House approves $4 billion annual cut to almost $80 billion for food stamps; over to you, Senate

posted at 1:21 pm on September 20, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

I felt the need to include both the proposed annual cut and the annual cost of federal food assistance programs in my headline, because I’m seeing a lot of headlines along the lines of “House passes GOP plan to slash food stamp funding,” “House Republicans pass deep cuts in food stamps,” and “House votes to cut food stamps by $40 billion.” Yes, $40 billion certainly sounds like an awfully “deep cut” on its face, minus the context in which that number actually refers to a $40 billion cut spread over 10 years, as well as the fact that enrollment in the federal food assistance has ballooned by 70 percent in the less than five years that Obama has been president.

Here’s a more straightforward version of Thursday evening’s developments, via CBS News:

The House has voted to cut nearly $4 billion a year from food stamps, a 5 percent reduction to the nation’s main feeding program used by more than 1 in 7 Americans. …

The bill’s savings would be achieved by allowing states to put broad new work requirements in place for many food stamp recipients and to test applicants for drugs. The bill also would end government waivers that have allowed able-bodied adults without dependents to receive food stamps indefinitely.

The major cuts were designed to satisfy House conservatives who rejected more moderate reductions to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) earlier this year, but with millions of Americans still struggling to recover from the recession, Democrats balked at the GOP bill.

All of the assembled Democrats voted nay, plus a handful of Republicans, making it a pretty tight vote at 217 to 210:

Who were the Republicans that voted against the bill?: Reps. Peter King (N.Y.), Shelley Moore Capito (W. Va.), Chris Gibson (N.Y.), Walter Jones (N.C.), Richard Hanna (N.Y.), Chris Smith (N.J.), Frank LoBiondo (N.J.), Don Young (Alaska), Frank Wolf (Va.), Mike Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Jeff Fortenberry (Neb.), Michael Grimm (N.Y.), Patrick Meehan (Pa.), Gary Miller (Calif.), David Valadao (Calif.).

Now it goes into conference with the Senate, where the Senate’s farm bill including much scantier food stamp cuts of $400 million a year, i.e. one half of one percent, will have to be melded with the House’s two separate ‘agriculture policy’ and food stamp bills. Senate Democrats would never agree to the House’s budget cuts, and if President Obama threatened to veto even just the House’s original plan to cut a mere $2 billion annually, then the current version is definitely not going to fly. If we actually see anything more than a one or two percent cut in the final bill(s), I’ll be shocked.

Senate Democrats have made clear they won’t agree to cuts of the magnitude passed by the House.

“Not only does this House bill represent a shameful attempt to kick millions of families in need off of food assistance, it’s also a monumental waste of time,” Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.) said in a statement after Thursday’s vote.

“A shameful attempt to kick millions of families in need off of food assistance”? No. An honest attempt to bring under control the government’s runaway spending habits and job-killing, debt-collecting policies? Yes. If, as the president claims, the economy has indeed been “recovering,” then why is food stamp usage still on such a precipitous rise? Because the economy is not recovering, and big-government, big-spending, intrusive, top-down policies — ObamaCare and Dodd Frank spring overwhelmingly to mind, but there are many — are mucking up market signals and slowing down hiring. If Democrats, like myself and I’m sure all Republicans, are truly aggrieved by the millions who might now lose indefinite food stamp assistance under the GOP’s bill, perhaps they should actually try to help the middle and working classes by removing all of the barriers to job creation and economic growth with which they and President Obama have only succeeded in exacerbating the effects of the recession.

The NYT editors just published an op-ed entitled “Another insult to the poor” accusing the GOP’s bill “act of supreme indifference,” but the only real insult to the poor here is this embarrassment of an economy and the Obama administration’s utterly regressive policy provisions.


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

No more food stamps for the morbidly obese. That reduce expenditures by at least 90%.

happytobehere on September 20, 2013 at 1:25 PM

^Should

happytobehere on September 20, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Obama economy is to blame.

albill on September 20, 2013 at 1:28 PM

The insult to the poor is that Obama and the Democrats keep making more of them.

Chris of Rights on September 20, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Still just peanuts…1 grain of sand…compared to all the deficits and waste.

Schadenfreude on September 20, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Still just peanuts…1 grain of sand…compared to all the deficits and waste.

Schadenfreude on September 20, 2013 at 1:30 PM

And yet, they went for this one. The one that most directly effects so many American lives. Why?

libfreeordie on September 20, 2013 at 1:32 PM

and if President Obama threatened to veto even just the House’s original plan to cut a mere $2 billion annually, then the current version is definitely not going to fly.

That’s fine. Then the GOP should not pass any food stamps bill.

rbj on September 20, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Too small by an order of magnitude.

Murphy9 on September 20, 2013 at 1:35 PM

President Tutankhamun starting to lose that Pharaoh sheen, eh?

“Look, Tut, you can’t spend all the money on making yourself look good”

BobMbx on September 20, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Why is there a federal food assistance program to begin with?

Murphy9 on September 20, 2013 at 1:39 PM

And yet, they went for this one. The one that most directly effects so many American lives. Why?

libfreeordie on September 20, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Because it’s regularly abused.

Excuse me, I am have to use my EBT to buy the new iPhone.

sentinelrules on September 20, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Women and minorities hardest hit

El_Terrible on September 20, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Despite what Democrats says, no one is going to get kicked off the rolls. What will happen is that the monthly allotment will be reduced. If that’s a problem for some, all they have to do to solve it is stop buying junk food and soda pop for the Sunday football games, and stick to nutritious purchases.

Liam on September 20, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Did they cut the corporate welfare to their cronies? I didn’t think so.

FloatingRock on September 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Oh for goodness sake, the Food Stamp program is out of control, as is unemployment actually. 4B out of 80B? OK, Let’s just say I get 80.00 in food stamps a week. The cut will mean I now get 76.00? Right? OH! those big meanies. (OR maybe it means that I get the same but the people who are not actually eligible get caught).

You’re right lib, how dare they?/

ORconservative on September 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM

4 billion dollars out of 80 billion?

It’s a start.

portlandon on September 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Reparations masked in a EBT card…

patman77 on September 20, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Every cut, even if it’s just a cut in an increase in funding, is considered a draconian cut that will destroy millions of lives, especially for women and minorities and LGBTLMNOP and whatever.

Ignore the wailers.

Red Cloud on September 20, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Expect the usual “Republicans want the poor to die” meme. Yawn

neyney on September 20, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Oh goodie – a soon to be Senator is on the list. That’s what that body needs – more squishes.

besser tot als rot on September 20, 2013 at 1:45 PM

SHUT IT DOWN!

GarandFan on September 20, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Which group am I supposed to be outraged about losing benefits: the drug users, or the able-bodied who flat-out refuse to work? I forget.

Darin on September 20, 2013 at 1:49 PM

The goal of the progressive Democrats is to increase the dependency on the federal government – in other words, bribe the taxpayer with the taxpayer’s own money…..and ascertain the votes of those taxpayer’s.

Why is there a federal food assistance program to begin with?

I believe that this has an essential place in any safety net. There are people who need assistance to counter circumstances out of their direct control who need to get adequate food for themselves and their immediate families.

Unfortunately, like all government entitlement programs, this one is rife with fraud and mismanagement. Add to that the irresponsible growth of those collecting food assistance – today there are more people on food stamps than the entire population of Spain – and the budget has increased 42% since FY 2008 – there is plenty of room for cuts and efficiencies.

But that doesn’t fit the vision to ‘fix’ an ‘unjust’ and ‘unfair’ system in an ‘unjust’ and ‘unfair’ country that dominates the progressives.

By the way, the $4 Billion cut that the GOP is looking for – is less than the one year increase of $5 Billion between the FY2009 and FY2010 budgets for this category.

These federal entitlements are, along with SS / Medicare, what are breaking the federal budget – and what the CBO reports is unsustainable.

Athos on September 20, 2013 at 1:50 PM

I think they blew it here.

Call for a 1-5% across the board cut. Heck, don’t increase spending and just hold it even and watch the big gov’t crew flip out. People were/are wising up to the overheated rhetoric when any cut to anything happens.

If it was as simple as an across the board cut, they’d have a simple answer to the rhetoric. ‘Government needs to go through the same belt tightening that every day Americans are’.

Now, they don’t.

Sapience on September 20, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Who were the Republicans that voted against the bill?: Reps. Peter King (N.Y.)…

Peter King. Again. (See other thread)

Is this guy ever on the right side of ANYTHING?

bofh on September 20, 2013 at 1:51 PM

“House Republicans pushing for major food stamp cuts”
..and by “MAJOR” they mean that the Repub bill will limit the food stamp freeloaders to buying ONLY 10 purchases of lobster, filet mignon, truffles, caviar, foie gras and prime steak PER WEEK. Naturally, the lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist extremists are screaming that the Repubs are taking these “basic human necessities” out of the mouths of their welfare sponges — and children of these spenders of “Other People’s Money” , who are accustomed to having LOBSTER McNuggets at every dinner, will now go hungry and refuse to eat the chicken (yech!) that the cold heated Repubs are forcing on them. Oh, the humanity !

TeaPartyNation on September 20, 2013 at 1:52 PM

If Democrats, like myself and I’m sure all Republicans, are truly aggrieved by the millions who might now lose indefinite food stamp assistance

Uh ….

I realize that the placement of the comma is crit’ to your actual meaning here, but it is an unfortunately very awkward sentence dear. Especially for older, half-blind speed readers who missed that comma twice in the read-through.

You might want to change the construction.

…just sayin’.

;-)

davisbr on September 20, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Women and minorities hardest hit

El_Terrible on September 20, 2013 at 1:40 PM

No, but people like this will be. And, he’s not alone. If you really cared about the people hardest hit, you would work with us to eliminate the fraud that steals from all those women and minorities.

txhsmom on September 20, 2013 at 1:56 PM

A shameful attempt to kick millions of families in need off of food assistance”? No. An honest attempt to bring under control the government’s runaway spending habits and job-killing, debt-collecting policies? Yes. If, as the president claims, the economy has indeed been “recovering,” then why is food stamp usage still on such a precipitous rise?

DING DING DING!
Republicans are dumb and making this a spending argument when they should be making this an economic argument.

Food Stamp funding should be directly tied to the U3 unemployment rate. If the government wants to cook the books and take credit for a decreasing bogus unemployment rate, then we should make corresponding cuts based on that same rate.

weaselyone on September 20, 2013 at 1:57 PM

You should see what I see being bought with food stamps in NYC grocery stores – and by whom. Perfectly able bodied young men and women. I love when I am getting home from a 10 hour day of which nearly half is spent earning money to pay taxes and then I have to wait in line behind people blithely buying goodies with their food stamp card.

AmericanUnderground on September 20, 2013 at 1:58 PM

The bill’s savings would be achieved by allowing states to put broad new work requirements in place for many food stamp recipients and to test applicants for drugs. The bill also would end government waivers that have allowed able-bodied adults without dependents to receive food stamps indefinitely.

No more food stamps for the morbidly obese. That reduce expenditures by at least 90%.

happytobehere on September 20, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Maybe we should add a weight test to the provisions.

Bitter Clinger on September 20, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Republicans are dumb and making this a spending argument when they should be making this an economic argument.

On the bottom line, it doesn’t make a difference if this is based on a spending argument, an economic argument, or even a ‘what is the role of government’ argument….the progressives every time will make this an emotional argument – ie ‘A shameful attempt to kick millions of families in need off of food assistance.’

It’s an argument designed to appeal to the low information voter and their emotions – either they are there, or they might be there one day, or how can we be so ‘cruel’ as to withhold food from those in need.

The lamestream media, carrying water for the progressives, will always focus on the emotional – bringing up stories of those truly in need and saying that they are the one’s who will be cut if this ‘draconian’ cut is allowed to happen. They will, of course, ignore the fraud and malfeasance in the system – like the surfer dude highlighted a few weeks ago by FNC – collecting food stamps and driving an Escalade.

If we don’t start winning these fights, we will become Greece sooner rather than later.

Athos on September 20, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Uh ….

I realize that the placement of the comma is crit’ to your actual meaning here, but it is an unfortunately very awkward sentence dear. Especially for older, half-blind speed readers who missed that comma twice in the read-through.

You might want to change the construction.

…just sayin’.

;-)

davisbr on September 20, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Indeed. That sentence was a stunning departure from Erika’s generally flawless prose. Or as Erika might say: “an ostensibly stunning departure from Erika’s ostensibly ostensible prose.”

righty45 on September 20, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Another right being stomped on, by the Republicans.

The next thing you’ll read about is some right-wing nuts prohibiting the dispensing of copies of the Constitution, on a junior college campus.

Damn them. Damn them, to hell.

OhEssYouCowboys on September 20, 2013 at 2:05 PM

And yet, they went for this one. The one that most directly effects so many American lives. Why?

libfreeordie on September 20, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Because mebbe …


EBT fraud?

Too many stories to post. The outright fraud, tip of the iceberg, exceeds 400 million every year. The percentage of purchases for non-nutritional goods is difficult to determine but bills meant to curb abuses cite instances of alcohol, tobacco purchases and use in casinos. Add to that the fact that the government is practically begging people in to the program means it can stand a bit of a reduction in funding.

Cut the beast.

smoothsailing on September 20, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Oh livslave what will they do….without the staples of life supporting nutrition that the babies world over need to barely survive.

Gas, mufflers, booze ………..

MontanaMmmm on September 20, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Shut it down! Let it burn to the ground. When the gubmint cheese goes away the takers will lose their minds…LET IT BURN!

Doomsday on September 20, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Food Stamp funding should be directly tied to the U3 unemployment rate. If the government wants to cook the books and take credit for a decreasing bogus unemployment rate, then we should make corresponding cuts based on that same rate.
weaselyone on September 20, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Novel Idea. I like it!

LegendHasIt on September 20, 2013 at 2:10 PM

If the GOP wants to go after government spending, why not start with corporate welfare rather than food stamps?

I want to get rid of both, but this is politically tone deaf.

commodore on September 20, 2013 at 2:11 PM

How DARE those conservative bastards attempt to incentivize people to become productive members of Society!!

:)

a5minmajor on September 20, 2013 at 2:14 PM

And yet, they went for this one. The one that most directly effects so many American lives. Why?

libfreeordie on September 20, 2013 at 1:32 PM

You must have slept through the heated rhetoric on the sequester. It sounded just exactly like what you have said. IMHO you would attack any cut to the federal government so you argument is disingenuous.

chemman on September 20, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Need some help here, looking for the Food Stamp Clause in the Constitution… I’m guessing Article I, but can’t seem to locate it.

Akzed on September 20, 2013 at 2:20 PM

I am sure we all have some anecdotal stories about witnessing abuse in the SNAP Program, but I have to tell you, it is getting worse from my experience. Before we moved to Kentucky we used to shop at the Shop Rite store in Norwich, CT and the abuse there was rampant. My wife and I have personally witnessed multiple people using their “Black” cards to buy Lobster, Shrimp and Crab legs after the first of the month when the cards get loaded. All of those purchases are legitimate and there is nothing anyone can do about it. If you complain they make a case # and that’s about it.

We knew one couple who lived together and refused to get married and listed different addresses so they could both get the benefit. He was on State Aid for COPD and she got some Federal thing for being a recovering drug addict. They ate better than us on those cards and they bragged about it. They would use the card for luxuries until that money ran out and then they would use the rest of their state aid/welfare to buy regular food after that. They would take vacations to Florida and Cape Hatteras in the winter on all that Welfare money. Disgusting.

Johnnyreb on September 20, 2013 at 2:20 PM

If the GOP wants to go after government spending, why not start with corporate welfare rather than food stamps?

I want to get rid of both, but this is politically tone deaf.

commodore on September 20, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Or how about dealing with the rampant fraud among SNAP recipients? I bet they could save at least a billion by dumping the deadbeats and those who really don’t qualify for “assistance.”

Happy Nomad on September 20, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Did they cut the corporate welfare to their cronies? I didn’t think so. FloatingRock on September 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Like Solyndra?

Akzed on September 20, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Need some help here, looking for the Food Stamp Clause in the Constitution… I’m guessing Article I, but can’t seem to locate it.

Akzed on September 20, 2013 at 2:20 PM

You might find the search more successful if you instead look for the emanating penumbras on the matter. With a little creativity, you should be able to find one.

Liam on September 20, 2013 at 2:23 PM

I believe that this has an essential place in any safety net. Athos on September 20, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Ah yes, the famous Safety Net Clause. Is that in Article I?

Akzed on September 20, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Need some help here, looking for the Food Stamp Clause in the Constitution… I’m guessing Article I, but can’t seem to locate it.

Akzed on September 20, 2013 at 2:20 PM

It’s right there with the part that enumerates the right to free abortions and the right to free healthcare.

Happy Nomad on September 20, 2013 at 2:25 PM

You might find the search more successful if you instead look for the emanating penumbras on the matter. With a little creativity, you should be able to find one.

Liam on September 20, 2013 at 2:23 PM

I find it helpful to hold the Constitution at nearly a right angle, squint through one eye, while chanting what would Oprah do.

Happy Nomad on September 20, 2013 at 2:26 PM

The expansion of the welfare entitlement state, unprecedented since January 2009, even amid the ‘Obama Economic Recovery’, is little more than Cloward and Piven being implemented as official Government policy.

Anything else is a distraction intended to mask the policy intended to ‘fix’ an ‘unjust’ and ‘unfair’ system in an ‘unjust’ and ‘unfair’ country.

Athos on September 20, 2013 at 2:26 PM

I believe that this has an essential place in any safety net. Athos on September 20, 2013 at 1:50 PM
Ah yes, the famous Safety Net Clause. Is that in Article I?

Akzed on September 20, 2013 at 2:24 PM

….yep.

righty45 on September 20, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Does this mean the fat lady in line in front of me won’t quite be able to fill the trunk of her Lexus with junk food and luxury items? Oh noes!

stvnscott on September 20, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Obama 2016 voters hardest hit…

Khun Joe on September 20, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Akzed on September 20, 2013 at 2:24 PM

I’ve never asserted that a safety net was a Constitutionally granted right.

I believe it comes from our Judeo-Christian foundation of charitable assistance to those in need – and is voluntary (passed via legislation) and not mandated.

The government’s role, in my view, is a minimal level of safety net directed solely and temporarily to those in most need and as a result of circumstances out of their control. Think of it like ‘unemployment insurance’ (in the pre-Obama definition of UI), entirely means driven and for a very limited period of time intended to not create a cycle of dependency.

Beyond that, it should come from private charities at the local level – which is how these things worked before the creation of the welfare state.

Athos on September 20, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Oh for goodness sake, the Food Stamp program is out of control, as is unemployment actually. 4B out of 80B? OK, Let’s just say I get 80.00 in food stamps a week. The cut will mean I now get 76.00? Right? OH! those big meanies. (OR maybe it means that I get the same but the people who are not actually eligible get caught).

You’re right lib, how dare they?/

ORconservative on September 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM

You are correct sir. The government can easily make up the difference by implementing programs to root out all the corruption and fraud in the food stamp system.

slickwillie2001 on September 20, 2013 at 3:11 PM

If the GOP wants to go after government spending, why not start with corporate welfare rather than food stamps?

I want to get rid of both, but this is politically tone deaf.

commodore on September 20, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Let’s see, should I walk first and then chew gum or chew gum and then try to walk?

Vince on September 20, 2013 at 3:12 PM

ORconservative on September 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM

The problem is people who should get the benefits will get cut while those that con the system will still get them.

Look guys…. cutting programs like this is not going to help the cause at all. May people are like me who are center right… so social programs are okay with us for it does help people. Instead of focusing n getting rid of the waste in said program you just rather cut or get rid of.

Of course that dont matter to many of you with guys like me who need them for a few months while I recover from an injury that takes few months to heal, or those that need them to feed themselves in between jobs. That is why you lose and that is why you get labeled as haters and extremist. Temp help programs like this is viewed as positive…

watertown on September 20, 2013 at 3:35 PM

If the GOP wants to go after government spending, why not start with corporate welfare
commodore on September 20, 2013 at 2:11 PM

For those of us that keep hearing about “corporate welfare” but have never seen it, can you give us some examples? Seems to be like Area 51 to us uniformed people.

teejk on September 20, 2013 at 3:47 PM

watertown on September 20, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Not sure why you oppose mild cuts to a system rife with fraud. I think we’re smart enough to understand a benefitial system and one that needs some sunlight cast on its operations.

hawkdriver on September 20, 2013 at 3:56 PM

If the GOP wants to go after government spending, why not start with corporate welfare
commodore on September 20, 2013 at 2:11 PM

For those of us that keep hearing about “corporate welfare” but have never seen it, can you give us some examples? Seems to be like Area 51 to us uniformed people.

teejk on September 20, 2013 at 3:47 PM

“Corporate welfare” is a buzzword in the proggie community for any missed opportunity to tax private industry. Any paragraph in the tax code that results in common legal deductions for a private corporation is seen as “corporate welfare”.

I on the other hand consider proper examples of “corporate welfare” to be any government ‘investment’ in politically-correct private business, like their so-loved ‘green corporations’. That’s the kind of ‘corporate welfare’ that the REB will never discuss.

slickwillie2001 on September 20, 2013 at 3:56 PM

House approves $4 billion annual cut to almost $80 billion for food stamps; over to you, Senate

$80 billion would be much better.

I’m guessing that for every dollar spent to actually feed someone, at least $5 is either wasted, supports bureaucrats overseeing these programs, or disappears into someone’s pockets.

Also, ask your kids if they go to public school how much of this food from “free or reduced lunches” ends up in the trash.

Dr. ZhivBlago on September 20, 2013 at 4:20 PM

slickwillie2001 on September 20, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Credit to you for giving me the “proggie” thing!!! I love it. They stole the term “progressive” because it sounded better than socialist. Over use has now given rise to a short-cut that sounds worse than socialist!!!

In my dictionary it goes!!!

teejk on September 20, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Happy about the food stamp cut, but just read on roll call about a $174,000 payout to Lautenberg’s widow in the CR cause he died in office. He’s worth 50 million. THAT is horse$hit.

msupertas on September 20, 2013 at 5:08 PM

I’ve never asserted that a safety net was a Constitutionally granted right.

I believe it comes from our Judeo-Christian foundation of charitable assistance to those in need – and is voluntary (passed via legislation) and not mandated.

The government’s role, in my view, is a minimal level of safety net directed solely and temporarily to those in most need and as a result of circumstances out of their control. Think of it like ‘unemployment insurance’ (in the pre-Obama definition of UI), entirely means driven and for a very limited period of time intended to not create a cycle of dependency.

Beyond that, it should come from private charities at the local level – which is how these things worked before the creation of the welfare state.

Athos on September 20, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Why can’t states do this on their own?

Also, it isn’t charity if the government can come after me with a gun to collect it.

cptacek on September 20, 2013 at 5:09 PM

so social programs are okay with us for it does help people.

No, they don’t. They imprison people as wards of the state.

Get rid of the social programs completely. Overnight, you’ll find out who needs help, and who doesn’t.

Just review what Tommy Thompson did in Wisconsin with Workfare.

2 years lifetime benefit on the public dole. After that, you’re on your own.

BobMbx on September 20, 2013 at 5:15 PM

How about this for “Corporate welfare”:

The 2.5 billion dollars a day of fiat Bernanke has been printing and pumping into Wall Street to help keep his Goldman-Sachs type buddies living large?

How about Solyndra, A123 Systems, Lightsquared? and a hundred other ‘green investments’ that the Regime has made?

How about ‘Ethanol subsidies’?

How about the billion bucks 0bama gave Soros to invest in Brazilian oil development?

LegendHasIt on September 20, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Why can’t states do this on their own?

There is no reason why states can’t do this on their own. In fact, isn’t that what the 10th Amendment says?

Also, it isn’t charity if the government can come after me with a gun to collect it.

I will cede that point re the definition of charity. But if Congress passes legislation that establishes a federal safety net, and it’s signed into law by the President, and they fund it via your taxes, then they can come after you to collect your taxes. If you don’t like that, elect officials who will repeal a federal safety net.

The challenge that we have, as I’ve stated in other posts in this thread, is that we have an out-of-control welfare state. Not only is it full of fraud and malfeasance, but, IMHO, the conditions for one to qualify and the duration that one can qualify go far beyond providing a ‘minimal safety net’ to assist those citizens in real need for a reasonable period of time.

I see nothing wrong with providing some assistance to those in need. But it’s not for social justice, or fairness, or any other code around wealth redistribution.

As Ronald Reagan noted on Feb 18, 1981:

“All those with true need can rest assured that the social safety net of programs they depend on are exempt from any cuts,” he said. Then he went on, “But government will not continue to subsidize individuals or business interests where real need cannot be demonstrated.”

Athos on September 20, 2013 at 7:11 PM

If you put this together with the vote FOR the rest of the corporate welfare for agribusinesses bill it tells you directly where Congress’ loyalties lie. They are the best government (for corporate interests and crony capitalism) that money can buy.

{^_^}

herself on September 21, 2013 at 3:12 AM