While all political candidates catch flak for dumb campaign statements, a few comments coming from Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich may have set a new record. He's been smacked not only by national media for those statements, but even on Capitol Hill the other day, too.

So what's the topic of Gingrich's questionable quotes? Food stamps (known of late as "SNAP" - Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). He's constantly used that subject in campaign addresses, sometimes even with racial overtones, and usually in attack on the president. 

Gingrich's last use of the topic is definitely coming back to haunt him, though. 

Two weeks ago, he said in a TV interview “(Obama's) failed economic policies have forced more Americans to apply for food stamps than any president in history.”

That comment inspired a congressman from Illinois to delve a little deeper, and Rep. Gutierrez himself was surprised by the findings. 

(posted on youtube by RepLuisGutierrez)

That's right, people; not only is Gingrich dead wrong in his accusations of Obama being a "food stamp president," but it was his party's Oval Office predecessors that far surpassed the current rates of food stamps, too. 
I'm glad Rep. Gutierrez dug up this info to set the record straight. (I'm also very glad he included his observation that "hunger is color-blind." In a twitter message last month, Newt said "I will tell black people to demand work instead of welfare.") 

This whole Newt-ified topic sort of makes me wonder what our state accommodated food-stamp-wise under Bush. Currently, South Carolina ranks 10th highest of all states in the country in percentage of population reliant on SNAP (as of last November, 870,438 Palmetto State people were in the program - 18.8 percent of the total state population).   And even though our unemployment rate is declining, the number of South Carolinians who are receiving this type of help is growing. 

Of course, that could be because the only jobs Gov. Nikki Haley is getting here are those that don't pay a livable wage. Maybe if she (and other Republicans in the state) would lay off their Marxist Economics theories (not to mention their unfounded attacks on labor unions), it wouldn't be so bad. 

The latest attack on organized labor isn’t as open and blatant as the battles in Wisconsin, Ohio and other places. This time, the attack is on the sly.

And while it may be of national impact, South Carolina’s own Tim Scott has his hands on it.

Terms buried deep in a bill he recently co-sponsored would block a family from receiving food stamps if any member of its household was on strike.

Scott is one of five co-sponsors of H.R. 1135, titled the “Welfare Reform Act of 2011.” Its stated goals are “to provide information on total spending on means-tested welfare programs, to provide additional work requirements, and to provide an overall spending limit on means-tested welfare programs.”

A layman’s translation of this premise is that it wants to ensure all food stamp users are actually qualified for their receipt.

But there’s that hidden term against labor unions, though. Buried in Section 202, the bill reads, “no member of a family unit shall participate in the food stamp program at any time that any able-bodied work eligible adult member of such household is on strike(.)”

Note that “no member of a family unit” term; that means you, your wife and your 18-year-old son and daughter. The in-law you let stay in your home. The cousin occupying your spare room.  If any one of you went on a labor strike, then all of you could be forced to go on a hunger strike of sorts, too.

Most importantly, it means that exercising legal rights afforded to you by the government would block you from receiving other legal rights the government is supposed to provide – and which you paid for all along during your work prior to any strike.

Of course, we already knew Scott was anti-union. He cosponsored the bill that wound up putting Amendment 2 on the ballots in the last election. That amendment, which would eliminate one method of union formation in South Carolina, is now being challenged by the National Labor Review Board, which threatened to sue the state.

In late 2009, he sponsored H. 2453, which aimed to acquire federal funding to promote South Carolina as an anti-union state.

Cosponsoring the Welfare Reform Act along with Scott are Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Rep. Dan Burton (R-Indiana), Rep. Scott Garrett (R-New Jersey) and Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas).

All five as well as Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) also cosponsored H.R. 1167, the “Welfare Reform Restoration Act.” H.R. 1167 also includes the exact same terms to prevent an entire household from receiving  food stamps if any member is participating in an organized labor strike.

First introduced on Mar. 16, H.R. 1135 was forwarded to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where it was last updated on Mar. 23. H.R. 1167 was introduced on Mar. 17, and was forwarded to the same committee.