The left stream media is once again having a hissy fit over what President Donald Trump’s new proposed budget will do to the darling of the left. The welfare program, more specifically, the food stamp program.
Although the media is saying the new proposed budget would cut the food stamp program by 30%, that’s a lie. What the new budget actually does is require every abled bodied American who gets food stamps to actually have to work, at least part-time, in order to qualify for the program. According to the Department of Agriculture, last year, more than 44 million people received roughly $125 a month in SNAP benefits. Which came to a total of about $66.6 billion.
Sadly though, after former President Barack Hussein Obama came into office in 2009 the food stamp program increased by 14.7 million individuals. This is a disgrace in the richest and most powerful nation ever known to man, but it was all part of the far left’s plan to control us. What’s worse is the requirements for SNAP. A family of four take-home pay cannot surpass $2,025 a month, and a two-person household can earn no more than $1,335. How are these families making so little? I am sure bad decisions and poor education levels come into play here.
Are people really this poor in the United States? Hard times can come to anyone at any time, that’s a fact of life. But let’s be honest with ourselves. We all know of cases where able-bodied adults make a career of living off the already overburdened American Tax Payer. Most even live more lavish lives than those of us who actually work our hind ends off to make a living each and every day.
Who uses SNAP, and where are they shopping?
SNAP households are already on extremely tight budgets. To qualify, a family of four’s take-home pay can be no more than $2,025 a month, while a two-person household can earn no more than $1,335.
More than 260,000 locations were authorized to accept SNAP credits last year. Superstores such as Wal-Mart and Target got 52 percent of redemptions, supermarkets like Kroger got 30 percent, and convenience stores got about 6 percent, according to the USDA. The rest was split among other kinds of stores.
The USDA doesn’t specify how much is spent at specific retailers. But in 2013, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. told the Wall Street Journal that it gets about 18 percent of total SNAP benefits. That would have been about $13.43 billion in 2012.
What changes for retailers?
Trump’s proposal suggests that retailers pay a fee for authorization to accept food stamps. Companies currently don’t pay to participate, which the proposal says fails to recognize “the significant portion of a retailer’s revenue that SNAP can represent.”
The proposed budget estimates the fees would raise about $2.4 billion over 10 years. It doesn’t spell out how the fee would be calculated.
Imposing a fee could result in smaller stores or chains deciding not to seek authorization, said Craig Gundersen, a professor of agricultural economics at the University of Illinois who has received grants from the agency that administers the food stamp program. That would reduce the number of places where people who use SNAP could get groceries.
The National Grocers Association said the fee proposal “raised a red flag.” It otherwise declined to comment on how its members might be affected by the proposed changes, but said the SNAP program plays “an important role in providing a safety net to those in need.”
How do SNAP cuts affect the larger economy?
The government’s overall SNAP spending declines when the economy improves and fewer people rely on the program. It’s a situation that is the “best possible outcome,” said Stacy Dean, vice president of food assistance policy at the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Dean said cutting benefits when people’s financial situations are not improving could mean they use money they otherwise would have spent on needs like clothing or even medicine to make up for the gaps in their food budget. So there’s still an impact to the overall economy, she said.
Putting off other purchases could affect other departments at superstores or separate retailers.
A report by the USDA in 2010 also said that boosting SNAP benefits during economic downturns starts a “multiplier process” in transactions and consumption. It found that boosting SNAP expenditures by $1 billion was estimated to increase economic activity by $1.79 billion.
Trump’s proposal could have more significant effects than the rollbacks in 2013 and last year, said Gundersen. He said shifting costs partially to states would be unprecedented and likely lead to cutbacks.
Here’s a note to corporations who rely on us hard-working Tax Payers to fund their business. You need to find a new business model because the current pyramid scheme you guys are running can’t go on indefinitely.
If you don’t believe me just come over here to California and see how much we pay on gas taxes alone. Because you know, someone has to pay for Illegal Alien benefits and for the irresponsible actions of others who think it’s ok to steal from the American Taxpayer. This mentality will have to change if we are ever going to be Ronald Reagan’s “Shinning City on a Hill” once again.