New Evidence Shows Anti-Poverty Programs DO WORK!

Republicans like to tell Americans that the anti-poverty programs of the federal government have not been effective in reducing poverty. They are wrong! Those programs have been very effective. Consider this article by Michael Hiltzik in the Los Angeles Times (a part of which is posted below):

Few U.S. government efforts are consistently more vilified than anti-poverty programs. They're dismissed as ineffective and ridiculed as giveaways to undeserving recipients.

A new paper puts the lie to these assertions by showing that the nation's most important anti-poverty efforts all succeed in serving their goals — in the case of Social Security, spectacularly. The authors, Bruce D. Meyer and Derek Wu of the University of Chicago, used administrative statistics from six major programs to demonstrate that five of the six "sharply reduce deep poverty" (that is, income below 50% of the federal poverty line) and the sixth has a "pronounced" impact among the working poor.

The programs that reduce deep poverty are Social Security; Supplemental Security Income; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which is what commonly is known as "welfare"; housing assistance; and food stamps, or SNAP. The sixth is the Earned Income Tax Credit, which helps mostly families that earn around 150% of the poverty line. (That line is about $25,100 in annual income for a family of four.)

In each case, Weber and Wu found that the effect of each program has been materially underestimated by traditional measurements. That's because the earlier estimates are based on Census Bureau surveys that underreport benefits from these programs. As a result, the authors say, the effects of food stamps and TANF are underestimated by one-third to one-half, and the impact of Social Security is underestimated by as much as 44%. Their research covered 2008-13, the period of the Great Recession. . . .

These findings are important because all these programs, with the possible exception of the EITC, come under constant attack by budget-cutters and other conservatives. The claim is that, despite the expenditure of trillions of dollars in public funds, the poverty rate has barely budged in more than a half-century. . . .

Meyer and Wu find that Social Security alone has reduced poverty among the elderly by 75%; the other programs do more for non-elderly households, though at lower rates. . . .

The official measurement indicated that the poverty rate fell by a scant 4.4 percentage points from 1960 to 2010, ending at 15.1%. Adjusting for flaws in the measurement however, Meyer and Sullivan determined that the percentage of Americans living in poverty had fallen by more than 26 percentage points, to about 4.5%.

The Real Statistics On Food Stamp Recipients

The Republicans want Americans to believe that most people who receive SNAP benefits (Food Stamps) are Blacks and Hispanics -- and that they are people who are too lazy to work. It's a racist view designed to appeal to their racist base of voters. There's only one problem. It simply is not true.

The biggest group racially that get SNAP benefits are Whites -- about 40.2%. That's more than Blacks and Hispanics combined -- about 36%. In addition, nearly half (44.8%) of those families have children, while another 20.3% are disabled and 17.4% are elderly.

As for the ridiculous charge of being "lazy", about 31.2% of those families had earned income (they were working for poverty pay),  23.6% were receiving Social Security, and 19.9% were getting disability income (SSI) -- for a total of 74.7%.

These are not people wanting to sponge off the government. These are people who need a little help. They should not be demonized for political purposes.

The charts above are from The Huffington Post.

Fox News Still Telling Lies About SNAP (Food Stamps)

Fox News has always followed the Republican right-wing line in bashing the poor, and they ended the year by once again telling lies about SNAP (the Food Stamp program). Here is the reply to their ridiculous assertion that food stamp fraud is at an "all-time high" by Aria Velasquez at Think Progress:

On Tuesday, Fox News revisited its longstanding disgust for poor people with what appeared to be a simple question: “Food stamp fraud is at an all-time high. Is it time to end the program?” Their onscreen graphic cited “2016 USDA” as the source of this information. However, according to the Department of Agriculture website, the most recent data available is from 2015.

In fiscal year 2016, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as food stamps) is expected to cost about $70.8 billion. If Fox News’ claim of $70 million in waste is correct, that would still mean that less than one-tenth of one percent of SNAP dollars are spent fraudulently. SNAP overall comprises about 0.1 percent of the federal budget. Compared to the $125 billion of waste that the Department of Defense recently tried to cover up, that figure appears even more microscopic.

SNAP usage overall is actually down to its lowest levels since 2011, and current program costs are slightly higher than they were in 2010. In spite of the prevailing conservative narrative, SNAP is not a wasteful program.

As ThinkProgress reported in 2013, the program doesn’t even reach millions of people who qualify for it, because they get caught up in red tape. If there is waste in relation to SNAP and other government assistance programs, it comes not in the form of the recipients abusing the system, but in the form of state governments subjecting citizens to unnecessary drug tests and other bureaucratic measures that yield few results.

The Department of Agriculture has asked Fox News to issue a correction. “We are not quite sure where this came from,” a Department of Agriculture spokesperson told the Washington Post. “We saw that there was [a] story on Breitbart. We have not issued a report on this recently. There is no new rate that we’ve published. So we’re not quite sure why they’re so interested in stirring this up.”

New GOP Senators Say Gov. Shouldn't Help Feed The Poor

(The cartoon image above is by Mike Konopacki at Huck/Konopacki Cartoons.)

If you think the congressional Republicans have been about as mean as possible, then you're in for a shock in the next two years. The Republicans in the 113th Congress cut the SNAP Program funding (food stamps), and would have made deeper cuts in that program if the Senate had not stopped them. But even those deep cuts the congressional Republicans wanted is not as bad as what the new GOP senators want to do.

There will be ten new Republican senators sworn in to the 114th Congress, and they have already marked themselves as hard-hearted to the extreme. They are Cory Gardner (Colorado), David Perdue (Georgia), Joni Ernst (Iowa), Thom Tillis (North Carolina), Tom Cotton (Arkansas), James Lankford (Oklahoma), Steve Daines (Montana), Mike Rounds (South Dakota), Shelley Moore Capito (West Virginia), and Ben Sasse (Nebraska).

Why do I call these ten new senators hard-hearted? Because they have all gotten together and signed a pledge -- a pledge to completely eliminate the SNAP Program (food stamps). That's right. They don't just want to cut some of the funding going to feed poor Americans -- they want to do away with the whole program.

Now you may be thinking that they just want to replace that program with another government program -- one that would work better. But that is not true. David Perdue makes their intentions pretty clear when he says the SNAP Program needs to be replaced "with free market solutions". And in case you didn't know it, "free market solutions" is Republican code for not spending any government money on a thing.

What is that "free market solution"? It's pretty simple. These are all teabagger senators who have completely bought into the ludicrous and failed "trickle-down" GOP economic policy. They actually believe that if they give more tax cuts to the rich, eliminate regulations on Wall Street and the giant banks, and give the huge corporations a lower tax rate and more subsidies, that will somehow magically lift the poor out of poverty. It has never worked in the past (when it only increased poverty and food insecurity), but Republicans (including these new teabaggers) are not ready to give up a policy that puts more money into the bank accounts of the rich.

Around 15% of the American population lives in poverty (including 20% of the nation's children), and the SNAP program insures they have enough to eat (without having to sacrifice some other need -- housing, clothing, education, transportation, etc.). But these new Republicans don't care about that. They will happily throw many millions of poor children and adults under the bus to get more money to give to the rich. They will tell you that private charities can feed the poor, but that is just not true. In fact, the failure of private efforts to solve the hunger problem in this country is why we had to create the SNAP Program in the first place.

Making this hard-hearted approach to governing even harder to understand is the fact that every one of those new senators (and most of the people who voted for them) loudly claim to be christian. They obviously need to read the portions of their bible where Jesus commanded them to feed and clothe the poor. How christian can they be while ignoring some of the most important commandments of their "savior"?

(The cartoon image above is by Bill Day at cagle.com.)

"Great Society" Programs Are Still Supported By The Public

During his term as president, Lyndon Johnson had a significant impact on this country -- probably far greater than he is usually given credit for. While he is generally remembered for the Vietnam War, civil rights legislation, and the War on Poverty, he also created several other programs under the umbrella of "Great Society" programs. These included Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Endowment for the Arts (and Humanities), school breakfasts, Job Corps, and a significantly expanded food stamp program.

Of course, every one of these programs was opposed by congressional Republicans, and even today they are still trying to destroy those programs (including Medicare, which they have voted to eliminate at least twice now).

But the real question (and the only important question) is what does the American public currently think of these Great Society programs? Do they support them, or has the GOP convinced them that these programs need to be done away with? A new YouGov Poll answers that question for us -- with a survey done between May 30th and June 2nd of a random sample of 1,000 adults (with a margin of error of about 4 points).

As you can see from the chart above, all of the Great Society programs are supported by a majority of the American public -- with support ranging from 76% for Medicare to 51% for the NEA(H). It seems that the congressional Republicans are out-of-step with the desires of the public (as they are on many issues). Most people know that these programs have been good for the country, and they want to keep them.

The charts below show how people of different political persuasions feel about the Great Society programs. Note that the congressional Republicans are even out-of-step with their own base voters on several of these programs. The Republican base supports Medicare (71%), Medicaid (53%), school breakfast (62%), Job Corps (53%), and half of them support Head Start (50%).

There Is A Better Way To Cut SNAP (Food Stamp) Spending

(This cartoon image is by Rob Rogers in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.)

Ever since they crashed the American economy and sent it into recession (while destroying or shipping overseas millions of jobs), the Republicans have been whining about the increasing enrollment in the SNAP program (food stamps) and its rising cost. Seemingly oblivious to their own responsibility for the growing need, the Republicans have only one solution for it -- cut the money for the program, thus taking food out of the mouths of the hungry. But they aren't even serious about saving this money, because they turned right around and gave it to rich agribusiness interests.

While the Republicans weren't able to get the huge cuts they wanted (more than $20 million), they were able to con the Democrats into agreeing to about $4 billion in cuts for the SNAP program. The sad part of all this is that there was a way to save even more in SNAP spending -- and do it without taking food away from the hungry. It turns out that simply raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would save $4.6 billion in food stamp spending -- and indexing it to inflation would extend those savings for years ($46 billion in the next 10 years).

And it gets even better, because the SNAP program is not the only government program that would save substantially by raising the minimum wage. The government would also save big money through a reduction in the amounts spent on Medicaid and the Earned Income Tax Credit.

The Republicans will be quick to tell you that businesses couldn't afford  to pay more than the current minimum wage, and that forcing them to do so will cause them to lay off workers or go out of business. Nonsense. Study after study has shown that there is no significant job loss after a rise in the minimum wage -- and any business that cannot pay its employees a livable wage is probably destined to fail anyway.

The truth is that far too many businesses are passing their own labor costs on to the American taxpayers -- by paying such a small wage that those employees must seek help through government programs (like food stamps, Medicaid, and the Earned Income Tax Credit). It is time for businesses (many of them giant corporations like Wal-Mart) to pull their own weight and pay their own labor costs.

Any business that hires a full-time employee should assume the responsibility for paying that worker a livable salary. It is just wrong for that employer to expect the American taxpayers to pay for any part of those labor costs. The minimum wage needs to be raised immediately to $10.10 an hour (which would only be about $21,000 a year, or less than half of the U.S. median wage), and it should be indexed to the inflation rate (so it won't immediately start to shrink again).

Green Party Says New Farm Bill Should Have Been Vetoed

Here is the Green Party's take on the new Farm Bill that's about to become law. I agree with them. While it may not be the terrible bill the Republicans originally wanted, it is a very bad bill (and one that Democrats should be ashamed to have agreed to). This was released by the Green Party Shadow Cabinet on February 6th.

The Farm Bill is the federal blueprint for the American food system. Due to pass into law as soon as this Friday, the bill does little to address poor nutrition, GMO and other unsustainable practices, and dangerous corporate control over the U.S. and global food supply.

The Green Shadow Cabinet have analysed the bill, and have reached the conclusion that it should be vetoed and replaced by new legislation with the wellbeing of farmers, consumers and the land -rather than corporate interests, at it’s heart.

The Farm Bill that President Obama signed into law will result in a very high level of hunger in the world's richest country. It continues to promote a diet of overly processed food (or food substitutes) high in fat, sugar and salt that leads to health problems such as high blood pressure, diabetes and obesity. It provides massive tax subsidies to corporate agribusiness and wealthy investors rather than supporting family farmers. It promotes promote unhealthy food, monoculture and genetically engineered crops as well as confined animal feeding operations (CAFO’s) rather than sustainable agriculture. It slashes funding for conservation measures needed to reduce the pollution of our waters from these large scale, factory farming operations.

The power of corporate interest in Washington is evident throughout this legislation. For example, Dow has successfully lobbied to have a one-paragraph provision added to the Farm Bill that will reverse the EPA's proposed decision to prohibit the use of sulfuryl fluoride. This is despite the 2011 EPA proposal to phase-out the use of sulfuryl fluoride as a food fumigant which was based on the science - and agreed with all of the objections brought forward in the complaint.

The push to level the playing field for smaller livestock processors and farmers slid backwards. There are only a handful of beef packers, hog processors and poultry integrators. Farmers and ranchers often have little alternative but to accept the terms and prices offered by the few, large firms that dominate the industry - terms that are often unfair and abusive (to both the farmers and animals).

SNAP (food stamp) benefits were cut to an estimated 850,000 households - mainly public housing residents - by an average of $90 a month ($8.6 billion over 10 years). This was on top of the $5 billion SNAP cuts agreed to three years ago (when the Democrats were in the majority in both houses) but which took effect on Nov. 1. More than half of those receiving food stamps have a job but their pay is too low to feed their families. Anti-hunger advocates had wanted to increase food stamp benefits by at least 30%; right now they provide less than $1.40 per meal per person. 

Demand at emergency food providers around the country has skyrocketed since the Great Recession started in 2007, more than doubling in many communities. Much of the rise in hunger has been due to the sharp spike in unemployment - and under the meager so-called recovery, middle class jobs have been replaced by those paying less than a poverty wage. The Republican response to joblessness has been to cut food benefits (they will be more desperate for work if they are starving) and to cut unemployment benefits.

Many groups have expressed relief in the passage of the farm bill, noting that it could have been far worse. There are some modest reforms in the present bill. The Farm Bill does relink conservation requirements to the receipt of crop insurance premium subsidies. A number of good programs that were cut out a year ago when the farm bill was extended were restored - Beginning and Disadvantaged farmers, farmers markets, community food projects, support for local food systems, etc. But they amount to a few million dollars here and there in a bill that spends around $100 billion annually. Pocket change, not game changers.

The last time the Farm Bill passed in 2008, House Speaker leader Nancy Pelosi publicly promised the American people that Congress would never pass such a bad farm bill again, after a spirited struggle to reign in corporate subsidies failed. Pass it now, we'll do better next time, she said. That promise was not kept.

President Bush vetoed that 2008 Farm Bill because it "continues subsidies for the wealthy." President Obama lacks the courage to do so. This time around, the minor reforms to curb such subsidies were jettisoned in the closing hours of negotiations.  Instead of a $50,000 annual limit on the primary payments (or double that for married couples), Congress approved a $125,000 limit (again, doubled for married couples).  They also decided not to adopt the House and Senate-passed provisions to close the loopholes that currently allow large, wealthy farms to collect many multiples of the nominal payment limit.

Yes, the system of direct payments for commodities was largely eliminated (largely due to record high prices) but environmental and taxpayer groups claim that the new insurance "reforms" are largely a bait-and-switch effort that will continue giveaways to agribusiness and wealthy investors. Though there were some limited reforms to aid both organic and diversified farm operations, the crop insurance program is designed to protect, at taxpayer expense, the profits of large farms that produce commodity crops. It does little to protect small integrated farmers that actually grow food,

A proposal to cap (not eliminate) the profits of the ten largest farm insurance providers in order to free up funds to eliminate the cuts to the SNAP program was defeated 2 to 1 in the Senate - which meant that 2 dozen Democrats voted against it. Taxpayers take the risk under the farm insurance program while the insurance companies pocket the profits.

This Farm Bill highlights all that is wrong with our political and economic system. It continues the destructive and inequitable status quo. The debate was not over what was good for America, but between the needs of plain farmers in the mid-West (corn, soy, wheat) vs. Southern farmers (rice, cotton, peanuts). The well-being of the vast majority of Americans wasn't a factor. Campaign contributions and special interests determined the decisions.

For all of these reasons, the Green Shadow Cabinet cannot support the Farm Bill, and maintain our call for full restoration of SNAP, A global moratorium on genetically engineered foods and crops, organic production targets and a fair-trade model for the U.S. food supply.

~ The Green Shadow Cabinet includes nearly 100 prominent scientists, community and labor leaders, physicians, cultural workers, veterans, and more, and provides an ongoing opposition and alternative voice to the dysfunctional government in Washington D.C..

Congress Doesn't Care About Poor & Hurting Americans

(The cartoon image above is by Tom Toles in The Washington Post.)

It's only been a few days since CBS News revealed that 20% of all United States households are in the SNAP program (getting food stamps). That's the largest percentage of households to ever be in the food stamp program. And we know there are many others who qualify for the program but haven't signed up to get the food stamps (either out of misplaced pride, or because they don't know they qualify).

These are not lazy people wanting to lay around and let the government support them. Most of them are either unemployed and would love to find work (but can't because of the poor economy), or they are working hard for a wage so low they can't provide for their family. And both groups are in this predicament not through their own efforts, but because of the misguided economic policies pursued by our government for the last few decades. Policies that resulted in a severe recession, the loss of millions of jobs, the outsourcing of more millions of jobs, a falling median wage and a disappearing middle class, and a minimum wage that has lost 1/3 of its buying power.

Now a reasonable person would expect those politicians who created this economic mess to realize the error of their ways, and change those policies to create jobs, raise wages, and more fairly distribute incomes in the country. But that hasn't happened, and it looks like it's unlikely to happen anytime soon.

In fact, just in the last few days, Congress has made it very clear that it doesn't care about those hurting Americans. They have just agreed to a new farm bill -- a bill that will reduce funding for food stamps by $9 billion. These congressional fat cats have evidently decided that those Americans needing food stamps are living too large, and that money is needed to protect tax cuts for the rich and subsidies for the corporations.

I think we're supposed to be grateful that the Republicans didn't get their wish to cut food stamps by $20-$40 billion, and have agreed to only cut the program by $9 billion. But I find it hard to be grateful for this vicious cut to food for the needy (by the same people who caused that need). And the Democrats are not blameless in this mess. They were perfectly willing to cut $4 billion from the food stamp program without any prodding from Republicans, and wound up agreeing to the $9 billion cut.

Frankly, this latest congressional action is disgusting. They need to be fixing our broken economy. Instead, they seem determined to make it worse. A pox on anyone who votes for this odious bill!

One Out Of Five Households Receive Food Stamps In U.S.

While the rich and the corporations have fully recovered from the Bush recession, it's abundantly clear that most Americans haven't. Millions remain unemployed, the median income is falling, and the middle class is shrinking while poverty rolls continue to grow. That last is now verified by a new statistic from the Department of Agriculture -- that currently 20% of the households in the United States now receive assistance from the SNAP program (commonly called food stamps). That's an average of 23,052,388 households for the year of 2013 -- an increase of 722,675 over the average in 2012.

But that's not the end of the bad news. For the first time, a majority of those receiving food stamps are people between the age of 18 and 59 -- commonly called working age adults. In the past, the majority of those on food stamps were elderly people and children under 18. This shows just how bad our economy still is. Those working age adults aren't receiving food stamps because they are lazy, but because there is either no job for them to fill or the job they have does not pay enough to lift them out of poverty. Don't let this new statistic fool you though, since the number of children in food stamp families has not decreased (with more than 70% of food stamp households having at least one child).

And this situation may not improve much in the future. While the official unemployment rate is creeping down slowly, that is not because of substantial job creation. It is because millions have given up trying to find work, and are no longer being counted by the government as being unemployed (even though they would love to find a decent job).

And it is also because most of the few jobs being created are minimum wage (or near minimum wage) jobs -- jobs that serve only to keep a worker in poverty. In fact, the number of those working but still receiving food stamps has risen from 7% in 1980 to 17% currently -- and it is expected to continue to grow (because in just a few years, around 2020, it is expected that 25% of American jobs will be low-wage jobs).

In the past, education could be counted on to lift a person out of poverty. But that is starting to disappear also. An Associated Press study shows that high school grads getting food stamps has increased from 28% in 1980 to 37% in 2013. Other education levels are also rising among food stamp recipients -- with those having some college rising from 7% to 28%, and those having a college degree rising from 3% to 7%.

There is a way to reverse these trends. We need to raise worker wages, and a good start would be to raise the minimum wage (to at least $10.10 an hour). This would have the effect of driving up wages for most workers. We could also raise taxes a bit on the richest Americans, and use that money to help the unemployed and the poor. We could also strengthen worker unions and legislate a stop to job outsourcing -- and stop corporations from hiding profits overseas to avoid taxes. And finally, we could stimulate the economy with more spending and rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.

Taken together, those measures would cut food stamp rolls (and the rolls of other poverty programs), and create more taxpayers (which would help reduce our deficit and debt). The problem is that the Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, oppose all of those ideas -- and they would block them (as they have been doing for years now). The only thing they want to do is funnel more money to those who don't need it -- the rich and the corporations.

This is why the 2014 election is so important. We must vote the Republicans out of power, so we can return to a saner and fairer economy.

SNAP Program Will Suffer Cuts On 1st

The two charts above (from Mother Jones) show some of the benefits of the SNAP Program (more commonly called the Food Stamp Program) that are not realized by many Americans. While it is common knowledge that food stamps help solve the growing food insecurity problem in this country, it also does more. Out of every $5 spent on food stamps, at least $9 is generated in economic activity (activity that helps sustain businesses and jobs). And the food stamp benefits keep around 4 million Americans out of poverty.

But those things will take a hit next Friday (November 1st). That's because the $5 billion in extra funds, provided to help the growing number of people who find themselves needing food stamps because of the recession, will end this week. The need for those funds has not ended (as most Americans are still mired in the effects of that recession), but Congress is not likely to extend any of those funds.

In fact, the congressional Republicans want to cut even more from the SNAP Program, and the House has passed a bill that would cut food stamps by about $4 billion a year for the next 10 years. The Republicans don't seem to care that their cuts would increase hunger in this country, put many more Americans into poverty, and remove money from an already fragile economy (hurting businesses and costing jobs).

The Republicans don't care because their constituency is the rich -- the people who don't need food stamps. As long as they can prevent those rich people from paying more in taxes, the GOP really doesn't care what happens to hurting Americans. And they wouldn't mind more economic hurt in this country, because they'll try to blame that on the Democrats and use it in next year's elections (in spite of the fact that they will be the cause of an even poorer economy).

It is doubtful that the $40 billion in cuts over the next 10 years will be able to pass in the Senate (where cooler and more reasonable heads prevail), but there is probably no way to stop the $5 billion cut due to happen this Friday (since the GOP controls the House), and that's a shame because it will cause pain throughout the economy. We need to remember this when the 2014 election rolls around, and vote the GOP out of power. That's the only way a more sane and reasonable economic policy can be initiated in this country -- a policy that will benefit everyone, and not just the rich.

Most In U.S. Opposed To Food Stamp Cuts

A few days ago, the House Republicans passed a bill that would cut about $4 billion a year from the SNAP program (commonly called food stamps) for the next 10 years. This massive cut in the program would mean millions would have to be kicked off the program -- at a time when the economy is still struggling, unemployment remains very high, and food insecurity is a problem for a record amount of people across this country.

The Republicans are claiming that we just don't have the money to keep on feeding the 15% of Americans (over 20% of children) who are currently receiving food stamps. But that is hard to believe, since they have left intact all the government giveaways to the rich and the corporations (both of which are making record-breaking income and profits, and don't need the government help). While they are willing to take food out of the mouths of the poor, they fight tooth-and-nail to make sure the rich and the corporations get to keep all of their tax cuts, loopholes, subsidies, and ability to hide money overseas.

If there really was a budget problem, then it is the rich who should be asked to give a little more. Making the poor suffer while the rich benefit is simply immoral. And a majority of Americans know that.

The two charts above were made from information contained in the newest YouGov Poll on food stamps (taken on September 20th and 21st of 1000 nationwide adults). This survey shows that 52% of Americans oppose the food stamp cuts, while only 37% approve of them. And note that in the demographic breakdown of 24 groups, only two groups (Republicans, and those over 65) have a higher percentage wanting to cut food stamps than opposing the cut. All other groups (including people in the South, where the GOP is the strongest) show significantly more people opposing the cut to the food stamp program than favoring it.

Once again, as with many other issues, the congressional GOP finds itself acting against the wishes of most Americans. Frankly, with all the minority positions they have taken, I don't understand how they can survive as a viable political party.

But one of the most interesting aspects of this survey, at least to me, is illustrated in the two charts below. The first shows the percentage believing that the people receiving food stamps actually need that help. The second shows the percentage believing those people they know who receive food stamps actually need them.

I don't know if it is a quirk of human nature to trust people in general less than people you know, or if people have bought into the Republican lies that somewhere in this country there are a lot of people committing fraud to get food stamps. Note that the percentage goes up for people that are personally known. Even Republicans have no problem believing that the people they know really do need the help. It is those other people, the strangers, who are trying to game the system. Why is it so hard for people to believe that those they don't know may be as honest and needy as those they do know?

CEO Learns A Lesson About Food Stamps

While the recession may be over for the rich, it continues for millions of Americans on Main Street -- as far too many people who would love to work are still without a job, and must depend on federal assistance to feed their families. Last week, the Republicans in the House of Representatives dealt another blow to those hurting Americans, but passing a bill that cuts $4 billion dollars a year (for the next 10 years) from the SNAP program (more commonly called food stamps). If that mean-spirited bill becomes law, millions of people would have to be dropped from the food stamp program.

The congressional Republicans would have us believe that there is rampant fraud in that program, and the benefits are too generous and should be reduced. Unfortunately, a lot of Americans (who don't suffer from food insecurity) have bought into those lies.

Ron Shaich, CEO of Panera Bread, thought he understood what food insecurity (hunger) was like for many Americans. Last week, he decided to live on $4.50 a day (the amount he would get in food stamps if he qualified for them). And even though his experiment was only for a week, and not truly indicative of what life is like for the poor, his eyes were opened. Here is some of what he had to say about it in an article for CNN (and the entire article is worth your time):

I thought I knew a thing or two about hunger. I've met thousands of people who struggle to feed themselves and their families, visited dozens of soup kitchens, food pantries, homeless shelters and food banks, and worked closely with nonprofit organizations in trying to find new ways to end hunger.

I really thought I understood the scope of the problem.

But let me tell you something -- I had no clue. My SNAP Challenge last week taught me that merely observing someone else's plight does not hold a candle to consciously altering your habits to better understand what it might be like to live someone else's life.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program was formerly called the food stamp program. In the SNAP challenge, you live on a food and beverage budget of $4.50 a day, the average amount a recipient of food stamps gets in benefits.

I was hungry last week -- laser-focused on how much food was left in the fridge and how many dollars were left in my wallet. I was scared about eating portions that were too big, and wasn't sure what to do if my food ran out. I canceled two scheduled dinners, knowing they were way beyond my budget.

But I was doing this challenge on my own. Eighty percent of households that have problems putting food on the table include the most vulnerable -- children, the elderly and the disabled. Most people in the SNAP program would have considered my challenge as a "household of one" to be a luxury. . .

 It was really just an imitation of a very real problem facing millions of Americans -- it wasn't my real life. It was over in a week. No other pressures weighed on my shoulders the way they do on those of people who use food stamps. I wasn't worrying about my car breaking down or not being able to pay for gas or having my electricity turned off or finding work or paying an unforeseen medical bill.

All I had to worry about was my food, and that was challenging enough.

One in six people in this country, or roughly 48 million Americans, face this reality. At the same time, they confront other obstacles and manage to deal with more pressing challenges every day. The statistics are alarming. However, it wasn't until I participated in the challenge and heard stories from the hundreds of people who responded to my blog posts that I really understood what a life of food insecurity means. . .

Unfortunately, the debate we often hear in Washington leads to thinking that the issue can be seen in black or white, right or wrong, good or bad.

We all know there are people who abuse the system. I have no doubt that there are some people who accept SNAP benefits when they either don't need the assistance or may not use them appropriately. But SNAP is really an efficient program. There are small problems with the system -- but there always are in large, complex systems.

Tens of millions of people, most of whom are elderly or have children, rely on this safety net to help them cope with very difficult situations beyond their control. And we can all acknowledge our shared responsibility to help these fellow citizens survive and ultimately create productive lives of dignity.

Throughout my SNAP Challenge, I kept returning to the same questions: What kind of society do we want to live in? Do we want to live in a country that turns a cold shoulder to the problem of hunger, or one in which we work together to face it head on? . . .

If the past week has taught me anything, it's that hunger is not a problem of "them," it's a problem of "us." Hunger exists in every community, in every county, in every state. Simply put, this is our problem to solve, and it's time to do so.

House GOP Reaches New Heights Of Mean

(The cartoon image above is by Julio Carrion Cueva [Karry] at karrycartoons.blogspot.com.)

The Republican economic policies cost this country millions of jobs when they resulted in a huge recession during the administration of George W. Bush. In addition, they have encouraged the outsourcing of American jobs to other countries by giving tax breaks to corporations that do the outsourcing. They have also blocked all efforts of the president and the Democrats to pass a real jobs program -- and they currently block efforts to raise the minimum wage.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that those things have combined to increase the number of people who need assistance to buy food for themselves and their families. In fact, the number of people receiving assistance from the SNAP program (formerly called the Food Stamp program) has reached record levels -- and that has naturally resulted in higher spending needed to fund the program.

There are reasonable things that could be done to take care of this increased spending. Taxes could be raised slightly for the richest Americans (who are making record-breaking incomes). Tax loopholes could be closed for corporations making billions in profits (many of whom pay no taxes, or very little in taxes). A bill could be passed to rebuild our infrastructure, thus creating jobs -- or another type of job creation bill could be passed. The tax break for outsourcing jobs could be eliminated. Or the minimum wage could be raised to a livable wage.

All of those things would reduce the need for food stamps and result in less money needed to support that program. But the congressional Republicans are opposed to all of them. They have decided on a new path -- and yesterday the Republican-dominated House voted to just cut nearly $40 billion from the SNAP program over a ten year period (about $4 billion each year). And just to show how disingenuous they are, the Republicans are trying to call this cut a "jobs" bill.

But there is not a penny in the bill to create a single job. The only thing the bill would do is throw millions of hungry people out of the SNAP program. It represents a new height in meanness for the GOP -- the party of the rich. It will make the poor and working class people pay for the economic mistakes of the Republicans, while the rich continue to skate by paying less of a tax rate then many in the middle class. The bill is an abomination, and shows just how uncaring and hard-hearted the Republican Party has become.

I want to say they should be ashamed, but I no longer believe they have the capacity to feel shame.

Austerity Hurts Children

Just a reminder of how insane the Republican austerity really is. They have already cut social programs to the bone -- in spite of the shameful fact that this country has a higher percentage of children living in poverty than any other developed nation (with the sole exception of Romania). Now they want to cut even more, and will vote next week on cutting another $20 billion from the SNAP program (food stamp program) -- and they want to do that so they can give more money to the rich (through tax cuts).

20% In The U.S. Struggle To Afford Food

The chart above is from a recent Gallup Poll, and was made with surveying large monthly samples of nationwide adults -- the latest survey being done in the month of August with 15,729 respondents, with a very low margin of error of only 0.8 points. Monthly surveys in 2012 and earlier were even larger (between 28,000 and 30,000 respondents), and had a margin of error of only 0.6.

The poll showed that about 20% of all Americans (or one out of five) have experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months (by not having enough money to buy needed food). That figure is the highest it's been since 2008, in the Bush recession. And it's a shameful percentage for a nation generally regarded as the richest nation in the world.

Obviously, this is a situation that needs to be addressed by our government. But the Republicans in Congress have a different view. They don't think the $4 billion cut in the food stamp program approved by the Senate is nearly enough, and the House Republicans are planning to cut around 5 times that amount. And they are planning to vote on this within a few days, while the attention of the American public is on Syria (and a possible attack by the U.S.).

Calling this Republican effort hard-hearted is an understatement. It is downright immoral, because the reason for it is to keep the rich (who are making record amounts of income) from having to pay a little more in taxes (even though they are paying a smaller amount in taxes than at anytime before the Bush administration, and since World War II). These Republicans know that a majority of the public is in favor of raising taxes a little on the richest Americans (who have gobbled up 95% of income growth between 2009 and 2012), and that's why they are going to try and sneak it by while the public is thinking of other things.

What makes this even crazier is that these same Republicans claim to be the only political representatives of christianity -- a religion whose leading figure (Jesus) preached that his followers had a moral responsibility to help the poor and sick, and that it would be almost impossible for the rich to enter heaven (harder than a camel going through the eye of a needle). Why then, do the policies of congressional Republicans deny aid to the poor while making the rich even richer? Do they not understand (or care about) the teachings of the religion they claim to represent?

Even us atheists know better than that. We understand that, whether a person is religious or not, common decency and humanity dictate that we are our brother's keeper -- and it is the responsibility of all people to help those less fortunate (and that the easiest and most effective way to do this is through government). Why can't the congressional Republicans (the self-appointed "protectors" of christianity) understand that? Or do they understand and just not care -- as long as they can get richer and re-elected?

SNAP Program Is Still Needed By Millions

While the Republicans in Congress want to cut the food stamp program (now called the SNAP program), the sad fact is that the need for this food assistance program continues to grow in our troubled economy. Their are currently a record number of participants in the program -- about 47,692,896 Americans. These people compose about 23,087,886 households (an increase of 889,154 households over January of 2012, or about a 4% increase). That represents about 20% of all the households in this country (or about 1 out of every 5 households).

The Republicans want us to believe that these people are just lazy, and could be working instead of receiving food stamps. In light of our poor economy and high unemployment, that is a silly accusation. Millions of people would love to work, and millions more are already working but don't make enough money to support their families. In addition, about 68% of all food stamp recipients are children/elderly/disabled and cannot work. Of the remaining 32%, 13% are employed while only 19% are unemployed (which seems like a remarkably small number in this jobless economy).

The bottom two of the charts above shows another very disturbing trend in food stamp need. It seems that poverty (and therefore the need for food stamps) is no longer just an inner city problem. There was a time in this country when the suburbs contained only a growing and healthy middle class, but that has changed. Now poverty and need is rapidly growing in those suburbs, as jobs disappear and the middle class shrinks.

In the largest 95 metropolitan areas in 2007, the number of people needing food stamps was about equal for the urban and suburban areas. But in the years between 2007 and 2011, while urban food stamp need grew by 69.1% the suburban food stamp need doubled (growing by 100.9%). Now the suburbs has about 55% of food stamp need to the urban need of 45%. To be blunt, there is no area of our society (except for the rich) which has not been affected by the recession and lingering poor economy, and the hardest-hit area is the one thought once to be immune to poverty -- the suburbs.

The truth is that most, if not all, of the people on food stamps would much rather not need them. But as long as there are no jobs for those able to work, or the work available only pays at or near minimum wage, there is going to be a huge need for the program. I would love to see the number needing food stamps to drop, and the money needed for the program to lessen -- but the answer is not to just cut funding for the program, forcing people to try to subsist without any help.

There are things that could be done -- raising the minimum wage to a livable wage, strengthen unions, stop job outsourcing to other countries, increase revenues by raising taxes on the rich & making corporations pay their taxes, and create a jobs program in this country (and a good start on this would be a program to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure). Unfortunately, the Republicans oppose every one of these things. That is why they must be voted out of office in 2014 -- so we can get the economy moving again (and reduce the need for food stamps).

GOP Wants To Punish The Poor By Cutting Food Stamp Funding By $40 Billion

There is no doubt that a record number of people are now receiving help to buy food through the federal government's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly called Food Stamps). The 2013 level is just over 47.6 million people -- up from 43.2 million in 2010. And it may grow even higher, since Congress has done absolutely nothing to create jobs or get our economy back on track.

There is no doubt that the number receiving food stamps is too many, and the government needs to do something to bring that number down -- way down. The question is how to do it. Democrats want to do it by pumping more money into the economy (which would create more demand and thus more job creation) and by rebuilding our infrastructure (also putting more money in the economy, raising demand and job creation).

The Republicans have a different method. They simply want to cut funding. They recently failed in their effort to cut $20 billion from SNAP -- because the Democrats thought that was too deep a cut, and the teabagger Republicans in the House thought it wasn't deep enough. They are now proposing to cut the program by $40 billion (over 10 years).

I doubt if any House Democrat will support that. It's just too mean-spirited, since it would mean either dropping people from the program or lowering the benefit provided for a family (already at a measly $131 a month average). If this passes, it will have to do so with only Republican votes -- and that is not a sure thing, since the teabaggers may think the $40 billion cut is still too small. And if it does pass, it is dead on arrival in the Senate.

Once again, the House Republicans are not being realistic. You simply don't fix an economy by taking food from the mouths of poor people, or increasing the poverty level (which this cut would do). The way to do it is by putting more money into the economy, not less, and creating jobs. Austerity has never fixed a failing economy, and won't do it now.

Cutting Gov. Programs Increases Poverty

The Republicans have cut most programs that help hurting Americans to the bone -- and they want to cut them even more. They either don't care how many Americans must live in poverty, or they don't understand that they are increasing the poverty level with their cuts. They even want to cut Social Security.

The charts above use the U.S. Census supplemental poverty level figures. Supplemental poverty considers the effect of various government programs on the poverty level. In the above chart, we can see that the current supplemental poverty level, with government help figured in, is at 16.1%. That means that 16.1% of our total population still lives under the poverty level set by the government -- even when we consider the help they get from the government.

That's far too large a number for a nation as wealthy as the United States. But it could be even worse if the Republicans get their way. Note that without the SNAP program (food stamps), the poverty level would rise to 17.6%. And without Social Security, the poverty level would rise to 24.4%. While these programs are eliminating all poverty, they are working to keep millions of Americans above the poverty level.

And they aren't the only programs keeping Americans out of poverty. Without unemployment insurance, housing assistance, SSI income, refundable tax credits, school lunch programs, WIC program, low-income energy assistance, and other programs, more Americans would slip into poverty. Each of these programs works to keep people above the poverty line.

That means every time the Republicans cut any of these programs, they are condemning more Americans to live below the poverty level. Do they care? If so, they certainly don't act like it. They even want to cut Social Security -- the government program that works to keep more people (elderly Americans) out of poverty than any other government program. Before Social Security, about half of the elderly in the U.S. lived in poverty. That has dropped dramatically, to slightly above 10% -- because Social Security works.

Frankly, I am appalled that the party that claims to represent christians could be so unchristian in their actions toward hurting Americans. How can cutting assistance for the poor, and actually increasing the number of poor people, be considered to be christian?

My CongressmanTakes Government Money, But Denies Food Stamps For The Poor

The person pictured to the left is my congressman, Mac Thornberry. He is a Republican who represents the 13th Congressional District in Texas (which includes numerous counties and stretches from Wichita Falls to the tip of the Panhandle).

He is a rancher from Clarendon (about 50 miles east of Amarillo) in Donley County, and he doesn't mind taking government assistance. He has received at least $29,774 in farm subsidies from the U.S. Agriculture Department (not counting possible government support for crop insurance premiums) -- and he wants that government money to keep on coming. That's why he voted to keep the farm subsidies in the recent Agriculture budget passed by the House.

But while he thinks it is fine for government money to go to him (even though he is worth somewhere between a quarter and a half million dollars), he doesn't think poor people deserve any help from the government -- not even to help them buy food for their children. Thornberry is one of those Republicans that voted to cut funds for the SNAP program (food stamps) out of the Agriculture budget completely. He, and his fellow Republicans, decided the $20 billion cut to food stamps was not enough, so they just cut the program out of the Agriculture bill.

I am embarrassed and angry over Thornberry's mean-spirited vote. It is unacceptable for any elected official (or political party) to continue government payments to wealthy farmers and ranchers, while refusing to help feed this nation's poor (many of them children). It's just indecent.

NOTE -- There are 13 other Republicans who voted this way, and receive government money from the Agriculture Department. You can go to this website by Rep. George Miller (D-California) to find out who they are.

Mean Is An Art Form For Congressional GOP

The Republicans want to cut food stamps by $20 billion. They will tell you that they cut those badly needed funds because the federal government just doesn't have the money to pay for it. That is an outrageous lie! And their own behavior shows it is a lie -- because they turned right around and put that $20 billion into increased funding for crop insurance for rich white farmers. If we can't afford to feed hungry children, how is it that we have the money to spend on these farmers? Could it be because hungry children can't afford to make fat campaign donations to Republican candidates?