NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program SNAP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program SNAP. Show all posts

28 September 2013

Obama's Debt Ceiling Red Line: No Deals 27SEP13

THE repiglicans and tea-baggers are willing to trash the nation for the economic benefit of the plutocracy. The believe it is OK to hold the financial health of the nation hostage to get the legislation their corporate masters want but don't yet have the political power to get passed. Their agenda, their goals, their policies are set by those who have bought and paid for their seats in Congress, and as far as they are concerned the country can go straight to economic hell if they don't get their way. From Mother Jones.....

The president says he won't negotiate. John Boehner says he has to. Who blinks first?

| Fri Sep. 27, 2013 3:00 AM PDT
With the Washington crisis of the week not yet resolved—whether the US government will shut down on Tuesday because GOPers block legislation funding federal agencies—President Barack Obama, at a rally in Largo, Maryland, promoting Obamacare, looked ahead on Thursday morning to the next showdown and issued a hard-and-fast proclamation: "I won't negotiate on anything when it comes to the full faith and credit of the United States of America." Obama was referring to raising the debt ceiling, which will have to be done in the next few weeks (or the US government will default and possibly trigger a financial crisis that could go international). To emphasize that Obama was drop-dead serious about not responding to Republican threats to hold the debt ceiling hostage once again, the White House immediately tweeted out that sentence. The message: This was no off-the-cuff rhetoric.
Earlier in the day, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who's busy trying to concoct a strategy for the more immediate budget crisis, did respond to Obama's no-deal position on the debt ceiling: "I am sorry, it just doesn't work that way." So though it seems at the moment that a government shutdown might be averted next week—if only by a bill that provides for the temporary and short-term continuation of appropriations for the government—a titanic confrontation is looming over the debt ceiling, with the GOPers angling to prevent an expansion of the government's borrowing authority unless Obama agrees to accept deeper spending cuts, defund Obamacare, approve the Keystone XL pipeline, or whatever. This is a fight with higher stakes; a global financial crisis would cause more economic chaos than a short government shutdown. And Obama has been planning for this stare-down for two years, saying publicly and privately that he will not blink. 

In 2011, when the Republicans first seized the debt ceiling as a political hostage, Obama and his economic team felt compelled to negotiate a settlement, out of fear that a default could be a death blow to the slowly recovering economy. Eventually, they settled on a compromise that included spending cuts that included the now infamous sequestration. But at the time, Obama was more eager to draw a line in the sand than his advisers. And his takeaway from the episode was this: never again. He would not let the opposition party blackmail a president in this fashion.
This conviction was evident last year, when the debt ceiling was part of the so-called fiscal cliff. In December, as that tussle was underway, I wrote about the president's thinking on this front:
During a Wednesday morning meeting with business leaders, Obama was blunt: "I want to send a very clear message to people here. We are not going to play that game next year. If Congress in any way suggests that they're going to tie negotiations to debt ceiling votes and take us to the brink of default once again as part of a budget negotiation, which, by the way, we have never done in our history until we did it last year, I will not play that game."
The public comments from [then-Treasury Secretary Timothy] Geithner, Treasury, and the president do not fully reflect how passionate Obama is on this matter. "He really means it," a senior administration official insists. And Obama's top aides have seen him in private display fervor regarding this issue. During a meeting with his senior aides in the middle of the prolonged and heated negotiations in the summer of 2011, Obama let them know that he believed the debt ceiling face-off was in part a fight to save his presidency and those of future chief executives.
At that time, Obama was holding daily bargaining sessions with Republican and Democratic congressional leaders to resolve the debt ceiling crisis and possibly to craft a "grand bargain" budget agreement that would include tax revenue hikes, spending cuts, and reductions in entitlement programs. But with the talks not yielding much progress, Republicans—and some Democrats—were raising the prospect of proceeding with a short-term extension of the debt ceiling. On July 13, 2011, as Obama gathered in the Oval Office with Geithner, then-budget chief Jack Lew, senior economic adviser Gene Sperling, and other aides to prep for the next meeting with the legislators, he drew a line, telling his advisers, "I want to make something clear. I'm not going to accept a short-term extension of the debt." There was no way, he insisted, he would go through this again in 3, 6, or 12 months—certainly not before the next election.
Obama's aides empathized with him but explained that the president might have to yield on this to secure a deal that dodged a default. "I'm not doing it again," Obama said. "This is wrong."
Obama believed a constitutional principle was at stake: If the Republicans could threaten default to get their way on budget issues, it would distort the separation of powers. This was not what the framers of the Constitution intended, he believed. Moreover, it was embarrassing for the United States. He was determined to prevent this scenario from occurring again.
His aides could see that Obama would not bend. He was willing to go to the brink. Toward the end of that day's meeting with Hill leaders, when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor raised the idea of a short-term extension, Obama angrily said, "I'm not going to do it. We're not putting the country through this again. Don't call my bluff."
Through the summer 2011 negotiations, Obama stubbornly held to this position—no repeats of this debt ceiling dance—and the final deal avoided a short-term extension of the debt ceiling. During the fiscal-cliff negotiations at the end of 2012, Obama adopted the same stance, but no all-out battle occurred. The White House and Congress, without much fuss, eventually agreed to a temporary suspension of the debt ceiling. But now the reckoning has returned, and GOPers who fear they may have the weaker hand in the government-shutdown clash are pumped up for another debt ceiling throw-down. Not surprisingly, the Rs are enthusiastically citing polls showing that voters don't support increasing borrowing authority without accompanying spending cuts. But as the 2011 mess demonstrated, Obama was able to shape public opinion by calling out GOP hostage-taking, and at the end of that self-inflicted crisis, which led to the downgrading of the US credit rating, the Republicans fared worse in the polls. No doubt, Obama now thinks he can outmaneuver the Republicans once more. But for Obama this is a rather fundamental fight that he believes must be waged for the benefit of future chief executives and to protect the integrity of the nation's political system.
So is the final confrontation at hand? Obama has stated clearly he will not negotiate with political extremists who would hold the US government and economy hostage. Boehner, who leads a Republican caucus craving confrontation, has proclaimed he expects the president to deal. Something—or someone—has to give. Or not.

Washington Bureau Chief
David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. For more of his stories, click here. He's also on Twitter and FacebookRSS | 

17 July 2013

Allen West says more Americans receive food aid than work in the private sector 8JUL13

HEY FORMER U.S. repiglican / tea-bagger rep allen west, it is this kind of b.s. that lost you your seat in the US House. Your former constituents wised up, it is obvious you haven't. Are you still claiming to be a person of faith while spreading these lies and misinformation???? From PolitiFact....
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
West

"More Americans receive food aid than work in (the) private sector."

Allen West on Monday, July 8th, 2013 in a tweet

Allen West says more Americans receive food aid than work in the private sector

Former U.S. Rep. Allen West, a staunchly conservative Republican who represented a Florida district for one term, recently sent a tweet that resurrected one of the themes used by Mitt Romney and others during the 2012 presidential campaign -- the idea that there are makers and takers in America.
Here’s what West tweeted: "More Americans receive food aid than work in private sector. ‘Fundamental transformation?’ Nope, nation destruction."
The tweet linked to an article in the conservative website CNSNews that provided data to support his claim. The CNSNews article cited a report by the inspector general of the Agriculture Department, which operates most federal food-assistance programs, as well as employment data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The inspector general’s report said that "FNS estimates that a total of 101 million people currently participate in at least one of its programs."
The CNSNews article compared this figure to BLS data showing that there were "97,180,000 full-time private-sector workers in 2012."
However, we see a number of problems with this comparison, and how West framed it.
The employment figure is likely higher than 97 million
We looked at the BLS figures for April 2013 so we could match them to the most recently available figures for participation in food-assistance programs, which are from that month.
According to BLS, 113.6 million Americans had a private-sector job during April 2013. That’s more than the 101 million figure for food assistance.
The CNSNews number -- 97 million -- was smaller because it subtracted part-time workers and used 2012 data, neither of which were qualifications made by West.
The food-assistance number is likely lower than 101 million
For means-tested benefits such as these, it seems plausible that an individual who qualifies for one program may also qualify for another. It would be odd if at least some fraction of children qualifying for a free or reduced-price school breakfast wouldn’t also qualify for a free or reduced-price school lunch, and if some of the these same children didn’t also qualify for food stamps at home.
In fact, studying overlap was actually the whole purpose of the inspector general’s report. It concluded that "the potential for overlap and duplication exists" among the department’s nutrition programs.
But participation in all of these categories is counted separately. No steps were taken to avoid double- or triple-counting people who receive more than one type of food assistance when the 101 million figure was calculated, an approach confirmed to PolitiFact by Agriculture Department spokeswoman Jessica Milteer. "Many participants in our programs are eligible to take advantage of more than one nutrition assistance program," she said.
Here's the breakdown of participation in the food-assistance programs listed on the Agriculture Department’s website:

Program
Participants
Period
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps)
47,548,694
April 2013
National School Lunch Program
30,839,021
April 2013
School Breakfast Program
13,481,128
April 2013
Food aid for adult and child care
3,535,000
Highest month, fiscal 2012
Summer Food Service
2,347,000
Highest month, fiscal 2012
Women-Infants-Children
2,032,248
April 2013
Indian Reservation Food Program
  76,500
All year, fiscal 2012
Commodity Supplemental Food Programs (non-elderly)
17,600
All year, fiscal 2012
Commodity Supplemental Food Programs (elderly)
576,600
All year, fiscal 2012
Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program
863,097
All year, fiscal 2011
WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition
1,900,000
All year fiscal 2011
TOTAL
103,216,888
 

This is quite close to the 101 million cited in the inspector general’s report. If efforts had been taken to weed out overlap between the programs, the figure would be much lower. (Unfortunately, the inspector general’s report didn’t provide an estimate of how much overlap exists.)
The comparison isn’t especially enlightening
The universe of people who could potentially receive food aid is the entire U.S. population. But the universe of people who could potentially hold a private-sector job consists only of those 16 years old and over. And one could easily make that universe smaller by excluding those who are 16 or 17 (and who are supposed to be in school) or those older than 65 (who have reached retirement age).
If you adjust for the differences in the size of these universes, one could easily come to the opposite conclusion than the one West offered.
Using the 101 million figure for food aid, which as we noted is likely overstated, means that about 33 percent of the U.S. population receives food assistance.
By contrast, about 47 percent of people age 16 and up work in the private sector. If you restrict it to people age 18 to 64, the percentage working in the private sector rises to 59 percent.
So, the percentage of working-age people with private-sector jobs is at least twice as high as the percentage of Americans who receive food assistance -- the opposite conclusion to the one West drew.
And a final note: The categories of "employed in the private sector" and "receiving food aid" are not mutually exclusive. According to the department, "over 30 percent of (food stamp) households had earnings in 2011, and 41 percent of all (food stamp) participants lived in a household with earnings."
Our ruling
West tweeted that "more Americans receive food aid than work in (the) private sector."
However, the data West used appears to have undercounted the number of people with a private-sector job and overcounted the number of people receiving food aid. In addition, the comparison isn’t really apples to apples. We rate the claim False.
About this statement:
Published: Wednesday, July 10th, 2013 at 4:15 p.m.
Subjects: JobsPovertyPunditsWorkers
Sources:
Allen West, tweet, July 8, 2013
Agriculture Department Office of Inspector General, "Overlap and Duplication in Food and Nutrition Service’s Nutrition Programs," June 13, 2013
Agriculture Department, monthly participation in SNAP, accessed July 9, 2013
Agriculture Department, monthly participation in child nutrition programs, accessed July 9, 2013
Agriculture Department, monthly participation in WIC, accessed July 9, 2013
Agriculture Department, monthly participation in food-distribution programs, accessed July 9, 2013
Agriculture Department, "WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program Fact Sheet," accessed July 9, 2013
Agriculture Department, "Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program Fact Sheet," accessed July 9, 2013
Agriculture Department, "Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011 Summary," November 2012

Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey" (main index page), accessed July 9, 2013
Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)" (main index page), July 9, 2013
U.S. Census Bureau, "Population by Sex and Selected Age Groups: 2000 and 2010," accessed July 9, 2013
Email interview with Gary Burtless, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, July 9, 2013
Email interview with Tara Sinclair, economist at George Washington University, July 9, 2013
Email interview with Jessica Milteer, spokeswoman for the Agriculture Department, July 10, 2013
Written by: Louis Jacobson
Researched by: Louis Jacobson
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan

24 January 2013

OH SNAP!!!!

OUR tax dollars at work in a good way, and we should be doing more. Nobody in America should be hungry, ever. From the CBO....

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

report
april 19, 2012
read complete document  (pdf, 355 kb)
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides benefits to help people in low-income households purchase food. In fiscal year 2010, households receiving SNAP benefits had annual income (other than those benefits) that averaged about $8,800; SNAP benefits averaged about $4.30 per person per day.

SNAP spending and participation reached record levels in 2011

Nearly 45 million recipients, one out of every seven U.S. residents, received SNAP benefits in an average month in fiscal year 2011. Total federal spending for the program was $78 billion.
SNAP Figure 1

Spending on SNAP benefits grew by about 135 percent between 2007 and 2011

Spending growth was driven by increases in the number of people receiving benefits and by increases in benefit amounts per person.
  • About 65 percent of growth came from an increase in the number of people receiving benefits. That increase was driven primarily by the weak economy.
  • About 20 percent of growth can be attributed to temporarily higher benefit amounts. That increase was legislated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
  • The final 15 percent of growth stems from other factors, such as higher food prices and lower income among beneficiaries, both of which boosted benefits.
SNAP Figure 2

The number of SNAP beneficiaries will rise through 2014 and then decline

The number of people who receive SNAP benefits will continue to rise before beginning to decline at the end of 2014, according to CBO’s March 2012 projections. By 2022, CBO projects that about 34 million people each month (or about 1 in 10 U.S. residents) will receive SNAP benefits, and SNAP expenditures will decline to about $73 billion.

Options for changing SNAP policy

CBO examined the budgetary effects of various changes to SNAP, including these:
  • Changes to the program’s eligibility rules that could alter the number of people participating in the program,
  • Changes to the program’s rules that could modify benefit amounts,
  • Changes to the administrative costs of the program, and
  • Changes to the program’s funding, such as switching SNAP to a block grant.
  • http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43173?wpisrc=nl_wonk