We begin with the latest iteration of the conservative attacks on the poor -- their attempt to slash food stamp programs.
Paul Krugman at
The New York Times explains:
The food stamp program — which these days actually uses debit cards, and is officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — tries to provide modest but crucial aid to families in need. And the evidence is crystal clear both that the overwhelming majority of food stamp recipients really need the help, and that the program is highly successful at reducing “food insecurity,” in which families go hungry at least some of the time. [...] So what do Republicans want to do with this paragon of programs? First, shrink it; then, effectively kill it. [...]
Look, I understand the supposed rationale: We’re becoming a nation of takers, and doing stuff like feeding poor children and giving them adequate health care are just creating a culture of dependency — and that culture of dependency, not runaway bankers, somehow caused our economic crisis.
But I wonder whether even Republicans really believe that story — or at least are confident enough in their diagnosis to justify policies that more or less literally take food from the mouths of hungry children. As I said, there are times when cynicism just doesn’t cut it; this is a time to get really, really angry.
Trish Thomas Henley, a professor, mother, and volunteer, explains how food stamps helped her out of poverty:
I would never, ever have been able to get through school without food stamps, Pell Grants and student loans. It took a village and government aid. I was not a victim. I did not feel entitled. I, then as now, felt immensely grateful that I lived at a moment when my government chose to invest in me. It has been a smart investment. I am grateful that because of this investment I am now able to contribute and live up to my full potential. [...] I am telling my personal story because someone needs to talk back to food stamp stereotypes and myths. Somehow, the myths persist and are used to defend the drastic cuts that have been proposed in the farm bill. If we want to save SNAP and other anti-hunger programs, it’s time for a reality check.
Henley goes on to list myths and facts about the SNAP program. It's a must-read and a must-share article.
More on the day's top stories below the fold.
Jordan Weissman at The Atlantic highlights a new paper that confirms that tax cuts for the rich drives income inequality:
It's intuitive that the rich get richer when you cut their taxes. Still, economists have had a hard time proving that taxes actually cause rising income inequality.
But they might be getting closer. A new draft paper out this month from Thomas Piketty, Emannuel Saez, Anthony Atkinson, and Facundo Alverado takes a stab at making the taxes-inequality connection. As their graph below shows, there's a strong correlation between how much a country cut their top rate since 1960 and how much income went to the top 1 percent of earners.
John Podesta takes a wider look at poverty and points out that eradicating extreme poverty is indeed possible:
The generations living today are the first in human history that could eliminate extreme deprivation and hunger. [...] We seek a world in 2030 where no person must survive on less than $1.25 per day, and where no one goes hungry.
To make these gains permanent, we must address the root causes of poverty and better connect the very poor to the economic, social and political lives of their countries. This means taking straightforward steps — like ensuring that every person has a valid and recognized legal identity.
Eradicating extreme poverty will also require more difficult measures, such as achieving broad, sustainable economic growth that sees more women, young people and people with disabilities in formal employment around the globe. It will require us to ensure that all have access to education, healthcare, sanitation and physical and energy infrastructure. With this, the poorest of the poor and those on the cusp have the tools and resources they need to stay out of extreme poverty.
Eugene Robinson:
With budgetary tantrums in the Senate and investigative play-acting in the House, the Republican Party is proving once again that it simply cannot be taken seriously.
This is a shame. I don’t share the GOP’s philosophy, but I do believe that competition makes both of our major parties smarter. I also believe that a big, complicated country facing economic and geopolitical challenges needs a government able to govern.
What we don’t need is the steady diet of obstruction, diversion and gamesmanship that Republicans are trying to ram down the nation’s throat. It’s not as if President Obama and the Democrats are doing everything right. It’s just that the GOP shrinks from doing anything meaningful at all.
Next up, some analysis about FOX News contributor Erick Erickson's "Ron Burgundy" moment, as Derek Thompson puts it, in which Erickson lamented the fact that women are the primary breadwinners in 40% of American households, claimed that it violated biology to have women take a more "dominant role" since women, Erickson claims, are built to be simply "complimentary" to men. The stupid. It burns.
Derek Thompson has more:
Women might be complementary in Erickson's worldview, but they're primary when it comes to economic growth. The increase in female labor force participation in the last half century has added nearly 2 percentage points per year to GDP growth in the U.S., according to one study. The nice thing about the rise of working women is that no matter how retrograde your opinion of them, they're still making all of us richer.
Pete Weber at The Week has eight "biting responses" to Erickson's comments.
Erickon's reaction to the controversy:
Fox News contributor Erick Erickson must be feeling the heat today over comments his made last night on Fox Business Network as he took to his Red State blog this afternoon to defend himself against the “feminist and emo lefties” who “have their panties in a wad over my statements.”
There you have it. Erick Erickson again validating the fact that yes, it is possible to have even less then zero credibility as a pundit.