Obviously, as the economy improves, stimulus that was designed to get us out of a caving, crashing recession will have to be scaled back. And of course the things that were set to expire are going to expire, especially with a House of Representatives dead set on anything decent for the Republic. So I guess nobody should be surprised that the expanded SNAP benefits are going to be back to what they were before the stimulus starting tomorrow.
Extra funding for the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, one of the most impactful elements of the 2009 economic stimulus, expires Friday, meaning poor families in all 50 states will immediately see steep cuts in government food aid.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided a 13.6 percent funding increase to SNAP recipients beginning in April 2009, money the bill’s backers said would make its way quickly into the economy. But that extra funding ends Nov. 1. Every one of the 48 million SNAP recipients will see their benefits cut in their next checks.
Given the need, it seems early from a purely moral standpoint. The top earners are recovering nicely, and good for them and all, but the need for SNAP for people who aren’t earning that is still there.
SNAP benefits disproportionately help families with children. More than 21 million children — one in four children in the country today — live in households that participate in the program. More than two-thirds of the $5 billion the government saves will come from households that include children.
But instead of recognizing that the need is real, and that we should do more, we have a House of Representatives that last month voted for major cuts to the program. The GOP in the last election cycle ran candidate for President who doesn’t believe people are entitled to food, and they’re living up to that even though he lost.
Throughout history, starving people have waylaid and robbed the rich. People do what they gotta do, ya know? SNAP is really a taxpayer-subsidized program to buy protection for the rich. Seen in that light, it’s strange that Republicans want to cut it.
@1. I’ve wondered about that. Given the shock doctrine principle they seem to love so much, think 911, think of the drastic measures they can implement in the name of fear and protection when starving people start to seriously waylay and rob the better off. This won’t effect the .1%, they will always be protected. But if it happens, they will leverage it.
What do you think?
What I do not understand is the rational for NOT offering a jobs program?
If I get the Reprican idea, food stamps are bad because folks should work for what they get.
OK … but what if they (the p[oor not the Repricans) can not find work? What if we NEED to rebuild infrastructure? What of we need to staff day care centers .. so single moms can work for THEIR food? What else might poor people do for a buck?
Wouldn’t it make sense to offer jobs?
I wonder what the offsets would be? Which costs more … food stamps or jobs?
Every government job is the lost of a private sector job, and is a waste of tax payer money.
For example, staffing all day care centers means you are taking money from private day care. They would get cushy government health care and vacations and work place safety. That’s not fair to private companies that have to make a profit.
A woman’s place is both working to pay for her family AND at home with her kids.
A man’s place is working, never home taking care of kids.
If government helped people, those people would likely vote for Democrats.
Why should the government help the lazy get jobs?
Why should local tax payers pay for public infrastructure when other people who didn’t pay for it, will use it for free?
In the early years of the Great Depression, local food distributors were dismayed at falling food prices. The first thing they did was reduce the payments made to farmers (to next to nothing), which in turn paid their workers even less. Then, of course, few could be found to work the fields for a few pennies a day.
This was still during Hoover’s administration, which thought that the problem was high federal debt and cut back on most federal spending – incidentally, throwing fuel onto the fire of the Depression. Farmers responded by planting and harvesting “fence to fence”, putting even more food into the market which had no buyers.
So how do the distributors and large farms stay in business? When a local charity would open a soup kitchen, they would send in thugs to turn over the kettles and tables, and run the charity out of town. That way, they reasoned, the poor would starve faster and be willing to work for even fewer pennies a day.
@5 It makes twisted logic. What the food distributors did made sense, by paying less and less, because they were making less and less.
The soup kitchen was creating a bunch of lazy takers, unwilling to get a job, to work for such low wages.
That sounds like the logic used today.
Given the two Santa Claus theory, I don’t know how we get out of this problem
@3 Why should we work for what we get? They don’t. No one should work. Flip assets and collect rents instead, like they do.
Carl,
Unfortunately, it is not only the teabagging GOP congresscritters.
As Atrios says Kicking poors is bipartisan.
Let’s not forget that one of Washington’s very own recognized the mutual benefit to farmers and those who needed and led legislation to achieve opportunities for all.
@3 Gee whiz, Steve…don’t tell me you’re expecting any of this to actually make sense!
One of today’s headlines claims that Wal-Mart is “ruining Christmas” for the rest of the retail industry (and perhaps ultimately for itself) by ballyhooing a raft of heavily discounted merchandise starting today scooping by nearly a month the race to start “Black Friday” before the Thanksgiving dinner dishes have even been cleared off the table. After years and years of wage busting, it’s feared that Mr. and Mrs. America will snap up a bunch of cheap stuff early on, take a look at their credit card balances and decide that’s it for the year, turning all the malls into gaily decorated ghost towns. Up to this point, our “captains of industry” seem to have ducked what would seem to be an obvious question: If nobody’s getting paid much, who’s going to buy all that shit?
# 9: That’s possible, but a simpler explanation may be at work.
CEO’s are always looking at the end of the reporting period, in this case the month of November. Stock prices and, ultimately, the satisfaction of Directors in the CEO’s performance hinge in the balance. What if the web site crashes due to an outside vendor’s problems, and it takes until Saturday after Thanksgiving to get it back up?
Are you going to throw the dice and hope you avoid the potential mistakes and competition moves the last few days of the month? Or are you going to try to nail down some positive sales numbers well in advance, to negate any potential problems during the Thanksgiving shopping period.
@10 Sounds like you used to work for a certain cellular provider in Bothell.