Colbert: If poor people want food stamps, they should become massive corporations

By David Ferguson/Raw Story

Wednesday night on “The Colbert Report,” host Stephen Colbert congratulated the Republican-controlled House of Representatives for being able to pass the Farm Bill. When the House GOP caucus found that they couldn’t compromise on the subject of food stamps, they just took that portion out of the bill and passed that version.

“That might not sound like much,” said Colbert. “The Farm Bill is a routine piece of legislation that provides subsidies for farmers while setting aside money for food stamps. It’s a win-win, help for the folks who grow the corn and help for folks who live on nothing but corn syrup.”

It’s been two years since the House passed a Farm Bill because 60 Republicans have wanted deeper cuts to food stamps.

“But, last week, House Republicans agreed to an historic compromise on food stamps,” said Colbert, “by eliminating the food stamps.”

He continued, “Republicans showed that they can compromise by removing the part of the bill they refused to compromise on. It’s like a cardiologist who’s having trouble treating a patient’s heart. Rather than getting bogged down with complicated procedures, he simply removes the heart.”

“Problem solved!” he quipped. “And the best part is that patient no longer needs food stamps.”

Last Sunday, CBS News’ Bob Schieffer confronted Republican Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) on the issue of food stamps, saying, “You pass a farm bill in the House that gives billions of dollars, much of it to large corporations that own farms. It’s almost like welfare for the wealthy. But you don’t include a dollar for hungry people for food stamps. What kind of message is that?”

“I’ll take that one, Bob,” cut in Colbert. “It is a principled conservative message based on the old adage, ‘Give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day. Take away his food stamps, and he’ll found FishCo, a multinational food conglomerate that gets a massive subsidy in the next Farm Bill.’”

Watch the clip, embedded below via Comedy Central:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,Video Archive

GOP Rams Farm Bill Without Food Stamps Through The House

By Alan Pyke and Andrew Breiner/Think Progress

With Thursday’s vote to sever food stamps funding from the federal spending that guarantees the agricultural industry a baseline income, conservatives in the U.S. House achieved a longstanding goal. The GOP has pressed to undermine or outright end food stamps (formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP) for years, as the ThinkProgress timeline below shows.

But Republicans appeared to realize that their long-awaited policy triumph invited Democratic criticism before the C-SPAN cameras.

Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA) used a parliamentary tactic to silence Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL) after the Democrat said “Shame on the Republicans” in her remarks. Brown was baffled when the acting chairman told her to sit down, and her colleagues noted the Republican proclivity for attacking Democrats by name. After several minutes Woodall dropped his objection. (His office confirmed he had objected but declined to comment on his reasoning.) Brown finished her remarks with a reference to Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign, saying “you-all do not care about the 47 percent.”

UPDATE

Watch the Woodall-Brown episode:

A senior Democratic leadership aide told ThinkProgress that the majority enforced unusually strict rules throughout the day on how Democrats could voice their arguments on the floor.

Eventually, the House voted 216-208 to approve the food stamps-free farm bill, in a culmination of years of work to constrict and undermine the program. From President Bush’s veto of a food aid funding increase in mid-2008 to Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budgets that would cut the program by more than a hundred billion dollars, the GOP has sought to curb food stamps for years:

SNAP kept 4.7 million families out of poverty in 2011 alone. It has one of the lowest fraud rates of any federal program, and with a return of nearly $2 for every dollar spent it is one of the most efficient ways the government can spend money to help people. Experts say severing the program from the farm bill exposes it to being neglected or gutted.

Meanwhile, the farm bill conservatives approved Thursday guarantees that farm owners – most of them large corporations rather than family farmers – receive federal payments in any year the price of their produce falls below certain thresholds. In many cases the thresholds are near or even above 100 percent of the previous year’s prices. In effect, the House bill guarantees it will always be profitable to grow sushi rice, while leaving poor Americans’ access to food assistance unprotected.

How Right-Wing Media Assisted Food Stamp Removal From Farm Bill

JOHN KERR & ALBERT KLEINE/Media Matters For America

House Republicans reportedly plan to remove food stamp funding from the federal farm bill, a move that stands to further jeopardize the survival of the critical anti-poverty program. This move comes after years of right-wing media figures demonizing food stamp recipients as lazy or dependent, with Rush Limbaugh going so far as to propose dumpster diving as an alternative.

Here's a look back at some of the most egregious right-wing attacks on food stamps:

GOP Push To Split Farm Bill Leaves Food Stamps Vulnerable To Severe Cuts

By Alan Pyke/Think Progress

A House Republican scheme to strip food stamp funding out of the farm bill would lead to the program being weakened or even outright dismantled, according to poverty experts. Reports indicate that GOP leaders are having trouble finding the votes to support a split farm bill so far, but the tens of millions of Americans who rely on food stamps would be at risk should the political winds shift.

“Splitting the farm bill is the wrong approach,” according to Dottie Rosenbaum, a Senior Policy Analyst specializing in food assistance at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “It would not only end the long-standing, bipartisan practice of bringing together supporters of agriculture and food assistance programs to produce more sound policy,” she told ThinkProgress, “but it has the potential to force cuts to food assistance even deeper and more harmful than those already rejected by the House.”

Those cuts – $20.5 billion over a decade, largely from changes to eligibility rules that would kick 2 million poor Americans off the food aid rolls – meant the House’s original farm bill faced a narrow path to passage. Many Democrats were reportedly ready to hold their noses on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) cuts and support the full package. ButRepublican leaders killed the bill by endorsing a last-minute amendment they knew Democrats couldn’t tolerate. After the bill failed, with dozens of Republicans who’d voted for the amendment that chased Democrats away still opposing the final vote, House leaders opted not to return to a version of the bill that could pass. Instead, they began exploring splitting the bill up.

“Splitting the Farm Bill is an act of political gamesmanship that leaves SNAP vulnerable to attack or outright neglect from Congress,” said Joy Moses, Senior Policy Analyst for the Center for American Progress’ Poverty and Prosperity Program. An action alert sent Tuesday night from the Food Research and Action Center, the national anti-hunger advocacy group that sponsors the “SNAP Challenge,” agreed that the plan “seems to be one more attempt to harm SNAP.”

Moses added that while “we recognize that the needs of food insecure Americans should stand alone in being critically important, the blending together of multiple interests has led to positive outcomes in the past.” Indeed, the decades-long linkage of the farm bill’s anti-poverty components and agricultural subsidy programs has helped protect SNAP from some of the “reform” efforts that have damaged other anti-poverty programs. The amendment that killed the bill in June was designed to replicate some of those failed reforms in the SNAP program. If food assistance is sliced out of the legislation, it would become even more vulnerable to such ill-advised changes.

Conservatives say SNAP is a troubled program in need of some tough love. But in fact it has one of the lowest fraud rates of any federal program, despite being among the largest. The agricultural subsidies component of the farm bill actually has a higher rate of erroneous payments than does SNAP. Furthermore, the vast majority of food stamp recipients who are able to work do so.

The program kept 4.7 million families out of poverty in 2011 alone, thereby juicing economic growth for the nation as a whole. The food charities conservatives expect to pick up the slack from food stamp cuts say they lack the resources to do so.

Cory Booker challenges tea partier to live on food stamps for a week

By Stephen C. Webster/Raw Story

Over the weekend, Newark, New Jersey Mayor Cory Booker (D) challenged a tea party-affiliated critic to join him in living on food stamps for a week, and now it appears the challenge has been accepted.

The challenge was prompted by a tweet on Sunday from Twitter user @MWadeNC, whose bio reads: “Daughter of the American Revolution (DAR), fighting against any and all forms of socialism/communism.. Army Veteran, Army Daughter, Army Wife.”

Booker had touched off a Twitter argument by quoting the Greek historian Plutarch, who wrote that “an imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.”

That quote, he explained, underpins an argument for public investment in education and nutrition, which he said would save money on police and prisons. That’s when @MWadeNC chimed in, saying ”nutrition is not a responsibility of the government.”

“Lets you and I try to live on food stamps in New Jersey (high cost of living) and feed a family for a week or month,” Booker wrote. “U game?”

The critic accepted. “Great,” Booker replied. “Lets do this. I hope you live in New Jersey. Lets film it and see how we do.” Several other respondents offered to referee the challenge, and Booker appeared to welcome their assistance.

He followed up again on Tuesday, responding to another user who asked if he’s really prepared to participate in the challenge. “Yes preparing 2 if my challenge is truly accepted,” Booker wrote.

The U.S. Department of Labor says that more than 46 million Americans receive nutrition assistance. Mayor Booker was unavailable for comment early Tuesday.

Pennsylvania Bill Would Reduce Welfare Benefits For Women Who Cannot Prove They Were Raped

 By Tara Culp-Ressler/Think Progress

A Pennsylvania House bill seeks to limit the amount of TANF assistance that low-income women receive based on the amount of children they give birth to while covered under the program.
Despite the fact that low-income women who give birth to children would logically need increased assistance to care for their larger family, Pennsylvania lawmakers — State Reps. RoseMarie Swanger (R), Tom Caltagirone (D), Mark Gillen (R), Keith Gillespie (R), Adam Harris (R), and Mike Tobash (R) — don’t want their state’s welfare program to provide additional benefits for that newborn. If a woman gives birth to a child who was conceived from rape, she may seek an exception to this rule so that her welfare benefits aren’t slashed, but only if she can provide proof that she reported her sexual assault and her abuser’s identity to the police:

In determining the amount of assistance payments to a recipient family of benefits under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Program, the department shall revise the schedule of benefits to be paid to the recipient family by eliminating the increment in benefits under the program for which that family would otherwise be eligible as a result of the birth of a child conceived during the period in which the family is eligible for benefits under the TANF Program. [...]
Elimination of benefits under subsection (d) shall not apply to any child conceived as a result of rape or incest if the department: (1) receives a non-notarized, signed statement from the pregnant woman stating that she was a victim of rape or incest, as the case may be, and that she reported the crime, including the identity of the offender, if known, to a law enforcement agency having the requisite jurisdiction or, in the case of incest where a pregnant minor is the victim, to the county child protective service agency and stating the name of the law enforcement agency or child protective service agency to which the report was made and the date such report was made.

The language of the bill goes on to note that a sexual assault victim applying for an exemption will be required to sign a statement affirming she understands that “false reports to law enforcement authorities are punishable by law,” and stipulates that Pennsylvania will report any “evidence of false statements or fraud” to the correct department, all the way up to the Attorney General’s office.
Aside from punishing women who have children — particularly low-income women who may not have reliable access to affordable contraception — the proposed bill perpetrates a dangerous attitude toward survivors of sexual assault. Forcing women to prove the legitimacy of their sexual assault, and warning them about the serious consequences of “crying rape” to cheat the system, puts forth the misguided assumption that victims of sexual violence are not to be believed. Furthermore, countless women choose not to report their rapists to the police because they fear repercussions from their abusers, who could threaten their lives. An estimated 54 percent of sexual assaults are not reported to the authorities.
This is not the first type of legislation of its kind. Last month, New Mexico proposed a bill that would have required women seeking childcare assistance to prove they were “forcibly raped,” although Gov. Susana Martinez (R) has requested to remove that language.

House Committee Votes To Take Food Stamps Away From Millions Of Low-Income Americans

By Zack Beauchamp/Think Progress

Today, the House Agriculture Committee approved the final version of the 2012 farm bill, complete with its draconian cuts for families struggling to put food on the table. The proposed bill cuts $35 billion from the federal food and nutrition budget, about $16.5 billion of which come from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — more commonly known as SNAP or food stamps.

The cuts work by eliminating “categorical eligibility,” which provides assistance to families whose assets or income put them slightly above the technical line for SNAP eligibility. Repealing categorical eligibility means that between two and three million Americans will lose access to food stamps and roughly 280,000 children will drop out of their automatic enrollment in the free lunch program at school. So the House bill has anti-hunger advocates up in arms:

“With the economy being in such bad shape, depriving that many people of nutritional assistance is going to have a devastating effect,” said Eric Olsen, [Feeding Hunger]’s senior vice president of government relations and public policy.

One needs simply to look to the story of Dorothy Moon, a stay-at-home mother in Texas whodepends on food stamps to feed her six children while her male partner looks for new work, to understand Olsen’s point. Of course, some in the GOP want to ignore “sob stories” about the plight of people who struggle to put food on the table.

SNAP assistance saved five million American from poverty in 2010 and halved the number of children in poverty in 2011.

Paul Ryan Defends Cutting Food Stamps For The Poor: ‘You Have To Get Savings In Some Of These Areas’

By Scott Keyes/Think Progress

ANESVILLE, Wisconsin — Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) defended his budget’s major cuts to food stamps outside a town hall on Friday, telling ThinkProgress that “we think you have to get savings in some of these areas where you’ve had a huge increase in spending.”

Food stamps were a hot topic at his town hall meetings that ThinkProgress attended last week. At nearly every stop, Ryan noted that one in six Americans currently live in poverty.

With the number of people in need increasing, the sensible takeaway is that we as a society need to ensure enough funding so those in poverty are getting enough to eat. But Ryan has a far different take. The rise in poverty levels, due in large part to the financial collapse and Great Recession, has instead led him to believe that programs designed to help those in need like food stamps are no longer working.

It is with this mindset that Ryan justified cutting food stamps by $134 billion in his proposed budget. The House Budget Chairman downplayed the significance of his budget’s cuts in an interview with ThinkProgress, dismissing his proposed 10 percentage point drop in funding as a necessary “fix.”

RYAN: We want to have people go from welfare back to work. That’s why we conjoined in our budget the job training programs, consolidate the 47 different job training programs spread across 9 different agencies to scholarships to go to people so they can get new training.

KEYES: But with something like food stamps isn’t that kind of a necessary thing, to eat in order to work?

RYAN: Right, so under the bill we’re moving right now through Congress, food stamps will have increased something like 260 percent over the last decade instead of 270 percent. You will still have seen a massive increase in food stamps, but we think you have to get savings in some of these areas where you’ve had a huge increase in spending. We have prisoners getting food stamps in Wisconsin. We have people that are becoming eligible for food stamps because of other factors that aren’t eligible food stamps in and of themselves. So we think we need to fix the fact that some of these programs have grown at such unsustainable rates.

KEYES: I think fraud was actually at a record low though in 2010.

RYAN: [Silence] Anybody else? All right, thanks everybody.

Watch it:

Demand for food stamps has certainly increased in the past few years, but this is directly a result of the recession. Even at its height, funding for food stamps accounted for a whopping0.52 percent of GDP in 2011, hardly an “unsustainable” amount as Ryan claims. As the economy continues to recover and fewer people need assistance, that level is projected to be cut nearly in half, all without Ryan’s draconian budget cuts.

Food stamps do more than just put food on the table

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Fox Gets The Message: Calls Obama "The Food Stamp President"

From Media Matters

After Newt Gingrich defended his oft-repeated claim that President Obama is "the best food stamp president in American history," Fox News took up the theme and amplified it. But as numerous experts have pointed out, increased enrollment in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is due mainly to the economic downturn which predated Obama's administration.

EMBED

Gingrich: Obama Is "The Best Food Stamp President In American History"

Gingrich: "More People Are On Food Stamps Today Because Of Obama's Policies Than Ever In History." While covering Gingrich's comments during a January 5 campaign stop, CBS News reported:

Gingrich, during an appearance in Plymouth, New Hampshire, spoke about remarks he would theoretically make if invited to speak to the NAACP.

"I'm prepared, if the NAACP invites me, I'll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps," Gingrich said.

The former House speaker has made a habit of calling President Obama the "food stamp president" -- a nickname he used on Thursday as well -- and has often painted the contrast between himself and Mr. Obama as a choice between paychecks and food stamps.

"The fact is, if I become your nominee we will make the key test very simple: Food stamps versus paychecks," Gingrich said. "Obama is the best food stamp president in American history. More people are on food stamps today because of Obama's policies than ever in history. I would like to be the best paycheck president in American history." [CBS News,1/6/12]

Gingrich: "More People Have Been Put On Food Stamps By Barack Obama Than Any President In American History." During the January 16 GOP primary debate, Gingrich had this exchange with Fox News contributor Juan Williams:

WILLIAMS: Speaker Gingrich, you recently said black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps. You also said poor kids lack a strong work ethic and proposed having them work as janitors in their schools. Can't you see that this is viewed, at a minimum, as insulting to all Americans, but particularly to black Americans?

GINGRICH: No. I don't see that.

[...]

WILLIAMS: Speaker Gingrich, the suggestion that you made was about a lack of work ethic. And I've got to tell you, my email account, my Twitter account has been inundated with people of all races who are asking if your comments are not intended to belittle the poor and racial minorities.

You saw some of this reaction during your visit to a black church in South Carolina. You saw some of this during your visit to a black church in South Carolina, where a woman asked you why you refer to President Obama as "the food stamp president." It sounds as if you are seeking to belittle people.

GINGRICH: Well, first of all, Juan, the fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history. [Fox Nation, 1/17/12]

Fox News Parrots Gingrich: Obama "Is The Food Stamp President"

Eric Bolling Echoed Gingrich: Obama "Is The Food Stamp President." On Fox News' The Five, Eric Bolling defended Gingrich, saying of Obama:

BOLLING: But he is the food stamp president. There I have no problem with this. Allow me, and I'll shut up the rest of the block. Obama has presided over the biggest expansion in food stamp usage, in numbers: in pure dollar amount, it went from $60 billion to an $83 billion program -- the fourth-largest entitlement program in America. Under Obama, it's exploded. Why can't he be -- and by the way, food stamps, there are more white people on food stamps than black people. So it's not a racial issue. [Fox News, The Five, 1/17/12, viaMedia Matters]

Dick Morris: "Newt Is Right. ... Obama Has Basically Put Everybody In The Country On Welfare." On the January 18 edition of Hannity, Fox News contributor Dick Morris stated:

MORRIS: Newt is totally right. When Obama took office, there were 32 million people on food stamps. Now, there are 46 million. What Obama has done is, under Clinton, he cut the welfare rolls in half, and now Obama has basically put everybody in the country on welfare. [Fox News, Hannity, 1/18/12]

Sean Hannity: "He Is The Food Stamp President. Look At The Numbers, They Speak For Themselves." Fox News host Sean Hannity pointed to increased food stamp usage to label Obama the "food stamp president," saying: "He is the food stamp president. Look at the numbers, they speak for themselves -- 32 million to 46 million, 12 million increase. Obama's policies have resulted in a lot more people being on food stamps. What's the problem?" [Fox News, Hannity, 1/18/12, via Media Matters]

Tucker Carlson: "More People Have Joined The Food Stamps Program Under Obama Than Any Other President." On Hannity, Fox News contributor Tucker Carlson praised Gingrich for the "great job" he did explaining why he thinks Obama is the "food stamp president," adding: "And more people have joined the food stamp program under Obama than any other president." [Fox News,Hannity, 1/17/12]

Monica Crowley: Record Number Of Food Stamp Usage Is "A Direct Result Of The Obama Administration's Policies." On Fox News' America Live, contributor Monica Crowley argued:

CROWLEY: At this point, what Newt is saying is that this administration took a bad economy and made it so much worse, with polices that have really oppressed job creation, suppressed economic growth, to the point where people cannot find jobs. And also, you know, one thing he didn't say, which is the extension of unemployment benefits to 99 weeks and so on.

You know how the situation in America, Megyn, where you have record numbers of people not just on food stamps, 46 million, but record numbers of people on at least one or more social welfare programs, and that's a direct result of the Obama administration's policies. [Fox News, America Live, 1/18/12]

Sarah Palin: White House "Protests Too Much Because The Facts Are What They Are." OnHannity, Fox News contributor Sarah Palin criticized the White House for pushing back on Gingrich's statement, saying that "they protest too much because the facts are what they are -- and that's hundreds of thousands of more Americans are now on food stamps than before Barack Obama took over." [Fox News, Hannity, 1/17/12]

In Fact, More People Have Been "Put" On Food Stamps By Bush Than Obama

Bob Beckel: "The Largest Percentage Increase In Food Stamps Happened Not Under This President But Under George W. Bush." As co-host Bob Beckel noted on The Five, "the largest percentage increase in food stamps happened not under this president but under George W. Bush":

BECKEL: I want to say something to my friend Juan Williams who sat in here for me. That shot by Gingrich was a cheap shot. You used a lot of courage, Juan, coming up with what you did and said to Gingrich. His response that he turned into an ad now was a cheap shot. Those people who -- those yahoos that stood up in that audience and cheered that were unbelievable to me that they would do it.

And let me make one other point, Newt. If you ever want to get your facts straight, the largest percentage increase in food stamps happened not under this president but under George W. Bush. [Fox News, The Five, 1/18/12]

FactCheck.Org: Food Stamp Program "Has So Far Grown By 444,574 Fewer Recipients During Obama's Time In Office Than During Bush's." In a "fact check" of what it called "Newt's Faulty Food-Stamp Claim," FactCheck.org stated that "Gingrich strains the facts when he accuses Obama of being responsible," writing: "Newt Gingrich claims that 'more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.' He's wrong. More were added under Bush than under Obama, according to the most recent figures." The article continued:

Gingrich would have been correct to say the number now on food aid is historically high. The number stood at 46,224,722 persons as of October, the most recent month on record. And it's also true that the number has risen sharply since Obama took office.

But Gingrich goes too far to say Obama has put more on the rolls than other presidents. We asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition service for month-by-month figures going back to January 2001. And they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that.

And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama's time in office than during Bush's.

It's possible that when the figures for January 2012 are available they will show that the gain under Obama has matched or exceeded the gain under Bush. But not if the short-term trend continues. The number getting food stamps declined by 43,528 in October. And the economy has improved since then. [FactCheck.org, 1/18/12]

CBS News: "Percent Increase In Beneficiaries During Mr. Bush's Presidency Was Higher Than It Has Been Under Mr. Obama." CBS News noted that the increase in food stamps enrollment "hardly makes Obama the 'best food stamp president in American history,' " adding that the "percent increase in beneficiaries during Mr. Bush's presidency was higher than it has been under Mr. Obama." From CBS News:

While the number of people on food stamps is indeed at a record level, that's in part because of eligibility rules being relaxed under the administration of George W. Bush. It's also due in part to the economic downturn that began under Mr. Bush.

[...]

For the most recent month with available data, October 2011, 46.2 million people were enrolled in the food stamp program, which is formally known the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Since Mr. Obama took office, the percent increase in enrollment has been 44.5 percent.

However, that percentage increase hardly makes Obama the "best food stamp president in American history," at least when you look at the question proportionally. The percent increase in beneficiaries during Mr. Bush's presidency was higher than it has been under Mr. Obama: The number of beneficiaries went from 17.3 million in 2001 to 28.2 million in 2008 -- an increase of 63 percent in years that are mostly considered non-recessionary. [CBS News, 1/17/12]

And The Recent Increase In Food Stamps Enrollment Is Due To The Economic Downturn

US News & World Report: Food Stamps Enrollment Was On The Rise "Well Before" Obama Took Office. From US News & World Report:

Food stamp usage has, as Gingrich suggested, increased dramatically during the Obama presidency, but hanging the increase on the president is difficult. Participation in the Department of Agriculture's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the program to which "food stamps" refers, has increased from an average of 28.2 million people per month in FY 2008 to 46.2 million as of October 2011, the most recent month for which data is available. However, SNAP participation has been on the rise since well before President Obama took office. Nearly 17.2 million people in FY 2000 participated in the program, a figure that increased by nearly 64 percent by 2008. [US News & World Report, 1/17/12]

AP "Fact Check": Food Stamp Usage Increase "Due Mainly To The Ailing Economy." In a "fact check" of the GOP debate, the Associated Press identified Gingrich's statement as one of the "distortions" of the debate, writing that the facts prove that the increase in food stamp usage is "due mainly to the ailing economy" and "rising food costs." The article also noted that "[e]ligibility rules [for the program] were relaxed in 2002 and 2008 during the Bush administration." [Associated Press,1/17/12]

CBPP: Growth "Reflects The Fact That More Households Are Becoming Eligible Because Of The Recession." According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the "rapid caseload growth primarily reflects the fact that more households are becoming eligible because of the recession." CBPP added: "SNAP caseloads can grow for two reasons: because more households are qualifying for the program and enrolling or because a larger share of eligible households are signing up. Both of these occurred in recent years." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1/9/12]

CBPP: "SNAP Kept More Than 5 Million People Out Of Poverty In 2010." According to CBPP, "SNAP caseloads have increased significantly since late 2007, as the recession and lagging recovery battered the economic circumstances of millions of Americans and dramatically increased the number of low-income households who qualify and apply for help from the program." CBPP further stressed that recent growth in SNAP "is temporary." CBPP added:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts that SNAP spending will fall as a share of GDP in coming years as the economy recovers and the Recovery Act provisions end. By 2021 SNAP is expected to return nearly to pre-recession levels as a share of GDP. Over the long term, SNAP is not growing faster than the overall economy and thus is not contributing to the nation's long-term fiscal problems. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1/9/12]

Krugman: Spending On Food Stamps Surged "Because The Economy Is Depressed." On hisNew York Times blog, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman explained the increase in "income security" spending, including food stamps, writing:

"Income security" is unemployment insurance, food stamps, SSI, refundable tax credits -- in short, the social safety net. Medicaid is a means-tested program that also serves as part of the safety net. Yes, spending in these areas has surged -- because the economy is depressed, and lots of people are unemployed.

What we're seeing isn't some drastic expansion of Big Government; we're seeing the government we already had, responding to a terrible economic slump. [The New York Times,4/25/11]

This Isn't The First Time Fox Has Promoted Obama As The "Food Stamp President"

Gingrich Blamed Obama For "Set[Ting] An All-Time Record For The Number Of Americans On Food Stamps." In September 2010, then-Fox News contributor Gingrich stated that Obama "has set an all-time record for the number of Americans on food stamps." He added: "I mean, that's not where you want to go. You want to go to a paycheck, not a food stamp." [Fox Broadcasting Co., Fox News Sunday, 9/12/10]

Ann Coulter Suggested Calling Obama's Bus Tour "Food Stamp Express Live." On Fox & Friends, Ann Coulter replied to the hosts' question about "what to call President Obama's bus tour" by saying: "How about Food Stamp Express Live?" Co-host Clayton Morris responded: "I think Newt Gingrich would be on board with that one." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 8/7/11]

Greg Gutfeld Proposed A "Food Stamp Wallet" As A Souvenir That Would "Fit Obama." Talking about souvenir items "that fit Obama," Fox News host Greg Gutfeld stated: "You need a food stamp wallet. That would be nice ... because there are millions and millions of people on food stamps right now, so that would be nice." [Fox News, The Five, 8/17/11]

Laura Ingraham: Obama Re-election Bumper Sticker Should Be "Food Stamps For Everyone."Discussing Obama's statement that benefits programs like SNAP stimulate the economy, host Laura Ingraham said: "So it would be a bumper sticker: Re-elect Obama: Food Stamps For Everyone." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 8/7/11]

Fox Graphic Adopted Gingrich's "Paychecks Vs. Food Stamps" Slogan. During an edition of Fox & Friends, Fox adopted Gingrich's slogan, "Paychecks vs. Food Stamps":

Santorum: We Don’t Need Food Stamps Because Obesity Rates Are So High

By Igor Volsky/Think Progress

Speaking in Le Mars, Iowa on Monday, Rick Santorum promised to significantly reduce federal funding for food stamps, arguing that the nation’s increasing obesity rates render the program unnecessary:

Santorum told the group he would cut the food stamp program, describing it as one of the fastest growing programs in Washington, D.C.

Forty-eight million people are on food stamps in a country with 300-million people, said Santorum.

“If hunger is a problem in America, then why do we have an obesity problem among the people who we say have a hunger program?” Santorum asked.

The cost of the food stamp program — the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — has jumped because more Americans are out of work and wages are down, not because of obesity rates. Recent data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that nearly “70 percent households that relied on food stamps last year had no earned income,” although many households did benefit from Social Security benefits and other government programs. But a whopping 20 percent of households had no cash income at all last year.

Food prices have also gone up, adding additional costs. In fact, the food stamp program has been critical for reducing poverty and pumping money into local economies during the down economy, so cutting it now would not only take food out of peoples’ mouths (regardless of whether they are obese or not) and could slow down the recovery.