Home / Spending Us Blind / Government Spends $3 Million to Promote Food Stamps
Print Friendly and PDF

Government Spends $3 Million to Promote Food Stamps

Written by Gary North on July 5, 2012

The U.S. government is not content with 46 million Americans getting free food at taxpayer expense. It is spending money to get more Americans signed up. It has spent $3 million so far this year on radio ads.

The food stamp program has been in operation ever since 1964. There are families that are fourth-generation food stamp users. Does the government think word about food stamps has not gotten out?

The government wants new dependents from outside the inner cities and coal mining country.

Food stamps are not called food stamps any longer. The program is called SNAP. Sign up, and you get a plastic card that looks like a credit card. You can use it at any supermarket. It’s fast. It’s convenient. It carries no stigma. No one will know you’re on welfare. No one will know he’s paying for your groceries.

This is from a site run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This resource is intended to help community organizations conduct or improve existing SNAP outreach to those who are eligible but not participating in the program.

This toolkit is full of great resources and how-to’s. In it, you will find the latest SNAP facts and figures, information on how to pitch and place news stories, how to develop culturally relevant materials, and the list goes on. In addition, there is a section of resources, or rather assets, which are available for your use. These resources include:

The toolkit gives detailed instructions on how to use these assets to raise awareness of SNAP within your community. Below is a brief description of what you will find in each chapter.

The Basics: What You Need to Know

An overview of this toolkit and how to use it as well as the reasoning behind the name change from the Food Stamp Program to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Includes facts and figures about SNAP, and links to resources such as key messages and branding information.

Communication Channels: How to Get the Word Out

How to conduct media outreach using traditional and social media, develop partnerships to help maximize outreach efforts, plan a newsworthy event and make best use of paid advertising and public service announcements.

Engaging Special Populations

Helpful advice and tools for conducting effective outreach across cultures and generations, including how to engage community health workers, promotoras and other trusted messengers to help spread the word about SNAP.

For more information, click the link.

Continue Reading on www.fns.usda.gov

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

7 thoughts on “Government Spends $3 Million to Promote Food Stamps

  1. Wildmann says:

    Back when I was Broke, and looking for a job Every Day, 1974 or so, when the Democ-ratz -Lyndon B/S Johnson-Closed the Kennedy Space Center the 1st time, I got 1 weeks worth of Food Stamps!!! About$ 25 worth. B.F.D. That' was ALL. Of course there was a Racial Component involved! I am of Caucasian Persuasion! My ex-wife back then was a Fl. Welfare A.F.D.C. Supervisor, I got a REAL Education in The System..Sooo— don't even TRY to say There Isn't / Wasn't a Race Card being Played within the Program!! It is an Unspoken FACT within the System! Everyone working for the State Welfare System KNOWS This.

  2. Hucklebuck says:

    I have long championed the immediate financial benefit of canceling all advertising and promotional budgets for all government departments. There is no unified constituency to oppose this other than the media – and they are not popular right now. In addition to the immediate reduction, probably in the billions, there would be the long term reductions in spending on the programs themselves since their usage should be reduced to those who actually need the service, if any, as opposed to those who respond to advertising to bloat the roles.

  3. Wildmann, could you add any other "insider" information that you learned about the program?

  4. sean murry says:

    i dont need food stamps i can take care of myself.

  5. just another Give Away at the tax payers expense to hook these people on welfare.
    The goodly portion of these people are capable of working, but choose not to.

  6. CAll it what you will, it is welfare. those working giving free food to those that are not willing to lift their sorry a$$ off a sofa and work. Okay, there is a recession. S. F. what. that is not a good enough reason to go out and barter for smaller amounts of work. I have seen adults going door to door asking to be hired to sweep a sidewalk or wash windows. Who knows there may be some out there that will actually hire you OR know of someone looking for reliable help on a more full time basis.
    SNAP or what ever its called its still a hand-out for somethng you did not earn.
    It should be for those that really need it and not for those that stay home and produce an offspring every nine months just to say: "I can't work I gotts kids."

  7. Despite my libertarian beliefs, I am appalled at the blanket condemnation of food-stamp recipients from the responding commenters here as lazy and unwilling to work. Of course, such people exist. No question. But there are also many folks who have downright run out of money, cannot find a job, and decided not to let their family starve. It is an imperfect system that has, to some degree, been "improved" to reduce the length of time people remain dependent on the government. It would be nice if houses of worship and other private entities had adequate resources to step in and take over the social safety net function that instead has become a tool of governmental dependence. But they do not. I agree that it is ridiculous to spend taxpayer funds to advertise such programs. Ridiculous. But to hurl such vitriolic hatred (and I'm referring to some of the responses, not Mr. North's post) toward anyone who dares to seek assistance? It is those sort of comments that give libertarians the unfortunately bad reputation that we have.