Food stamp users hit a new record high numbers

I will let you fill in you own comments.

 

The "new normal" under Obama & the libs??

 

Hopefully not for long!

 

Hitting the poor and unemployed while they are already down. Nice!

House Republicans set to slash food stamp benefits

Food stamps moved front-and-center in the budget wars Monday morning, as House Republicans began rolling out a first wave of $33.2 billion in 10-year savings that will have an immediate impact in the farm bill debate and come November, the 2012 elections.

An average family of four faces an 11 percent cut in monthly benefits after Sept. 1, and even more important is the tighter enforcement of rules demanding that households exhaust most of their savings before qualifying for help. This hits hardest among the long-term unemployed, many of whom never before used the aid -now titled SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program)--but have found it valuable in trying to stay afloat in the current recession.

Indeed food stamp enrollment and costs have exploded since the financial collapse four years ago, making SNAP a target for the right-- but also far bigger political issue in swing states like Florida, Nevada and Ohio.

National food stamp enrollment reached 46.4 million people in January 2012, a nearly two-thirds increase from the average participation in fiscal 2008. The annual costs--now running in excess of $80 billion--have more than doubled in the same period. And even the most ardent food stamp proponents will sometimes say SNAP is a program "asked to do too much."

The White House deliberately increased monthly benefits in 2009 by about $20 per person as a way to pump stimulus dollars into the economy. And in this post welfare-reform crisis, hard-strapped governors have sought to maximize food stamp dollars as a cheap way to help families without tapping state funds.

The higher costs and visibility--especially as more businesses advertise that they will honor the electronic benefit cards introduced in the 1980's--are what's driving the Republican push.

The Recovery Act boost in benefits is already phasing out and will be gone entirely by November 2013. But the package now, to be taken up by the House Agriculture Committee Wednesday, would end this abruptly summer, impacting families Sept. 1, and saving about $5.9 billion in 2012 and 2013.

In addition, $26 billion in longer-term savings are attributed to tougher eligibility rules impacting what liquid assets a family can retain and the standard deduction allowed for utility costs. In the second case, conservatives complain that about 16 states are now abusing the system by distributing token federal low income energy assistance in order to maximize the food stamp benefits allowed their citizens. But the large savings, $14.3 billion, indicates the language goes much further and will require even genuinely-qualified families to go through more paperwork to keep their benefits.

In fact, the severity of the proposed House cuts could be an over reach for two reasons.

First they are all coming from the Agriculture panel in a context where rich farm subsidies continue to be protected at a time of record income for producers. Even in the commodity lobby, there is broad consensus that the current system of cash payments to growers at a time of high farm profits can no longer be politically defended. And by not striking more of a balance, the committee risks real damage to the coalition that has supported farm and food programs together for decades.

Why Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) went this route is not entirely certain. He has shown a genuine commitment to reforming the current farm program and last fall drafted a bipartisan bill that ended direct payments and demanded fewer cuts from nutrition programs.

It would appear that Lucas has decided to go hard right now, assuming the budget process will be a partisan exercise in any case and detrimental to his farm bill. But the affable Oklahoman clearly hopes to move back to the center later this spring and summer when he wants to work with Democrats on farm legislation.

"We have a process in place to move forward with a bipartisan farm bill and we will do so accordingly," said Tamara Hinton, Lucas's press secretary on the committee. "We expect to announce the next set of farm bill hearings this week."

Lucas knows too that food stamp cuts of this scale have been rejected before not just by Democrats but also a surprisingly diverse set of Republicans in the Senate.

No less than Sen. Mark Rubio (R-Fla.), a hero of the tea party movement and someone mentioned as a potential vice presidential nominee, opposed some of the same SNAP cuts on a 58-41 Senate vote last October. And with 29 electoral votes in November, Florida's experience with food stamps is telling.

Hard hit by unemployment, the state has more than doubled its participation in the program, from 1.45 million persons in 2008 to 3.29 million this past January. And in the same period the dollar value of the benefits received has almost tripled from $1.78 billion in 2008 to $5.15 billion in fiscal 2011, ending last September.

The White House has estimated that as many as 234,000 Floridians could lose their access to food stamps in the coming year under the Republican budget plan. At the same time, Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) let out a cry recently, protesting what he saw as a rush by gas stations and restaurants to cash in on food sales paid for under the program.

"This program has expanded well beyond its original intent and expanded to a far greater percentage of Americans," West said. "Now we see a growing number of businesses in this country, including sit-down and fast food restaurants, standalone and gas station convenience markets, and even pharmacies eager to accept SNAP benefits. ...This is a highly disturbing trend."

West's sentiment is more in line with many conservatives in the House--but could be a test for Mitt Romney, the GOP's presumed presidential nominee.

The food stamp cuts are just part of a larger exercise this month in which House Republicans hope to come up hundreds of billions in domestic cuts to offset what they fear will be automatic reductions from defense next January under the Budget Control Act

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/2012/04/16/20120416House-Republicans-cut-food-stamps.html#ixzz1sboHx9nr

 

If BO had lived up to his promises this whole debate would be moot.

 

I know how much you like to point the finger of blame at Obama and how you can never hear that anything was Bush’s fault but as the article I posted said, "Indeed food stamp enrollment and costs have exploded since the financial collapse four years ago"
Not only was Obama not in office 4 years ago, he didn't cause the greatest recession this country has ever seen. So your partisan ability to ignore the causes that led to so many people being on food stamps in the first place really speaks more to your ability to ignore the inconvenient reality of this unfortunate situation for the sake of nonexistent political points. I'm sure that all those people on food stamps appreciate your "concern". God will get you eventually and I think that he has already begun his lesson.

 

Yes, but the economy is significantly better than it was - according to you and BO. If it is so much better, then we should not need nearly as much for food stamps. Or have you two decided there a problem with the economy getting better? My guess is that Senator Lucas is just anticipating a Republican landslide this fall and the commensurate economic improvement.

 

rlm... have you ever received food stamps?

 

Don't be obtuse. No one believes that there is any magic bullet that will turn this recession around overnight. No has claimed that they can and as a matter of fact, Obama made the analogy of a large ship slowly turning around way back in the beginning of his presidency. All the current statistics on poverty, unemployment and underemployment, shrinking wages and rising costs, and on and on say that we have a very long way to go before we return to what was if that is even possible.
So what is the Republican response to this well-known dire economic hardship on a huge portion of our citizens? They cut their unemployment, they cut food stamp programs, and they cut any safety net that might actually help people when it is most needed at the same time they handout huge tax cuts to wealthy one-percenters, they myopically focus on corporate welfare, cut benefits to working Americans. And you support them. You have no room to criticize anyone.

 

Just opening up the drilling ought to kick the economy into gear. Then just imagine what getting rid of the Obama's impediments would add.

Oh, and after putting your grand kids in debt up to their necks, how can you object to trying to rein in the spending?

 

Right because we are doing more drilling in more place now than ever and it has worked out so well. You making talking to a rock sound like a teachable moment.

 

As I understand it, big oil sits on a lot of it's leases and intentionallly doesn't drill on 'em. I know that's definitely true for natural gas, which has also been part of the "drill baby, drill" mantra coming from the oil industry and the right recently. Want more drilling? Tell the oil companies to drill on the leases they already have but are not currently drilling on.

 

You are not even hearing what your leader is saying. Yes, we have more more oil being produced than we have had in the last 8 years. Technology has enabled the oil companies to increase their production from fewer wells. The private wells have increased, but Obama has severely restricted the wells on public lands.

 

Yes, liar, you do not understand. Oil companies do not enjoy drilling dry holes. That way they actually keep the price of oil down, believe it or not. Just because there is a lease does not mean that oil can be recovered - at least today.

 

SOMEone sure has a thing for the oil industry! Get a freakin' room!!!

Pick one or the other. Either I'm a liar or I don't understand. Admittedly, I don't fully understand the oil industry's business, but in my defense the info out there is being debated. Those with no direct interest in the oil industry typically point out the instances where the oil industry sucks, while the oil industry typically only points out the instances that heightens their profitability.

That's a given.

I do not. Profits are the priority.

I'd agree. Where I disagree is on where the industry wants access to... which is everywhere they can.


Headway is being made. The problem is the oil industry is insatiable.

http://energy.gov/science-innovation/energy-sources/fossil

 

The issue lefties have about oil drilling (as opposed to the original thread subject) has to do with preserving lands and animals. Accessing those deposits under federally protected areas requires the destruction of the lands natural character and causes direct harm to the local animals. That's if the oil and gas doesn't leak from the wells and pipes... which it always does.

The Exxon Valdez incident (1989) caused legislation that would have allowed the oil industry to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to lose support. We've had a major spill in the gulf. Major spills happen more frequently then most people would suspect, partly due to the industries efforts to downplay the incidents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills

 

No, he actually only had a decrease in the gulf and only there due to the largest oil spill in U.S. history. In fact....

The article made its point in the first paragraph: "Energy firms face fewer costs and regulatory obstacles when drilling on state and private lands than they do on public lands, where oil production fell last year, a top Obama administration official said today," Abbey also told the lawmakers, according to the article, that oil exploration and drilling companies have migrated to nonpublic lands for economic reasons, not because of Obama policies.

The article noted that, according to Interior Department statistics, oil production fell by 14 percent in fiscal year 2011 on federal lands and waters. That’s exactly what Portman said. "The dip in production occurred mostly in the Gulf of Mexico, where a moratorium on deepwater drilling stunted exploration for much of 2010 in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon disaster," Greenwire reported.

So your lying by omission is still a lie.

 

OMG! Can't even read your own reference. "he actually only had a decrease in the gulf" or "The dip in production occurred mostly in the Gulf of Mexico" Incidentally, just which side of BO mouth am I supposed to believe? BTW, why has that moratorium not been lifted?

​