The last major hurdle in clearing the state aid package for cities and towns, schools and Medicaid funding has passed with the 61 – 38 filibuster vote. The Globe is reporting that senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins were the two Republicans who voted to stop debate.
The legislation, a $26 billion national aid package, is paid for by spending cuts and a tax hike on multinational corporations. The bill prevailed over a Republican filibuster by a vote of 61-38. Sixty votes were required to overcome the GOP’s procedural roadblock. Two Republicans broke ranks and supported the measure: Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine.
Unfortunately, Scott Brown voted to filibuster state aid funding.
The bill is funded by spending cuts and the closing of a loophole that allowed multinational corporations to get tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas. Scott Brown was apparently unhappy with the funding of the bill and spending cuts. Instead, Scott Brown wanted to move numbers around and pretend that the bill is funded. Brown supported using unspent stimulus dollars, while never detailing exactly how those stimulus dollars would be offset.
Spending is spending Scott. Very poor all around for our Jr. Senator.
One of the ways the Senate bill pays for this additional funding to states is by cutting the food stamp program by $11.9 billion.
<
p>That idea is something that Senator Brown champions, but apparently it wasn’t enough to make him vote for the bill.
<
p>Must squeeze poor more.
was that the price of food has decreased because of the recession. The amount lowered takes into account the price difference from the original estimates. With ARRA spending on food stamps are higher through 2018 based on CBO estimates even with this reduction.
Here’s another.
<
p>As a result of the recession, millions more households are now dependent on food stamps. In Massachusetts, for example, the rate of food stamp participation increased by 18 percent from May 2009 to May 2010.
<
p>ARRA (the stimulus bill passed by Congress in February of last year)included a badly-needed increase in food stamp benefits. But even with this increase, the average amount per person per day is only $4.50.
<
p>Another result of the recession is that inflation is lower than expected. So, yes, as you say, the price of food has decreased some because of the recession. Maybe food prices are a little lower, but they certainly haven’t fallen as much as household incomes. If I don’t have a job, it doesn’t really matter much if a loaf of bread is a little bit cheaper than it used to be.
<
p>The Senate bill proposes to take back the food stamp increase that ARRA provided, at a time when participation in this program has hit new records for 18 consecutive months.
<
p>Maybe the Senate action can be described as returning benefits to their prior levels in view of the low inflation rate. But I think what it means is more hunger.
In addition, ARRA provides a temporary boost:
<
p>
<
p>I’m not arguing that it’s the best scenario. I’m saying that ARRA was never intended to increase food stamps it was a temporary measure for a needed that as it turned out didn’t materialize. But with the reduction additional benefits will still be realized through 2018.
My problem is deciding “what is needed” based only by the cost of food rather than by taking a look at the situation on the ground, where food stamps, even with the ARRA increase, are barely adequate. Making the expiration date of this increase sooner is ill-advised in my book (and it happened again yesterday with the Child Nutrition Program!).
<
p>Anyway, guess we can agree that it’s not the best scenario.