The Facts about Food Stamps Everyone Should Hear: "Since Obama became President the Cost Doubled."

The Facts about Food Stamps Everyone Should Hear: "Since Obama became President the Cost Doubled."HT: Heritage.

What are the so-called “facts”?

For one, the article claims that the food stamps program is not “bloated,” but rather, the surge in participation and spending is a result of the program “doing what it’s supposed to do.”
But what is it “supposed to do”?
Food stamps (or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), as it is now called) were designed to ensure that Americans without the ability to provide for themselves are able to receive basic nutrition. However, application loopholes and policy changes over the past decade or so have allowed recipients to bypass income and asset tests, meaning many people are receiving food stamps who would not have been eligible under the program’s original purposes.
One of the changes in eligibility requirements is “broad-based categorical eligibility.” This type of eligibility means that an individual who receives any service under another welfare program, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)—even something as small as a TANF brochure—can be deemed eligible for food stamps. A full 50 percent of all food stamp recipients now enroll in the program through this broad-based categorical eligibility procedure. As Heritage welfare experts Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley write:

In states using this loophole, a middle-class family with one earner who becomes unemployed for one or two months can receive $668 per month in food stamps even if the family has $20,000 in cash sitting in the bank. Because of this, food stamps has been transformed from a program for the truly needy to a routine bonus payment stacked on top of conventional unemployment benefits.

In addition, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has operated substantial outreach programs to pull more people onto the food stamp rolls. Some states have gone so far as to hire food stamp recruiters, tasked with filling a monthly quota of new food stamp enrollees.

Another “fact,” according to the author, is that much of the growth in food stamp costs is due to the recession and is temporary.


That’s partially true. Food stamp spending has roughly doubled in the past four years, and part of this is clearly due to the recession. However, food stamp spending has been on an upward climb since the program began back in the 1960s. In the decade prior to the recession, total government food stamp spending nearly doubled, from $19.8 billion in 2000 to $37.9 trillion in 2007.
Moreover, according to Obama’s budget plans, food stamp spending will not return to pre-recession levels when the economy improves.
“For most of the next decade, food stamp spending, adjusted for inflation and population growth, would remain at nearly twice the levels seen during the non-recessionary periods under President Bill Clinton,” note Rector and Bradley.
What’s more, food stamps are just one of roughly 80 federally funded means-tested welfare programs. The total cost of government welfare spending has been on a nearly continual climb over the past five decades and has increased 16-fold, to nearly $1 trillion annually, since the 1960s. Welfare is the fastest growing part of government spending, and under Obama’s fiscal year 2013 budget, total welfare spending will permanently increase from 4.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) to 6 percent of GDP.

US News & World Report also suggests as a “fact” that most food stamp recipients work.

However, a significant portion of able-bodied recipients of food stamps perform little to no work. Of the roughly 10.5 million households receiving food stamps containing an able-bodied, non-elderly adult (there are approximately 20 million households receiving food stamps total), more than half—5.5 million—performed no work during a given month in 2010. Another 1.5 million to 2 million performed fewer than 30 hours of work per week. This isn’t unique to the recession, but is typical even during good economic times.

The food stamp program is just one of dozens that comprise the complex system of federal means-tested welfare programs. Instead of continuing to pour more dollars into these programs, which have failed to promote self-sufficiency, policymakers should roll back aggregate spending on means-tested welfare to pre-recession levels when employment recovers. Likewise, programs like food stamps should be reformed to promote self-reliance through work, empowering individuals and families to become free from government dependence.

"The Food stamp Presidency" A Bumper Crop of Food Stamps.

"The Food stamp Presidency" A Bumper Crop of Food Stamps.HT: Heritage.By Amy Payne.

Where do food stamps come from?

They come from taxpayers—certainly not from family farms. Yet the “farm” bill, a recurring subsidy-fest in Congress, is actually 80 percent food stamps and other government nutrition programs.
The food stamps sweeten the farm deal for lawmakers, who admit that the combination works for their political purposes. As Heritage experts Daren Bakst and Diane Katz explain:

The food stamp portion creates a reason for urban representatives to support farm subsidies, and for farm-state lawmakers to support food stamps.
Talk of de-politicizing agriculture programs and welfare policy is met with stiff resistance. For example, Senator Thad Cochran (R–MS), ranking Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, recently told the North American Agricultural Journalists group that food stamps should continue to be included in the farm bill “purely from a political perspective. It helps get the farm bill passed.”

Food stamps are there to help “get the farm bill passed.” And the relation of the rest of the farm bill to farming is also questionable. Bakst and Katz note that “Congress has expanded the farm bill over time into a costly compilation of disparate programs. Along with agriculture and food stamps, the legislation includes dozens of forestry, conservation, energy, and rural development programs.”
It has become the norm that Congress lumps billions—even trillions—of dollars in taxpayer-funded programs together into huge bills. This allows them to sneak in plenty of special-interest pork.
Each of these programs deserves to be evaluated on its own, and taxpayers deserve transparency from Congress about how it plans to spend our money.

For example, food stamps are a massive program that needs a careful look. Food stamp spending has doubled under the Obama Administration, and participation is at historic highs. Recruiters hold bingo games and other “parties” to try to get more people on the food stamp rolls.

Food stamps and farming ultimately have to do with food, but that’s about all they have in common. Making the farm bill 80 percent food stamps just doesn’t make sense.Hmmmm......Cloward - Piven Strategy.Read the full story here.

Income, Asset Limits Ignored To Qualify More For Food Stamps.

Income, Asset Limits Ignored To Qualify More 'potential Dem Voters' For Food Stamps.(JW).As if it weren’t bad enough that a record number of people—46 million and growing—get food stamps from the U.S. government, a federal audit reveals that many who don’t qualify receive them under a special “broad-based” eligibility program that disregards income and asset requirements.
As a result American taxpayers are getting stuck with a multi-million-dollar tab to feed hundreds of thousands who can well afford to feed themselves. Here is the nutshell version of how it came to this; the Obama Administration has promoted food stamps like there’s no tomorrow, asserting that it’s the government’s duty to eradicate “food insecure households.”
In the last few years the administration has spent millions of dollars on ad campaigns to recruit more food-stamp recipients, even doling out hefty cash rewards to local governments that sign up the most people. One state even bragged about a $5 million performance bonus it got from the feds for its “swift processing of applications.”
As a result a record 46.3 million people—including some illegal immigrants—get taxpayer-funded food stamps at an annual cost of $76 billion, according to the agency that distributes the welfare benefit, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). This represents an increase of more than 16 million over the previous year, according to USDA figures. It’s only a matter of time before an out-of-control government program like this becomes infested with fraud and corruption.
A few months ago the USDA’s Inspector General revealed that many food-stamp recipients use their welfare benefit to buy drugs, weapons and other contraband from unscrupulous vendors. Some trade food stamps for reduced amounts of cash. The fraud has cost taxpayers nearly $200 million, according to the USDA watchdog, who provided various examples during testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.The previously mentioned federal audit, conducted by the investigative arm of Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), found that 473,000 households that received food stamps were not even eligible under federal standards. In one year alone this cost taxpayers about $460 million, according to the probe which suggests “improved oversight.”
Here is another enraging figure included in the GAO report; in the last decade the food stamp program has more than doubled and costs have quadrupled because the government has essentially encouraged states to disregard household income and asset limits required to qualify for the assistance. This is called “broad-based categorical eligibility.”Hmmmm.....Another 'Obamination'.Read the full story here.

Food Stamp Showdown: Sen. Sessions Demands ‘Immediate’ USDA ‘Explanation’ of Its Anti-Fraud Efforts

Food Stamp Showdown: Sen. Sessions Demands ‘Immediate’ USDA ‘Explanation’ of Its Anti-Fraud Efforts.(BigGovernment).Continuing his fight against costly food stamp fraud and abuse, Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has sent a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack requesting an immediate explanation of the USDA’s oversight procedures combatinfood stamp fraud.
Annually, the nation’s food stamp program–officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)–costs taxpayers $89 billion, a figure that has more than doubled under President Barack Obama. The number of Americans receiving food stamps has skyrocketed in recent years. Today, 46 million Americans–1 out of 7 citizens–receive food stamps, a jump of more than two-thirds prior to Mr. Obama’s vast expansion of the program.Sen. Sessions’s letter to Sec. Vilsack points out that the spike in food stamps has outpaced the nation’s rise in unemployment and is largely the result of the so-called categorical eligibility rules that automatically gives food stamps to individuals eligible for other federal programs, regardless of income levels.While the weak economy has increased the number of people on food stamps, spending on the program has dramatically outpaced the rise in unemployment. In just ten years the food stamp budget has quadrupled. The number of Americans receiving food stamps has grown from about 1 in 50 Americans when the program expanded nationally, to 1 in 7 today. Between 2001 and 2006, unemployment averaged around 5 percent but spending on food stamps actually doubled. Meanwhile, according to research by University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan, most of the increased spending on welfare programs (including food stamps) since 2007 is the result of expansions in eligibility, rather than increases in the number of people who would have been eligible under pre-recession rules.
The letter also instructs Mr. Vilsack to produce within 60 days a detailed follow-up report on the results of his department’s anti-fraud tactics.Sen. Sessions is not alone in his concern over food stamp fraud. Last June, the Wall Street Journal issued a report declaring a “food stamp crime wave.” And last August, Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney called out Mr. Vilsack by name when the Agriculture Secretary suggested that food stamps are a form of “economic stimulus” and “put people to work.”

In response to Mr. Vilsack’s comments, Mr. Romney said:

I think that there’s some folks like Tom Vilsack and President Obama himself that imagine that if you just throw money at people, that somehow that will make the economy better. But we’re out there borrowing money from the Chinese, to hand out money here, and that is not going to get America working again.Mr. Vilsack’s view that food stamps are a form of economic stimulus and a jobs creator presumably suggest he believes more food stamps will create more jobs. Given this view, look for a potential showdown between the USDA and those fighting for improved fiscal oversight.Read the full story here.