Turns out that underfunding programs makes them less effective. Who knew?
The former veep said Obama "would rather spend the money on food stamps than he would on a strong military." Here is everything wrong with that statement.
If you dismiss the War on Poverty simply because poverty is still high, then you’re not making a serious argument.
The legislature’s failure to pass a farm bill in 2013 “serves as a poster child for congressional dysfunction,” Norm Ornstein inveighed in the National Journal Thursday. Ornstein helpfully traced the origins of the odd couple that is the bill: Its bloated farm subsidies are tied to the essential food stamps program because of the historic friendship that developed in the early 1970s between George McGovern and Bob Dole.
The people the pols praise are having trouble making ends meet.
And why we can't let Republicans cut them even more.
When it passed a bill to cut $39 billion from the food stamp program, or SNAP, the House of Representatives put the worst of the Republican party’s illogical Randism on display.
May 1998. The Stop, a small food bank in Toronto, doesn’t open for another hour but already a lineup has formed at the double-steel doors opening into a back street. I nod at one of the guys, someone I recognize, and he looks back at me hopefully. I shake my head and point to my wrist. Not yet.
This month, conservatives will return to Washington with the goal of making deep cuts to the nation’s food stamps program, or SNAP. For the most part, their rhetorical campaign against the program, which supports nearly 48 million Americans at a cost of $80 billion each year, has seized on roundabout arguments and beside-the-point criticisms.
Conservatives may have a new talking point in their crusade to downsize the food stamp program. And it's even more absurd than the previous ones.