Stop playing politics on backs of the poor
Published September 22, 2013
Editorial by Rocky Mount Telegram, September 19, 2013.
As Congress reopens its debate on the nation’s farm bill – a measure that before this year had enjoyed overwhelmingly bipartisan support – the welfare of thousands of people in the Twin Counties hangs in the balance.
In addition to subsidies and insurance for farmers across the country, the bill usually contains money for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – otherwise known at one time as food stamps. But in an unprecedented move, U.S. House Republicans pulled SNAP out of the bill aimed at supporting farmers and created a new measure for the food stamps program – one that’s likely to draw little support from other GOP members of the House and Senate.
No taxpayer – regardless of political party – wants to see an entitlement program supported by tax dollars abused. But a quick look at numbers in the Twin Counties, where the unemployment rate has been stuck at more than 12 percent for the past five years, demonstrates a real need for food subsidies.
In January 2005, the number of food stamp recipients in Edgecombe County was 10,919. The number of food stamp recipients in Nash County was 9,355, according to information provided by the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services.
By June 2013, the number of food stamp recipients in this area had almost doubled – 17,420 recipients in Edgecombe County and 19,777 in Nash County.
Food “stamps” have been replaced by debit cards, but rules tightly regulate the kinds of items the cards can be used to buy. Former U.S. Sens. Bob Dole, a Republican, and Tom Daschle, a Democrat, have joined forces to scold Congress for holding up the funding for a program aimed at feeding the neediest segment of our population.
Failing to pass a farm bill that includes adequate funding for SNAP would further crush the lives of millions of Americans who already face an uphill battle in making ends meet day to day.
Congressional legislation presents ample opportunity for members of both parties to exercise their rhetorical speaking skills and make grandiose gestures of partisanship. Surely, those demonstrations can be made on a platform more suitable than the backs of the poor.
September 22, 2013 at 7:31 am
TP Wohlford says:
Ya know, the intent of most of our welfare is that it's only a temporary thing. Granted, some will always need it, but for the most part, it's supposed to be a temporary thing.
This editor seems to believe that some people -- actually, many people -- are doomed to a life of food stamps.
September 22, 2013 at 7:56 pm
Norm Kelly says:
First, I agree with TP; food stamps/SNAP should be a temporary thing for the vast majority of people. This should be going to a varying group of people every year.
Second, if the program is good, doing what it should, and costing what it should, shouldn't it be able to stand on it's own 2 feet? If SNAP should be maintained why should it be part of the farm bill? It's not farm related. The farm bill is for insuring crops are planted and reaped, farmers can afford the equipment they need, and perhaps various other farm related insurances/issues. The farm bill should not include unrelated items such as SNAP. (the question of whether the feds should be involved this deeply in farming is for another post or comment. i have insufficient information to make an educated decision. so, like his high holiness, i will make a judgment anyway. the feds should get out of the farm subsidy business. if bho can do it, what's to stop me? if you don't like me doing it, send a note to your love-buddy suggesting he stop it, then i'll follow suit!)
From a MACRO economic viewpoint, this is another program that supporters want to keep. Perhaps it does some good. But the macro point is clear. We are currently 17 trillion dollars in debt. We will be over 20 trillion dollars in debt by the time BHO leaves office. The feds MUST get their spending under control. If every programs' supporters decide that theirs is the program that can't be cut, then how does Washington ever get it under control? Either every program gets cut dramatically, or wasteful/useless programs get eliminated. Every time someone tries to actually cut federal spending, every freakin' liberal comes out of the woodwork to complain about it. And when liberals don't freak out, count on some Republican deciding that the program under cut consideration is too important to be done away with. But something has to give. The rubber has met the road, and the road don't like it. At what point is the debt enough? Mr. Obama may think that the majority of citizens are completely stupid (he does, listen to him sometime & you will realize it), but raising the debt ceiling actually does raise the debt. Mr. O says that raising the debt ceiling does not mean the debt is going up, but when is the last time that was true? What about our future, the future of Washington's spending habits, gives anyone outside of BHO the slightest impression that increasing the debt ceiling doesn't lead to increased debt? If projections are that adding socialized medicine to our already bloated federal government is going to make the debt surpass 20 trillion dollars, then how can any thinking human say that raising the debt ceiling doesn't mean raising debt? Come on liberals, think with your brain and not your heart. There are no brain cells in the heart. If you start thinking, you will also come to the conclusion that we can no longer afford Washington as is. We have not been able to afford Washington as is for a long time, but some people, too many people, like playing ostrich instead of facing facts. (there's that dreaded liberal word again. i'm sorry. facts are meaningful and must be brought to light. even if liberals don't like them, they still exist!)
