Can the GOP be tough on the rich? How about no food stamps?
The White House on Thursday rejected as insubstantial a GOP proposal to curtail unemployment insurance and food stamps for the rich as an offset for extending the payroll tax cut.
Who says Republicans can’t be hard on millionaires and billionaires?Skip to next paragraph
As Iowa's Kent Sorenson jumps to Ron Paul ship, rat analogies abound
Could Romney 'train' be derailed by Gingrich? Perry? Someone new?
Virginia primary: Was it so hard for Perry and Gingrich to get on the ballot?
Donald Trump as third-party candidate: Will he woo Americans Elect?
Ron Paul: why racist newsletter flap could hurt him in Iowa
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
The income garnered by keeping people like Warren Buffett from using the SNAP program (food stamps) would be part of an effort to pay for a one-year extension of the 2 percent payroll tax cut, which will cost over $120 billion.
In fact the US Department of Agriculture already does require means testing in order to receive food stamps.
In an interview, Stewart Bybee, a spokesman for Senator Heller says the purpose of the anti-millionaire legislation is to “preserve taxpayer funds for those who need it the most.” He adds, “Millionaires and billionaires I think can sustain their lifestyle without taking unemployment compensation.”
According to IRS data in 2009, some 2,353 households that reported $1 million in income collected a total of $20.7 million in unemployment compensation. Some 716 households that reported making $2 million collected $6.67 million in income, while 18 households reporting $10 million in income collected $222,000 in unemployment.