SNAP Program Haunted By a Fish

The fiscal morass in America with this administration cannot be conceived. A prime example can be shown in Paul Ryan’s budget, and specifically in his FNS Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) –-formerly called the Food Stamp Program. It seems few remember the saying: Feed a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime.

The above truism bankrupts every liberal statement made about the Ryan Budget. Albeit, quite a few were made. The amount of food assistance each family needs is directly related to the priorities by the family on feeding their children. That priority supersedes having 3 TV’s instead of two, normal vehicles instead of fancy ones, fewer CD’s, I-Pods, and toys to propel one through the day.

First, a couple of specifics to be aware of. SNAP grew from 16.9 million in 2000, to 46.5 million in 2012, mostly on Obama’s watch. The Ryan Budget Would Slash SNAP Funding by $134 Billion Over Ten ... years, but that puts the SNAP total 10-year budget at $785.3 billion. But even with the cuts, the truly needy will still get $652 billion.

Growing at a rate of 40 million users every 10 years, SNAP will cost at least at $1.6 trillion by 2020. Remember SNAP makes up 70% of USDA's budget.With the current debt at >$1.5 trillion, it’s estimated every American owes >$5000 to the debt, which will never be paid back.

Obama will continue to tax to reduce the deficit which will hurt poor families even more. More people will claim SNAP assistance, and will only get a ‘fish for the day’, provided by the government (which is really taxes obtained from Americans). With the Ryan Budget, people are weaned from getting a ‘fish’ from the government. They get lower taxes (more take-home pay), ways to learn to ‘fish’ (more job opportunities), less dependence on government handouts (less socialism), and less dependence on outside countries (oil independency).

How singularly focused to believe people will only take what they’re given by the government? They will only come back tomorrow begging for more. For a truly unbiased view of the Ryan budget, one can get actual info from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation (pgpf.org).

How can a group of people be closed-minded enough to think the USCCB restricts Catholic moral teaching to giving the poor only what they need to barely survive? It’s obvious survival to the next day is always necessary, but survival for the rest of your life is paramount, and there is instruction to get there.

It seems so many people (including Cafeteria-Catholics) love to misinterpret the gospels {Mt 25:31-46}. If someone really needs food, clothing, shelter, etc…, you provide it. But if there’s a better way to provide that assistance, that’s the proper way you go.

Why do so many have the impression God had no knowledge of what people would do to get free food without working? They seem to forget the passage {II Thes 3:10} “…if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.” They won’t admit it but even some Catholics “in-name” must think God a fool at times.

Bottom line, under Obama Administration guidelines, the deficit will balloon over the next few years. The huge expansion of SNAP is only a microcosm of what will happen to the economy as a whole. Socialism is the next step, because the Obama administration has made no attempts to even provide a budget for the last 20 months. It’s as if it knows taxation and socialism will not lift this country out of its likely death throes.

Ryan’s budget is a valuable first step in curing an economy that has yet to hit rock-bottom. SNAP is one place to cut expenditures.

It’s time to start letting the rich know they’re not necessarily evil, that corporate taxes either go and feed the behemoth called ‘government’, or get invested to provide more jobs. That the rich don’t hoard their money, but use it to grow the economy by creating more jobs.

It seems as though those who support(ed) Santorum, Romney, Ryan, and other conservative leaders are already doing what God commanded. They all had the forethought of what giving a ‘fish’ to someone really meant.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin Roeten at roetenks@charter.net.