

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
It was bad enough that Republicans from Newt Gingrich on down derided Barack Obama as the "food stamp President" during the last campaign.
Now they're trying to take food stamps out of the hands of the hungry.
On Wednesday, the House Ag Committee voted to cut $21 billion out of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
The cuts would yank food stamps away from 2 million people, and get this: 200,000 poor and hungry kids would no longer able to get free school lunches.
It was bad enough that Republicans from Newt Gingrich on down derided Barack Obama as the "food stamp President" during the last campaign.
Now they're trying to take food stamps out of the hands of the hungry.
On Wednesday, the House Ag Committee voted to cut $21 billion out of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
The cuts would yank food stamps away from 2 million people, and get this: 200,000 poor and hungry kids would no longer able to get free school lunches.
Republicans spin stories like Ronald Reagan used to, saying that lottery winners shouldn't have access to food stamps. I doubt there are many lottery winners getting this benefit.
They also say that we need to cut food stamps to reduce the budget deficit.
First, the deficit isn't the problem they make it out to be.
And second, food stamps are a tiny, tiny portion of federal expenditures.
And third, the poor and the hungry shouldn't have to suffer because of Wall Street's excesses and George Bush's wars.
If Republicans wanted to make reasonable cuts out of the Farm Bill, they should have gone after corporate welfare to the giant food companies.
But no, they'd rather take a poor kid's meal away.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
It was bad enough that Republicans from Newt Gingrich on down derided Barack Obama as the "food stamp President" during the last campaign.
Now they're trying to take food stamps out of the hands of the hungry.
On Wednesday, the House Ag Committee voted to cut $21 billion out of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
The cuts would yank food stamps away from 2 million people, and get this: 200,000 poor and hungry kids would no longer able to get free school lunches.
Republicans spin stories like Ronald Reagan used to, saying that lottery winners shouldn't have access to food stamps. I doubt there are many lottery winners getting this benefit.
They also say that we need to cut food stamps to reduce the budget deficit.
First, the deficit isn't the problem they make it out to be.
And second, food stamps are a tiny, tiny portion of federal expenditures.
And third, the poor and the hungry shouldn't have to suffer because of Wall Street's excesses and George Bush's wars.
If Republicans wanted to make reasonable cuts out of the Farm Bill, they should have gone after corporate welfare to the giant food companies.
But no, they'd rather take a poor kid's meal away.
It was bad enough that Republicans from Newt Gingrich on down derided Barack Obama as the "food stamp President" during the last campaign.
Now they're trying to take food stamps out of the hands of the hungry.
On Wednesday, the House Ag Committee voted to cut $21 billion out of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
The cuts would yank food stamps away from 2 million people, and get this: 200,000 poor and hungry kids would no longer able to get free school lunches.
Republicans spin stories like Ronald Reagan used to, saying that lottery winners shouldn't have access to food stamps. I doubt there are many lottery winners getting this benefit.
They also say that we need to cut food stamps to reduce the budget deficit.
First, the deficit isn't the problem they make it out to be.
And second, food stamps are a tiny, tiny portion of federal expenditures.
And third, the poor and the hungry shouldn't have to suffer because of Wall Street's excesses and George Bush's wars.
If Republicans wanted to make reasonable cuts out of the Farm Bill, they should have gone after corporate welfare to the giant food companies.
But no, they'd rather take a poor kid's meal away.