I will try to assume that GOP Senator Jeff Sessions, (R - AL), doesn't understand that the specter of the hungry child is real. 
He can't knowingly accept the existence of actual hunger in this country, and still say that it is a colleague's proposal to end that hunger that is immoral.

I'll try to assume that those who decry the rising cost of the federal food stamp program as the problem, rather than the rising need for food stamps, are simply confused.

I have to believe that they truly aren't processing the fact that they are trying to reduce the deficit by forcing desperate people who come to agencies looking for help to literally go away hungry.

Here are just three ways we could adjust the tax code to save more than enough money to make up for what Republicans are suggesting we rob from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, (SNAP), a.k.a. food stamps. 

•  1. Get rid of the rule that allows stock holders to "lease" their holdings to banks for several years, avoiding capitol gains taxes on those funds.  This costs the Treasury billions of dollars a year, far more than the amount we supposedly are being forced to glean from the food stamp program.

•   2. End the practice of allowing corporations to use one value for their stocks for tax deductions and use another value to sell.  This is sort of like the Blue Book value vs the market value of a used car.  You report one to the IRS, and one to potential stock holders, and can actually come out ahead by showing the loss.  Billions lost to the treasury.

•   3. Close the loophole that allows huge, profitable corporations to pass out massive numbers of stock options to executives then claim those as losses to lower their taxable net profits, and even go into a loss, meaning future taxes are plunged even lower.  More billions.

 
These are just three quick examples to show that there is money that can be moved around without touching food stamps.  I know this is a simplistic way to look at it - it's almost silly to set up my argument this way,  I do it to illustrate a point, and there are surely countless easier and more immediate ways to shift funds to avoid cutting spending on a program that literally keeps people from dying. 

There is no better way to ensure we feed the hungry in this country than keeping SNAP funded.  There is no more direct, efficient way to cause people to have food in their mouths.  This is a matter of giving people who don't have enough to eat a debit card they can use to purchase food.  This is about beans, apples, ground beef and milk - it is not theoretical, it is not a legitimate question of policy. 

The program isn't intended to replace efforts to help people get back to work so they don't need food stamps.  Feeding people should not be questioned in discussions about how to improve the economy over time.  I have no problem debating the merits of closing tax loopholes.  I understand there is an argument to made by some on the Right that reducing benefits and advantages enjoyed by the wealthy could stifle investment.  My point here is that there is no legitimate reason to suggest that the only way to reduce the deficit would be to take it out of the food stamp program, or that it would be okay to do so if even if there was no other way.  What could be more urgent than this? 

Mitt Romney and all his surrogates and media lapdogs are out in full force, talking up a storm about today's disappointing jobs report.  The numbers are indeed depressing, and looking forward, it's hard to say what's going to make the difference - especially since we are at such a stalemate politically that we are unlikely to be able to implement any remedies between now and November, whether they are more stimulus-oriented or free-market oriented.  But the Republican officials and media conservatives I have heard addressing the issue so far today sound like they are talking to a class of 4th-grade Social Studies students.  And if this were a class they were teaching, they would not be doing it with any integrity or effectiveness.  Their commentary is wholly theoretical, and is not based on a logical progression of ideas.  Let me see if I can walk through their message, and someone please tell me what I'm missing.

• Obama's policies are at fault for slow job expansion. 
  
• Government investment is counter-productive to growth.
• CEO's and big investors are the people in our country who create jobs, expand companies, put people to work, and get consumer activity going again.
• These job creators are the ones we need to protect, encourage, support, and free-up so that they can do what they do best in a free market.
  
• The policies that hamper investment are things like increased taxes and regulation. 
  
• Obama has not actually been able to increase taxes, but he has proposed some increases.  Concern about tax status makes investment less appealing now.
• Obama has not actually led the country's regulatory entities to expand regulation, and has even conceded we should do away with some of what we have now.  But just knowing he's the type of person who probably likes the idea of regulation in general makes investment less appealing now.
• What also hampers investment is an uncertain economy.  It is not appealing to invest when the numbers are this bad.
• The investors are the ones who can make these numbers improve, by expanding their companies, hiring more people, bringing back overseas jobs, etc.
• They certainly can't be expected to do that in this climate.
• Government is not the right sector to improve this climate. The private sector needs to do it.
• The private sector can't improve during a bad economy.
• The economy is the province of private sector.

Will someone jump in here?  Explain it to me like I'm a grown woman.  Make it make sense.