Here's a chart showing its extreme increase:
http://i.imgur.com/tGgtpmL.jpg
And as a share of GDP:
http://i.imgur.com/4JbxWiT.png
The primary problem in the SNAP program, was the flood of people participating. The per capita sum didn't quite keep up with the large influx of people wanting to be on the program. However, that has been partially offset by increases at the State level as well.
The US has never spent more per capita on food programs overall, between the local + state + national level, than it does today.
There has hardly been a drop of austerity in anything in the US.
Which is just a euphemistic way of saying that SNAP benefits have been cut.
It may not look like austerity from your oblique perspective, but then again, you're definitely not claiming food stamps.
SNAP cuts were one example of a deliberately inflicted austerian reform. The overall cost was actually pretty low, but the ripple effect is magnified.
With less SNAP, low income families are far more reliant on their jobs for sustenance, which turns them into more pliant workers and who accept lower wages/worse hours.
>The US government has spent more money every year throughout the financial crisis.
Yes, well, funneling ever more money into too big to fail banks and bloated military contractors while cutting food stamps is still austerity as far as 99% of the nation is concerned.