Some Democrats are upset and advocacy groups are outraged over the raiding of the food-stamp cupboard to fund a state-aid bailout that some call a gift to teachers and government union workers.
House members convened Tuesday and passed the multibillion-dollar bailout bill for cash-strapped states that provides $10 billion to school districts to rehire laid-off teachers or ensure that more teachers won't be let go before the new school year begins, keeping more than 160,000 teachers on the job, the Obama administration says.
But the bill also requires that $12 billion be stripped from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps, to help fund the new bill, prompting some Democrats to cringe at the notion of cutting back on one necessity to pay for another. The federal assistance program currently helps 41 million Americans.
Arguably one of the most outspoken opponents on the Democratic side is Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, who has blasted the move as “a bitter pill to swallow” but still voted yes.
“I fought very hard for the food assistance money in the Recovery Act, and the fact is that participation in the food stamps program has jumped dramatically with the economic crisis, from 31.1 million persons to 38.2 million just in one year,” DeLauro said in an e-mail sent to FoxNews.com. “But I know that states across the nation and my own state of Connecticut also desperately need these resources to save jobs and avoid Draconian cuts to essential services for low income families.”
Republicans vocally opposed the state aid bill. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., told Fox News it rewarded "irresponsible states" and their unions.
"It is basically taxpayers from fiscally (responsible) states bailing out fiscally irresponsible states. ... Medicaid funding, teacher funding, the more popular of the public unions, what this is, it's a bailout to prevent states from doing the necessary spending prioritization that they need do," he said.
The Obama administration pushed hard for the $26 billion bill. The White House argued that it is essential to protecting 300,000 teachers and other nonfederal government workers from election-year layoffs and will not add to the national deficit.
More here
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
12 comments:
Full of crap politics;
Dem side;
The cuts won't take effect for several years. Food stamps should be a temporary salve to get people through these rough times, not a permanent solution. Weenies on the left don't want to tell that to their constituents.
Rep side;
This is "buying votes'; full of crap. Dems know they have these union/teacher votes locked up just like they have the black vote. No need to buy off votes. It's like saying that Republ. have to buy off NRA votes.
Even Hannity had the nerve to complain about food stamp reductions. Isn't this what you guys want. People working for their pay (teacher, cop, fireman) not simply receiving "handouts"
I am on the fence with this one. Yes, Food Stamps help a lot of people, if used correctly, to feed their families better. On the other hand, creating more jobs may decrease the number of people who need Food Stamps because of income.
Food stamps are for lazy people. Look at all these low income housing. Look at how these people sit on their porches, walk the streets at 2am and commit crimes AND still collect food stamps! Drugs are being used by these free loaders. Food stamps represents lazy people. A small portion of people use it just enough to get by then get off.
10;39 ever generalize much?
Minimum wage is 7.50? an hour. Let's say Mom and Dad both have minimum wage jobs and they work full time. They have 3 children. Rent is 850 or more a month. So we can't call them lazy. They also have to pay maybe 350 a month for child care. In my humble opinion, this is the type of family that Food Stamps was made for. NOT for those who refuse to work because it is a way of life and if it was good enough for Mom then it's good enough for me.
11:25 Maybe Mom and Dad should have thought about having 3 kids if they couldn't afford them.
12:03, or maybe mom and dad had great jobs but where laid off through no fault of their own. Maybe one parent got sick, or injured. The point is that food stamps are there as apart of the social saftey net. A record no. of people use them during this recession, including alot of you so-called "hardworking patriotic true blue American" conservatives. The people who need them far outweigh those who game the system, so stop stereotyping.
I completely agree 12:03.. If you cannot afford to have a child them dont, I am sorry if that sounds cold, but its true. Children are very expensive-from birth to adulthood. Also, I worked at Food-Lion in high school..Let me tell you how many people I saw driving new (3yrs and newer) BMW's, Lexis, Cadallac, etc. Yet getting there food with Food Stamps and Independance Cards.. While I work 40+ hours a week to support my family-and get to pay for there "free" Gov support..
Ok I will step down from my Soap Box now:)
To many times through the years, I have found myself waiting behind someone in the grocery store check out line who has a large volume of the best food items the store has to sell, only to see those groceries paid for with food stamps. This while I try to economize on my food spending and feel that I cannot afford to waste that kind of money. I remember leaving the store one night, right after the food stamp lady ahead of me (white, well dressed, driving a Cadillac) as she was loading all those groceries in her car. That night left a life long bad taste in my mouth concerning food stamps. There has to be a middle of the road somewhere, where the needs of the truely needy are met and the abusers of the system are punished and made to work. I don't have the answer. I believe that all children, at the very least deserve to eat healty balanced meals every day at home and at school, regardless of parental income, living in a country so rich as ours, as do the old and infirmed. The healty and mentally/physically able should be mandated to work at doing some job for the state, if they are jobless and continually draining the state coffers.
1:02 I agree wholeheartedly, especially with the last statement. If you are on welfare and unemployed for a certain length of time, you need to be put to work digging ditches, painting over graffitti, picking up trash or somethin. Hell, start a state owned daycare for all the other single moms in the neighborhood so they can afford to get out and work.
When the state or fed. govt. establishes these work programs you all cry "socialism! boo hoo!" despite the fact that in the past they have been highly successful in more ways that one, see CCC or WPA.
If you want to drive a bus for Ocean City, you have to agree to drug tests (and pass). Same for Lowes and Home Depot. I feel that anyone receiving Government aid must be subject to passing drug tests.
I'm sure that some will see this as a hardship but why should taxpayers fund a drug habit?
Post a Comment