Trump Fires Back at Food Stamp Abuse

It’s a good thing in a robust economy that fewer Americans require food stamps.

by Jeff Charles

Immigration: The Fake Concern for Fundraising Balance

Vaccinations in the Military Are Way of Life — Until Now?

Globalist and Woke: A National Intelligence Council (NIC) Report

Canada’s Pravda Proposal to Shield Politicians From Criticism

The Democrat Saviors of the Republican Party

Please respect our republishing guidelines - Click Here

It seems every time you turn around, another manifestation of the robust economy presents itself. With corporations benefiting from increased confidence and booming job creation, enjoying fewer regulations and lower taxes, the government could be in a position to save billions in state assistance. The Trump administration proposes to remove 3.1 million Americans from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps.

You can probably already hear the frantic cries of racism emanating from progressives whose goal is keeping as many Americans as possible reliant on the state. But the fact that many no longer need food stamps could be a positive sign.

Proposal to Cut Food Stamps

The White House is putting forth a rule that would save taxpayers about $2.5 billion per year by having the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) review the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Those who receive aid from the program are automatically enrolled in SNAP.

The USDA will review the applications of those receiving TANF to determine if participants still qualify for aid. “This proposal will save money and preserve the integrity of the program,” US Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue told Fox News. “SNAP should be a temporary safety net.”

With plummeting unemployment numbers, participation in both programs has fallen to a ten-year low. This means more Americans now earn enough income to purchase groceries without the assistance of the government. Naturally, the left is not happy about this development. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) accused the administration of trying to “circumvent Congress and make harmful changes to nutrition assistance that have been repeatedly rejected on a bipartisan basis.”

The Impact?

It’s possible that this latest move could become yet another source of controversy, raising fears that it could place a greater burden on families who genuinely need the benefits, harming black Americans and other minorities. But there are still plenty of white Americans who rely on government assistance. If the federal government implements this rule, it must ensure that those with legitimate needs are not lost in the shuffle. Otherwise, it runs the risk of lending credibility to the inevitable criticism coming from the progressive left.

Either way, this appears to be another step in the right direction. Fewer Americans on public assistance will save taxpayers billions while lessening government involvement in the lives of its citizens. This is another indication that a robust economy makes for a freer society. The Trump administration has performed well in this regard, and if it continues, perhaps we will see the numbers of people on government assistance drop further.

To read more from Jeff Charles, visit his author page. At Liberty Nation, we love to hear from our readers. Comment and join the conversation!

About the author

Jeff Charles

Socio-political Correspondent at LibertyNation.com. A self-confessed news and political junkie, Jeff’s writing has been featured in Small Business Trends, Business2Community, and The Huffington Post. Born in Southern California and having experienced the 1992 L.A. Riots up close and personal, Jeff’s insights are informed by his experiences as a black man and a conservative.Race Relations & Media Affairs Correspondent