A Country On The Dole = A Guaranteed Constituency

We’ve already written about the Obaminable efforts of this administration to enroll more Americans in the food stamp program.

In fact, according to Senator Jeff Sessions, spending on the program has increased 100% since President Obama took office.

The legislation will spend $82 billion on food stamps next year, $82 billion and an estimated $770 billion over the next ten years. So, to put these figures in perspective, and they’re so large it’s difficult to comprehend, we will spend next year $40 billion on the federal highway program..

Food stamp spending has more than quadrupled, four times, it’s increased fourfold since the year 2001. It has increased 100 percent since President Obama took office.

Evidently that is not good enough.  Now the FDA has published a helpful pamphlet with tips on the correct psychology and proper approach for enticing baby boomers and seniors into the program.  Here are a few such tips:

• Boomers view themselves as young and vibrant and typically won’t respond to anything aimed at “seniors.” Resist using this label and other age-related expressions, like “golden years.”

• Immigrants represent 17 percent of all Baby Boomers. Connect with communities and organizations that serve immigrant and non-English-speaking households.

It even encourages local SNAP workers not to despair if the people they reach out to aren’t eligible.

• Boomers also find themselves as “card carrying” members of the sandwich generation—providing for older adult parents while taking care of children at home. Place information in venues that they normally visit, like the grocery store or pharmacy often live alone, and don’t waiting area. They might not be eligible but may know of someone who is.

The rest of the pamphlet is equally nauseating. The logic employed by the feds reads like Bastiat’s famous broken window essay.  According the USDA,

Every $5 in new SNAP benefits generates $9.20 in an additional community spending.  If the national participation rate rose five percentage points, 1.9 million more low-income people would have an additional $1.3 billion in benefits per year to use to purchase healthy food and $2.5 billion total in new economic activity would be generated nationwide.

Say what?  If the government takes $10 from Sam and gives $8 to Mary, how does that possibly improve the bottom line for society?  Sam could have spent $10 instead of Mary who can now only spend $8.  It makes no more sense now than when Bastiat explained it in the 19th century.