I'm tired of the war on the poor. I'm tired of running into people, including Democrats, who support the war on the poor. This is not a rebuttal to any Daily Kos diary. This is a rebuttal to what I've run into in real life. In Missouri, Republicans have proposed a new law to prohibit SNAP program recipients from buying "junk food" and expensive food such as steak and seafood. This bill is not aimed at helping food stamp recipients eat healthier, low cost meals. This is a Republican ruse to cut the program. The Republican Party doesn't have any interest in the food stamp program except to cut it. The linked article from Politicus USA points this out:
Furthermore, the rationale for banning specific types of food is based more in right-wing mythology about the poor people eating lavishly off of SNAP (more commonly referred to by critics as “food stamps”) benefits than it is based on any objective reality.
In real life, someone I thought was a liberal Democrat is all in favor of this law. She has seen "first hand" the kind of junk food SNAP recipients buy. I didn't comment because I wouldn't have been nice. The people who did made neutral comments such as "there are two sides of the food stamp debate" and "cooking is a skill."
The Washington Post recently published an article "The Double Standard of Making The Poor Prove They Are Worthy of Government Benefits" Yes, scrutinizing the poor is a double standard! One point is middle class and wealthy Americans also receive various subsidies, but we don't scrutinize them the way we do poor people. If you have a home mortgage, the government allows a home mortgage and property tax deduction. Do we hear stories about how people bought a fancier home than they absolutely needed? Do we require Pell Grant recipients or families receiving state subsidized tuition to prove their kids are actually studying and not partying too much? No. Why not? Because these are middle class subsidies. I know the response this would get from a lot of middle class people. They would repeat the theme in Mitt Romney's infamous 47% video. They work and pay taxes and act responsibly. These "other" people do not. But that's not really true. In fact, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA 13) has said 60% of food stamp recipients are employed. Anyone who has filled their car with gas, paid a utility bill, or purchased soap and shampoo pays taxes. The notion the wealthy and business are being soaked and the U.S. tax system is progressive is pathetically untrue. If you include ALL taxes, the distribution of taxes paid looks like this. Yes, poor people pay almost the same percentage of their income in taxes as everyone else. Also, many people recognize middle class subsidies like the home mortgage deduction and subsidized tuition, trickle up helping the U.S. economy and benefiting everyone. If I'm able to buy a home, I will accumulate wealth and spend more. If I have an education, I will hopefully have a higher income and be able to spend more. Isn't one person's spending another person's income? Doesn't this same logic apply to the poor? In the same way, don't anti-poverty programs result in poor people spending more money? Doesn't that also help our economy because poor people's spending is also another person's income? The food stamp program has a very high multiplier effect - every dollar put into the program generates $1.73 economic activity. In the article, Moody's economist Mark Zandi says:
In findings echoed by other economists and studies, he said the study shows the fastest way to infuse money into the economy is through expanding the food-stamp program. For every dollar spent on that program $1.73 is generated throughout the economy, he said.
In regard to expanding unemployment benefits (another Republican target)
For every dollar spent here, the economy would see a return of $1.64, Zandi said.
Yes, the food stamp program and other anti-poverty/safety net programs are an excellent investment in our economy and in our people! These programs are a win-win and benefit everyone! The multiplier effect is far greater than for tax cuts for the wealthy. That is because low income persons have a high marginal propensity to consume. They will spend it creating income for someone else. The Mitt Romney's of the world will use it to buy a company, downsize it, and layoff hundreds of workers decreasing people's incomes. The political right has spent decades attacking and marginalizing poor people, to the point simple Economics 101 is missing from this debate. Why aren't more people out advocating putting more money into the SNAP program? What about subsidies the wealthy and corporations receive? Even the socialist magazine Forbes wonders where the outrage is? The Good Jobs First chart lists the corporations that receive the biggest subsidies. The article notes:
Given the decline of manufacturing in the United States, it is interesting that the list of top parent companies is dominated by industrial firms.
How many of these corporations have moved plants and facilities overseas laying off thousands of workers? Where is the scrutiny and outrage to make sure they use these huge subsidies in the public interest? How many middle class Americans paid taxes to subsidize the very corporation that gave them a pink slip and sent their job overseas? What about corporations who refuse to pay a living wage and expect taxpayers to pick up the tab? Again, that anti-capitalist magazine Forbes has a piece about how Wal-Mart's refusal to pay a living wage cost taxpayers $6.2 billion. But Republicans are worried poor people may have a steak dinner, go to a movie, take their kids to a public swimming pool, see a fortune teller, or go on a cruise trip? The myth people on public assistance spend too much on food is false. The Atlantic published an article comparing the spending of families on public assistance with those who aren't. A Mother Jones article destroys the myth that food stamp recipients eat more junk food:
SNAP recipients already eat more virtuously than the rest of us. A 2008 USDA report found that they are less likely than those with higher incomes to consume at least one serving of sweets or salty snacks per day. More recently, a 2015 USDA study concluded that, adjusting for demographic differences, people who take SNAP benefits don't consume any more sugary drinks than their low-income peers who aren't in the program.
But so many people view themselves as deserving of subsidies, and are so quick to pass judgement on poor people. During my life, I've heard stories about how this poor person abused the system and how poverty is a choice. We are all human beings so anyone who has an agenda to kick poor people will always be able to find examples of mistakes people made. It is time to change the debate away from a stone throwing Puritan model to a human rights model. In a civilized society, aren't the things people need such as food, housing, health care, water, and clean environment a human right? No American should be homeless, hungry, thirsty, or without health care PERIOD. If we are all interconnected and created equal, why should one person be homeless, hungry and without health care and not another? Don't we all deserve an equal right to live? This Think Progress article covers a lot of the history of the war on the poor and how it is rooted in racism and sexism. The article makes this point:
“I think it is the most enduring victory of the conservative movement,” Suri said, “the delegitimization of welfare.” Clinton recognized this dynamic and ran on opportunity, not on giving help to the poor.
What will it take to "re-legitimatize" these programs and end the war on the poor? I remember my father saying "He (Reagan) appeals to a generation who never lived through the Depression." Does half the population have to be poor to end the war on the poor?