Mon 31 Oct 2005
Reuters: The House Agriculture Committee on Friday voted to cut food stamps by $844 million. The move would effect approximately 300,000 Americans. This vote came hours after a USDA report was released that concluded that some 38.2 million Americans “were food insecure” in 2004, an increase of nearly 2 million from the previous year. Congressman Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) pointed out that 40,000 children would lose free school meals because of one of the provisions in the legislation.
Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, the newest member of the committee, voted for the cut.
ADDED: This story out from The Blade gives a good contrast:
The Ohio business leaders and lobbyists who steered at least $4.1 million to President Bush’s re-election campaign last year collected more than $1.2 billion in taxpayer dollars for their companies and clients, a Blade investigation shows.
The fund-raisers who helped deliver the battleground state - and ultimately the 2004 presidential election - also received choice appointments from state and federal officials. The posts included an ambassadorship to Germany and a seat on the Ohio State University board of trustees.
Others made millions from unbid contracts varying from supplying ball bearings to the military or office furniture for federal agencies. (more…)
Nice return on their investment.
Strange how you don’t hear Jean Schmidt complaining about no-bid contracts any more.
8 Responses to “The Schmidt That Stole Breakfast… and Lunch… and Dinner”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 31st, 2005 at 9:06 am
Let them eat cake.
October 31st, 2005 at 2:43 pm
Schmidt helps end food stamp waste
There are an estimated 225,000 individuals who receive foodstamps because they’re on some form of welfare, but have an income above the food stamp level. None of these individuals truly qualify for the stamps, and thus, should not receive them.
Th…
October 31st, 2005 at 2:45 pm
This statement from Project Logic is either true or it’s not:
http://projectlogic.blogspot.com/2005/10/schmidt-helps-end-food-stamp-waste.html
There are an estimated 225,000 individuals who receive foodstamps because they’re on some form of welfare, but have an income above the food stamp level. None of these individuals truly qualify for the stamps, and thus, should not receive them.
Tell me why the statement isn’t true, or, by definition, you have no valid objection.
October 31st, 2005 at 3:06 pm
If they’re not eligible, they’re not eligible. There’s no need to write new legislation. Simply enforce the law.
They are changing the eligibility rules to reduce the amount of people who receive food stamps. They are making people who are currently eligible not eligible.
My main objection is cutting food programs for poor children. Tax cuts for the rich, wasteful military spending and pointless military actions matter more than hungry kids. Pretty simple.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:27 pm
Tom said, “Tell me why the statement isn’t true”.
I believe the standard is for Eric to post a link that supports this statement.
For example, when I say that certain provisions of the cuts would appear to hurt many of Jean’s rural constituents I provide this link.
http://agriculture.house.gov/press/109/AgCmteReconciliationPackage.pdf
The elimination $23M in Funds for the Renewable Energy Program for FY 2007 appears to go against her support of ethanol for example.
October 31st, 2005 at 5:59 pm
I’m not going to dispute that the cuts would “hurt” people who appear to be receiving aid they are not entitled to as the law intended. I would take this legislation to be the equivalent of an IRS technical corrections bill, where they pass this mountain of gibberish and find out a while later that they have to plug unintended loopholes the gibberish created. The fact that some taxpayers were able to capitalize on the loophole doesn’t mean that the loophole shouldn’t be plugged. The fact that people who were never intended to be eligible for Food Stamps might have been qualified because of weaknesses in the original law’s (or laws’) language doesn’t mean that the error should be ignored and continue uncorrected.
I blogged the other day that I thought the ethanol issue was poorly thought-out on her part, and if she’s changing her mind in favor of market-based energy solutions, I’ll congratulate her (but without looking at the bill, I couldn’t even tell you if ethanol is relevant to it–it doesn’t seem to fit the category of “renewable”):
Memo to Jean Schmidt and the Rest of Congress: On Economics, Ethanol Is a Loser
http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=738
October 31st, 2005 at 11:47 pm
The proof for my statement can be found within the Reuter’s story that this blog has based its entry on.
As for this reform, it still ensures that those who really need food stamps are covered. Also, by tightening the laws we may be able to catch illegal immigrants who are taking advantage of the system. I don’t think anyone can argue that non-citizens deserve food stamps.
Really, what we’re discussing only applies to individuals not covered under Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), a proposal in the president’s budget. It does limit automatic eligibility to people who receive TANF cash benefits or Supplemental Security Income, but those who do not receive TANF cash benefits can still apply for food stamps under regular program rules.
That simplifies the process and helps ensure that those who get food stamps are the ones that need them. No more automatically rewarding the stamps to families that may not qualify.
This isn’t stealing anyone’s breakfast away. This is making sure the aid gets to those who need it, and not to those who don’t.
In fact, even with these proposed cuts Food Stamp funding funding is still expected to increase by more than $250 million over current levels by 2010. These cuts account for only about one half of one percent of the total food stamp budget, which should be around $35 Billion in 2006.
November 1st, 2005 at 12:02 am
How we have room for one cent in tax cuts while a single child is going to sleep hungry is beyond me.