# Republican budget includes overhaul of food stamps



## LGriffin (Apr 2, 2009)

WASHINGTON - House Republicans resurrected a 1990s-era fight over food stamps in their budget approved last week, arguing that any serious attempt to cut spending must include an overhaul of government programs that help needy families pay for food.
Congress already has started cutting some food programs, including reducing the Women, Infants and Children Program by $500 million as part of a deal on this year's budget. And last year, more than $2 billion in future funding for food stamps was redirected to other programs.
On Friday, the House approved a Republican proposal to overhaul the $65 billion food stamp program - known officially as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP - by replacing it with capped block grants to states, which would pay for the aid but make it contingent on work or job training. That proposal was included in a 2012 budget plan put forward by Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.
His plan lays out a fiscal vision for cutting $6.2 trillion from yearly federal deficits over the coming decade and has drawn widespread attention for its call for transforming Medicare into a voucher-like system that subsidizes purchases of private health insurance. It is likely to meet strong opposition is the Senate, where Democrats still have a majority.
The food stamp component is similar to changes Republicans proposed as part of the welfare overhaul signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, and Ryan echoed arguments from 15 years ago in his proposal, saying "America's safety net does not become a hammock that lulls able-bodied citizens into lives of complacency and dependency."
But back then, farm-state Republicans like Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts, who was then chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, blocked the reform effort.
Congress authorizes spending on hunger and agriculture programs in a massive farm bill every five years, and farm-state members have typically supported food programs in exchange for urban support for agriculture.
The next farm bill is due to be written next year, and it's unclear whether Republicans will take a different approach this time around because of pressure from constituents clamoring for budget cuts. A spokeswoman for Roberts, now the top Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, said Friday that he hasn't decided whether he would support an overhaul of the food stamp program.
Although many Republicans have enthusiastically supported Ryan's budget on the House floor, few have mentioned food stamp issue in their speeches.
They may be hearing from constituents like 66-year-old Connie Downey of Omaha, Neb., a former real estate agent who saw her savings erode when she was diagnosed with lung disease. Downey is on the cusp of qualifying for food stamps, though her $3,000 in savings still puts her above Nebraska's $2,000 asset limit for eligibility.
If her savings drop and she qualifies for federal food aid, Downey said she'd buy the nutritional drinks recommended by a visiting nurse as well as fruits and vegetables. Right now, she's relying on a daily $2 delivery from Meals on Wheels.
"I had saved this money, because I thought if I got sick, I'd have it to back me up," Downey said. "I didn't know it would keep me from being able to eat."
The Agriculture Department says the food stamp program is designed to expand and contract with the economy. The average stay on the program is nine months, and half of the recipients are children.
Anti-hunger advocates said they worry that funding cuts by Congress coupled with rising food costs could devastate families struggling in the sluggish economy. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said last week that his department, which oversees SNAP and other food programs, is increasingly concerned that Congress is depleting the reserves.
Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., who has long sought more money for anti-hunger programs, said the suggested overhaul would dismantle the food stamp program by limiting money for it.
"Budgets are moral documents. They reflect our values," he said. "There is a very real risk that we could lose some of these programs that provide a circle of protection to people who are poor."
Conservatives said that may be necessary.
Ryan has argued states are encouraged to add people to the rolls because greater participation means increased funding. The program serves roughly 44 million people today, more than double the number a decade ago, he noted.
Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, has been working on welfare issues since Ronald Reagan was president. He said Ryan's proposal could be seen as conservatives' opening shot in a debate about overall assistance to the poor.
"You don't just want to do it with a meat cleaver, and the Ryan approach with work incentives is a good approach," Rector said.
Opponents of the Ryan plan say food stamps not only help low-income people, they benefit farmers and the retailers who sell food.
"These are people in grocery stores, they are farmers, they are all the people around the supply chain who support this program," said Vicki Escarra, president of the anti-hunger group Feeding America. "I think people are really concerned about the budget and the deficit, and I understand that . . . but there are lots of ways we can do this without the vast majority of cuts being focused on programs that really need help right now."


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

Just give the masses what they really want...

Alcohol and cigarette stamps.

Food, they can get at the Salvation Army


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

Dam where do I sign up I am running low on JD.


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

kwflatbed said:


> Dam where do I sign up I am running low on JD.


No need to sign up, just donate. And you get this nifty T-Sirt with a coaster right on your chest to set your glass down.:redcarded:


----------



## rg1283 (Sep 14, 2005)

What people are forgetting is that when "Welfare Reform" happened forcibly in 1996 I think the world didn't end.

Here is how food stamps should be reformed: Remove (I think its $10) cash benefit or whatever it is on the debit card and take that money for appropriate items like diapers.

Allow them to buy "healthy foods only"

Also easy solution to the problem: MANDATORY DRUG TESTING to receive benefits.

and yes "Pot" is a drug.


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

Diapers? Here's a novel idea, if you are indigent, close your legs or get birth control. Pull out. Jerk off in the end... Swallow!


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

Drug testing should be a no brainer. Most if not all of us have had to drug test for work, so why should getting money for not working be any different. There should be no extra benefits for having more kids. I don't know anyone who can go to their employer and say "hey I'm having another kid, give me a raise." There should also be a limit to length of time someone can collect. I have no problem giving someone a hand if they fall on hard times and need a little help while they try and get themselves back on their feet. But, if you can't get back on your feet after a few years (let's say 5 which would cover someone from birth to jr going to kindergarten); then, you're just not trying to improve your situation. Oh and having another kid doesn't get you an extension. Personally, I think it should only be 2 years max after which you should at least be able to show that you are really trying to get back on your feet and if you are you can have a one time one year extension. Welfare was never intended to be a lifestyle and they sure as hell never intended it to cover families for generations. There should be a push to get people on welfare working and off public assistance. Two things could be accomplished by this, one you would get people working and off welfare. Second, you would fill all the jobs that "American's don't want to do" leaving no incentive for illegals to come and work. Change the system so that any work is more beneficial to the wellfare recipient than no work. If you're getting public assistance, you don't have the luxury of saying "that's a job I don't want to do." 

Anyone against welfare reform has to remember that when the system was put into place the dynamics of society were far different than they are today. All you have to do is look at census records from the 1900-1930 to see the number of widows and children listed as "inmates". These are people who had done nothing except lose their husbands and fathers. They're listed in assylums, alms houses, work houses and orphanages. They were not living in comfort by any means. It's sad when you research a family and see a family living together in 1900, in 1910 the woman is listed as a widow and listed as either an inmate, roomer or servant while her children ages 2 - 14 are listed in the census for an orphanage. Here's the difference between then and today, she was motivated to get out of that situation and her children were motivated to never end up in it again. It isn't uncommon to find that same woman and her minor children in 1920 living with her adult children or employed and living with her minor children again. That's why the welfare system was put into place. To keep families together and provide the basics while they got themselves into a position to take care of themselves. There was no joy and no pride in being on welfare. I'm not saying they should bring back work houses, but they need to limit public assistance and put back the motivation for people to get their lives together and take care of themselves.


----------



## officerbob (Mar 20, 2011)

+1:thumbs_up:, HistoryHound hit the nail on the head. Proper reform to entitlement programs is the only way to influence people to improve their situations. Face it, the only people that will complain about this are the ones that are planning to take advantage of the system.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

It was very common, but they didn't let that keep them down. If people today were half as tough and self-reliant as they were back then, we wouldn't have half the problems we have today.


----------

