If one was looking for fiery, crowd pleasing, political rhetoric from former Speaker Newt Gingrich as he addressed CPAC today, they were likely disappointed. What Gingrich did do was run through a litany of policy solutions he claimed he has committed to implement immediately upon taking office in January of 2013.

Contrasting an America that can versus an America that can’t, Gingrich compared America’s speed and might in winning WWII versus her current inability to seal its own border. In a lighter moment, the former Speaker contrasted the efficiency of package tracking by Federal Express with the government’s inability to track illegal immigrants, suggesting sending each one a package may be the best way to apprehend the latter.

He also mentioned repealing Obamacare, Dodd Frank, and Sarbanes Oxley on his first day in office. He stated his desire to be a “paycheck president” versus a “food stamp president,” a term he used to denigrate Barack Obama.

Calling for a Fall campaign focused on substance, Gingrich also mentioned eliminating the Capital Gains tax and implementing 100% expensing for all new equipment written off in one year to help get the economy growing. Additionally, he called for a modernization of the workforce, proposing that unemployment compensation be linked to business training programs to avoid paying people for 99 weeks “for doing nothing.” (more…)

That great phrase was coined by the late Jack Kemp, who believed that growth and opportunity for all is the answer to poverty. In fact, Kemp believed it was the answer to all things economic. And he was right. The best anti-poverty program is the one that creates jobs. The answer to large budget deficits? Grow the economy, create jobs, watch incomes rise, and let the tax revenues come rolling in.

Partly from Jack Kemp’s work, and partly from his own experience, Ronald Reagan believed the same thing. He knew that growth is the single best solution for our economic ailments. And neither Reagan nor Kemp saw the world in terms of specific income classes or categories. They looked at the whole economy and realized that everyone is tied together. Dragging down the top earners will not help the middle class. And providing an ever larger safety net will not solve poverty. Reagan believed in the safety net, and maintained it. But he knew it was a stop-gap, not a solution.

Does Mitt Romney understand this?

The worry stems from Romney’s ill-advised statement this week. He said, “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.” That raises doubts as to whether he understands the Reagan-Kemp model. Perhaps he does. But he will have to tell us more.

(more…)

Over the last three years, the number of Americans on food stamps has skyrocketed by two-thirds and stands at a record-high 46 million citizens, or one out of every seven people in the United States.  Despite the historic rise in food stamp use, however, the Obama Administration believes not enough people are receiving food stamps who should be and is offering $75,000 grants to groups who devise “effective strategies” to “increase program participation” among those who have yet to sign up.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s website singles out Hispanics and elderly Americans as groups who often fail to enroll in the food stamp program (officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP) and says  that one of the contributing factors that must be overcome to get more people to sign up for SNAP benefits is individual “pride”:

There are many reasons why eligible people, including seniors and Hispanics, do not participate in the SNAP. These include unawareness of eligibility, confusion about program rules and requirements, a complex application process, and a lack of transportation and pride.

To reduce these “barriers” to food stamp enrollment, the Department of Agriculture offers non-profit groups the chance to receive $75,000 grants for projects designed to boost food stamp participation among those who are eligible but have yet to sign up.  The Department of Agriculture believes that the SNAP program is “severely underutilized” and says that 33 percent more Americans who are eligible to receive food stamps have yet to apply, thus the need to offer federal grants to sign more citizens up.

(more…)

I’ve written a couple of times about the Food Stamp program, citing ridiculous examples of waste, fraud, and abuse. These include:

• Using food stamps to buy luxury coffee at Starbucks.
• Buying steaks and lobster with food stamps.
• The Obama Administration rewarding states that sign up more food stamp recipients.
• Proposals to make it easier to use food stamps at fast food restaurants.
• College kids scamming the program for handouts.
• New York City giving food stamps to newly released prisoners and running foreign-language ads encouraging more people to sign up for the program.

As a taxpayer, I get upset about these examples. But as a public policy economist, I’m much more worried about the fiscal and economic impact of the program.

As a human being, though, my primary concern is the way redistribution saps the spirit of self reliance and traps people into lives of dependency. That’s the very first point I make in this debate on CNBC.

By the way, my opponent in the debate is Jared Bernstein, who is infamous for being the co-author of the Obama Administration claim that enacting the s0-called stimulus would keep the unemployment rate from rising above 8 percent.

I’ve had lots of fun mocking that claim. Every couple of months I post Jared’s predictions and compare them to the real-world results.

(more…)

In a FOX News interview on Monday, Rep. Allen West (R-FL) defended former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s contention that President Barack Obama is the best “food stamp president” America has ever seen, a charge that some Democrats have argued is laced with racial undertones.

There is no race code. It’s a fact. Since President Obama has been in the Oval Office, you’ve seen a 41 percent increase in the food stamp recipients in the United States of America.  We have a president that’s making more American victims rather than victors.

Rep. West also pointed out that Mr. Obama’s failed economic policies have driven many more Americans into poverty:

We also have a 16 percent increase in Americans on the poverty roll — 6.4 million more Americans are on poverty since President Obama took office.

The Florida congressman’s comments come as Republican efforts led by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) are underway to increase oversight of the food stamp program (officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program–or SNAP) amid concerns that there may be what the Wall Street Journal has dubbed a “food stamp crime wave” emerging in the United States.

Indeed, under Mr. Obama, the number of Americans now on food stamps has jumped two-thirds since Mr. Obama was elected.  That means one out of every seven people in the United States now receive taxpayer-funded food stamps.

(more…)

Attention, Juan Williams – don’t presume that you speak for Eddie Slaughter when you accuse Newt Gingrich of dog whistle racism for his statements on food stamps and America’s work ethic. Readers of BigGovernment will remember Eddie Slaughter as the South Georgia farmer was gone on record talking about Pigford fraud and how his Congressman, representative Sanford Bishop tried to cover up that fraud. Mr. Slaughter had personal and political dealings with Newt Gingrich years ago that run very counter to the narrative that Juan Williams was trying to push during the recent presidential debate on Fox, as revealed in an interview I did with  Mr. Slaughter this morning.

Mr. Slaughter originally told me about his positive dealings with Gingrich about a year ago, when he both spoke at a press conference at CPAC about the Pigford settlement. Before Pigford became a vast fraud scheme benefiting attorneys and the political class, it began as a legitimate effort by a small group of black farmers to fight discrimination at the hands of the federal government. The issue for the farmers was that the statute of limitations was very short and because the civil rights office of the USDA had been shut down, there had been no real way to report any discrimination for close to 15 years. In order for the bona fide black farmers like Mr. Slaughter to file suit, they would need an extension of the statute limitations.

The black farmers approachedNewt Gingrich to get support. Now, according to the Juan Williams school of thought, Speaker Gingrich was Republican and therefore a presumed racist. Mr. Slaughter told a very different story however. When asked directly about in my interview he said, “I feel that he was more sincere than most in Washington DC.” And “I think he was more fair than most people running for office, from what know about him personally.”

(more…)

With members of the mainstream media now hurling charges of using racially coded language against GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, Big Government has uncovered a private memorandum written over three decades ago that offers a unique glimpse into Mr. Gingrich’s longstanding attitudes about race.

The private memo, dated July 1, 1980, was written by Mr. Gingrich on his official House of Representatives stationery and was sent to then-candidate Ronald Reagan’s campaign manager, Bill Casey, who would later become President Reagan’s CIA Director.

In the memo, Mr. Gingrich urges Governor Reagan’s campaign to reconsider its decision not to speak to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Convention.

“This is a great opportunity to prove that a conservative Republican can speak to the hearts and pocketbooks of Black Americans,” Gingrich urged in the memo.

The memorandum goes on to explain that a decision not to speak at the NAACP convention would insult African American voters and be a “tragedy” for the nation:

Many middle class Black Americans who would vote for Reagan will be insulted by his non-attendance.  I urge you to schedule the speech and talk about Kemp’s Inner City Jobs Bill, which Kilpatrick and George Will have both endorsed as acceptably conservative.

Failure to attend the NAACP convention will be a tragedy for Gov. Reagan and the country.  Symbolic events are vital.  Thank you for considering this.

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech discuss last night’s testy debate in South Carolina, Newt’s battle with Juan Williams, and the millions of Americans on government hand out programs.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Rivals attack Romney in testy debate
Video: Newt Gingrich vs. Juan Williams
Ben: Be it resolved …
Over 46 Million Americans On Foodstamps For The First Time Ever

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter

Subscribe to The Transom

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.

Continuing his fight against costly food stamp fraud and abuse, Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has sent a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack requesting an immediate explanation of the USDA’s oversight procedures combating food stamp fraud.

Sen. Sessions’s move came in response to a USDA press release announcing “new tactics to combat fraud and enhance SNAP program integrity.”

As Sen. Sessions explains in his letter:

I have a responsibility on behalf of taxpayers to hold federal agencies accountable for how public funds are being spent. I would therefore ask that the Committee be immediately provided with a thorough explanation of all oversight actions your Department is taking, as well as a list of recommended federal reforms that would reduce waste, inefficiency, and abuse in the food stamp program. I would further ask for a follow-up report within the next sixty days detailing the findings of all oversight that USDA will have conducted….Unmonitored welfare programs, over time, can hurt the very people we are seeking to help. Our goal is not only to improve the outlook for our indebted Treasury, but to help needy Americans achieve a better future through work and personal development.

Annually, the nation’s food stamp program–officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)–costs taxpayers $89 billion, a figure that has more than doubled under President Barack Obama.   The number of Americans receiving food stamps has skyrocketed in recent years.  Today, 46 million Americans–1 out of 7 citizens–receive food stamps, a jump of more than two-thirds prior to Mr. Obama’s vast expansion of the program. (more…)

As we enter 2012, the presidential candidates would do well to wrap their minds and messages around these seven mathematical facts:

1. Every day, the U.S. government takes in $6 billion and spends $10 billion.  This means that every day the federal government spends $4 billion more dollars than it has.
2. The real unemployment rate is a jaw-dropping 11 percent.
3. Every fifth man you pass on your way to work is now out of work.
4. College graduates are now 34% less likely to find a job under Obama than they were under President George W. Bush.
5. Every seventh person you pass on the sidewalk now relies on food stamps.
6. The ravages of the Obama economy now mean that more Americans live under the federal poverty line than at any time in U.S. history since records have been kept.
7. Under President Barack Obama, every fifth child in America now lives in poverty.

These are not partisan jabs, manufactured statistics, or ideological swipes.  These are mathematical facts.  And the presidential candidate who can most clearly and credibly articulate them—and their concomitant solutions—is bound to win.

Why?  Because these facts point toward the solutions America must implement to avert the kinds of economic and social upheaval seen in Europe and elsewhere.

Start with mathematical fact number one—deficit spending.  No person, family, business, or nation can spend more than it takes in and remain sustainable; it defies the simple laws of math and reason.  And yet even as Washington hemorrhages $4 billion more than it has each day, citizens have watched as the farce that is “Super Committee” has proven it cannot even shave $1.2 trillion from America’s $15 trillion debt.

(more…)

With a record 46 million Americans now receiving food stamps and rampant abuse resulting in what the Wall Street Journal calls a “food stamp crime wave,” Nation reporter Lizzie Ratner believes that “deep racism” is “at the heart of conservative food stamp critiques”:

The deep racism at the heart of conservative food stamp critiques offers at least one clue as to why the Obama administration has been unable or unwilling to champion SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] as a valuable recession antidote: as the nation’s first African-American president, Obama is vulnerable to racist innuendo, which his opponents are only too happy to exploit.

Furthermore, Ms. Ratner contends that “the food stamp program has remained surprisingly sensitive to people’s needs” and “is, in many ways, a model entitlement program.”  Still, says Ms. Ratner, the food stamp program’s benefit levels are too “stingy,” and sensible anti-fraud efforts to reform the program, such as those proposed by Sen. Jeff Sessions, can only be the result of racism.

Equally troubling, Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican with a record of racebaiting, led a charge in the Senate this past fall to “reform” food stamps by restricting eligibility and undoing a planned $9 billion budget increase, supposedly to crack down on fraud and government excess.

Ms. Ratner’s baseless racial attack obscures an otherwise noble effort: Sen. Sessions’s amendment was an attempt to save taxpayers billions in mismanaged funds resulting from so-called “categorical eligibility”–a provision that makes recipients of other federal benefits automatically eligible for food stamps.

(more…)

I spent a few hours with the “occupiers” in Los Angeles. Most of them were dirty, confused, and spent a lot of time fighting with one another. Right before we left, someone offered $150 of “emergency” taxpayer funded food stamps to all the “occupy” vagrants. Newsflash: your poor planning doesn’t constitute an emergency. Again we have the 53% who do pay taxes paying for the poor choices of the members of the 47% who don’t pay taxes.

Typical Marxist thinking in action, right before your very eyes. To them, this is what “democracy” looks like.

(more…)

From AgWeek:

WASHINGTON — Despite his earlier statements that the Obama administration would let Congress write the next farm bill, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack commented Oct. 3 and 4 on several sections of the bill…

…Vilsack said in the interview he is reluctant to cut the food stamp program, saying that its budget authority already was reduced to pay for teacher salaries and to make settlements for farmers who had sued USDA for discrimination in the Pigford II case.

(more…)

The Center for Freedom and Prosperity has released another “Economics 101″ video, and this one has a very powerful message about the federal government’s so-called War on Poverty.

As explained by Hadley Heath of the Independent Women’s Forum, the various income redistribution schemes being imposed by Washington are bad for taxpayers – and bad for poor people.

The video has a plethora of useful information, but the data on the poverty rate is particularly compelling. Prior to the War on Poverty, the United States was getting more prosperous with each passing year and there were dramatic reductions in the level of destitution.

But once the federal government got involved in the mid-1960s, the good news evaporated. Indeed, the poverty rate has basically stagnated for the past 40-plus years, usually hovering around 13 percent depending on economic conditions.

Another remarkable finding in the video is that poor people in America rarely suffer from material deprivation. Indeed, they have wide access to consumer goods that used to be considered luxuries – and they also have more housing space than the average European (and with Europe falling apart, the comparisons presumably will become even more noteworthy).

The most important message of the video, however, is that small government and economic freedom are the best answers for poverty.

(more…)

Democrats and Progressives are always screaming that requiring voters to show a photo ID at the polls is discriminatory to minorities and the poor. The argument was always laughable on its face. As far as I can tell, photo IDs have nearly universal adoption; you need one to do just about anything. Write or cash a check, drive a car or, funny now that you mentioned it, apply for government benefits specifically designed to help the poor.

Food Stamp relief

As the press has reported, thousands of poor and low-income residents in Philadelphia are lining up to get supplemental food stamps to compensate for damages from Hurricane Irene last month. Theoretically, water damage from the storm may have destroyed food already purchased with food stamps. So, the government will give folks some extra food stamps to make up for the loss.

But, to get the benefits, in addition to proving storm damage, recipients will have to show a photo ID and prove they are residents of Philadelphia. In fact, in the application for benefits posted above, it is the FIRST requirement. Neither of which they have to do to vote.

(more…)

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has officially joined a prestigious list of Democrat economic geniuses that believe entitlement programs stimulate the economy.

First there was Nancy Pelosi who said, “Now, let me say about unemployment insurance…this is one of the biggest stimuluses [sic] to our economy. Economists will tell you this money is spent quickly. It injects demand into the economy, and is job creating.”

Excuse me Nancy, isn’t cash obtained in a liquor store heist also spent quickly, and couldn’t theft be considered a job creator for cops, the courts, and prison personnel?

Even still, Mrs. Pelosi contends unemployment insurance “creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name because, again, it is money that is needed for families to survive, and it is spent. So it has a double benefit. It helps those who have lost their jobs, but it also is a job creator.”

President Obama, the man who has also proven to be a fiscal whiz kid, concurs with Pelosi that the extension of unemployment benefits is “good for the entire economy.”  Obama said “It’s probably the biggest boost that we can give an economy because those folks are most likely to spend the money with businesses, and that gives them customers.”

(more…)

It’s already happening – the liberal dream of a perpetual social welfare state where deadbeat liberal constituencies feed off of the work of productive conservative citizens in perpetuity is dying.  There’s no doubt about that; the only question left is how long and hard the process will be as the hideous leviathan the utopian liberal establishment has created convulses and dies.

It’s going to die hard.  And ugly.

The collapse is well-underway in Europe – Greece has gone from the cradle of democracy to a cesspool of union-fueled mobs – but America faces the same trauma.  As the contradictions inherent in the vision of a societal plan based on the notion that an ever-expanding pool of Democratic-voting serfs sucking the wealth away from the mostly Republican-oriented producers who labored to create it become more apparent, the reactions and rear-guard efforts of the terminal liberal elite will grow more extreme.

We are already seeing the liberal elite lash out in anger and frustration at what is a perfect storm of failure.  Glenn Reynolds, the legendary Instapundit, chronicles the daily disintegration, while the brilliant Mark Steyn’s cheery new book, After America: Get Ready for Armageddon, drops on August 8, 2011 – I’ll race you to Amazon to get a copy.

As the three components of the liberal establishment – the media, the unions and politicians – rage at the dying of the liberal light, the insanity meter will swing far into the red.  It’s already begun.  The Tea Party has dared to speak the truth, and the uncomfortable realities it has pointed out have destroyed the bogus consensus that has allowed the debt Titanic to sail giddily on toward the iceberg.  That’s why the establishment response is to demonize the popular movement.  We’re “terrorists” or “lunatics” or, bizarrely, “hobbits.”  Our crime is telling the truth.

(more…)

By now, you likely have heard of Dr. David Ludwig, Harvard professor and child obesity specialist at Children’s Hospital in Boston. He and attorney and research partner Lindsey Murtagh authored a piece in the Journal of the American Medical Association suggesting that severely obese children might require the government to remove them from custody of their parents.

If this doesn’t convince you that liberals support a nanny state, nothing will.

As a child psychologist with over 20 years of experience, I can say with supreme confidence that taking a child from his or her parents is almost always traumatic. Sometimes it is justified, of course; in cases of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse, the child is sometimes far better off living without the offending parent. Similarly, when a parent evidences a profound inability to provide the basic needs of a child, the child might be safer with a relative or, rarely, with a foster parent. But removing a child from the home because the parent doesn’t adequately assist the child in losing weight? This is nothing short of ridiculous.

Such a proposal includes several dangerous messages. First, the messages to children: your parents are so screwed up that they can’t take care of you. They aren’t good enough for you and you aren’t good enough to stay with them. Second, the messages to parents:  ultimately, you do not control the destiny of your child; the government does.  Also, the state has the right to take your children away if you don’t get their weight (or other variables) under control. Third, the message to departments of child protective services: now you have more power to control parents and children. Finally, the message to taxpayers: you will now bear the burden of paying for a state-run juvenile weight-loss program.

(more…)

In early December, Congress passed the Child Nutrition Act of 2010 (The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act); however, controversy still surrounds the bill regarding the cuts to the food stamp fund in order to pay for the act.

With a record number of Americans receiving food stamps as this WSJ report highlights, are those cuts to the fund such a good idea?  From the WSJ:

Some 42.9 million people collected food stamps last month, up 1.2% from the prior month and 16.2% higher than the same time a year ago, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Nationwide 14% of the population relied on food stamps as of September but in some states the percentage was much higher. In Washington, D.C., Mississippi and Tennessee – the states with the largest share of citizens receiving benefits – more than a fifth of the population in each was collecting food stamps.

With Obama signing the bill, it is noted that Democrats were not happy with the looting of the food stamp fund:

The major snag was over how to fund healthier school meals and related programs. The deal called for cuts in future food stamp benefits, which alarmed members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Rouse met with CBC members at a White House session to listen to their concerns, and President Obama dropped in for a quick visit. In the end, the White House pledged at some future time to deal with the food stamp issue.

Medicare is broke.  A record number of Americans are on food stamps thanks to all of the economic stimulus being thrown around by the Obama administration and congressional Democrats.  So, what do Democrats do when they are finished looting Medicare; they move on to the next and hope no one notices.  Not so.  The Hill reports the Democrats’ plan for the Child Nutrition Act and the best way to fund Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move“  initiative is noted as:

The House will soon consider an $8 billion child nutrition bill that’s at the center of the first lady’s “Let’s Move” initiative. Before leaving for the summer recess, the Senate passed a smaller version of the legislation that is paid for by trimming the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps.

The proposed cuts would come on top of a 13.6 percent food stamp reduction in the $26 billion Medicaid and education state funding bill that President Obama signed this week.

Food stamps have made multiple appearances on the fiscal chopping block because Democrats have few other places to turn to offset the cost of legislation.

Obviously, cutting the food stamp program when it’s needed is irresponsible on the part of the Democrats.  So, then we must ask, what are the other motivating factors within the Let’s Move program and the Child Nutrition Act and who ultimately benefits?

It’s difficult to ignore the front-group for the SEIU, the Campaign for Quality Services, a major supporter of the Act and states the following on its website:

(more…)