Walker takes credit for Wisconsinites finding jobs. Taking away their food really works?

If it sounds too good....well, that's the rule I go by anytime I hear Republicans brag about a law they say is working.

And so it is with Scott Walker's latest pronouncement that reaffirms the right wing idea that every one of those starving unemployed workers are lazy "takers." They had to be pushed into jobs by cutting off their food supply, a cruel punishment that requires 80 hours a month in work training to get food stamps. That's the going rationale that makes it acceptable to envious conservative voters.

Walker: "We will take care of our neighbors and fellow citizens, but for those who are able to work, we expect something in return."

Some of those on the FoodShare program got work, but was it because of the work requirement? Walker wants us to think it was, despite any lack of proof:

32,193 people food stamp recipients enrolled in the program since April 2015 and 11,971 participants gained employment in the past year.

More than 41,000 people lost access to food stamps within the first year of a new state law after the state said they failed to seek employment. 

But here's where Walker makes himself look good due to the lack of information:

The department does not track how many of those who gained employment are no longer enrolled in the FoodShare program.

Nor does the administration track how many people who are eligible for the program found work on their own.

Nanny State Kansas Republicans limit Debit Card withdrawals on Poor.

I see, Republicans aren't punishing the poor, they're just trying to help.

Funny thing, you never see Republicans pushing for more accountability and results from CEO's and big business interests seeking tax cuts and state handouts. In fact just the opposite if they're getting money from Scott Walker's WEDC.

Pee in a cup drug tests, limits on the kind of food served while wining and dining corporate lobbyist and politicians for taxpayer money?

I'm mystified. Heck, we've already discovered companies are not the "job creators" they said they were, especially here in Wisconsin.

But republicans have a way of spreading their one-size-fits-all nanny state punishments on the poor, as you'll see below in another cruel hot new attack.

So if drug testing, public service work or nanny state junk food lists aren't enough to dump on struggling Americans, how about the following:

AP: People are outraged about a Kansas law that critics are calling a 'tax on the poor.' Kansas is taking a storm of criticism over its new policy strictly limiting ATM withdrawals for welfare recipients to $25 a day. Additionally, most ATMs do not carry $5 bills. This fact effectively changes the policy to a $20 limit and would potentially result in poor Kansans paying even more withdrawal fees to get the same amount of money.

The change was placed in stark reality by a Thursday article in The Washington Post titled "Kansas has found the ultimate way to punish the poor." As The Post notes, it would "force beneficiaries to make more frequent trips to the ATM to withdraw money … Since there's a fee for every withdrawal, the limit means that some families will get substantially less money." Elizabeth Lower-Basch, the director at Center for Law and Social Policy, or CLASP, said the law amounts to a "tax on the poor."

But it saves the state money, all the while teaching lazy no good American citizens a lesson in frugality:

Experts have suggested the welfare policy change could result in a $100 million cut in money Kansas receives from the federal government … the Social Security Act requires welfare recipients to "have adequate access to their cash assistance" while facing "minimal fees or charges."

Though Brownback and legislative leaders are quickly backpedaling in the face of the potential loss of federal funds, various observers have widely expressed outrage … People who read The Post article reacted with comments like "disturbing," "amazing," and expletives: Some of the state's leading editorial boards have previously blasted the ATM limit.

"Not only are many of the state’s new welfare regulations condescending, the limit on cash withdrawals may violate federal law — potentially endangering $102 million in federal funding. That’s what can happen when lawmakers ram through legislation without proper vetting, and based on ugly stereotypes," The Wichita Eagle opined Wednesday. "The best course is to revoke the entire law."

The Kansas City Star slammed the legislation on Monday as an "embarrassment" to the state. "If nothing else, Brownback’s staff should have observed that ATMs generally don’t allow withdrawals in $5 increments. The state law effectively imposes a $20 limit," the paper's editorial board wrote. "That rushed process, the sign of amateurs at work, has been happening a lot lately in Topeka. And — voila! — the result is bad legislation."

What's encouraging is that we're seeing any kind of blowback at all. 

Republicans try to take “Cheddar” off Dairy State Tables!

Republican Rep. Rob Brooks has apparently never shopped for cheddar cheese. I have, and it's clear he's clueless. He would know that “sharp” cheddar cheese IS the real thing, and the most flavorful authentic choice for the smart shopper. He would also know that many times, “sharp” isn't always that sharp, despite its label. But it beats out the buttery mild and medium cheddar options. 

So Brooks is really gutting the true flavor and essence of our state symbol for a 20 to 30 cents per pound savings in FoodShare.

Brooks' bill is as bad as Republican State Rep. Dale Kooyenga’s brilliant bill to repeal the law that guarantees butter on every restaurant table in the dairy state. Yes, he really did attack Wisconsin butter. 

Farmers and dairy industry supporters of the GOP were also appalled at this nanny state madness from our Big Government Republicans. Let’s face it, the tired old “stop abuse” “restore integrity” and “get back to the original purpose” excuses just don't cut it anymore.

Just as bad, Brooks is basing his bill on hearsay and anecdotal tales from the checkout line. Those tired old mythical stories where the extravagant poor buy “crab, lobster, shrimp or any other variety of shellfish.” Cap Times:

Rep. Rob Brooks, R-Saukville, cited "anecdotal and perceived abuses," adding that his bill is designed to target abuse, not fraud. "My intent is not to stigmatize, not to shame anyone."

Not fooling anyone, Democrats pointed out the absurdity of this bill:

Rep. Evan Goyke, D-Milwaukee, held a platter of four Wisconsin cheeses. All four were cheddar. One was shredded and three were in block form. Three displayed flags that said "GOP Prohibited." One flag said "GOP Approved." The approved cheese was a block of mild cheddar. Two sharp cheddars — one shredded and one block — were not approved. One mild cheddar was not approved because it was too large, Goyke said.

Rep. Mark Spreitzer, D-Beloit, couldn't help but point out the obvious:

"When you look at something like this cheese plate, there's no evidence of sharp cheddar fraud. People are not buying sharp cheddar in order to defraud FoodShare, and there's no nutritional difference. So if those are the stated goals, the bill is not accomplishing either."

Republicans were also quick to turn on their deep pocketed business supporters to stoke fear and envy in low information conservative votes:

A memo to lawmakers from groups including the Wisconsin Cheesemakers Association, Wisconsin Agri-Business Association, Grocery Manufacturers Association, Kwik Trip, Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers and Wisconsin State Cranberry Association says the bill would harm their businesses, "dramatically increase government power" and place checkout clerks in a difficult position.

Job killing legislation? No, really?

"Though well-intentioned, Assembly Bill 177 is a threat to both job creation in our state and our right to decide for ourselves what to put in our grocery carts," the memo reads. "…the unintended consequences of the proposal will do far more harm than good."

Republicans had no explanation for their lunacy:

"Why in the world would you bar someone from buying shredded cheese vs. a block of cheese?" Goyke asked. "Don't blame the federal government. You wrote a bill that makes a difference between shredded and non-shredded cheese, and then you come to Madison and say, 'Let's let common sense prevail.' How in the world does that make sense?"

This is all symbolic clap trap anyway, but it is a reminder why "block grants," with no federal strings, is on the republican agenda. This is what they want to do on state-by-state level:

No state has received such a waiver … to impose restrictions on food purchases.

I thought this post summed it up well at the Political Environment:

About new WI GOP rules for food stamp recipients: Let's have legislators be drug-tested before they can receive their $44-$88 tax-free daily meal, lodging and housing payments and make sure they are only buying healthy meals with public, entitlement payments.

I put together just a few pages of the complicated upside down nanny state regulations no one in their right mind could keep track of. I mean really, no ketchup?

Missouri Republican would ban Seafood and Steak from those rotten lazy Food Stamp thieves.

When I see Republican sponsored bills that reach so far into our personal lives that we’re basically being told how to live and eat, I always think of their bullshit about “small government.”

Here’s the tale of another pious conservative social engineer taking it out on the hungry poor, just like Jesus did:

Missouri State Representative Rick Brattin is sponsoring legislation that would prevent people receiving food stamps from buying “cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak.” He’s already admitted the bill might need “tweaking” to permit people to buy “canned tuna and fish sticks.”

These kinds of bills — premised on the idea that food stamp recipients are lazy thieves — are a favorite of Republican lawmakers: take Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin, who’s so suspicious of food stamp users that he recommends his constituents snoop on their shopping carts to make sure nothing looks too sinful.

And Brattin has already proven himself to be a stupendously effective troll: he was last seen sponsoring a bill that would have allowed men to have to grant women permission to get an abortion. (That one failed immediately.)

Prevent the poor from eating fish? Kinda reminds of a story...

When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick. The disciples came to Jesus and said, “We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish” … “Bring them here to me,” Jesus said. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. They all ate and were satisfied…

So tell me all about our “small government,” “get government out of the way” religious right Republicans dictators. 

Walker phasing out Welfare, FoodShare, Medicaid and Unemployment with bogus screening Questionnaire.

Republicans have found a way to make us lose every one of our safety nets. And what will happen to the people and families who need public assistance. It's anybody’s guess. 

Scott Walker is now requiring a drug test for all public assistance programs, against federal law, and offered this Orwellian explanation:

Walker: "We're not making it harder to get government assistance, we making it easier to get a job."

Two completely different goals. Walker inadvertently acknowledges that it will make getting government assistance harder by arguing that it doesn't. From WKOW's Greg Neumann:

The Wretched Democratic Response? You'll want to put your fist through the monitor with their comeback:

Rep. Peter Barca: "We look forward to the debate, I trust the process will be fair (giggle). I'm not so sure we'll agree to the outcome." 

It turns my stomach.

A similar Montana bill making the rounds nationally and now in Wisconsin, looks like this:

The bill would require anyone who applies for government assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program to go through a drug screening. TANF provides temporary financial assistance for pregnant women and families with one or more dependent children. The program offers financial assistance to help pay for food, shelter, utilities, and expenses other than medical.

Yes, even pregnant women will be tested. I doubt you can get any lower than this.

Surprise, according to your Questionnaire, there's a "Reasonable Likelihood" you're Taking Drugs: In the GOP's Montana bill, applicants must willingly give up personal information to the government or risk “raising suspicions” about possible drug use. Sound coercive and an easy way to suspect anyone? Not to the rightwing authoritarian Republican Reich:

Applicants must answer a questionnaire called the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI) to determine the "likelihood of having a substance abuse disorder." If results indicate a "reasonable likelihood" of drug abuse, the applicant would be required to undergo a lab test with the state.

And what if you fight back against having your privacy invaded by big government…

Failure to complete the questionnaire and/or drug test would result in the applicant being denied benefits.

Which is the intended result, and a pretty tricky way to defeat opponents. Big government Republicans will also dump taxpayer money into a new privatized bureaucratic hoop:

In cases where a person is deemed ineligible for assistance, a third party would be authorized to accept payments for children whose parents are ineligible for benefits.

The right wings avowed enemy, the ACLU, made this persuasive argument:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Montana argued that because the people who receive government assistance are by definition low-income earners, this bill treats them like criminals before they even apply for financial assistance. In December 2014, the 11th Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled that Florida's enacted version of this bill was unconstitutional and "suspicionless drug tests violates the Constitution's protection against unreasonable government searches."

Isn't it about time freedom loving Republicans challenge another constitutional protection? And because many readers don't get to see the comment section, here's one I thought was to important to not include:

lufthase: The Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory mentioned above is a specific proprietary screening tool created and owned by the SASSI Institute. Because they're actual health practitioners and not RW ideologues, they have this to say about using their screening test like this:

"To use the SASSI to discriminate against individuals, such as disqualifying job applicants or to deny public assistance, violates the purpose of the SASSI and is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act."

and…
"…when public assistance is made contingent on participation in the assessment and treatment process, it increases the risk for violations of ethical principles and applicants’ rights."

The folks who wrote the damn screening test (and stand to profit from its use) say this is not a legitimate use of their test. Shout it from the mountaintops!

Victims of GOP policies next big target for Rep. Robin Vos.

In a rambling piece of word salad ego-nomics, Rep. Robin Vos made this claim:

“Assembly Republicans also will work to limit the growth of government.” 

That's funny. He’s joking of course. Did you see what they did to regulate deer hunting?

Take a look at the following plan for “entitlements.” Tell me if this isn't a jumbled mess of regulatory hoops to jump through from our big government Republican overlords:

WSJ: Assembly Republicans released an agenda for the upcoming session, which included several entitlement reform ideas. They include drug-testing those receiving public benefits, discontinuing assistance for those who test positive and offering treatment options; having electronic cards with photos for all public benefit transactions and limiting the number of replacement cards; ensuring welfare payments reflect completed work and a portion of food stamps are used on nutritious food; and sending an annual statement of benefits to all public assistance recipients.

Yikes. Ready for this "stand with Walker" tightwads? Florida spent $500,000 conducting the tests, catching 20 out of nearly 33,000 applicants, and another $400,000 defending the program in court…which they lost. 

All of this blustery bullshit to energize the base, or just reckless GOP spending? I wonder.

Republicans like Duffy, Ryan, Ribble, Sensenbrenner and Petri want to see what really hungry people will do for food.

Without one bill taking away anything from the wealthy elite, our Republican representatives continue to dump on the working poor, veterans, seniors and children, who have been pegged as the cause of all our spending problems. Like the list here demonstrates, we've got a freeloader problem.

Republicans still can't figure out why everyone can't be in the top one percent. 

In a move that should have appalled every American, resulting in a quick end to what remains of the Republican Party, the House majority attempted to bring back a desperate lower class of slave labor to this country by taking their food away. Hey, they're just trying to save the program...WSJ:

FOOD STAMP CUTS: Voting 217 for and 210 against, the House on Thursday passed a Republican bill (HR 3102) to cut spending on food stamps by nearly $4 billion annually over 10 years … for what is formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). States could further reduce their rolls by subjecting food-stamps applicants to drug testing. 

A yes vote was to pass the bill. Voting yes: Ryan, Sensenbrenner, Petri, Duffy, Ribble

Even worse…actually, you won’t even believe this one:

BENEFITS FOR VETERANS, PREGNANT WOMEN: Voting 193 for and 230 against, the House on Thursday defeated a Democratic bid to prohibit HR 3102 (food stamp cuts) from denying food stamps to veterans, pregnant women, seniors, the disabled or minor children in the event of a U.S. government shutdown or default on its debt. A yes vote was to ensure uninterrupted benefits for veterans and certain other categories of food stamps recipients.

Voting no: Ryan, Sensenbrenner, Petri, Duffy, Ribble

Republicans are getting all the media attention for acting like craven soulless idiots.

Democrats and the media need to stop giving Republicans the attention we normally wouldn't give a child having a tantrum. Think about it, so far the Republican antics to cut food stamps from working Americans and their continued attempts to prevent people from getting health care is getting massive media coverage. Didn't we really hate Scrooge for suggesting that? Who can take these people seriously? I mean really, starving seniors, veterans, children and the working poor is a plan cooked up by actual grownups?

The truth is Republicans don't have the courage, leadership or good sense to solve our national problems because that would be..."work!" These are the most blatant freeloaders on the government dole.

It's simple to ask...

Question: Why don't Republicans get people off food stamps by giving them jobs? Shouldn't we be upgrading the nations crumbling infrastructure? Don't they have it backwards?

Question: How do Republicans and radio talkers know ObamaCare will be a disaster if, as they've claimed, they've never read the entire law or don't know a damn thing about it? I'll bet they haven't even kept up with the changes insurers, hospitals and doctors have made since reform was forced on an industry reeling out of control.

Isn't it time Democrats and the media call in sick anytime Republicans get silly. Tell you what, when they get serious, they can call us.

Auditors found no overpayments in Food Stamp program, but $14.5 million overpayments to farmers through the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.

Rampant food stamp fraud is another big myth. Huge in fact. Public Televisions Market to Market featured this story on farm program overpayments and bad record keeping. 

But surprise, the food stamp program had NO problems. Why do Republicans say things that are just the opposite? Check it out: 

The Dept. of Agriculture paid out more than it should have, by $20.3 million, in 2012. That's 239 overpayments, and increase in 67 percent since 2011. The largest number of overpayments were processed by the Federal Crop Insurance corporation. There were 70 overpayments totaling over $14.5 million.

My conservative friend in Milwaukee once told me the story of a guy buying shrimp with food stamps. I asked him why he thought that was unfair. He was angry he didn't make enough to buy food like that. I asked him if he knew why that guy purchased the shrimp, suggesting perhaps a birthday, a new job, his last day on food stamps....? It didn't matter to him. Here are a few real life stories behind the stories so many Republicans tell their friends:

HuffingtonPost: Janina Riley noticed a woman muttering behind her in the checkout line … "I can't believe she's buying that big-ass cake with food stamps," the woman said, according to Riley.

Riley, 19, had just used a government-issued debit card to pay for most of her groceries, which included a cake for her son that said "Happy First Birthday Xavier" in a theme from the movie "Cars." She glared at the women for a second, then decided to confront her. "I was just like, 'Shut the fuck up,'" Riley said. She figured it wouldn't have started at all if the person had known that she was studying to become a nurse, and that she already worked more than 30 hours a week as an aide in a nursing home.

It's a gripe going back at least 20 years. In 1993, the Columbus Dispatch ran a letter to the editor lamenting a food stamp recipient buying "two bottles of wine, steak and a large bag of king crab legs.''  The crab complaint has recurred more than a dozen times in newspapers around the country.

A government survey from the late-'90s found that meats accounted for 34.9 percent of food stamp purchases, grains 19.7 percent, fruits and veggies 19.6 percent, and dairy products 12.5 percent. Soft drinks made up 5.6 percent and sweets 2.5 percent. Elizabeth Lower-Basch, an analyst for the Center for Law and Social Policy said, "You can't win. When someone's going to think you've got too much sugar, someone else is going to think you've got too much fat.

Patrick McCallister's vegetables annoyed another. McCallister said that in 2003 and 2004, he used nutrition assistance to feed his three kids. "I focused on buying fresh fruits, vegetables, whole-grain bread." McCallister had been standing at the Publix supermarket register … when the confrontation happened. "This woman comes up behind me," he said. "The woman remarked, 'I wish I could eat so well. Maybe I should go on food stamps so I could eat that well." The lady seemed annoyed by both the quality and quantity of McCallister's food. "I felt disappointed in the human race," McCallister said. 

Last fall, Cynthia Nerger of Warner Robbins, Ga., had a dispute with a manager at a Kroger grocery store over whether SNAP covered an item in her cart. After she prevailed in the argument, the manager delivered a low blow: "Excuse me for working for a living and not relying on food stamps!" Nerger burst into tears. What the manager didn't know is that Nerger couldn't work because she'd been waiting for a kidney transplant and had to spend 12 hours a day in dialysis. She took her case to a local TV station and soon won national attention. Kroger transferred the manager and offered Nerger a $15 gift card.

The trafficking rate is down from 4 cents per dollar of benefits in 1993 to 1 cent from 2006 to 2008, according to the department's latest data. More broadly, the idea is that the poor should feel poor at all times until they're not poor anymore.

Republican Anger and Envy: The Odd Case for Killing Food Stamps, and the Consequences.

Republicans don’t seem to want to get it; the Great Recession wiped out millions of large and small businesses and the jobs that went with them; 40 years of wage stagnation....the reason so many people are now on food stamps.

Instead of looking at the reason why so many people are on food stamps, and solving that problem first, they’re going after, vilifying and trying to kill the program that feeds so many working Americans.

 

New research is now giving us a look at the unintended consequences of teaching these food freeloaders a tough lesson in life:

NY Times: Nearly half a million people … would lose their eligibility for the (food stamp) program under proposed cuts that are expected to be taken up again by Congress. An additional 160,000 to 305,000 recipients who do get enough to eat would also lose their eligibility and the ability to adequately feed themselves. In total, about 5.1 million people would be eliminated from the program, according to a new report.

Problem solved, right Republicans?

The Health Impact Project, a Washington research group, released a study on Tuesday about the impact of the proposed cuts to the food stamp program … (by) the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts.

The report said cuts to the program would not only affect the ability of low-income households to feed themselves but would also increase poverty ... a lack of food would lead to increases in illnesses like heart disease, diabetes and high blood pressure among adults … In children, the cuts would lead to higher rates of asthma and depression. Diabetes alone could increase federal and state health care costs by nearly $15 billion over the next 10 years, the report found.

“We wanted to make sure that health is part of the debate,” said Dr. Aaron Wernham, the director of the project. “There is a large body of public health research which shows how food insecurity affects health.”

Yes, that’s important, and would seem to be the most convincing argument yet:

The $20.5 billion in cuts is expected to be the starting point for a new measure, and the Health Impact Project used that amount as the basis for its study. The food stamp program has become a target for conservatives in Congress as it has grown over the past decade. Nearly 48 million people currently receive food stamp benefits, and the program costs about $80 billion a year.

Dr. Wernham said “It’s a trade-off between paying for rent, medicine or food,” he said. “Policy makers need to understand what the health impacts are going to be if they make the kinds of changes they are considering to the SNAP program.”

This “kill food stamps” movement, which includes those hungry drags on our society, is really a denial of the historical reason these programs became law in the first place.

This is disaster capitalism; a situation in which a government takes advantage of a major disaster (Great Recession) to force people to accept economic policies they would never normally permit.

Are there no work houses? If jobs are scarce and you’re desperate to feed your family, you would be at the mercy of whatever business wants to pay you. The term “job creator” didn't really apply to business, it was another more acceptable name for “wealthy.” Businesses don’t exist to create jobs, they’re in it to make money with as few people (jobs) as possible.

Republican overuse of saying “protecting taxpayer money” red flag!

Failed policy alert!!!

The way I see it, the constant drumbeat of the Republican Party’s now overused public assurance that they’re “protecting taxpayer money” means they’re covering up ineffective policy with a meaningless standby cliché.

We know this administrations borrowing is way up for transportation, taxpayer money is disappearing into the WEDC black hole and unemployment fund, and tax cuts too numerous to mention haven’t been paid for, so the only thing left is to repeat over and over?; “we’re protecting taxpayer money, ignore what we've really done.”

Of course I've got an example, and the reason I’m posting this alert. Check out the ridiculously obvious first two sentences of Alberta Darling's comments in the following press release:

The Co-chair of the budget-writing Joint Committee on Finance, State Senator Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) issued the following statement (on the new law to) help stop trafficking of food stamp benefits.

"I applaud Governor Walker for signing this important protection for taxpayers. Our job as lawmakers is to be good stewards of the taxpayer's hard-earned money…”

That’s all that matters. I know Sen. Darling's statement would have had my conservative friend at the first mention of “protection.” That’s as deep into this story as he’d probably go.

Her second paragraph starts with and repeats the theme:

“Fraud hurts taxpayers and the people who rely on these benefits.”

There's an insecurity here that should be pointed out.

Food Stamp Debate Echoes Wisconsin Lunacy, as GOP Pummels Poor.

The rotting corps we know as the Republican Party showed us their really bad side today, when they took on food stamps in the farm bill. Never mind the corporate welfare in the bill with no real means test, it's conservative envy of those getting food stamps that needed addressing, forcing them to jump through government regulations...hey, I thought they didn't like regulations?

First, Massachusetts Rep. James McGovern just tears the Republicans apart in this clip that shines a light on some of those insulting hoops. He doesn't let up:

Rep. Joe Crowley is another Democrat who took the SNAP Challenge, where lawmakers lived on $5

a day like other food stamp recipients. Crowley is sympathetic, unlike his Republican counterpart Steve Stockman, who apparently didn't see Wisconsin State Rep. Dean Kaufert's junk food ban checklist. Popsicles, bag of cookies...?

If the list to the right isn't pathetic enough, Stockman went further:

Stockman’s communications director and agriculture policy advisor, was able to buy enough food to eat well for a week on just $27.58, almost four dollars less than the $31.50 “SNAP Challenge” figure. “We can cut the proposed benefits by an additional 12.4 percent and still be able to eat for a week.” 

 The theme again for Republicans...mocking the poor.  Here's Chris Hayes:



MSNBC's Martin Bashir:

Taxpayers Spend $26 million a year more to Penalize FoodShare Recipients.

We've already covered this part of the plan for draconian FoodShare cut backs:

jsonline: Requiring basic job training from able-bodied participants in the state's food stamp program would cause about half of them to drop out of the program — a total of tens of thousands of people statewide and 14,500 in just Milwaukee.

But did you know it will actually cost taxpayers $26 million a year? And state government will see no financial gain. WPR’s Shawn Johnson:

Walker’s Death Panel Policy: Starve the hungry, let the sick die.

When you hear the decree “Those who need the programs most” is essentially Scott Walker handing down a death sentence. A person’s access to food dies if you don’t grovel at a menial job or get empty job training for 20 hours a week.

What we're talking about here is FoodShare changes that'll cost state taxpayers, do little for employing anyone, and starve the jobless. "Those who need the program most" will still get food stamps we're told.

You've heard other Republicans use this same logic before: Health care under Medicaid is only for "those who need the program most;" if you’re not ultra poor enough, health care goes away and you gamble with your life. Of course, you can just go out and get a job after the Great Recession. Despite there being a lack of jobs, go out and get one anyway.

This Republican cruel streak is getting little media notice because most conservative’s envy the poor’s extravagant living arrangement. They have refrigerators, cars...a phone. They never think that they too are one health care event or job loss away from joining the huddled frightened masses.  

Paul Ryan has described his plans for Social Security and Medicare as safety “hammocks” that must be saved for “those who need the programs most.”  

I've noticed the pattern, anyone else? Republicans are so caring, gracious and humane. The voiceless poor who are dropped from these programs will just fade away and never be heard from again, and Republicans will say see, we saved taxpayer money and nothing horrible happened.

Requiring a job — or basic training for one — from able-bodied participants in the state's food stamp program would cause about half of them to drop out, a total of tens of thousands of people statewide and 14,500 in Milwaukee, according to a new report. The new projections come from the Legislature's nonpartisan budget office, which last week released its analysis of Gov. Scott Walker's plan to require 62,700 able-bodied adults without children in Wisconsin's FoodShare program to work or attend bare-bones job training. The Legislative Fiscal Bureau puts the cost of implementing the program at $35.8 million over two years, including $16.8 million for state taxpayers, and the rest by federal taxpayers. As part of the move, 36 state jobs would be added. The federal government won't allow benefits to be cut off if training doesn't continue to be made available to those affected by the provision.

Here's great audio from WPR's Shawn Johnson, and Rep. Cory Mason's poignant observation:

"Taking their food away isn't going to make the job opportunities and the skills gap any less real...it's just going to make more people, more hungry."  

Make sense? I wish more Democrats could be this honest in our legislature when Republicans trot out food rationing. Here's two other comments that hit the mark:

Jon Peacock, research director for the Wisconsin Council on Children and Families, said there wasn't much research to support the idea that the amount of training provided under the proposal would boost participants' employment.

"I don't think that training was the point of this," Peacock said. "It's making them jump through hoops to weed out people."

Sherrie Tussler, executive director of Hunger Task Force, said she expected as many as 70% of current FoodShare recipients to leave the program, "Starving the unemployed doesn't make them go away and doesn't make our communities better places to live."

Walker’s response: Spokesman Tom Evenson said, "The governor's proposal provides a safety net for those who need it most." 

FoodShare Users Eat Healthier, get less salt and saturated fat, new study says.

Did you know?

A recent study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), compared the diet of those on food stamps to low-income people who weren't.  

Questions upon Questions: Knowing that food stamp users eat the same kinds of food as the general population, why single them out? Why are Republicans offended by how others eat, when they’re exactly the same? And is it fair to regulate what they eat and not everyone else? Has the new attempt to regulate junk food changed the way conservatives snack?

All of the above questions will be lost on conservative nanny state lawmakers who can now act out their pent up outrage over poor people using food stamps. Control and dictatorial edicts of behavior is so commonplace on the right now, that to calm the urge to do something more, conservative are moving to the extremes.

The truth contradicts their assumptions. Food stamp users actually eat a little better than those who aren’t. It probably has a lot to do with having the ability to buy food, instead of rationing it.

Picture of Health?

WPR: Judi Bartfeld is a professor of consumer science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, not part of the study, (said) “When people get SNAP, they tend to eat a little better with regard to certain aspects of their diet. They might eat a little worse with regards to certain other aspects. But there just don't seem to be any major differences. The USDA study found those using food stamps did consume 23 percent more fruit, but they decreased the amount of dark green and orange vegetables eaten.  The USDA researchers speculate fruit doesn't require preparation and may be cheaper. Food stamp participants also get less sodium and saturated fat.

Rep. Dean Kaufert wasted a tremendous amount of time successfully vilifying food stamp users as junk food addicts, when in fact, they eat less sodium and saturated fat. From the looks of fat boy Kaufert, he could learn a few things watching what foods food stamp users buy, when he’s turning red with envy standing in the checkout line. 

"Envy Police" & FoodShare Meddling; exhibit A showing Big Government Nanny State Control sought by an overbearing Republican Authority!!!

Today's Wisconsin State Journal article contained the classic conservative line of green envy:

Yvonne Christian, 58, of Madison, thinks the bill is a good idea. Christian, who is disabled, said when she goes through the grocery lines, she is appalled by what people buy with FoodShare cards. “That upsets me because they've got nothing but junk.”

Who made Yvonne a FoodShare authority on nutrition? Who stands in the checkout watching what other people buy? What kind of person is "offended" by what other people buy? Envious conservative nanny state cry babies, that's who.

Protecting our Taxpayer Dollars: I'd like to remind these FoodShare spies that once upon a time, that FoodShare recipient paid in their fair share of taxes, and funded someone else's FoodShare card. All of a sudden, when we're still coming out of the Great Recession and reeling from Scott Walker's failed jobs creation policy, the conservative's are out to make an arbitrary list of targeted food by the "envy police."

Add to this attack on the downtrodden, Walker's attempt to bounce FoodShare card holders off the program by increasing weekly job searches from 2 to 4, a cruel ploy used by only 3 other states.

Getting tough on the poor and unemployed is nothing but a substitute for their own failure to create jobs and raise incomes. 

This petty list, reflecting conservative check out lane anger, appears long and labored compared to the few other state's who've tried the same thing. The federal governments Department of Agriculture, targeted for extinction by Republicans, is the only firewall from these draconian cuts.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture must approve such a change in the program, and so far, the agency has shown little inclination to do so. It has rejected much narrower requests in Minnesota to ban candy and soft drinks and another in New York targeting just soft drinks.

Imagine putting states in control of the safety net programs in the form of block grants. This is just a warning. 

Food Policeman “Pudge” Republican Rep. Dean Kaufert just like Michelle Obama? But I thought her Costly Nanny State Push for Healthy School Lunches was an Outrage?

And this guy is the one we should be listening to about eating healthy food? Pudgy State Rep. Dean Kaufert is now backing the "misguided" efforts of Michelle Obama, all the while ignoring the cost of his nanny state policing of Food Stamp purchases. My head is spinning.

TIME OUT: It’s funny no one wants to bring up how these same Republicans blew a gasket over Michelle Obama’s healthier school lunch menu’s, devoid of junk food. Aren't those lunches paid for by taxpayers, just like food stamps? 

VILIFYING THE POOR: Yet the media has never asked Rep. Dean Kaufert if his nanny state food police policy is just another way to make food stamps recipients look bad, welfare queens just sitting around getting fat, wasting taxpayer money on junk food. Come on, admit it, that’s the real motive here.

BS 1 & 2: (1) Kaufert trotted out the old Republican "a friend saw someone buy" standby from "eye witnesses" who hate the poor, and (2) laments what joint finance did about a state wide ban on big soda bans that he claims is now mucking up his hypocritical proposal.

BS 3 & 4: Kaufert claims he didn't want to pass the cost onto businesses, yet never studied how much it will cost them, and it will cost them. He then said it'll save money, even though food stamp recipients will be spending the money anyway. The health savings will be hard to measure since it's been estimated that around 80 percent of Wisconsinites are overweight. On one hand we're saying, be "free" to eat all the crap you can get your mouth around, but on the other hand, we're saying the poor should be healthier than the general population. And this makes government more streamlined and smaller?

MEMORY LANE. Republicans pummeled Michelle Obama. Republicans were very outspoken and said things that fly in the face of Kaufert's efforts:

The New American: Protesting the Obama administration’s “nanny-state” approach to curbing U.S. obesity, House Education and Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R-Minn.) is demanding a government investigation of the contentious new school lunch standards … The 2010 Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act, the first major overhaul of school lunches in 15 years, authorizes funding and enacts policy for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) core child nutrition programs. "State and local officials, parents and students have raised concerns," Kline wrote Wednesday to the federal government’s Government Accountability Office (GAO), "specifically the adequacy of the calorie maximum, the cost of the new requirements … Reps. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) and Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) requested that the GAO investigate and report back on the cost of the new standards and whether they have encouraged students to abandon school lunch programs.

That crazy right wing lunatic Michelle Malkin wrote this and made our argument against Kaufert for us:

The road to gastric hell is paved with first lady Michelle Obama’s Nanny State intentions. Get your Pepto Bismol ready. The taste of government waste is indigestion-inducing. (The) “trailblazing introduction of healthful school lunches has been a flop.” In response to the public hectoring and financial inducement of Mrs. Obama’s federally subsidized anti-obesity campaign, the district dropped chicken nuggets, corn dogs and flavored milk … Thousands of students voted with their upset tummies and abandoned the program. A forbidden-food black market — stoked not just by students, but also by teachers — is now thriving.

There’s nothing wrong with encouraging our children to eat healthier, of course. There’s nothing wrong with well-run, locally based and parent-driven efforts. But as I've noted before, the federal foodie cops care much less about students’ waistlines than they do about boosting government and public union payrolls.

So then Kaufert is all about boosting big government Republican nanny state regulations and more public employees overseeing the program?  Sure.

Did you know, poor people are Fat!!! “Small Government” Nanny State Republican Food Police to tell Adults what they can Eat.

The Republican message is clear: Junk food eating poor people are fat, lazy and too stupid. They should buy expensive food that would burn through the limited dollar amount of food stamps they're given. 

So much for freedom, small government and the Republican argument against liberal nanny state laws.

They hate governmental bans on trans fats and large gulp soda drinks, but love policing food stamp recipient purchases?  

Food stamp recipients would have to spend most of their benefits on healthy food … requiring at least two-thirds of the purchases in the state's FoodShare program to come from a list of state-defined healthy foods, with Republicans arguing that the benefits outweighed the opposition of some business interests and advocates for the needy.

Republican nanny staters know better and know all. From WKOW: 

No one knows how much junk food is purchased, or that there is a problem. They're going by second hand accounts. In fact, all the horror stories they like to tell, like my conservative friend in Milwaukee, usually involve the poor buying steaks and shrimp.

This law is nothing but another dressing down of the poor, vilifying them and creating the image of fat food stamp freeloaders. And while Republicans should be focused on job creation, they’re plowing ahead with a law that is meaningless.

jsonline: The proposal would likely be rejected by the federal government, which pays for the great majority of the program's costs. The bill's lead sponsor, Rep. Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah), said state officials should push forward and hope for the final go-ahead from President Barack Obama's administration.

We’re giving taxpayer money to this fat bastard!!! Our taxpayer money is feeding this bloated hypocrite. Why should we be on the hook for his health care bill when this unhealthy specimen needs treatment? He is buying junk food with taxpayer money that you could argue, he hasn't earned. 

State Republicans wage War on Wisconsin Identity, Expensive Junk Food!!!

Remember when Republican State Rep. Dale Kooyenga wanted to clean up state statutes by removing the requirement that dairy state restaurants always provide butter with or without a serving of margarine. What's that all about?

Republican state Rep. Dale Kooyenga, a 32-year-old accountant from Brookfield wants to undo law he calls silly, antiquated and anti-free market. Kooyenga argues that changing the law would save the state money since margarine is typically a third of the cost of butter.

Brilliant stuff. Another Republican, Rep. Dean Kaufert is trying to ban junk food from the food stamp program...a ban that includes a few other important dairy state products. Doh!

Members of the state affairs committee are approving a bill that limits the amount of junk food that can be purchased with food stamp benefits.

The big butt....

WMTV: "This bill does not allow for Wisconsinites who are utilizing the FoodShare program to purchase sharp cheddar cheese, Swiss cheese, shredded cheese or reduced sodium cheeses," said State Rep. JoCasta Zamarripa, D-Milwaukee. "And I just want to indicate again how that hurts not just those individuals, those Wisconsinites using the FoodShare program.....but it hurts our dairy farmers."

The committee passed the bill 7-2, so it'll be heading to the full Assembly for consideration in May.

I don't know why farmers typically vote conservative when in fact, Republicans have shown time and time again that they'll stab their constituents in the back in the blink of an eye.

Republican Food Police!!! Nanny State Rep. Dean Kaufert wants you to eat what he tells you.

What do you mean Republicans are for small government? Bullshit.

Republicans are spending all their time shaping government and our social norms around their contorted vision based partly on a fiction novelists brutal writings and theocratic doctrine.

They can't help themselves when it comes to telling people what TV shows to watch, video games they should play, pictures they can see, movies they can attend, news that tells "the truth," laws you don't have to obey, a state religion we should establish, an emergency manager to replace elected officials, medically unnecessary procedures women must endure...you get the picture.

Now State Rep. Dean Kaufert wants to micromanage what food people eat on the FoodShare Program. Even though it's illegal:

"States aren't allowed to set their own definitions of what's 'healthy' or 'junk,' and Kaufert's bill doesn't actually name any products or food groups. The state also can't change what FoodShare covers without a waiver from the federal government."

Which I'm sure he won't get, but that's beside the point. Kaufert apparently doesn't care.

Partners in crime, food industry lobbyists, hate the idea too. Too bad, there's no honor among thieves:

WPR: Several Wisconsin food and beverage industry groups are criticizing an Assembly bill that would require residents on food assistance to buy mostly nutritious food.

More than 800,000 Wisconsinites depend on the FoodShare program. But Assembly Republican Dean Kaufert of Neenah says too many spend their allocation on junk food at taxpayers' expense. Kaufer says his bill does not define what is considered 'nutritious' food.

"If you read my bill, I acknowledge one thing: This proposal is short on details. But that's because I intentionally did it that way, so that the groups wouldn't be going nuts already."

Nine organizations have signed a letter in opposition, including the Midwest Food Processors Association. President Nick George says the government has no right to decide what is nutritious, and therefore what companies win and which ones lose.

He says, for example, what if potato products like French fries and chips don't make the list? He says less potato demand would mean that processors would have to let some workers go.

"That will have a very negative impact on our industry. Wisconsin is number three in the country in the production and processing of potatoes."