“Since 2008, the cost of SNAP has more than doubled from $34 billion to $74 billion,” complainedRep. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) in a press release defending his vote for a $40 billion cut over 10 years to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, more commonly referred to as the food stamp program. The cuts come at a time when one in seven Americans is utilizing food stamps, as unemployment remains high. As NPR reports, “the vast majority of SNAP recipients either work or are children, disabled or elderly.”
But Cramer was not fazed by these statistics, instead asking on the House floor, “When did America trade the dignity of a job for a culture of permanent dependency?”Given his remarks in favor of Americans pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, one would think that Cramer is a pure fiscal hawk, determined to rein in government spending and make citizens take care of themselves. But the reality is that this congressman has been happy to spend enormous amounts of money on his own district in order to secure his own political future.From 1995 until 2012, his at-large North Dakota district received $10.4 billion in agricultural subsidies from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That makes his district the single largest recipient of farm subsidies in the nation. Keep in mind that the purpose of these subsidies to make the sale of crops competitive.Without them, the recipients would lose their jobs – in other words, the subsidies, 80 percent of which go to big corporate farmers, create exactly the culture of permanent dependency that Cramer complains about. The congressman’s fourth-largest sector of campaign contributions is the crop production and basic processing industry, which has given him $133,040 to run for office.
another two faced republican putting his interest and those who pay him interest before his average constituents. this seems to be a perk they take advantage of to further their careers because those who don't vote for them in other needy states get zip it has tobe a plan because they all do it deny Sandy victims and they get a storm no where near as destructive and they are begging money for their state while turning a deaf ear to other pleading for gov't help.
Cramer is not alone in this hypocrisy. Many other House Republicans who have harshly condemned SNAP recipients and the benefits they receive are huge takers of agricultural subsidies. Rep. Steve King (R-IA) is in a district that has been the third-largest recipient of subsidies, getting more than $9 billion since 1995. In voting for SNAP cuts this week, he ironically claimed that his “Democratic colleagues have long been for expanding the dependency class here in America.”While the biggest proponents of SNAP cuts have been Republicans, this trade-off between agricultural subsidies and hunger assistance is unfortunately not unique to that party. For example, in May, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced an amendment to restore $4 billion in SNAP funding by cutting agricultural subsidies. It failed, netting only 26 votes. Farm-state senators such as Al Franken (D-MN) led the charge in defeating it.
this is one they can say "on both sides". i fail to understand how at some point they have to see or hear this one sided governing and make some noise, they have to have seen that working for those who do it, it makes a difference only because it's a nationwide problem not just affecting those who refuse to stop the abomination of this type of political skulduggery.
they deserve what they get for what they don't fight for, fighting for those who are doing these things is just stupid and affects more than those blind to their own peril.
