Cuts to Food Stamps is not the answer, rather cuts to fraud is. The US Government has to do a better job controlling food stamp fraud, cuts to benefits will only ultimately hurt those in need. It is unfair to target the poor with cuts, you need to target the waste.
Individuals who have money for drugs, do not need food stamps. Secondly, individuals who do drugs are users, they know how to cheat the system and get around the cuts, where the ones ending up on the short end of the stick will be the poor.
Wherefore you require mandatory UA's of all new food stamp applicants and upon each review every six months. Those applying for or receiving food stamps should be required to pay $30 for the UA. $30 is a small price to pay for $1000's in free food over the course of the next six months. Weeding out the druggies will not resolve the whole monetary issue, however it is a start and it is something that should be required anyhow.
While we are discussing UA's, I think ALL politicians including the President as well as all government, federal, state and/or county employees should be required to UA's every six months as well.
We live in the "Land of The Free" and FREE from drugs is what this country needs to be! The Universal Life Church World Headquarters defends the unborn, feeds the hungry, shelters the homeless, educates the young, welcomes refugees, and cares for the sick, both at home and abroad. In many instances, the government is a partner with the Universal Life Church World Headquarters and its ministries in accomplishing this work.
The House is Wrong on Food Stamp Cuts
September 27, 2013 at 5:44pm
Last week 217 Republicans voted to slash the funding for SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps. Not a single Democrat voted for those cuts, nor—to their credit—did more than a dozen Republicans.
If they go into effect, here is what those cuts mean: most likely 4 to 6 million Americans will lose their benefits. It’s important to remember these policy choices don’t happen in the abstract—they affect the real lives of real people. In the case of food stamp cuts, they are people looking for work, or working in jobs that don’t pay enough for those who do them to regularly put food on the table for themselves and their families.
The reason the Republican leadership gives for the size and timing of the cut is to fight “fraud and abuse,” noting that SNAP’s size has grown in recent years to historic levels. SNAP has grown because we’ve gone through a period of deep economic distress, with record numbers of Americans losing homes, jobs, and incomes. So more of our neighbors qualified for this help, and took it to keep themselves and their families fed. Meanwhile, documented cases of fraud and abuse have been declining since the 1990s.
Some Republican leaders claim that these proposed cuts in food assistance are consistent with the bipartisan welfare reform I signed as President. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I vetoed the first two versions of the welfare reform bill largely because they turned food stamps and Medicaid into block grants, ending the federal guarantee of food and medical care to poor children. When it comes to fighting hunger, this proposal is worse.
My friend Bob Dole, who was both the Republican Senate Majority Leader during my term and my opponent in 1996, is no liberal, nor is he a fan of waste and abuse. He recently wrote a joint op-ed with former Senator Tom Daschle criticizing these cuts and calling the situation what it is: playing politics with hunger. He ought to know: Senator Dole and the late George McGovern were two of the architects of the program’s reform in the 1970s which strengthened the program and legitimately reduced errors and abuse. That was a real bipartisan political compromise that was both effective and consistent with America’s core values. In 2011 alone, 4.7 million Americans were lifted out of poverty by SNAP, with 72% of its participants families with children.
Some conflict is inevitable, even healthy, in politics, but it seems as if we are more and more often compelled to re-learn the same lessons of the past. Americans opposed conflict for conflict’s sake during the government shutdown of the 1990s, yet once again we see an extreme faction opting for perpetual gridlock over principled compromise. The SNAP fight is holding up a farm bill we need, endangering nutrition assistance to working families that they need, and threatening our long bipartisan national commitment to fighting hunger among our most vulnerable citizens.
Senator Dole knows the difference between real reform and cynical politics. He also was a master of political compromise who knew that at the end of the day, our system demands we work together to solve problems. We need more leaders like him, and more Republican House members who will listen to him. - Bill Clinton