Republican Rep. Paul Ryan wants to whack $133.5 billion out of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—food stamps—over the next 10 years. That being out of the question, the tea party wing of the party has sought to cut $33 billion out of the program as part of the five-year, $500 billion farm bill. Last week, with help from five Democrats, a House agricultural panel approved a lesser but still ridiculous cut of $16.5 billion.

Fortunately for two to three million Americans, 280,000 of them children, the panel's proposal clashes with the Senate-approved cut of $4.5 billion. And, as much as Republicans in general wouldn't mind yanking food out of children's mouths, the election-year optics of getting into a floor battle with the party's far right flank arguing for deeper cuts add to reasons House Speaker John Boehner may avoid bringing the farm bill up for a full vote. Boehner hates the farm bill for other reasons, having called its dairy subsidies a "Soviet-style" program.

The existing 2005 farm bill expires Sept. 30. Chances are the new bill will be kicked over into the lame-duck session after the election if it isn't renewed before the congressional recess that begins Aug. 3. Renewal would require not only an affirmative vote by the House, but also negotiations in a conference committee with the Senate. And in the lame-duck session, with a to-do list half a mile long, anything could happen.

Thanks to the recession, almost 80 percent of the farm bill is now consumed by the food stamp program. In 2003, it was only 64 percent. Four years ago, there were 28 million participants; now there are nearly 46 million, about one in seven Americans. That increase plus eligibility changes enacted by the administrations of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama spurred The Wall Street Journal to call food stamps "the latest middle-class entitlement."

That's typical Journal nonsense.

As Laura Clawson pointed out earlier this month nobody near the middle class is eligible for food stamps. To qualify, total household income for a three-person family must not be above 130 percent of the poverty line. That's about $24,100 a year. There are special rules for households with an elderly or disabled member. And deductions are allowed for high housing costs and child care. Households must have assets of $2,000 or less; those with an elderly or disabled member must have assets of $3,250 or less. How does that pan out? According to the Congressional Budget Office, 85 percent of recipients are below the poverty line.

And the benefits? In May, the average participant got $133.80 and the average household $283.65. That's less than $1.50 per meal. The food stamp allowance doesn't last a whole month for most participants. Statistics indicate that 90 percent of benefits have been redeemed by the third week of each month. As measured by FeedingAmerica.org, 58 percent of food-bank clients who also receive food stamps turn to food banks at least six months out of the year.

"These cuts are a slap in the face to millions of people trying to make ends meet," said California Democrat Rep. Lynn Woolsey.

Reducing the increase in spending for food stamps we have seen in the past five years requires no congressional action whatsoever unless you are one of those elected representatives who thinks the appropriate treatment of the poor is to punish them.

The solution: Put people back to work. Joblessless plus working part time when full time employment is needed are the main reasons food stamp eligibility soared. The CBO has concluded that if the economy is restored to health the number of Americans eligible for food stamps will have returned to the 2007 level by 2019. Whacking benefits and reducing eligibility are shameful, mean-spirited attacks on the most vulnerable Americans.