”.

OTOH, name for me one welfare program that has been eliminated.

Steve Eggleston on August 1, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Are you under the delusion that black people represent the majority of Americans on food stamps? By even a close margin?

libfreeordie on August 1, 2013 at 3:29 PM

I was just checking 2009 Data from a New York times graphic by county listing every county in the US. So if we just look at raw numbers you would be correct. However, after scrolling through about half of the counties I only found 2 counties where the % of whites in the county and the % of blacks in the county on SNAP were the same. In all the other counties the % of blacks on welfare were much larger than the % of blacks. Want to explain that anomaly?

chemman on August 1, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Lucas told lobbyists that a Republican working group agreed on cuts expected to total $40 billion and could include steps such as mandatory drugs tests and employment rules.

They can get that $40 billion without even breaking a sweat. All they have to do is place the same restrictions on SNAP purchases that are on WIC (Women, Infants and Children.) A WIC voucher specifies how much and what kind of foods can be purchased using the voucher, emphasizing high nutrition. I realize that no program could possibly issue a tailor made voucher for each individual on SNAP, but certain foods and beverages could be not allowed. No potato chips, no Fritos, no cheesy puffs, no soda pop, no sugary “juice boxes”, no bakery items except bread or buns, no sugary cereals, no expensive pre-cooked deli items, etc. SNAP should cover the staples like WIC does. White milk, not chocolate milk. Cornflakes or Cheerios, not Captain Crunch. Raw chicken, not fried chicken. And especially, SNAP cards cannot be used at convenience stores or any other non-grocery store outlets except pre-approved farmer’s market vendors. If anyone complains, give them a Depression era cookbook or a cookbook created to work around the food rationing during WWII.

catsandbooks on August 1, 2013 at 3:53 PM

OTOH, name for me one welfare program that has been eliminated.

Steve Eggleston on August 1, 2013 at 3:50 PM

mea culpa.

None.

chemman on August 1, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Lucas told lobbyists that a Republican working group agreed on cuts expected to total $40 billion and could include steps such as mandatory drugs tests and employment rules.

I’d like to know more about the “employment rules”. This program should be cut, but in all fairness there isn’t a lot of employment going on so if the rules state you have to have a job to get food stamps, that would be problematic.

As for drug tests, fine, employers require that. But unless we have a “marriage test” insisting that people who have children and desire federal assistance be married to the father of their children the problems of poverty and the burden it places on “society” will continue to grow exponentially. Since gay marriage is now de rigeur, why not extend this concept to everyone?

Buy Danish on August 1, 2013 at 3:54 PM

I see, so the GOP is going to save Obamacare and save corporate welfare for their cronies but they’re going to take a stand against welfare for regular people?

This is nothing more than political theater. They’re pressing a hot button to rally conservatives behind them on a minor issue while betraying them on the most important issues of our time.

FloatingRock on August 1, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Are these REAL cuts or just reductions in the rate of growth?

Gunlock Bill on August 1, 2013 at 3:55 PM

In all the other counties the % of blacks on welfare were much larger than the % of blackswhites. Want to explain that anomaly?

chemman on August 1, 2013 at 3:53 PM

fifm

chemman on August 1, 2013 at 3:56 PM

FloatingRock on August 1, 2013 at 3:54 PM

You do make some good points.

chemman on August 1, 2013 at 3:57 PM

The worst kind of welfare in America, the kind that is destroying America and our civil rights from the inside out, is cronyism. Collusion between the government and big business, corporate welfare, is what needs to be stopped. Individual welfare, as harmful as it is, pales in comparison to the harm caused by welfare for the elite and their cronies at the top, which hams us all.

FloatingRock on August 1, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Hey, everybody, gather around, the GOP is going to cut welfare to poor people. They’re going to stick it to Obama and his voters, isn’t that great?!? Let’s all rally around the GOP and help them punish the Democrats and their welfare addled voters—-(while in real life the GOP establishment works with the Democrats to betray us all by amnestying tens of millions of new socialist voters and saving Obamacare).

FloatingRock on August 1, 2013 at 4:05 PM

For the GOP, cutting welfare is like a magic trick. The key is that while they try to distract you with their right hand, keep your eyes peeled on their left hand, because that’s what really matters.

FloatingRock on August 1, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Oh, I’m sure you’ll find plenty of GOP squishes horrified at the thought of passing a food stamp cut Obama might veto.

There’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around – like Dems who support teacher unions and handouts to public schools “for the kids” but oppose helping parents take their little tykes out of failing schools. Or how they favor “the little guy” but pass regulations and laws (not to mention bailouts) that help big banks and big corporations while erecting expensive barriers to entry that keep goods & services nice and expensive for “the little guy.” Or how they help “the little guy” with high corporate tax rates that get passed along to the “little guy” while simultaneously hiding just how much big government really costs him.

DRayRaven on August 1, 2013 at 3:06 PM

all true but the GOP portrays itself as the “small government party”

JR on August 1, 2013 at 4:08 PM

Unfortunately, when the GOP was in control of all the branches of the government not that long ago, if they cut any welfare at all it was only welfare for regular Americans at the bottom, and instead of saving that money they pumped it all into more welfare for their cronies at the top.

FloatingRock on August 1, 2013 at 4:12 PM

Seriously, it’s not as if blacks would vote for Republicans even without food stamp cuts, so, yes, go for it.

sentinelrules on August 1, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Are you under the delusion that black people represent the majority of Americans on food stamps? By even a close margin?

General John Stark on August 1, 2013 at 3:29 PM

PEW, July 12, 2013:

Democrats are about twice as likely as Republicans to have received food stamps at some point in their lives—a participation gap that echoes the deep partisan divide in the U.S.

Beyond politics, equally large or larger gaps emerge in the participation rates of many core social and demographic groups. For example, women were about twice as likely as men (23% vs. 12%) to have received food stamps at some point in their lives. Blacks are about twice as likely as whites to have used this benefit during their lives (31% vs. 15%). Among Hispanics, about 22% say they have collected food stamps.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/12/the-politics-and-demographics-of-food-stamp-recipients/

Another stat I saw (from 2011) showed that by race, whites make up a larger percentage of food stamp recipients than blacks do.

But as a percentage of race on food stamps, 3 times as many blacks are on food stamps as whites.

http://www.albanyconservative.us/food_stamp_by_race.html

And according to USDA, 55% of food stamp recipients are single parent households. Since black single parent households outnumber white single parent households by a factor of 3 to 1, you complete the math.

Discuss.

Del Dolemonte on August 1, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Does that mean that the woman in front of me at the check out today will no longer be able to buy 2 gallons of ice cream with her EBT card? I’m sure it was for her 6 children or one of their 4 fathers.

Oldnuke on August 1, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Are these REAL cuts or just reductions in the rate of growth?

Gunlock Bill on August 1, 2013 at 3:55 PM

It’s like floating rock said it’s political theater. Nothing is going to happen and nothing is going to get cut.

Oldnuke on August 1, 2013 at 4:35 PM

They should also require that stores wanting compensation for food stamps ask for photo ID for all EBT transactions, and not allow EBT transactions at the auto-checkouts. They should also limit replacement EBTs without a police report. I might see the steak and lobster go away at my local ghetto Walmart.

Sekhmet on August 1, 2013 at 4:46 PM

and ignoring that the vast majority of people who use federal welfare programs always has been whites.

libfreeordie on August 1, 2013 at 3:41 PM

You dummy extraordinaire:

1. I don’t care about the color of anyone. All the poor w/b helped if they wouldn’t be spoonfed, like animals, in this case from diapers to Depends.

2. Of course the maj. are whites. Doofus, the maj. of the US people are still white…and they let you teach…disgusting.

Schadenfreude on August 1, 2013 at 5:18 PM

all true but the GOP portrays itself as the “small government party”

JR

But why would they try to live up to that image? This thread alone shows many republican posters aren’t really interested in cutting spending as they come up with one excuse after another as to why this is a bad idea.

You have to laugh at so-called conservatives here who aren’t even willing to make cuts to a program that is being abused by illegal drug users, illegal immigrants, and Mexican citizens in Mexico,not to mention Americans who aren’t poor at all, and then have the audacity to whine about the squishiness of Boehner, Rubio, and others.

xblade on August 1, 2013 at 5:37 PM

all true but the GOP portrays itself as the “small government party”

JR on August 1, 2013 at 4:08 PM

I agree – the GOP is only slightly more “small government” than Bill Clinton.

DRayRaven on August 1, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Not too long ago, Illinois got a reward from Washington for only misspending $50 million or so in food stamp money.

Maybe this is something that could encourage Democrats to cut down on fraud and waste. Probably not, though.

malclave on August 1, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Can you guys not see how they are playing you?

They KNOW they will never get this, ever. They KNOW it’s EXACTLY what YOU, the conservatives they are in the process of shaking loose, want to hear. And they KNOW, it’s a PR disaster, because the American public is quite generally uninformed. In fact, the truly informed and free thinking are a small minority of the voting population.

But it’s not a PR disaster for them.

It’s a stepping stone.

A PR disaster for you. To put in your lap, then use as reasoning to moderate their tone further.

The choice for the Republican party is either play to you guys exclusively, an ever aging and shrinking group, as its the only way you’re ever happy and not throwing people under the bus, or try to play to everyone else, to find or make a new demographic, the younger “republicans”.

If you’re stupid enough to still be expecting their allegiance after everything else, your votes are most likely a detriment to our country already.

Genuine on August 1, 2013 at 7:32 PM