Profile of The Food Stamps Program

On November 13th in a speech in Council Bluffs, Iowa, New Gingrich spoke the following words...

"So more Americans today get food stamps than before. And we now give it away as cash -- you don't get food stamps. You get a credit card, and the credit card can be used for anything. We have people who take their food stamp money and use it to go to Hawaii. They give food stamps now to millionaires.." 

These are very damaging statements about a program that is supposed to put food on the table for millions of people.  As a result, we found it important to delve deeper into his statements for a proper fact check and create a profile of its recipients, who are apparently millionaires. (Note:  The food stamp program is also referred to as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP)

Let's start with fact checking Newt's statement...

The credit card can be used for anything. We have people who take their food stamp money and use it to go to Hawaii.  FALSE

•  Households can use benefits to buy groceries or to buy seeds and plants which produce food.  In general, SNAP funds cannot be used for restaurant meals. Other types of foods and beverages cannot be paid for with SNAP funds, including beer, wine or liquor; vitamins; food that will be eaten in the store; or hot foods.
• The system can tell at the checkout line which products qualify and which ones don’t. The ones that don’t must be paid for with cash.
•  His assertion about Hawaii most likely comes from a study done of Missouri food stamp recipients.  Of the 3,884,657 dollars sent out as food stamps, 2,737 dollars were spent IN Hawaii.  We do not know how or why those people from Missouri used their card in Hawaii.  Yes, they could have taken a vacation there.  Or, they could have been flown out by someone else, they could have won a trip, they could be in the military, the might originally be from Hawaii and were forced to return for a death, wedding, graduation.  They could be a seasonal worker in Hawaii. 

You get a credit card TRUE/FALSE

• The old system of using coupons is past; recipients now receive what’s called an electronic benefits transfer card, or EBT card. This looks like a credit card, but it doesn’t allow for purchases on credit. It’s really more like a debit card, with the government periodically uploading the proper amount of cash.
• EBT cards allow for easier oversight, and they remove some of the stigma of having to pay with food stamps.

So more Americans today get food stamps than before.  TRUE

• An increase in requests for food stamps began in 2001 as unemployment and poverty rose.  

They give food stamps now to millionaires.  FALSE

• SNAP is a means tested program, with the maximum income to receive benefits being 130% of the poverty line (Approx 22,000 for a family of 4)

Who uses Food Stamps?

• Less the 4 percent are non-citizens
• 8 percent of recipients are elderly
• 17 percent are from households that include an elderly person
• 23 percent of households include someone who is disabled
• Almost 40 percent live in households with earnings
• 50 percent of recipients are children
• 77 percent are from households that include children
• 43 percent are white, 33 percent are African-American, and 19 percent are Hispanic
• 42 percent of recipients are non-elderly adults
• Evenly split between childless adults, single parents, and adults living with children and one other adult

Are people on food stamps forever?

• Half of all entrants to the program receive benefits for 8 months or less
• Single mothers, elderly, and non-citizens tend to stay on longer then working poor and childless adults without disabilities 
• 75 percent are off the program by month 16

PolitiFact: Gingrich and Food Stamps

USDA: Food Stamp Program Profile

Political Profiles: Ron Paul

Age: 76
Years in Current Office: 14
Party: Republican (Libertarian)
Position: Congressman (14th)
Committees: Foreign Affairs, Financial Services, Joint Economic
District Territory: Southeast Texas






Ron Paul.  One of the most interesting figures in American politics.  No matter if you like him or not, you cannot argue with his consistency.  An anti-war protectionist, he was one of the few to vote againt the Iraq War.  Since he was first elected to office in 1976 he was argued against the Federal Reserve and advocated for a return to the gold standard.  Often controversial, in his 30 something years in American politics he has been one of the few politicians who seems to stand for something, and has stuck by it whether is was popular or not.  He has never backed down from his beliefs in individual liberty and freedom.   

To understand Ron Paul and some of his contraversial positions, you have to understand Libertarianism.  Libertarianism is a political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the basic moral principle of society.  All individuals should have the freedom to make their own choices, and infringement on this is a violation of the person's rights, and therefore wrong.  They are against paternalism, or laws that protect people from themselves.  Things such as seatbelt laws and motorcycle helmet laws.  The libertarian believes that while ignoring both provides a great risk to the individual, it is the individual's decision wether they want to make that choice are not.  They do not believe morals should be regulated so they are in favor of legalization of prostitution and drugs as well as gay rights.  Lastly, they are against redistribution of wealth or income, otherwise known as taxes and social programs.  Even if giving to the less fortunate is desirable it should be up to the individual and not regulated by the government.  Taxes infringe on the individuals right to decide what to do with their hard earned money. 

Now that we have a clear view of Libertarianism, we can understand the basis behind Ron Paul's controversial stances.  In 2004 Ron Paul spoke out against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  He said it violated the rights of private business owners to discriminate.  While this is not the right thing to do, it is their right.  He also believes that forced integration did nothing to improve race relations.  He voted against giving Mother Teresa the Congressional Gold Medal because it was 30,000 dollars, which he felt was too expensive.  He believes that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are unconstitutional. 

Ron Paul Campaign Finance

Ron Paul Voting Record

Ron Paul Sponsored Legislation

5 Things You Should Know About Campaign Finance

People are only allowed to donate 2,400 dollars per election to a candidate.  So how is it that candidates end up with millions and millions of dollars for their campaigns?  The answer is several varieties of organizations that are allowed to give money to a candidate or campaign on their behalf, but technically not be connected to the campaign.  For example, Barack Obama needs to raise more money for his campaign.  So a Super-PAC is created in his name and that committee creates commercials on his behalf, lobbies on his behalf, and even puts out content that is disparaging of his opponents. By the way, donations to a Super-PAC are unlimited. 

Know these 5 terms and you'll be better able to navigate the tricky world of campaign finance. 

PAC (Political Action Committee) - A political committee organized for the purpose of raising and spending money to elect and defeat candidates. Most PACs represent business, labor or ideological interests. PACs can give $5,000 to a candidate committee per election (primary, general or special). They can also give up to $15,000 annually to any national party committee, and $5,000 annually to any other PAC. PACs may receive up to $5,000 from any one individual, PAC or party committee per calendar year.

SUPER PAC - Super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Super PACs must, however, report their donors to the Federal Election Commission on a monthly or quarterly basis -- the Super PAC's choice -- as a traditional PAC would. Unlike traditional PACs, Super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates.

Bundlers - People who have friends with a lot of money.  After bumping against personal contribution limits, they turn to those friends, associates, and, well, anyone who's willing to give, and deliver the checks to the candidate in one big "bundle."

501 (c) (4) - "Social welfare" groups that can raise unlimited money, and unlike campaigns and super-PACs, they don't have to reveal their donors.  No more than half their activities can be political but they can give freely to super-PACs.

Citizens United vs FEC - The 2010 Supreme Court case that allowed corporations and labor unions to directly spend on political campaigns, removing limits previously established by the McCain-Feingold Bill.  By a vote of 5-4 the high court ruled that it is a violation of a corporation's (who is technically a person) free speech rights to keep them from participating in campaigns.  80 percent of Americans were opposed to the ruling. 

VISUAL AIDS

National Defense Authorization Act: Sections 1031 and 1032

Here is the controversial text from the bill that is making a lot of Americans uneasy.  The bill will allow the government to lock up any civilians that dissent against the government, indefinitely and without trial.  While it states that it only pertains to those associated with Al-Qaeda and terrorism, without a fair and speedy trial, you have no way of defending yourself if you are innocent. 

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

(c) Implementation Procedures-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.

(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

The bill mentions Resolution 23, Authorization for Use of Military Force, which was passed 3 days after September 11th, giving the President the authority to send us to war. 

Resolution 23: 

9/14/2001--Passed House without amendment. Authorization for Use of Military Force - Authorizes the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.

States that this Act is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution.

Who Is Funding Your Favorite Candidate

Because there's nothing we love more then following the money.  Here is a campaign finance check-in for the 2012 presidential campaign.  Below are the top five contributors, so far, for the most popular candidates.

If there is someone you would like us to feature who is not included, shoot us an e-mail and we'll get you the facts.  homebase@theaardvarkmovement.org

BARACK OBAMA

1. Microsoft Corp. ($171,573)
2. Comcast Corp. ($113,800)
3. University of California ($107,501)
4. Harvard University ($99,975)
5. Google Inc. (95,066)

RON PAUL

1. Ron Paul for Congress Committee ($500,000)
2. US Army ($24,503)
3. US Air Force ($23,335)
4. US Navy ($17,432)
5. Mason Capital Mgmt ($14,000)

MITT ROMNEY

1. Goldman Sachs ($367,200)
2. Credit Suisse Group ($203,750)
3. Morgan Stanley ($199,800)
4. HIG Capital ($186,500)
5. Barclays ($157,750)

NEWT GINGRICH

1. Rock-Tenn Co. ($27,500)
2. Poet LLC ($20,000)
3. First Fiscal Fund ($15,000)
4. Pull-A-Part Inc ($15,000)
5. Amway/Alticor Inc ($10,000)

 Source: Center For Responsive Politics

Shocking Facts About Literacy in the US

The level at which someone reads and writes has a significant impact on if someone stays in or out of prison, receives decent employment, is impoverished or depends on social support systems to survive.  Sadly, our schools allow too many students to never attain a reading level that allows them to be competitive in the job market.  If you are reading this article, you are not one of them millions who are crippled by illiteracy, functional or pure.  You are also probably in the position to educate and help.  By simply improving our educational system to the point where students who reach a certain grade are proficient in reading and writing we can dramatically reduce crime and save this country billions of dollars in social services, prison expenses, and lost tax revenue from people who aren't qualified to work. 

It is important to define the different types of illiteracy.  Purely illiterate persons cannot read or write in any capacity, for all practical purposes. In contrast, functionally illiterate persons can read and possibly write simple sentences with a limited vocabulary, but cannot read or write well enough to deal with the everyday requirements of life in their own society.

For example, an illiterate person may not understand the written words cat or dog, may not recognize the letters of the alphabet, and may be unable to write their own name. In contrast, a functionally illiterate person may well understand these words and more, but cannot read well enough to understand the things they must read in order to get by in their daily life. A functionally illiterate person might be incapable of reading and comprehending job advertisements, past-due notices, newspaper articles, banking paperwork, complex signs and posters, and so on.

With this in mind, here are some statistics about the US that hopefully raise concern....

• 65 percent of all prison inmates are functionally illiterate.

• 85 percent of all juveniles who interface with the juvenile court system are functionally illiterate.

• Penal institution records show that inmates have a 16% chance of returning to prison if they receive literacy help, as opposed to 70% who receive no help.

• When the State of Arizona projects how many prison beds it will need, it factors in the number of kids who read well in fourth grade.

• Only 3 out of 10 8th graders read at or above grade level

• Over one million children drop out of school each year, costing the nation over $240 billion in lost earnings, forgone tax revenues, and expenditures for social services.

• In the U.S., 63 million adults — 29 percent of the country’s adult population —over age 16 don’t read well enough to understand a newspaper story written at the eighth grade level.

• Nearly half of America's adults are poor readers, or "functionally illiterate." They can't carry out simply tasks like balancing check books, reading drug labels or writing essays for a job. (National Adult Literacy Survey)

• 62% of parents with high socioeconomic status read to their children every day. 36% of parents with low socioeconomic status read to their children every day

• 44% of U.S. adults in the lowest level on the literacy scale are living in poverty 

• About 70% of adult welfare recipients have lower level literacy skill on the National Assessment of the Adult Literacy (NAAL).

So what does this tell you?  First, it demonstrates the gross failure of our educational system.  As the richest and most innovative country in the world, it is a tragedy that we cannot put forth the resources, effort, and creativity needed to simply teach our entire population to read and write  We also see that if we do not ensure that all of our kids and adults can read they are more likely to end up in prison or dependent of a social programs because they do not have the skills or confidence to take care of themselves.  Literacy is a simple solution to many problems. 

How can you help?  Contact one of the organizations below and become a tutor.  Also, share this article so others can become aware of the effect literacy has on our society.

Literacy Assistance NYC

Literacy Partners

Reading, Literacy, and Education Statistics 

Participatory Budgeting Comes To New York City

Every year, each city council district receive a certain amount of discretionary money which the council member can decide"at their discretion" how to spend.  This money is doled out by the speaker of the council.  For years, these discretionary funds have been marred with corruption.  Often the money ends up in the hands of council member cronies.  This includes but is not limited to non-profits that have a special connection to the council member, over payment for simple tasks, such as 100,000 dollars for a 10,000 playground.  In a lot of cases this money never ends up serving the communities its intended for but instead aids the friends and big donors of those in charge of distributing it. 

There are four districts in New York City aiming to change this, through a program known as Participatory Budgeting.  Jumaane Williams of 45, Brad Lander of 39, Melissa Mark-Viverito of 8 and Eric Ulrich of 32 are each setting aside at least 1 million dollars of discretionary funds for residents to allocate, totaling around 6 million.  The program gives members of their districts a direct say in how money is spent.  Elected officials invite constituents to town hall meetings where they brainstorm how to improve the community.  Committees based on interests such as public health or safety are formed and those committees come up with ways to implement their plans.  In March of 2012, residents will vote on the proposals with top vote-getters being included in the 2013 budget.     

Citizens around the world have had a role in their municipalities budgets for about 300 years, but the current model for participatory budgeting began in Porto Alegre, Brazil.  In 1989, Workers Party politicians and social movements pushed for the change in who decides how the budget is allocated.  Today as many as 50,000 residents annually decide how as much as 20 percent of the city budget is spent.  The program soon spread from Porto Alegre to other cities in Brazil as well as Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Europe.  The Dominican Republic and United Kingdom have recently mandated that all local governments implement Participatory Budgeting. 

There are several benefits to a Participatory Budgeting program.  Those unfamiliar with local government processes, become better educated on the matter.  Corruption is reduced as the government becomes more transparent.  In addition, the relationship between constituent and elected officials is strengthened.  Experiencing for themselves how hard it is to formulate a budget, constituents develop sympathy for the difficult process.   

If you would like to see this program implemented in your district, write your city council member.