I think one of the reasons is simple human nature. Most of us think that poverty -- like a freak tragic accident or sudden terminal illness -- can only happen to other people.
The more we live, the more we acknowledge that that's a foolish, wishful thinking kind of assumption. Especially in regards to experiencing poverty in today's America. If the trends continue the way they have been in this zero-sum economy with a growing population of super-wealthy (winners) on one side, buttressed by a growing population of people living in moderate to acute poverty (losers) on the other, then the prognosis for one's financial health in the American economy is not only ominously bleak, but, frankly, scary.
According to the Social Work Journal, 'By age 35 nearly one-third of the U.S. population will have experienced a year in poverty. By age 65 more than half of all Americans will have spent a year below the poverty line, and by age 85, two-thirds. Rather than an isolated event that occurs primarily among what has been labeled the “underclass,” the reality is that the majority of Americans will encounter poverty firsthand during adulthood..'
So here we are now in 2013 -- with ever-growing numbers of people needing housing and food assistance -- and the Republican dominated Congress of these United Sates is proposing to cut $20 Billion from SNAP or Food Stamps over the next decade.
Why?
To cut our deficit?
Oh, if only it were so.
The truth -- and this is where it gets classically Orwellian (or just plain creepy) -- is that not only is it the very same Republicans who are calling for cuts in SNAP that bear major responsibility for the monumental deficits they rung up under Presidents Reagan and the last Bush, but they are also the ones who promote and legislate lavish (tax-payer paid for) subsidies to already wealthy American citizens.
Here is just one (small) example of how this works, related specifically to the 2013 Farm Bill.(For a more thorough listing and analysis of these kinds of subsidies for the wealthy go to Inequality.org.)
Our pick of the litter: subsidies to agri-businesses in the name of 'crop insurance'. The Crop Insurance Program was originally designed in 1938 to insure that proven productive farmers having an off year -- due to weather, soil erosion, pest infestation, what have you -- would be reimbursed for their crop losses and thus be able to remain in business for the next and hopefully better season. Nice idea: generous and practical.
Over the years, lobbyists for large agri-businesses have changed the program from insurance for failed crops, to blanket subsidies for farmers' revenues. Here's how it works: if the price of, say, soybeans goes down and the farmers' revenues go down accordingly; instead of allowing the much lauded free-market to sort it out, the federal government comes in and says here, we will (using taxpayers' money) make up your lost revenue. But we won't call it a subsidy, we'll call it 'crop insurance'.
Wouldn't it be nice if the federal government provided blanket revenue subsides to every business so that no one ever had a bad year?
No.
It wouldn't work for the reasons socialist programs can't work -- they subsidize arbitrarily, not based on genuine merit or real need.
Now isn't it ironic (or Orwellian if you want to go with the darker angle) that the same politicians for whom socialism is a dirty word are, in effect, practicing it. Well, in today's political world, words no longer have literal meanings, they have a meaning that suits the user, and if the user has wealth and power; well, hopefully you've read 1984 so I don't have to rehash what happens next.
So let's take this back to SNAP or food stamps.I wish I could report a high-minded reason for why Congress wants to increase funding for crop insurance at the same timed it proposes to cut food stamps. . But what it really boils down to in the petty tit-for-tat circus-like political arena we are currently living in is: If you, the Democrats, want to help out poor people who vote for you then we, the Republicans, will help out the wealthy who vote for us.
Na-Na-Na-Na-Na-Na....
Maybe Orwellian was given them too much credit; come to think of it stupid or idiotic seem more apropos.And if I've insulted any professional clowns I also apologize for that.
This is not tit-for-tat to those affected by this legislation. A person who is working and struggling to make ends meet (and help prop up this lopsided economy) and is receiving some nutritional support and food security in order to sustain them is not comparable to someone who is being guaranteed to never have a bad year in revenues -- regardless of what they produce, or don't.
Need? Merit?
I don't know what else to tell you other than to ask you to please check out and sign the petition I wrote to Reform the 2013 Farm Bill that I will then forward to Congress.
I'd also like to invite you to read an excerpt from my latest book/memoir: An Odyssey in the Great American Safety Net.
Thank you,
James Abro
Founder: Advocate for Economic Fairness!
The
proportion in poverty in 1969 stood at 12.1%. By 2011 it had risen to
15.0%. A larger proportion of Americans lived in official absolute
poverty in 2011 than 42 years earlier. - See more at:
http://inequality.org/absolute-poverty-america/#sthash.h3A2Heaa.dpuf
The
proportion in poverty in 1969 stood at 12.1%. By 2011 it had risen to
15.0%. A larger proportion of Americans lived in official absolute
poverty in 2011 than 42 years earlier. - See more at:
http://inequality.org/absolute-poverty-america/#sthash.h3A2Heaa.dpuf
The
proportion in poverty in 1969 stood at 12.1%. By 2011 it had risen to
15.0%. A larger proportion of Americans lived in official absolute
poverty in 2011 than 42 years earlier. - See more at:
http://inequality.org/absolute-poverty-america/#sthash.h3A2Heaa.dpuf
The
proportion in poverty in 1969 stood at 12.1%. By 2011 it had risen to
15.0%. A larger proportion of Americans lived in official absolute
poverty in 2011 than 42 years earlier. - See more at:
http://inequality.org/absolute-poverty-america/#sthash.h3A2Heaa.dpuf
The
proportion in poverty in 1969 stood at 12.1%. By 2011 it had risen to
15.0%. A larger proportion of Americans lived in official absolute
poverty in 2011 than 42 years earlier. - See more at:
http://inequality.org/absolute-poverty-america/#sthash.h3A2Heaa.dpuf
The
proportion in poverty in 1969 stood at 12.1%. By 2011 it had risen to
15.0%. A larger proportion of Americans lived in official absolute
poverty in 2011 than 42 years earlier. - See more at:
http://inequality.org/absolute-poverty-america/#sthash.h3A2Heaa.dpuf
Found your work through Rebelle Society and am really enjoying it. Keep fighting the good fight!
ReplyDeleteThanks Heather. I also enjoyed your article with them. I'm finding ways to advocate for people living in poverty in ways that are not depressing or self-pitying. Do you have a Facebook page?
Delete