Cutting back funding for food stamps means that “somewhere in America today some poor soul is relying on dog food to take them through the month,” says Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Fla. To discontinue continue access to such public assistant is “punitive and it’s cruel.”
The insinuation here is that without government handouts, human beings will suddenly forget how to provide for themselves. (For a group who believe so strongly in evolution, progressives sure don’t put much faith in the survival resiliency of human beings.)
On the floor of the House, Wilson ranted against the farm bill that separated food stamp spending from farm subsidies, causing Democrats to rage against the move. Wilson claimed,
“Mr. Speaker, SNAP, Food Stamps, however you phrase it, is fundamental to the nutritional supplement to millions of Americans — black, white, feeble seniors, struggling mothers, disabled veterans and hungry children. Mr. Speaker, it was reported to me that there are seniors in my district who eat dog food when their food stamps run out. I was appalled and went to see for myself, and I was dumbfounded. I fixed the situation, but I’m sure that somewhere in America today some poor soul is relying on dog food to take them through the month. Mr. Speaker, please do not hurt or destroy what is a mainstay in the lives of so many Americans who are just trying to get by. Do not remove nutrition, including the food stamp program from the farm bill. It’s wrong, it’s punitive and it’s cruel.”
The other problem with Rep. Wilson’s assumptions is that dog food is actually more expensive than people food.