Senate votes to make small cut to food stamps

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Senate votes to make small cut to food stamps
By MARY CLARE JALONICK, Associated Press
Updated 2:19 pm, Tuesday, May 21, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has voted to keep a $400 million annual cut — or roughly a half of 1 percent — to the food stamp program in a farm bill it is considering this week.

Food stamps now cost almost $80 billion annually. The chamber rejected by a 58-40 vote an amendment by Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas to expand the cuts to $3.5 billion a year. Senators also rejected, 70-26, an amendment by Democratic Sen. Kristen Gillibrand of New York to eliminate the cuts entirely.

The domestic food aid, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, makes up almost 80 percent of the five-year farm bill, which would cost $100 billion annually. A House version of the farm bill would cut $2 billion a year from the program, which has doubled in cost since 2008.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Senate-votes-to-make-small-cut-to-food-stamps-4532258.php#ixzz2Txyoq1C1

---

(Short article, no more at link.)

[onehandle]

1. WWJD? nt

[silverweb]

2. ...

[KamaAina]

3. "...the program, which has doubled in cost since 2008."

Sure, the price of food has gone up, but doubled?

Or, could it be that when Bush** ruined the economy, twice as many Americans started relying on SNAP?

[KamaAina]

4. 70-26?!

Senators also rejected, 70-26, an amendment by Democratic Sen. Kristen Gillibrand of New York to eliminate the cuts entirely.

There are only 45 repukes. So 25 "Democrats" voted for this?

[John2]

6. I read a Senate

committee voted to arm rebels in Syria. I wonder if the two Republicans from Oklahoma approved this also. I don't remember the American people authorizing anyone in the U.S. Senate to use their tax dollars to prosecute these Senators Foreign adventures and giving their tax dollars to Foreigners in a Civil conflict? So they take the American's people money from domestic programs to prosecute their Wars? That is what it amounts to. There is not one citizen in this country threatened by the Syrian Civil War.

[1ProudAtheist]

5. Starve The Poor

Last edited Wed May 22, 2013, 01:32 AM - Edit history (1)

So that the rich aren't inconvenienced by the sequester. Letting people starve to death or die from the lack of cancer treatments sure beats the hell out of doing away with a few tanks or a submarine.

[tofuandbeer]

8. Exactly! That's how I see it:

They want the sequester, but the rich should not feel the pain.
Soooo F'd up!!!

[msongs]

7. so Harry Reid ALLOWS this kind of vote but not others. whatta nice guy nt

[freshwest]

9. That 'half of 1%' of the scandalous $80B cut the HoR wants, should be the final offer.

And it would be branded as a scandal if the media weren't Koch owned.

All these faux 'scandals' and 'outrages' they've pushed this month, and will keep on doing through 2014 is to destroy the majority in the Senate so they could repeal SNAP altogether.

And as Ryan says, to get enough states to turn red to repeal the 14th amendment. He's saying the reason to repeal birthright citizenship is about anchor babies to sucker the bigots.

But it's really to repeal the due process and equal protection clauses of that amendment. And they won't quit, neither can we. Another twenty years of this.

[Kablooie]

10. Why? What's the purpose of a tiny cut?

A big cut is wrong but it makes a difference, good or bad, depending on your criteria.

But a tiny cut? Sounds like the Dems are trying to create a fake image that they are Republicans.
Vote for a cut that makes no difference but is something the Republicans want trimmed.

Why does EVERYONE kowtow to this false Republican god?
It's as if you don't pay token respect to their idiotic greed they will rise up and destroy you, your family and all your decedents to the tenth generation.

[Octafish]

11. Richest country on Earth.

Bought and paid for government.

[jmowreader]

12. Why haven't we heard any indication they're willing to cut Congressional pay?

So far I have not heard of even one Member of Congress, of either party or house...

that has offered to take a reduction in pay
that has offered to lower his or her office-expenditure budget
that has offered to lay off members of their staff
that has offered to close even one office in his or her district
that has offered to end taking official "fact finding" trips

in amounts above and beyond that which is already being forced upon them by the sequester.

The Republican caucus should really be all over this, because they're the ones who keep saying government is no good.

[Ilsa]

16. Amen. Or even reduce their pensions. nt

[Doctor_J]

13. Luckily the president will veto this emphatically and quickly

Wait, I forgot. FDR is dead.

[Lasher]

18. Ha ha ha ha!

Good one!

[daleo]

14. The poor go hungry

The rich get tax cuts.

[Lasher]

15. Did you ever stop to wonder why food stamps are intertwined with the corporate farm subsidy bill?

Have you never noticed that we are hardly ever presented with an issue where we can decide between corporations and the people? When was the last time when we saw a Congressional debate where we were to choose between guns and butter? When was the last time that we saw any such debate sponsored by anyone in the corporate news media?

[Nye Bevan]

17. I wish the Democrats controlled the Senate, so stuff like this would not happen. (nt)

[Doctor_J]

19. I learned in 2009 that it takes like 88 dems in the Senate

to get their way.