Almost Speechless

[qos]

Edited, to quote thomryng:

"It's official. We're beating our ploughshares into swords."

I don't usually post about politics since I have an aversion to expressing opinions regarding complicated subjects on which I don't have all the facts. But the first thing I read this morning was an AP article with the headline "Congress Mulls Cutting Food Aid to the Poor."

The article reads, in part (and I'm pulling from the middle): Bush is proposing to withdraw food stamps for certain families already receiving other government assistance. The administration estimates that plan would remove more than 300,000 people from the rolls and save $113 million annually.

Chambliss said minimal changes in all three areas of agriculture spending — nutrition, farm supports and conservation — could save what's needed. "I want this to be as painless to every farmer in America as we can make it," he said.

As opposed to the money they could save and the "pain reduction" they could achieve by pulling troops out of Iraq??

Let's rob from the poor and give to the war.
Let's consume more of our dwindling natural resources so we continue to kill more human beings.

What in the hell are these people thinkig?

I may not have all the facts, but I can't consider it anything less than criminal that congress is talking about cutting aid to our own people and our natural resources while continuing to throw money into the war in Iraq. How many millions could they save by bringing just one company of soldiers home?

Comments

[iswari.livejournal.com]

Those stories always piss me off. =/

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I couldn't agree more.

[thomryng.livejournal.com]

It's official. We're beating our plowshares into swords.

For the cost of keeping our troops in Iraq for an afternoon, we're going to starve 300,000 people.

This is immorality on a staggering scale.

So what do we do now?

[qos.livejournal.com]

So what do we do now?

That's a damn good question, my friend. I don't know if you've made it to my next entry, where I start to ask that question myself. I'm open to suggestions.

Networking, writing our representatives in congress, speaking out, putting our writing talents to use in forums besides LJ, doing ritual for peace and justice (always a dangerous endeavor -- invoking Justice -- if one's own house is not entirely in order, but worth the risk in this case), supporting candidates who have the skills as well as the convictions to be able to lead in a different direction. . .

[quietearthling.livejournal.com]

start feeding the poor ourselves???

[thomryng.livejournal.com]

Ourselves?

In a Republic, we are the government. At least in theory.

And collectively, with all our combined (tax) resources, we have decided that starvation isn't a priority.

Yes, we can go out and individually do something. We should. Some of us do. But it will never have the reach or impact of us doing it collectively.

And really, the amount being cut amounts to a rounding error in the defense budget.

[athenian-abroad.livejournal.com]

Fortunately, one of your friends happens to be a professional budget analyst! ;-)

First, let me say that I think the AP article is poorly written because it creates confusion between what the Bush administration has proposed and what Senator Chambliss is talking about doing. The Bush proposal (the $0.1 billion cut mentioned in the article) really amounts to a minor technical fix in the eligibility requirements for the Food Stamp program. (I'll explain more below.) Chambliss has something bigger in mind.

A couple of background facts that might not be self-evident: first, the Food Stamp program is part of the budget of the Department of Agriculture (not, as might be assumed, Health & Human Services). (Historical footnote: food stamps were invented in the depression as a form of farm aid -- the idea being to get people to buy more food, thereby helping out farmers in danger of being bankrupted by low demand and low prices.)

Second, Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) is the Chair of the Senate Agriculture committee. This means that his "real" constituency, other than the people of Georgia, is agribusiness. Big agricultural companies, like Archer Daniels Midland, will be his most important campaign donors.

Third, in addition to the $0.1 billion cut in Food Stamps, the Bush Administration has proposed just under $1.2 billion in cuts to the Commodity Credit Corporation (which is the Agricultural Department agency which handles "farm subsidy" programs, like price supports).

So what's really going on here is Senator Chambliss threatening to go after Food Stamps (one part of the Agriculture budget) to offset cuts in farm subsidies (another part of the Agriculture budget). (Food Stamp recipients are notoriously skimpy campaign donors.) Charming.

What about the Bush cut ($113 million)? Here's the story as I understand it. Food Stamps, as you probably know, are a "means-tested" program, meaning that to receive Food Stamps, you have to meet various eligibility requirements (e.g. limited income, few or no assets, sometimes work-seeking, etc.). As an administrative convenience, it was also a rule that anyone who qualified for welfare (AFDC) automatically qualified for Food Stamps. That way there was just one eligibility check and less paperwork for everybody.

However, back during the Clinton administration, AFDC was replaced by a new and somewhat different program ("Temporary Aid to Needy Families" or TANF). TANF has a variety of sub-programs in addition its basic "write them a check" function, and some of those sub-programs have eligibility requirements which are significantly looser than the Food Stamps program requirements.

So, in effect, the creation of TANF inadvertently expanded eligibility for Food Stamps. The Bush proposal would limit the "automatic eligibility" feature to those qualified for the TANF cash assistance program.

The important thing to notice is that the Bush proposal wouldn't affect the Food Stamp benefits of anyone who actually meets the eligibility requirements of the Food Stamp program. At worst, an individual or family might have to fill out a few more forms.

As a sidebar, I'll throw out my own opinion about what's going on with the Administration's agriculture budget (and, actually, most of its budget proposal). I think that they've included several cuts (including the farm subsidy cut) that make very good sense on a public-policy basis, but which would be very politically painful for particular members of Congress. This will force Congress to pass a budget with a significantly larger deficit than the one proposed by the President. This will set the stage for the real fight, over making the 2001 tax cuts permanent. Having forced Congress to balloon the federal deficit, the Administration will be in a good position to shoot down anyone in Congress who objects to tax cut extensions on the basis of its impact on the deficit. ("If you care so much about the deficit, why did you vote eighty-five time to increase spending...just last week?")

Isn't budget politics fun?