SHOCKING: 97% of foodstamp cuts to target just 15 blue states

[Bill USA]

e-mail from Paul Hogarth, Daily Kos


http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=743

Sign and send a petition to your Senator: Food stamp cuts hurt blue states


The U.S. House just passed a Farm Bill that cuts food stamps by $8.7 billion, and it now faces a vote in the Senate soon. But it’s worse than you think.

Almost all of the food stamp cuts come from 16 states and the District of Columbia--the rest of the nation is left virtually untouched.

Further, 15 of these 16 states voted for President Obama twice, and 28 of its 32 senators are Democrats. In other words, these cuts are targeted overwhelmingly at poor folks in blue states.

Democrats who vote for the Farm Bill are forcing their own constituents and voters to bear the overwhelming burden of food stamp cuts.

If you live in one of these 16 states, sign and send our petition to your senators—urging them to reject the Farm Bill when it comes to a vote on the Senate floor.

[font size="+1"] Tell the Repugnants to go Fuck themselves - instead of the entire country, for a change.[/font]

[Curmudgeoness]

1. How is it even possible to have that much impact

on so few states? The article gives me no further information to understand it.

But I do see that PA is one of the states that will be hit....odd, since we have such a teabagger governor and one Republican Senator.

[blm]

9. Think 'children of Buono voters'... as in....'children of Obama voters'

THAT is the Republican Way.

[kelliekat44]

13. It's the GOP MO and no one is reporting on this. Christie MO=GOP MO

And Dems just keep letting it happen.

[Cobalt Violet]

29. Their making cuts to "heat and eat" programs.

Those poor people who need both use both heat and food are mostly northern, mostly blue state residents.

[Curmudgeoness]

32. But take a look at the map.

Some of the coldest states in the US are not going to be hit hard. If this stat is true, there has to be more to it.

[AlbertCat]

34. mostly northern, mostly blue state residents.

Yes.

In the South, they just buy states that voted for Obama, like NC, and then destroy them.

[Nevernose]

39. The cuts go to people getting hearing oil assistance

There's a "loophole" that says you get food stamps if you get heating oil assistance, even if you wouldn't otherwise qualify for food stamps. The nine billion (over ten years) comes to cutting food stamps to people who get minimal heating oil assistance -- like $15 a month -- and then get hundreds in food stamps. Again, these are people who make enough money so that they wouldn't otherwise get food stamps.

I'm assuming that most people who use hearing oil live in the north, and therefore live in blue states. Or such is my theory.

For the record, I raised my kid for the first couple of years on food stamps, and you won't find anyone on DU who is more supportive.

[xxqqqzme]

44. California is one of the

states - no heating oil here.

[JanT]

2. i guess i am a little naive

but how can you target states under a federal program? i guess i don't understand how the system works. if the REPUGlicans do this, then the word needs to go viral and fast. This is reprehensible to say the least and a direct attack on those states that voted in Obama. Just when i thought they couldn't stoop any lower, they have proven me wrong. them all.

[Mass]

4. because it aims the heat and eat program, that is mostly used in Northern blue states

with the old system, $1 of help for heating qualified you for food stamps. With the new farm bill, the limit is $20.


This is not a conspiracy per se, as some Democrats in states who do not use heat and eat wanted it abolished as well, and this is a battle that has been going on for years now, but it happens that those are blue states mostly.

[SunSeeker]

8. Thanks for explanation.

So is the new $20 limit only going to disqualify someone from food stamps who would have been disqualified anyway if they were living in a state that does not use heat and eat much, such as CA?

[JanT]

12. thanks for the explanation nt

[questionseverything]

26. if i understand it, the old law

in those 15 states if you received $1 in heating assistance you also received EXTRA food stamps...

[Wounded Bear]

3. "Blue" states tend to be the most populous...

and have the biggest urban poor populations.

I'm not so sure this is completely "targeted" in a conspiracy sense. There are just fewer food stamp recipients in red states.

[progressoid]

11. As a percentage of their population, red states use more food stamps

http://chartsbin.com/view/1403

[YoungDemCA]

17. Yet red states tend to also be less populous than blue states

IOW: You are both right.

[Bill USA]

56. found a tabular listing of SNAP participation by state and it allows you to sort by any column, such

as by participation rate - percent of population participating in SNAP.

the top 10 states plus District of Columbia are:

District of Columbia
Mississippi
Oregon
New Mexico
Tennessee
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Alabama
South Carolina

link:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303740704577521243878663480?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303740704577521243878663480.html

[stillwaiting]

5. I despise Republicans.

With every fiber of my being.

They are the most vile, nasty, greedy, hypocritical creatures by far. I mean, we're all hypocrites to some extent, but they are just off the charts.

Now I need to go meditate.

[kairos12]

7. I feel exactly the way you do, but I don't meditate. Probably a problem.

[bvar22]

20. I share that,

....but also include "Centrist" Democrats who seek Common Ground with these fanatics.

THATS the problem I have with "Centrist" Democrats;
they agree with Republicans too damned much.

[Roy Rolling]

28. Good pernt

The hammering propaganda from the right is to scare people away from identifying as liberal. But there is nothing wrong with being liberal. Politicians who try to walk the fence on this are really saying they are intimidated. And if they are so weak-kneed as to hand the propagandists victory, it makes them suspect as to whether they can have enough backbone to fight for liberal values and withstand the temptation of big-money lobbyists.

[freebrew]

52. I remember when the current centrist position....

was labelled extreme Right Wing. Now the really weird kooks are getting elected because of the likes of Drugbo and the dick Bros.

[blm]

6. Chris Christie style of governance. It's the Republican Way.

What makes this so different than the way Christie was targeting Sandy recovery funds?

[CoffeeCat]

10. Plenty of things will hurt Dem voting in the next General Election...

I am unclear about how the blue states are being targeted in these new rounds of cuts, but it
wouldn't be surprising.

We are seeing a confluence of changes/cuts/legislation/policies that will have a very serious
chilling effect on Dem voting in the next General Election. What? Did we actually think that the
bully Republicans wouldn't do this?

In my state of Iowa, our Republican tea-party Secretary of State is all ready ramping up stories about illegals who voted. The PR game has begun, because they're going to try to pass Voter ID here in Iowa, an important swing state that usually produces a very close vote. Many other states are doing the same thing. Our POS SOS spent 200k trying to find voter fraud to justify Voter ID. He found TWO cases. But that hasn't stopped him.

Voter ID will have a horrendous chilling effect on Dem voting. The elderly and young people, but mostly--the poor. Many people who are poor gave given up their cars and now rely on public transportation. There's no need for them to have a driver's license. Getting an ID is a pain. It costs money, it's an entire day at the DMV.

Furthermore, if the poor are pushed to the brink of desperation--with cuts to food and other programs--they're not going to have much motivation to vote. They will sink further into their negative situations and be in survival mode. Anyone really think that these cuts in programs aren't a part of this grand, overall scheme to affect the elections? No poor person, in their right mind, would vote for a Republican. Republicans know this. They'll stomp the poor into inaction with everything they've got.

Remember last year when Glenn Beck organized legions of his followers to show up at polling places and intimidate others at the pools who "looked like they may be illegal"? You can bet there will be more schemes like this. Maybe one scheme might not work, but they've got dozens and dozens of approaches planned. Remember the guy who was caught registering Dems and then throwing their filled registration cards in a dumpster? Yeah. It's stuff like that.

This is why the repeal of the Voter Rights Act happened.

They can't win a Presidential election anymore, with their numbers. And they know it. Minorities are the majority in this country now--and Dems have 90 percent of the African American vote and 80 percent of the Hispanic vote. They're in the processes of scaring the hell out of most women. Who is left? The rich white guys and the teasshats. They've got to lie, cheat and legislate unfairness--in order to win a GE.

Not surprising at all. IN fact, look for more shenanigans like this.

[Enthusiast]

50. Good post!

[rocktivity]

14. Not shocking at all

rocktivity

[seveneyes]

15. Where does it say red states are not part of the same cut?

There is no link or statement that I can see where only blue states are getting cut? I'm thinking a federal bill applies to all 50 states.

[MH1]

24. Yes, that is my problem with this post as well.

I'm not saying the statement is false, but I want to understand what the mechanism is. The dailykos link goes to a petition, not a regular post that has comments where this might be answered. Someone upthread mentioned a "heat and eat" program but I would like to see a little more detail.

[pecwae]

48. Somewhere there's a breakdown

in the information at that link. I'm in non-profit work in a red state and the cuts have impacted our clients substantially.

[okaawhatever]

16. this story, or email, is short on info and long on hyperbole. The bill the Senate passed closes a

loophole in the way some states calculate the heat and eat program. From what I understand, a person who qualifies for the heat and eat program qualifies for more food stamps. What some states did was give families $1 in heat and eat money so they would qualify for more food stamps. The cost to the individual state was $1 but the federal food stamp program ended up paying more than it would if the people resided in another state. I think many people found this unfair and that is why some Democrats signed off on the "cut".

I also saw an article that said if people can prove the cost of their heating bills the cut may not affect them anyway. That is why many of the articles said "it could affect up to 850k families" instead of "it would..."

While I despise Republicans, and I think we should have kept the temporary increase that Obama had in one of the recovery packages, I do think that all states should calculate need the same way. Now, if the food stamp program doesn't adequately account for increased heating needs in colder states, that's a different argument.

[MH1]

25. Thank you, I appreciate the reality check.

Looks like most people are just accepting the words in the o.p. without questioning.

[Ellipsis]

27. ^^^ THIS ^^^

[Spitfire of ATJ]

18. Same petty retribution as Chris Christie.

[RoccoR5955]

19. Mark my words, this will come back to bite them

Eventually the people WILL stand up and not take this fecal matter any more!

[IrishAyes]

21. Repugs know that for a long time, crushing the poor into submission really works.

Until it doesn't anymore, and produces one helluva explosion. Then it's Katie bar the door. They think they can deflect it if it happens, but there's no way to contain the rage of desperation. It could be another French revolution.

[NaturalHigh]

31. My favorite professor in college...

told us that the rich are wary of the middle class because that is the group that has traditionally spearheaded revolutions (even though the poor do the majority of the actual fighting when it goes down). Since that lecture, I've always wondered if that was why there has been such a concerted effort to whittle down the middle class.

[IrishAyes]

36. Cut off the head of anyone who stands above the crowd, that's what despots have

always done. One good thing - sooner or later it backfires.

BTW, who was your professor? What year and college? Coming from my background, I already had resistance bred into me. But that's another reason some of the 'Christian' right (ain't no such thing) disparage education, especially the higher sort; too many radicalize their youth. I don't think of these fundie colleges as institutions of higher learning at all.

Have you by any chance read Jack London's 'Iron Heel'? A bit dated of course, but still a great read.

[NaturalHigh]

37. Dr. Geoffrey Hunt

At the time, he was at Columbia College (Denver). This was in 1994 - 95. The lecture about the rich being wary of the middle class was in one of his Western Civilization classes (can't remember which one).

He's the department chair at Community College of Aurora now.

http://www.ccaurora.edu/programs-classes/departments/social-sciences/history

I've never read Iron Heel, but I'll look it up.

[Liberalynn]

22. Will contact Gillibrand and Schumer's office tomorrow

about cutting food stamps in general. It's wrong period.

[blkmusclmachine]

23. Coincidence, or political warfare? And what are the DEMS gonna do about it, except the usual -->

"NOTHING."

[Igel]

30. Partial cuts.

http://frac.org/leg-act-center/farm-bill-2012/

Limit state SNAP coordination with LIHEAP (heat and eat) payments ($8.7 billion Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimate);
•850,000 households – which include 1.7 million people – could lose $90 in SNAP per month.

Restrict the state Categorical Eligibility option to conform to asset and gross income tests ($11.6 billion cut – CBO estimate);
•1.8 million individuals per year could lose SNAP benefits;
•210,000 low-income children could lose free school meal access.

Eliminate area waivers for certain jobless, childless adults without dependents (Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents, or “ABAWDs”), thereby cutting off SNAP benefits even when jobs are scarce ($19 billion cut– CBO estimate);
•Cuts 1.7 million unemployed, childless adults in 2014 who live in areas of high unemployment; after 2014 this number will average 1 million a year over the coming decade.

Allow states to cut low-income families off SNAP when they cannot find work or a training slot for sufficient hours (Southerland Amendment). This provision would reward states with large sums of unrestricted funding if they cut off families from SNAP because the parents, through no fault of their own, cannot find jobs. Note: The CBO was not able to project how many households would be affected by this provision.




PDF for effects of severing SNAP/LIHEAP (same organization, and my thinking is it's the source for the Koz page):
http://frac.org/pdf/snap_cuts_and_heat_and_eat.pdf


The reason for severing SNAP/LIHEAP:
http://www.themainewire.com/2012/03/heat-eat-increasing-food-stamp-benefits-thousands/

The last article admires the SNAP/LIHEAP connection and is proud that Maine was a leader in circumventing Federal welfare reforms. Which explains the disparity: States that sent out minimal LIHEAP checks for the purpose of ensuring that citizens got increased SNAP benefits and circumventing the Clinton welfare reforms are far more likely to be blue than red. Seriously--sending a $1 check and leverage that for $600 or more in deductions that increase SNAP benefits is gaming the system. Being able to do it once every 5 years is some serious "leveraging".

Note, though, that the ABAWD cuts are bigger. They can't be portrayed as a partisan attack, so they (and the 3rd large category) are ignored. As for the partisan attack, it's an "attack" only in that it closes a loophole that strongly benefits one group of states and ignores most others. And it's an attack that had quite a bit of (D) support, making it a bipartisan attack.

[Quantess]

33. That is appalling.

Really egregious.

[W.J. McCabe]

35. Another win for the Republicans.

It makes me sick.

[aggiesal]

38. How did they calculate 97% ?

Nothing in the article shows how they came up with this figure.

[progressoid]

40. Agreed.

It would be nice to know how they arrived at this conclusion.

[JNelson6563]

41. MI is only blue on WH and Senate. Otherwise blood red.

But I see we're on the list. Snyder probably happily volunteered us.

Julie

[ReRe]

42. I wonder....

.... if PO knows about this? Will it actually get to his desk? Will he sign it if it does? Holy Moely.

[NYFlip]

43. Got an e-mail from him

Just signed the petition

[Cha]

45. Chris Christie tried shit like this and it didn't go over

so hot.

How the hell do they cut SNAP benefits from some states and not the others?

[raven mad]

46. Um. Duh.

This is a surprise to anyone, at all?

[davidthegnome]

47. Disturbing.

Living here in Maine, I have a pretty good idea of how expensive heating oil can be. My parents, average working middle class, pay about 600 per month or more. I've seen the heating bill when oil is delivered - and it always makes me wince. There's no way on earth I could pay that much myself. I couldn't even pay half of that and still survive every month. Another reason why so many adult Americans are back at home living with their parents, like me.

We don't get food stamps or heating assistance, because my parents earn enough that we don't need it. Yet. I wonder though, about families and individuals who do get both heating assistance and food stamps. The people this cut is going to hurt. Does it occur to our "democrats" in congress and the senate that the people who can least afford to survive are those who will be hurt most by this? It's not like those who get this kind of assistance are living rich - they're barely getting by.

Whatever their reasoning - I will not support a democrat, any democrat, who votes in favor of this nonsense. Yes, they shrunk the potential cut from closer to 20 billion... but at this point in time, no cut to food stamps is acceptable. Period. The poor and the working poor are just barely struggling by as it is. Whatever the rationale, whatever the reasoning of those who are willing to hurt the poor, I will never stand with them, regardless of what letter appears beside their name.

[n2doc]

51. And democrats and Obama just go along with it

Really, it is as if they don't want to help their supporters at all.

And people wonder why turnout is down.

[old man 76]

53. The obvious

The blue states are the ones they worry about. Not states like Texas where Billy Bob's family is receiving food stamps but he will vote Republican because he knows the Democrats are after his gun.

[Myrina]

54. Klobuchar: "It doesn't affect my state so I'm ok with it"

Last week post-SOTU on MSNBC.

Attitudes like that are as reprehensible as the GOP's.

[blackspade]

55. I'm not in one of the 16

But I think cutting food stamps at all is an all out assault on the working poor.
Defeating these cuts would be an utter win for the Democratic Party.
I have no idea why this bill doesn't get sunk, especially since it adds to the corporate agro give-aways.

[City Lights]

57. I DESPISE Republicans!

They are a malignant growth on the planet.