Philip Brasher reported yesterday at the Green Fields Blog (The Des Moines Register) that, “Anti-hunger activists are criticizing Congress by rolling back food-stamp benefits to pay for saving teacher jobs and to fund higher spending on school lunches and other child nutrition programs.

“‘These are real cuts with real impact on low-income households who,
for the first time, will see their benefits fall from one month to the
next,’ according to the Food Research and Action Center.

“The reduction in benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, as food stamps are now known, provided $11.9 billion for funding teacher salaries and other state programs.”

Yesterday’s update noted that, “Aides to Sen. Tom Harkin,
D-Ia., issued a statement today saying that the reduction was returning
benefits to levels where they were before they were increased as part of
the 2009 stimulus bill.

“The bill ‘does not ‘cut’ food stamp benefits, but rather
returns a temporary increase of benefits that was included in the
Recovery Act to normal, historical benefit levels,’ the statement said.
‘Congress always intended for the food stamp increases in the recovery
bill be temporary in nature. In fact, they were designed to end over
time and revert back to normal levels. Rescinding food stamp increases several years from now is consistent with the original intent of the Recovery Act.’”

Mr. Brasher pointed out that, “There is an additional
reduction in food stamps contained in a Senate-passed child nutrition
bill. That legislation still must be approved by the House.

“If that cut goes through as well, a family of four would see their benefits fall by $59 in November 2013, according to FRAC.”

In a related item, The Wall Street Journal editorial board opined today that, “Democrats
say they’ll restore the food stamp funding once they can find another
$12 billion in tax hikes or (less likely) spending cuts to serve as
offsets. They’d better hope they keep the House in November.
[Representative Rosa DeLauro (D., Conn.)] and her colleagues have
clearly put at risk the additional funds they wanted to devote to
feeding the poor, at a time when record numbers of Americans are now
receiving such assistance.”