There is a famous line from Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

In Shakespeare's play, Queen Gertrude is referring to what she believes are overwrought vows from a Queen pledging fidelity to her King.

In modern times, the phrase has come to signify the tendency of a guilty party to so passionately insist on their innocence that they suggest their guilt.

Last week, this newsletter highlighted a memo I sent to candidates across the country suggesting the closing argument for the 2010 campaign be a choice between the Democratic Party of food stamps and the Republican Party of paychecks. 

Watching Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats' reaction to that memo, one couldn't help but think "the lady doth protest too much."

The difference between the record of the Nancy Pelosi Democrats since they assumed control of Congress in 2007 and the last time Republicans took control of Congress in 1995 could not be starker.

From 1995-1999, when I was Speaker, unemployment fell from 5.6% to 4.2% and food stamp usage dropped by almost 9 million to an enrollment of a little more than 18 million Americans. That's because we pursued a job-creating agenda of controlling spending, cutting taxes, reforming government and balancing the budget.

Compare this to the record of Speaker Pelosi, who since 2007 has presided over a rise in unemployment from 4.6% to 9.6% and an increase in the number of food stamp recipients from 26.5 million to a record 41.8 million—more than one in eight Americans.

That's an additional 15 million Americans depending on government for nutrition, thanks to the Democrats' job-killing agenda of higher taxes, bigger government, and more spending.

This record legitimately makes the Democrats the party of food stamps.

Meanwhile, Republicans have outlined a pro-growth, less spending, low tax, reform agenda for government similar to our program from 1995 to 1999 that resulted in less Americans on food stamps and more Americans receiving paychecks.

This legitimately makes the Republicans the party of paychecks.

Faced with the crippling reality of her record, Speaker Pelosi and the rest of the food stamp party have reacted to this accurate contrast in a way Queen Gertrude would find familiar.

Last week, Speaker Pelosi again made the absurd claim that food stamps and unemployment insurance are the best way to create jobs, rather than serve as a safety net for those who have lost their jobs. You can watch my response to Speaker Pelosi on Hannity here.

In addition, Speaker Pelosi hysterically accused me of trying to "stomp on the poor."

Speaker Pelosi and the rest of the food stamp party are desperately trying to spin the accurate and devastating contrast between the Democratic Party of food stamps and the Republican Party of paychecks as a threat to take food stamps away from the poor and unemployed who need them.

But they ignore the actual historic record that repudiates their baseless attack. During my tenure as Speaker, we didn't eliminate the food stamp program; we were, however, able to reduce the number of people receiving food stamps by pursuing paycheck policies instead of food stamp policies. Millions of poor and unemployed people went off food stamps as they took up jobs and work.

It may cause Speaker Pelosi a conniption to hear it, but it turns out that paycheck policies are better for the poor than food stamp policies. Far from stomping on the poor, the Republican Congress from 1995-1999 did more to help the poor by giving them jobs than the Democratic Congress has during the last four years under Speaker Pelosi.

Drawing the contrast between food stamp policies and paycheck policies is not an attack on food stamps or on those who depend on the program for nutrition. It is an attack on the job killing policies of the Democrats that have led to more Americans needing food stamps. And it is a pledge to enact job creating policies of lower taxes, smaller government and less spending—the same formula that worked when I was Speaker, leading to more Americans with paychecks and fewer Americans with food stamps.