This little 2012 campaign tidbit surprised me: Newt Gingrich’s oft-repeated claim that “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history” is wrong.
In an analysis that involves a bit of quibbling, FactCheck.org points out that more recipients were added under George W. Bush than under Obama, according to the most recent figures.
Newt fans will be quick to point out that Bush served for eight years while Obama has only served for three. Valid point. But FactCheck’s point is that the way Gingrich words his claim that Obama is the ultimate food stamp president is not accurate.

Gingrich would have been correct to say the number now on food aid is historically high. The number stood at 46,224,722 as of October, the most recent month on record. And it’s also true that the number has risen sharply since Obama took office.
But Gingrich goes too far to say Obama has put more on the rolls than other presidents. FacCheck asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition service for month-by-month figures going back to January 2001. And they show that under Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that.
Under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama’s time in office than during Bush’s.
It’s possible that when the figures for January 2012 are available they will show that the gain under Obama has matched or exceeded the gain under Bush. But not if the short-term trend continues. The number getting food stamps declined by 43,528 in October. And the economy has improved since then.
By the way, I would point out that Gingrich has advocated for more than a year now that the 2012 GOP nominee hammer Obama repeatedly as the “food stamp president.” The media failed to take notice. Which makes Juan Williams’ debate question seem even more questionable.