Senators Sanders and Warren voted to cut Food Stamps. Why?

[ProSense]

Senate passes SNAP cuts on a bipartisan 66-27 vote.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022987698

Roll call
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00145

Farm Bill Deal Would Cut Food Stamps By $800 Million Per Year

WASHINGTON (AP) — A House plan to make major cuts to food stamps would be scaled back under a bipartisan agreement on a massive farm bill, a near end to a more than two-year fight that has threatened to hurt rural lawmakers in an election year.

The measure announced by the House and Senate Agriculture committees preserves food stamp benefits for most Americans who receive them and continues generous subsidies for farmers. The House could vote on the bill as soon as Wednesday.

The compromise was expected to cut food stamps by about $800 million a year, or around 1 percent. The House in September passed legislation cutting 5 percent from the $80 billion-a-year program.

The Democratic-controlled Senate had passed a bill with $400 million in annual food stamp cuts.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/farm-bill-deal-would-cut-food-stamps-by-800-million-per-year

Food Banks Anticipate Impact of Cuts to Food Stamps

By RON NIXONJAN

WASHINGTON — Late last year, staff members at the Capital Area Food Bank here began fielding requests for larger deliveries from the dozens of soup kitchens and food pantries that it supplies as more and more people showed up seeking help.

The food bank said it was not unusual to see a surge before Thanksgiving or Christmas. But this time the lines were caused not by the holidays but by a $5 billion cut to the federal food stamp program that took effect in November when a provision in the 2009 stimulus bill expired.

Now the food bank, which provided about 45 million pounds of food last year, says it is preparing for even greater demand as Congress prepares to cut billions of dollars more from the food stamp program, which is included in a farm bill that has yet to pass. About 47 million Americans receive food stamps.

<...>

It is unclear when the new cuts will kick in, even if Congress manages to pass a new farm bill, an effort that has taken almost two years. The House and the Senate appear to have worked out most of their differences on the bill. That compromise is expected to cut about $9 billion from food stamps over 10 years. House Republicans had wanted to trim financing by $40 billion over the same period, and a bipartisan Senate bill sought a $4 billion cut.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/22/us/politics/food-banks-anticipate-impact-of-cuts-to-food-stamps.html

[beachbum bob]

1. Because sometimes you have to

compromise. .the house wanted 40 billion cut and ended up accepting 9 billion.

[djean111]

3. So yaaaay! That will make hungry people feel sooooo much better!!!!!!!!

[dennis4868]

7. when Obama compromises....

he gets the bashed to no end...that won't happen to Warren and Sanders.

[randome]

13. You called that right, unfortunately.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[LiberalEsto]

17. Why is it that the compromisers are ALWAYS the Democrats?

It seems like they know almost nothing about collective bargaining.

Instead of giving up $31 billion, they should have demanded another $40 billion in funding, for a total $80 billion, and let the Repukes do the compromising.

[okaawhatever]

24. The Repukes did compromise. The Democratic controlled Senate approved $4 Billion in cuts. The

Republican controlled house passed $40 Billion in cuts. They settled on $8 billion. It's clear the Democratic side won that fight. I don't think food stamps should be cut but if you're talking strictly from a compromise standpoint, Repubs compromised $32 Billion and Dems compromised $4 Billion. I'll put that in the win column for Dems. Also, the cuts come from a change in the program. 15 states were calculating the way people were eligible for food stamps, so 15 states were giving their residents more money than the other 35. I think before you make across the board cuts, a reasonable first step is to even the playing field.

[djean111]

2. Because, perhaps, the whole thing is just a kabuki play. or chess. or some other shit.

If the question is designed to make a Warren or Sanders admirer think more kindly of the Third Way corporatists, then it doesn't work for me. In fact, it just reaffirms my growing belief that none of what anyone but the 1% and corporations and banks wants matters in the least. And is not worth the bother.

[ProSense]

5. Let me just say

"If the question is designed to make a Warren or Sanders admirer think more kindly of the Third Way corporatists, then it doesn't work for me."

...fuck Third Way. Does that make the OP question easier to understand?

[djean111]

6. Oh, I understand the question.

Looks to me like progressive have to go along with what are essentially Third Way policies.
Nothing is gained from that except, perhaps, a slower rate of benefit slashing, with more erudite rhetoric.

[ProSense]

11. "Looks to me like progressive have to go along with what are essentially Third Way policies."

Really? Who forced them to vote for the bill?

[djean111]

12. Hey, my choices are that either they had to compromise on hungry people,

or that they genuinely think this is no big deal.
Either way, my regard is diminished. This certainly does not increase my regard for any corporate Dems that I already do not like. Actually, it increases my feeling that it is pointless to care at all about politics. It is all a done deal.
The only tiny ray of hope for this particular shitty vote is that, somewhere, somehow, a progressive is readying a separate bill to negate the cuts. But I doubt it.

[Progressive dog]

4. That's easy, they are adults. nt

[Walk away]

8. Maybe all those folks who are calling for them to run in 2016...

would have better insight. By this time in an anti Clinton thread there would be fifty posts telling us all how different they are. I can almost hear crickets!
Neither one is actually running for president and they still had to compromise their vote and turn their back on the working poor in order to survive. I guess that's politics.

[MineralMan]

9. Because no perfect bill has ever been presented for a vote?

That's my guess. That both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren voted as they did is clear evidence that the benefits of the bill outweigh the problems. If we start judging members of Congress based on votes on individual bills, we are missing most of the picture. Forests and trees come to mind.

[HappyMe]

10. That's what I am thinking.

I'm wondering if it was the cleanest bill presented. Sometimes some weird crap gets tacked on to a bill at the last minute. Senators vote for or against based on what's actually in the bill - some of which we never see.

[PotatoChip]

14. Me too. Check out who voted against it (from the OP's link)

This particular vote took place in June, btw.

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Ayotte (R-NH), Nay
Baldwin (D-WI), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Begich (D-AK), Not Voting
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea
Blunt (R-MO), Yea
Boozman (R-AR), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Chiesa (R-NJ), Yea
Coats (R-IN), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Coons (D-DE), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Cowan (D-MA), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Cruz (R-TX), Nay
Donnelly (D-IN), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fischer (R-NE), Yea


Flake (R-AZ), Nay
Franken (D-MN), Yea
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Heinrich (D-NM), Yea
Heitkamp (D-ND), Yea
Heller (R-NV), Nay
Hirono (D-HI), Yea
Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johanns (R-NE), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Johnson (R-WI), Nay
Kaine (D-VA), Yea
King (I-ME), Yea
Kirk (R-IL), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Lee (R-UT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Manchin (D-WV), Not Voting
McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Merkley (D-OR), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Moran (R-KS), Yea


Murkowski (R-AK), Not Voting
Murphy (D-CT), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Paul (R-KY), Not Voting
Portman (R-OH), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Rubio (R-FL), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schatz (D-HI), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Scott (R-SC), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Toomey (R-PA), Nay
Udall (D-CO), Not Voting
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Warner (D-VA), Not Voting
Warren (D-MA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

[HappyMe]

16. There's the answer right there.

[ProSense]

18. Yeah, and it's interesting the two Democratic Senators from RI voted no. n/t

[HappyMe]

22. I lived in RI for about a year

a few years back. It was kind of an odd place politically.

[TBF]

35. Cruz and Cornyn voted against it so it's

likely OK. I don't agree with those 2 on much of anything.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

38. most interesting. n/t

[JNelson6563]

15. Bookmarking for future reference.

[bemildred]

19. They had boxes in their garage and their abandoned girlfriends are pole dancers? nt

[ProSense]

20. Or maybe they're Paulite racists.

Who the hell voted for the Muslim?

[bemildred]

23. Exactly. Must be something like that. nt

[JoePhilly]

21. Maybe Putin made them do it.

Or ... the more scary possibility ... they made a pragmatic choice based on political reality.

[ProSense]

27. LOL! n/t

[Whisp]

29. I hear he has remote nipples that spy all over America. n/t

[okaawhatever]

25. Did anyone bother reading the articles? Here's the money shot:

Lawmakers say the compromise would not force anyone off the food stamp rolls. The budget savings, said Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan and chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, would come from changes to the way states administer a federal program that helps low-income families with their heating bills.

Under that program, known as Heat and Eat, the District of Columbia and 15 states, including New York and California, allow people who receive heating assistance subsidies to deduct their utility costs from their incomes, allowing them to claim more food stamp benefits.

Critics of the program say that in many cases states exploit a loophole in the law and help families increase the amount of their benefits by giving them a heating subsidy as little as $1, solely to make them eligible for more food stamps. By barring states from doing so, some families will received less in food stamps, and Congress expects that will reduce the program’s costs by $9 billion over the 10 years.

___________

So basically, 15 states calculate their food stamp program differently from the others. This evens the playing field. I'll bet the Democratic senators who voted no are from states where they calculate it differently.

I do think consideration needs to be given to adjust for areas where cost of living is significantly different. A family of 4 who makes 20k per year has much more money for food if their heat bill is 100 per month vs. 500 per month. That being said, the way it is calculated needs to be consistent across the board. I noticed that California calculates it differently if the person is on heating assistance. I can't imagine that would be much of a change since their heating bills aren't much compared to colder states. New York of course, will feel the pinch much more so.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. Because we stupidly allow all sorts of irrelevant bad stuff to get tacked onto good bills

Oregon (I don't know about other states) has a law that states that all bills before the legislature shall deal only with one subject, i.e. no riders allowed.

The "rider" is the chief way in which bad bills get made into law.

For example, somebody might tack a tax break for a specific constituent onto the appropriation for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It doesn't belong there, it has nothing to do with veterans, but there is nothing to prevent it from being there. Now even Congresscritters who hate the tax break don't dare vote against the bill because then their opponents will accuse them of "being against veterans." The same with the president, who can't veto the whole bill.

This type of scheming occurs more often than we think.

If Congresscritters were forced to vote on a separate bill to cut food stamps, the nefariousness of the Republicans would be too obvious.

[SidDithers]

28. Kick...nt

Sid

[Cali_Democrat]

30. Interesting. nt

[Union Scribe]

31. How would you have voted?

And as the president would you veto it?

[ProSense]

32. You first. n/t

[Rex]

33. ...

[adirondacker]

39. ;)

"House Passes Farm Bill The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill authorizing nearly $1 trillion in spending on farm subsidies and nutrition programs, setting the stage for final passage of a new five-year farm bill that has been stalled for more than two years. Negotiators worked out their differences on cuts to food stamps and a price support program for dairy farmers. Sen. Sanders said the bill contained both positives and negatives, noting the more than $8 billion in devastating cuts to nutrition programs, WAMC-FM reported. LINK

[Union Scribe]

36. Why can't you ever give a straight answer? nt

edit: not that I can expect a straight answer to that question either. I think we all know why anyway.

[ProSense]

37. Why

"Why can't you ever give a straight answer? "

...are you can't you answer a question: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024403058#post7

Instead, you moved to this thread to ask another question.

[Demo_Chris]

34. They certainly are earning our votes. nt