Recently proposed cuts to the federal food stamps program would return the program to 2011 spending levels, still providing benefits to roughly 45.7 million individuals. SoldAtTheTop dismisses Keynesian arguments against the proposal and argues 'limited government' to be a dead philosophy.
Allen Breed/AP Photo/File
Listening to a recent Diane Rehm episode entitled "The Politics of Food Stamps" which discussed proposed cuts to the federal food stamps program provides yet another example of how far out of hand and fiscally profligate the statist policy junkies have gotten.
The proposed cut, as stated directly in the opening of the show, would amount to 5% of the program cost, roughly $40 billion, over 10 years or put another way, roughly $4 billion per year for the next 10 years.
Recall from my prior posts that the current monthly cost of funding the federal food stamps program is $6.35 billion with an annual total of roughly $76.2 billion.
So, the proposed annual cut is less than the cost of funding the federal food stamps program for just a single month, spread out over an entire year.
Looking at it another way, the $4 billion annul cut equates to roughly $335 million per month or the equivalent of the cost of providing food stamps benefits to 200K recipients or 100K households per month.
Given the fact that there are currently 47.7 million food stamps recipients, this proposed “cut” is simply a "drop in the bucket", a mere rounding error on a program that has grown far out of bounds in both cost and purpose.
Of course, listening to the Keynesian policy junkies on the Rehm panel though, any cut is too much and completely unacceptable.
No matter that the federal government is effectively insolvent, relying on the Federal Reserve for a $45 billion monthly hit of “stimulation” just to make the ends meet on these programs… “We must not cut these important benefits” the Keynesians opine.
Keep in mind that the proposed cut would simply roll the level of spending back to that seen in mid-2011 with the program still providing benefits to roughly 45.7 million individuals.
At this point, “limited government” as it was traditionally framed is dead philosophy with advocates lucky to simply establish any limits whatsoever over the grotesque expansion of government largesse.
To that, I say “Bring on the shutdown!”