Not Obama’s standard

This should be Obama's standard for SNAP--not how many people he has added, but how many don't need it anymore.

During the last five years, the SNAP program grew by 36.8%, from $58,223,790,000 in 2009 to $79,641,880,000 in 2013. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/record-20-households-food-stamps-2013#sthash.rIiq4riE.dpuf

However, the number on food stamps decreased in 2012 and 2013 as the economy improved, despite the recruitment for more participants.

In the U.S., hunger is on the list of missing, politically incorrect words; it is “food insecurity,” a much more plastic, pliable term, and it only has to occur very briefly to be included in the stats.

According to USDA Economic Research Service 11.1 percent of all US households were food insecure during some period during 2006. That percentage of food insecure households increased to 14.5 in 2010.

 

Notice the huge jump in costs in 2009—ARRA money was used to recruit more users. By government think, this “infused” money quickly into the economy, but I suspect most went to hire additional workers rather than provide improved nutrition.

From 2007 to 2010, the number of families below 125% of the federal poverty level increased by 16% (because of the recession). That's a lot of people--mostly children without fathers in the home. However, the number of households receiving SNAP benefits increased by 58%. This means that the SNAP recipiency ratio, or the ratio of households receiving SNAP to that below 125% of the poverty line rose by 37%. "The Redistribution Recession," by Casey Mulligan

Urban Institute, a progressive think tank, believes SNAP helps the poor and the economy, as does all the government reports. After all, it is a USDA program. Here’s their take. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412613-SNAPs-Role-in-the-Great-Recession-and-Beyond.pdf