Here’s the Latest on Litigation Over Election Results

Attorney General William Barr says federal prosecutors have the authority to investigate evidence of voter fraud. Pictured: Barr leaves the Capitol after meeting Monday with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. (Photo: Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito ordered county election boards in Pennsylvania to comply with guidance requiring them to keep ballots received after 8 p.m. Election Day “in a safe, secure, and sealed container separate from other voted ballots,” as Newsweek and other outlets reported Friday. How could Alito’s directive affect returns for the presidential election?

Additionally, The Associated Press reported that 24 Wisconsin counties had completed canvassing of election results as of Monday morning, but that “all 72 must be in before President Donald Trump could call for a recount.” How long will that take, and will other states besides Georgia recount?

Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, joins the podcast to discuss.

We also cover these stories:

The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>

  • The Supreme Court hears arguments about ending Obamacare, but some conservative justices apparently don’t see a need for the health care law to be repealed in its entirety.
  • Attorney General William Barr announces that prosecutors at the Justice Department can look into evidence of voting irregularities.
  • Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., pledges that he will not support packing the Supreme Court with more justices or ending the Senate filibuster.

“The Daily Signal Podcast” is available on Ricochet, Apple PodcastsPippaGoogle Play, and Stitcher. All of our podcasts may be found at If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You also can leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at

Rachel del Guidice: I’m joined today on “The Daily Signal Podcast” by Jason Snead. He’s the executive director of the Honest Elections Project and also a former colleague of mine at The Heritage Foundation. Jason, it’s great to have you with us on “The Daily Signal Podcast.”

Jason Snead: It’s great to be here.

Del Guidice: Well, Jason, to start off with the question that’s really foremost on everyone’s minds, do you think there was any voter fraud in this election or any potential voter fraud?

Snead: Well, there’s always voter fraud in any election to some degree. We know that because you can look at the convictions, it’s on the Heritage voter fraud database. And you see that in essentially every election cycle there are people who are willing to cheat, willing to take illegal steps to try to rig or steal elections.

So the media narrative that you get that voter fraud just does not exist in any way, shape, or form is simply erroneous, and it has a lot more to do with political spin than with reality.

The question now seems to be, is there evidence of widespread, organized, systemic fraud that could’ve thrown a presidential election? That’s been certainly alleged by the president, by folks involved in his campaign, and his campaign’s legal team. And I think that we’re waiting to see what evidence they’ve got to back up those assertions.

So I think that we need to be, of course, keeping a close eye on that. We need to be careful not to believe necessarily every claim of fraud that we see. But I think beyond any doubt whatsoever, fraud does occur, and it probably occurred in the 2020 election as well.

Del Guidice: Since you’re saying it probably did occur, how do you think, Jason, this should be handled and investigated?

Snead: I think it should be handled carefully and deliberately. And I think that if the facts ultimately do merit prosecutions against individuals who did commit fraud, then I think the prosecutions would be justified.

But what we, I think, need to also be careful about is jumping to conclusions too quickly about the degree to which fraud occurred.

There are undoubtedly instances that are more credible than others that have already come to light. For instance, I saw a report out of Wisconsin that, I believe it was four felons voted in the 2020 election despite being apparently ineligible to do so. I believe that they were all on parole or probation.

So that sort of a thing, to my mind, would obviously be very credible. But I think that in terms of some of the grander concerns, I think that we need to see what evidence we’ve got and examine that very carefully.

Del Guidice: I’m curious about your perspective on one of the big headlines yesterday. Attorney General Bill Barr announced that he will allow the [Justice Department] to investigate voter fraud. What all does this mean, and is this appropriate?

Snead: Well, I certainly share the attorney general’s perspective, at least in so far as he spelled it out in the letter, that credible accusations of fraud or malfeasance in the elections absolutely need to be investigated.

One of the most difficult things about this area of law and policy is that proving that fraud occurred is a very difficult thing to do. And sometimes what happens is claims of fraud, even credible ones, wind up not getting investigated or not getting prosecuted, particularly after an election is over, for various reasons.

So I certainly share the sense that if you’ve got a concern that fraud could impact the election of 2020, that it ought to be investigated.

And there’s really two reasons to do that, right? One is that, of course, if the concern is valid and if fraud did occur, then you absolutely want to get to the bottom of that and bring the people who are responsible to justice.

But the flip side of that is that if fraud did not occur, then you want to be able to say with certainty that it did not happen, and here’s the evidence to rebut the concern that it did.

Because at the end of the day, you want to be able to tell voters that the election was conducted fairly, that it was conducted honestly, and that the result can be trusted.

I don’t think that you can tell voters that if the response to every single concern that gets raised either about mischief or mismanagement, which is another part of this conversation, the mismanagement of elections or bureaucratic incompetence, if all of those concerns are simply going to be brushed aside, I think that sends the wrong message to voters.

And I’m not sure that you can seriously say that you’re taking seriously the credibility of democracy if you’re just ignoring all problems.

Del Guidice: Speaking of potential issues of voter fraud, The Federalist reported on Monday that there might have been incidents of curing of ballots in Wisconsin. And this is where officials count a ballot that is legally disqualified or difficult to read.

How, Jason, do you think this should be responded to, and are there other instances of voter irregularities that you’ve heard of yourself?

Snead: We’ve been looking at some of the concerns about irregularities and trying to determine, frankly, what actually has happened in some of these places like Philadelphia, like Detroit, and elsewhere, and understand what some of the problems were.

I think that really one of the things when it comes to counting ineligible ballots and concerns about the process—which, that’s what a lot of the lawsuits that have been filed are about, is really about the process.

One of the overarching concerns that often is getting left out of media coverage is the fact that all across the country, states, particularly battleground states, wound up either changing their election rules or having those rules essentially changed for them in the course of often very partisan, very politicized lawsuits that were brought by groups on the left, including the [Democratic National Committee] itself, where they were suing to invalidate voter identification and verification requirements for absentee ballots, to try to legalize ballot harvesting, to really change the rules.

And it’s sort of similar in some respects to changing the rules of baseball in the middle of the seventh inning. No one would really think that that was entirely fair or trust that the only reason for changing the rule is just for the benefit of the fans, not because the umpire was picking favorites or picking sides. But that’s what was going on.

So that risks not only, of course, the credibility of the election, but it also risks confusion about what the rules actually are.

And so I think that one of the big lessons that we need to take away from 2020 is that rules should not be changed, particularly not through partisan lawsuits, close to an election because that really risks the integrity of the entire process.

Del Guidice: Well, Jason, even though the Biden campaign has claimed victory in the presidential election, the Trump campaign has filed lawsuits with current litigation pending in, I think, at least five states. I know in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Michigan, Georgia, and Arizona. Can you sort of walk us through the latest on what’s happening on those efforts?

Snead: Well, as I said, pretty much all of these cases at this point are talking about procedural issues that deal with the counting of votes.

So for instance, trying to get ballots that were received after a statutory deadline for the receipt of absentee ballots segregated. That happened in Pennsylvania. Concerns about poll watching. Concerns about ballots.

In Maricopa County, [Arizona], I saw one lawsuit there about ballots where the concern is about an apparent over-vote situation where, for one reason or another, the machine was reading a ballot that was cast and counting it anyway.

And the problem when you’ve got an over-vote situation is that that would essentially cancel out the votes of that particular person for, in this case, president.

So we’ve got a lot of concerns about procedure. And some of these, of course, could affect the vote count. And any lawsuit that does affect the vote count should be taken seriously.

What we’re now seeing, really what we’re now waiting to see, I think, is some of the lawsuits that could potentially affect the outcome of the election to the degree that would be necessary to overcome [former Vice President Joe] Biden’s lead in places like Pennsylvania where the separation between them is several—I think it’s about 40,000 votes, 45,000 votes at the time that we’re recording this.

Del Guidice: On Friday, Newsweek reported that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito made an order saying that all county boards of election must comply with guidance that requires them to keep ballots received after 8 p.m. on Tuesday in a safe, secure, and sealed container separate from other voter ballots.

What is your perspective on this directive from Justice Alito? And what’s the update on what’s happening here as we’re now getting into the middle of the week?

Snead: Well, the order that Alito gave to segregate ballots is mostly to preserve the ability for any postelection litigation that impacts those late-arriving ballots to actually be carried out and potentially to invalidate those votes, depending on the outcome of the litigation.

The backstory here is that going into Election Day, there was a torrent of legal activity in Pennsylvania because you had a situation where the left was suing the state. The secretary of state was trying to enter into a consent decree to change the state’s ballot receipt deadline from Election Day to several days after the election.

And eventually, that wound up going to the United States Supreme Court, and the court deadlocked and split, four justices to four justices, allowing a ruling by the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court upholding that extension to be in effect for this election.

Now that case in Pennsylvania is back before the Supreme Court. There’s a cert petition pending. A number of states filed amicus briefs supporting the court taking that case.

My group has filed one, as well as others, supporting the court taking the case and deciding the issue once and for all—whether or not a court can indeed extend the statutory deadline or whether that power is vested in the legislature and the federal Constitution. And there are some variations on that question in other states as well.

So the order from Justice Alito is preserving the segregation of ballots that arrived after 8 p.m. on Election Day so that in the event that the court does take up the issue and in the event that it does rule that those ballots are constitutionally invalid, that you still know what ballots are actually affected, what the numbers are, and then you can have a remedy available to you.

Del Guidice: In terms of recounts, some states, and I know the Trump campaign is asking for those, The Associated Press reported this week that 24 counties in Wisconsin had completed their canvassing of last week’s election results as of Monday morning, but that also two counties must be in before the Trump campaign could call for a recount.

How long, Jason, do you think it will be before Wisconsin does a recount? And are there other states that you expect recounts from?

Snead: I’m not sure how long we’ll be waiting on Wisconsin, but I do expect that there will be recounts. There could potentially be a recount in Arizona. There could be a recount in Georgia.

Pennsylvania seems unlikely that if there is a recount that it would seriously affect the vote tallies just because, historically speaking, recounts don’t usually result in significant changes to the numbers.

We’re talking something on the order of hundreds or maybe a couple thousand votes at the outside. So I think that probably a recount is going to be most significant in places like Arizona and Georgia where it’s relatively closely divided.

Del Guidice: Per the Congressional Research Service, the Electoral College will be meeting in just about a month to cast their votes. And since this is just about a month away, maybe a month and a few days, how far do you think litigation will be able to progress before this vote happens?

Snead: I think that we’ve got a long way to go before we get to the meeting of the Electoral College. Of course, if you’re looking for some historical precedent here, look back to 2000 with Bush v. Gore, when the Supreme Court issued its ruling right before the safe harbor deadline.

The safe harbor deadline is the statutory deadline that Congress has set that states have to certify their elections and impanel a seat of electors for the Electoral College. And as long as they get it in before that date, then it’s not subject to second-guessing by Congress. And so that extended right up until that deadline.

So we could be looking at litigation that could stretch for the next four or five weeks until we get to the safe harbor deadline in early December this year. And I guess the alternative argument here is that the litigation could be resolved before that, but certainly we could be in for a scenario where it goes the full distance.

Del Guidice: Going back briefly to election irregularities, the Public Interest Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit last month alleging that 21,000 dead people were on the Pennsylvania voter rolls before Election Day.

Jason, do you think that this impacted the election outcome, having these 21,000 people that shouldn’t have been registered still on the voter rolls?

Snead: I certainly think that it’s a concerning situation anytime you see that a state is not adequately maintaining its voter rolls because there are actually two federal laws that require that states take action to maintain clean, accurate, and reliable voter registration records. And the reasons are pretty obvious, right?

If you’re talking about having an honest and fair election, that starts with having clean voter rolls so that you actually know how many voters there are in your community and who is eligible and who is not to cast a ballot. That’s a very important thing to understand.

And every year you’ve got about 10% of the U.S. population that moves. You’ve got many millions more who either pass away or become ineligible because they’re, say, convicted of a felony. So the voter rolls are not static things. They have to constantly be updated.

But despite the fact that it is not only legally required but it’s just common sense to be cleaning up your voter rolls and removing old, outdated, or duplicative entries, that has become a very contentious process.

Many states quite deliberately drag their feet in this and do not prioritize list maintenance, even actively resist engaging in the practice. And there are a lot of outside groups on the left that will sue states trying to stop them.

So I look at examples like this as just further evidence of the fact that states are often not doing enough in this area and need to be doing more. Because, again, to get back to an earlier point, you want to be able to show voters that the system works, that it works well, that you can trust the results.

And when you see information like that coming out, that’s a very concerning thing because, yes, not only does that open up the door to fraud, but it also sends up a red flag that maybe the system is not working as well as it should.

Del Guidice: On that note, Jason, as we wrap up, many voters right now are concerned about fraud and how ballots are being counted. Do you have concerns about election integrity, specifically in this 2020 election?

Snead: Well, I do. And in fact, I’ve been concerned from the beginning because we saw almost immediately when the pandemic hit and all of the closures started that there was a concerted push to take advantage of that situation to push a political agenda that amounted to reshaping elections and doing away with lots of the basic safeguards: verification, identification, ballot harvesting bans.

You saw legislation being pushed in Congress. You saw litigation being brought in nearly every state by some very deep-pocketed liberal organizations, including the Democratic Party itself.

It was a concerted strategic push to undermine the safeguards and the rules that, by and large, Americans support and that undergird the system and provide, I think, some great benefits to help with democracy.

So I do have concerns that going forward, not only in terms of how we’re processing 2020, but then looking to future elections, I have concerns about this trend continuing where the process of voting itself is increasingly politicized, the rhetoric surrounding it is increasingly toxic.

And you’ve now got a baseline standard that really began back in 2018 with Stacey Abrams refusing to concede to her opponent in the gubernatorial race to now where you basically got a situation where if my side doesn’t win, then I think that the entire process is rigged.

I think that’s a very difficult place to be if we’re talking about the election system writ large. We need to talk about this from the issue of principles, not politics. Preserving the integrity of our elections goes hand in hand with preserving the credibility of democracy.

And I think that we need to be fighting for fair, transparent voting processes protected with things like voter ID laws, protected with ballot harvesting bans that make sure that everyone knows that their vote counts and that their voice is going to be heard

Del Guidice: What a strong note to end on. Jason, thank you so much for joining us on “The Daily Signal Podcast.” It’s great having you.

Snead: Thank you.


11 observations in a dark time

Dennis Prager: Leftists consider it a moral obligation to cheat in order to stop ‘dictator’ Trump

As there is too much to say in the space of one column, I will simply offer some thoughts on the state of the country a week after the 2020 elections.

No. 1: While I am not certain the reported election results are dishonest, I suspect they are. Worse, about half this country believes this, too.

This is unprecedented in American history.

One might counter that this is not unprecedented, that this was precisely what half the American electorate felt in 2000, when many Democrats rejected the 2000 Supreme Court decision regarding Florida’s ballot counting. But that was entirely different. No one alleged widespread Republican fraud in the election of George W. Bush. The issue in that extremely close election involved a faulty voting system that resulted in hand recounts using differing ballot-counting standards from one jurisdiction to the next. Liberal justices joined the 7-2 vote in ruling for Bush that the recounts could not constitutionally go forward.

Therefore, the fact that nearly half the country is far from certain that Joe Biden was honestly elected is unprecedented.

Half this country believes, with good reason, that if Democratic Party officials believe they can get away with cheating, they will do so. Aside from the Democrats having a history of ballot-manipulation, there is an even more compelling reason to believe Democrats would cheat. For four years, they have been telling the nation and telling one another that President Donald Trump is a dictator, a fascist and a white supremacist. Therefore, if a leftist considers himself a moral individual and works in tabulating election results, and he can help prevent the reelection of a white supremacist fascist dictator, wouldn’t he do so? Wouldn’t he be morally obligated to do so?

No. 2: For four years, the mainstream print and electronic media waged daily, indeed hourly, vicious attacks on Trump as a human being. Rarely did they attack his policies, since they were so beneficial to America (some of the greatest economic figures in memory and the lowest black unemployment rate ever recorded) and to the world (a major weakening of Iran and a major strengthening of Israel and Israel-Arab peace). Worse, the media and the Democratic Party immersed the country in a three-year lie about Trump campaign collusion with Russia.

Yet, 70 million Americans still voted for Trump. The Democrats lost seats in the House and will probably not gain control of the Senate, despite the larger number of Republican incumbents who were up for reelection.

Americans watched Democratic governors and mayors do nothing as left-wing thugs burned their cities. And then they watched Democratic mayors and city councils defund their police departments. That is one reason Democrats fared so badly.

No. 3: The mainstream media are now perceived as fraudulent by half of America. This has never been the case. But from The New York Times’ mendacious claim that America’s true founding was in 1619 and was founded in order to preserve slavery – for which the equally dishonest Pulitzer Prize committee awarded the paper a Pulitzer Prize – to the entire mainstream press’s ignoring of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, only left-wing Americans now believe the mainstream media.

No. 4: That is one reason the tech companies shut down conservative voices. The more people hear nonleft ideas, the more they gravitate away from the left. As a result, for the first time in American history, free speech is seriously threatened – not by government, but by private companies. Free speech is the most important freedom of all. If we lose it, it is the end of our country. What may happen then is the division of America, either formally or informally, into two nations, each with its own media and its own schools.

No. 5: Despite four years of being accused of racism and xenophobia, Trump increased both his black and Latino vote. If Trump lost honestly, it was due to his loss of the white male vote – from +31 in 2016 to +23 in 2020.

No. 6: The Democratic Party was once liberal. It is now leftist. And the left, everywhere in the world, suppresses dissent wherever it takes over – from Lenin to the modern American university to Twitter and the rest of Big Tech.

No. 7: Liberals loved America. The left loathes it. Therefore, since the left governs American education, America-hatred dominates the education system from kindergarten to graduate school. You are risking the poisoning of your children’s minds, souls and consciences by sending them to most American schools and nearly all American colleges. Don’t. Home-school, or find a school that teaches rather than indoctrinates.

No. 8: Hydroxychloroquine, one of the safest and oldest medications known to man, when given with zinc to almost anyone as soon as the individual develops symptoms or tests positive with COVID-19, prevents death and even hospitalization in the overwhelming majority of cases. History will likely note that the politicians and scientists who opposed hydroxychloroquine have a lot of blood on their hands.

No. 9: Those who can work from home are far more likely to support lockdowns than those who cannot work from home. As a rule, the former are more likely to be Democrats and more likely to be wealthier than the latter.

No. 10: All over the country, stores in big cities were boarded up solely to protect themselves from left-wing rioters should Trump have won. When Biden was declared the winner, the boards came down. Because everyone knows that conservatives don’t riot.

No. 11: If Biden wins, more and more nonleft Americans will lose their reputations, their businesses and their freedom to speak.

All of which plausibly renders the Georgia runoffs for U.S. senator the most important elections in American history.

Where things stand in the House

The Democrats majority is shrinking and three dozen races have yet to be called

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s majority has shrunk in House, a shock to Democrats and pollsters who were projecting the California Democrat would expand her caucus after Tuesday’s election.

Democrats were optimistic they could flip roughly 10 seats but their expansion efforts came up short, especially in Texas, and they ended up losing seats in Flordia, Oklahoma, Minnesota and elsewhere.


As of 3 p.m. on Friday, Democrats had won 212 seats compared to Republicans’ 194. Another 29 races have yet to be called. Democrats had a net loss of four seats.

Outstanding races are in New York, California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Utah, Arizona, and elsewhere. When all those votes are counted, Republicans are optimistic their numbers could swell to 208 and beyond, according to the National Republican Congressional Committee.

What’s known is that Republicans have flipped at least seven seats from blue to red and an eighth seat in Michigan that was most recently occupied by a Libertarian. Here’s a snapshot of the GOP victories:

GOP gains in the House

–In Florida, Republican candidate Carlos Gimenez defeated freshman Democratic Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell in the 26th district. Republican Maria Elvira Salazar defeated freshman Democratic Rep. Donna Shalala in the 27th district.

–In Oklahoma, Republican Stephanie Bice unseated freshman Democratic Rep. Kendra Horn. Horn flipped the seat from red to blue last cycle.

— In South Carolina, freshman congressman Democrat Joe Cunningham was projected to lose his reelection to state GOP Rep. Nancy Mace, flipping South Carolina’s 1st District back to red.

— In Minnesota, Republican Michelle Fischbach ousted longtime Democratic Rep. Collin Peterson, toppling the powerful chairman of the House Agriculture Committee in the most pro-Trump district held by a Democrat.

— In New Mexico, Republican Yvette Herrell defeated freshman Rep. Xochitl Torres Small, a freshman Democrat who flipped the 2nd Congressional seat from red to blue in 2018.

— In Iowa’s First Congressional District, Republican state representative and former TV news anchor Ashley Hinson defeated Democratic incumbent Abby Finkenauer.

– In West Michigan, Republican Peter Meijer, an Iraq war veteran whose grandfather started Meijer superstores, defeated Democrat Hillary Scholten, a former Department of Justice and nonprofit lawyer. The Third Congressional District was open after Rep. Justin Amash, a Republican-turned-Libertarian, did not seek reelection.


Republicans say more victories are on the horizon


Party officials are most optimistic about reclaiming two seats in New York that Democrats flipped in 2018. Votes are still being counted but Republican Nicole Malliotakis has a notable lead over freshman Rep. Max Rose in the Staten Island-Brooklyn district. And former GOP Rep. Claudia Tenney was also ahead in the 22nd District seat she lost two years ago to Rep. Anthony Brindisi.

Democrats have gained two open seats in North Carolina thanks to redrawn congressional maps that favored them and will welcome Deborah Ross and Kathy Manning to their caucus in January.

And Democrats flipped Georgia’s 7th Congressional District held by retiring Rep. Rob Woodall, R-Ga. Democrat Carolyn Bourdeaux beat GOP candidate Rich McCormick in the suburban Atlanta district, the Associated Press called on Friday.

That means Democrats so far have a net loss of four seats in the House.


Democrats think they can hold onto many close races that have not been called and have two other possible pick-up opportunities by defeating Rep. Jeff Van Drew in New Jersey and Rep. Mike Garcia in California.

On a call Thursday afternoon with Democratic House members, Rep. Cheri Bustos, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), expressed frustration with the polling and election forecasts that all pointed to House Democrats expanding their majority.

“I’m furious,” Bustos told her colleagues, according to a source familiar with the call. “Something went wrong here across the entire political world. Our polls, Senate polls, Gov polls, presidential polls, Republican polls, public polls, turnout modeling, and prognosticators all pointed to one political environment – that environment never materialized.”

I have written about the tremendous increase in the food stamp program the last 9 years before and that means that both President Obama and Bush were guilty of not trying to slow down it’s growth. Furthermore, Republicans have been some of the biggest supporters of the food stamp program. Milton Friedman had a good solution to help end the welfare state and wish more people would pay attention to it.   Growing government also encourages waste and hurt growth but more importantly it causes people to become dependent on the government as this article and cartoon below show.

My great fear is that the “social capital” of self reliance in America will slowly disappear and that the United States will turn into a European-style welfare state.

That’s the message in the famous “riding in the wagon” cartoons that went viral and became the most-viewed post on this blog.

Well, this Glenn McCoy cartoon has a similar theme.

Obama Voter Cartoon

The only thing I would change is that the rat would become a “pro-government voter” or “left-wing voter” instead of an “Obama voter.” Just like I wasn’t satisfied with an otherwise very good Chuck Asay cartoon showing the struggle between producers and moochers.

That’s for two reasons. First, I’m not partisan. My goal is to spread a message of liberty, not encourage people to vote for or against any candidate.

Second, I’ve been very critical of Obama, but I was also very critical of Bush. Indeed, Bush was a bigger spender than Obama! And Clinton was quite good, so party labels often don’t matter.

But I’m getting wonky. Enjoy the cartoon and feel free to share it widely.

Eight Reasons Why Big Government Hurts Economic Growth

Uploaded on Aug 17, 2009

This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video analyzes how excessive government spending undermines economic performance. While acknowledging that a very modest level of government spending on things such as “public goods” can facilitate growth, the video outlines eight different ways that that big government hinders prosperity. This video focuses on theory and will be augmented by a second video looking at the empirical evidence favoring smaller government.

Related posts:

If increase in food stamps was just because of recession then why spending go from $19.8 billion in 2000 to $37.9 billion in 2007?

If the increase in food stamps was just because of the recession then why did the spending go from $19.8 billion in 2000 to $37.9 billion in 2007? The Facts about Food Stamps Everyone Should Hear Rachel Sheffield and T. Elliot Gaiser May 27, 2013 at 12:00 pm (7) Newscom A recent US News & […]

Tell the 48 million food stamps users to eat more broccoli!!!!

Welfare Can And Must Be Reformed             Uploaded on Jun 29, 2010 If America does not get welfare reform under control, it will bankrupt America. But the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector has a five-step plan to reform welfare while protecting our most vulnerable. __________________________ We got to slow down the growth of Food Stamps. One […]

Republicans for more food stamps?

Eight Reasons Why Big Government Hurts Economic Growth __________________ We got to cut spending and we must first start with food stamp program and we need some Senators that are willing to make the tough cuts. Food Stamp Republicans Posted by Chris Edwards Newt Gingrich had fun calling President Obama the “food stamp president,” but […]

Obama promotes food stamps but Milton Friedman had a better suggestion

Milton Friedman’s negative income tax explained by Friedman in 1968: We need to cut back on the Food Stamp program and not try to increase it. What really upsets me is that when the government gets involved in welfare there is a welfare trap created for those who become dependent on the program. Once they […]

400% increase in food stamps since 2000

Welfare Can And Must Be Reformed Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Jun 29, 2010 If America does not get welfare reform under control, it will bankrupt America. But the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector has a five-step plan to reform welfare while protecting our most vulnerable. __________________________ If welfare increases as much as it has in the […]

Food stamp spending has doubled under the Obama Administration

The sad fact is that Food stamp spending has doubled under the Obama Administration. A Bumper Crop of Food Stamps Amy Payne May 21, 2013 at 7:01 am Tweet this Where do food stamps come from? They come from taxpayers—certainly not from family farms. Yet the “farm” bill, a recurring subsidy-fest in Congress, is actually […]

Which states are the leaders in food stamp consumption?

I am glad that my state of Arkansas is not the leader in food stamps!!! Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall, Which State Has the Highest Food Stamp Usage of All? March 19, 2013 by Dan Mitchell The food stamp program seems to be a breeding ground of waste, fraud, and abuse. Some of the horror stories […]

Why not cancel the foodstamp program and let the churches step in?

Government Must Cut Spending Uploaded by HeritageFoundation on Dec 2, 2010 The government can cut roughly $343 billion from the federal budget and they can do so immediately. __________ We are becoming a country filled with people that dependent on the federal government when we should be growing our economy by lowering taxes and putting […]

Food Stamp Program is constantly ripped off and should be discontinued

Uploaded by oversightandreform on Mar 6, 2012 Learn More at The Oversight Committee is examining reports of food stamp merchants previously disqualified who continue to defraud the program. According to a Scripps Howard News Service report, food stamp fraud costs taxpayers hundreds of millions every year. Watch the Oversight hearing live tomorrow at 930 […]


Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: