Why Is a Senate Democrat Agreeing to Another $8 Billion in Food Stamp Cuts?

[n2doc]

December 6, 2013
by Greg Kaufmann



On the same day that President Obama eloquently described his vision of an economy defined by economic mobility and opportunity for all, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow was busy cutting a deal with House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas to slice another $8 to $9 billion from food stamps (SNAP), according to a source close to the negotiations.

“One study shows that more than half of Americans will experience poverty at some point during their adult lives,” said President Obama. “Think about that. This is not an isolated situation.… That’s why we have nutrition assistance or the program known as SNAP, because it makes a difference for a mother who’s working, but is just having a hard time putting food on the table for her kids.”

Indeed it does, but the chairwoman consistently fails to get the memo.

There are currently 47 million Americans who turn to food stamps to help make ends meet. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, nearly 72 percent are in families with children and one-quarter of SNAP participants are in households with seniors or people with disabilities. Further, 91 percent of SNAP benefits go to households with incomes below the poverty line and 55 percent to households below half of the poverty line (about $9,500 annually for a family of three).

more

http://billmoyers.com/2013/12/06/why-is-a-senate-democrat-agreeing-to-another-8-billion-in-food-stamp-cuts/

[Mass]

1. Given that the House Democrats have refused a $11 billion cut bill, which in turn let

the House GOP to cut $40 billion (Tea Party did not like $11 billion cut either, so the bill failed), I will be relieved if we end up with a bill in these numbers. Those are terrible numbers, but the Senate bill had a $4 billion cut, so we are much closer from the Senate bill than the House bill.


I am not excusing this, as those are indeed terrible numbers (all of them), but Dems have started this bill accepting cuts, so we should not be surprised we end up with cuts.

[elleng]

3. Right, there surely will be cuts.

Do you think this was merely strategic, on her part?

[Mass]

6. We need a Farm bill, and the SNAP funds will be higher inside a Farm bill than on a separate bill.

I blame mostly the House Democrats. They should have given enough votes for the first House bill to pass. We would be in a better position with a higher floor.

Given the $40 billion we start with, any number in single digits will be a good negotiation.

[elleng]

9. Hadn't thought that far into it. Thanks, Mass.

So you think House Dems could have given enough votes to the first House bill to pass it? What were those numbers, compared with today's?

[Mass]

10. The House bill had

$11 billion cut. Very bad. But less bad than the $40 billion the House Republicans eventually passed when left on their own device and having to negotiate with the Tea Party. Even with $40 billion, they could not get all the GOP to vote for the bill. A few think there should be no SNAP funds at all.

This said, the House GOP leadership is far from blameless. My understanding is that they gutted the bill with a couple amendments that were poison pills, which led the Dems to withdraw their support.

My problem with that these amendments were in the final bill anyway, so Dems won nothing (except may be an embarrassment to Boehner and Cantor not being able to pass the bill) and poor people lost in this game.

(Sorry to be so long. This is the type of political game that drives me nuts. That and not passing an immigration bill when we had a majority in the two chambers. Now we are blocked by the hapless GOP leadership in the House).

[bluestate10]

12. I would rather see SNAP money increased. But until Democrats get over-whelming, filibuster

proof of Congress, republicans will push cuts, and Democrats can only play defense to reduce the magnitude of those cuts. The DU members that are decrying the agreement as being a sell out are the same people that are often here pumping their chests saying they plan to vote third party regardless of the outcome - the outcome is that they empower republicans.

[elleng]

2. Fearing re-election?

THAT would be the ONLY 'viable' excuse for such, but don't get how it would be a problem for her, being from Michigan.

[loyalsister]

8. The subsidized farmer constituency maybe?

[giftedgirl77]

4. Because a certain class of citizens who are constantly

getting backdoor handouts from ridiculously rich assholes won't be happy until the poor people they despise so much are reduced to waiting in line to get their weeks worth of bread & government issued cheese. As they continue to get richer they laugh & be merry while the poor watch what little they have continue to get diced down to scraps.

They are evil scumbags.

[indepat]

5. Making poor people go without food and medical care are fundamental right-wing values

that some DINOs seem willing to figuratively jump through their own assholes to embrace. I would say God help us were we a righteous nation rather than one in which so many are eaten up with a reichous right-wing avarice and greed mentality.

[adirondacker]

11. "Povert" should be a word to describe politicians who like to screw the poor. nt