I feel like just about everyone (well not everyone but I don’t want to talk about the gas drillers & frackers) is meant to lose in someway in this budget. The governor will not, under any circumstance, consider any new taxes. He’s open to suggestions for enforcement on current taxes. [Uh, okay: why aren’t you already doing everything to collect the money the state is owed?]
One of the things that bothers me the most about his budget is the elimination of the general assistance fund. Right now, if you are disabled and a doctor says that you can’t work, you (as a single individual) are able to collect $205/month from welfare. Most of these folks (those deemed permanently disabled by their doctors) are required to apply for disability via the federal government (SSI or SSDI, depending on various factors). If/when approved, the state is reimbursed for the $205 they were paying the individual while their case was determined. Which basically means the actual cost of the program is a lot less than it appears. I also want to add that this process can take several years depending on other variables, and all those folks have is that $205 and foodstamps.
When I first read Corbett’s budget proposal I had to ask a few of my colleagues if he was suggesting what I thought he was suggesting. Because I think it is that implausible and yet, here it is on its way to a slow, painful and poorly planned death.
Right now that $205/month is the only thing separating thousands of people from abject poverty. I suppose for most $205 is a drop in the bucket* but not for those who use that money to cover their housing expenses (clearly in a housing program or subsidized) as well as for transportation, medications, utility bills and super necessary things not covered by foodstamps (e.g. toilet paper, feminine hygiene stuff for the ladies). This is the safety net so many politicians claim is there to help the poor and Corbett (as well the Senate) are planning on eliminating it entirely.
And what I find eternally frustrating is that a lot of the folks that receive these funds are not politically active and don’t/won’t have a voice. I mean, they’re pretty poor so how much influence do they really even have in this ridiculous juggernaut that is 2012 politics?
If you live in Pennsylvania and think this is a terrible idea or think that there are other really terrible ideas in Corbett’s budget, you can find out who your state Congressmen are (1 Rep & 1 Senator) and write or call them (I like writing, I find the phone calls awkward) here.
You can read the article for a more ind-depth look at the politics of it all.
*bucket size variable
Ezra Klein, the Washington Post
Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, explains that states use about 30 percent of their block grants to fund basic assistance — what most of us would think of as “welfare.” An additional 15 percent goes to subsidized child care. Eleven percent goes to work supports. And the other 44 percent? Miscellaneous other things, including closing state budget holes. The end result is that fewer families get welfare. That’s not a “reform.” It’s a cut.
The gist being that all the big GOP names, Ryan, Romney, etc… are talking about “reforms” to other safety net programs - i.e. medicaid, foodstamps but the reality is that they are just looking to give states the money to distribute and that essentially means cuts will be made - as Klein says “Faced with welfare reform, states didn’t do more with less. They did less with less.”
Florida State Sen. Ronda Storms, who introduced a bill to bar welfare funds from being spent on junk food. (via officialssay)
NPR had a piece about this on Morning Edition (by Allison Aubrey): Could Taxes or Food Stamp Restrictions Tame America’s Sweet Tooth?
My thoughts are this:
First and foremost: we can’t police what people eat, no matter how badly we want to. I don’t want to engage in a slippery-slope argument, but what exactly will the criteria be to ban what people eat? Just chips? What about tortilla chips or pita chips? Could folks buy all the ingredients to make brownies but not a pre-made mix of brownies (Michael Pollan rule #39 anyone?)? Would we ban canned vegetables (because fresh or frozen is way better). [The same argument is being made by food companies lobbyists in regard to the potential policy taxing certain foods.]
I get that for some reason people are annoyed/irritated/offended when they see someone buying oreos with Food Stamps but I have bad news: its none of our damn business what people are eating (you know, so long as it is food).
Yeah, it’d be nice if people, either on food stamps or buying with their own cash ate better or just less sugar. There are serious long term side effects that we all pay for when folks of any kind eat poorly all the time. You know, I am not thrilled about the fact that the money I pay toward my health insurance partially goes to pay for gastric bypasses. I mean, basically someone is just being physically forced to eat less as opposed to the much less expensive procedure of “just eating less”. I am frustrated that there are folks who end up with preventable type-2 diabetes due to their lifestyle choices.* But I’m not going to knock a cupcake out of someone’s hand before it reaches his/her mouth and I’m not going to ask them if they really need that ice cream that is in their grocery cart.
And maybe you are making the argument Ronda Storms is making, that because people are receiving food stamps at the government’s expense that that means we get to nanny them. But everyone receives financial benefits (e.g. tax breaks) from the government but maybe its not as direct as food stamps**. So, yeah, I am buying my ice cream with my “hard-earned money” but its with funds I have thanks to my tax-return or the hundreds of dollars I save every month being in the IBR program which is subsidized by the government.
*I know not everyone who has type 2 diabetes has it because of lifestyle choices.
**There is a specific term for this kind of help but I’m saving that whole explanation for another post.
by Joan Walsh, Salon.com
Murray’s book is intended to highlight a values gap. He identifies what he calls the “founding virtues” of America – industriousness, religious practice, honesty and marriage – and finds the new white lower class lacking in all four. Meanwhile, at the very top of society, he says, adherence to those virtues persists, and it’s working very well.
Obviously, I think this is pretty laughable and Walsh repeatedly points out the numerous and ginormous holes in his argument(s). I’d read the book in its entirety but there are too many great books out there to read instead of reading one that would only be a lengthy critical thinking and fallacy-finding exercise.
Op-Ed in the Post-Gazette by State Senator Jim Ferlo
Subheadline: The food stamp asset test is downright cruel
h/t to my friend Kat, who is excellent at finding great news articles.
Gov. Corbett declares war on food stamps | Philadelphia City Paper | 01/10/2012
I don’t even know what to say about this.
(via greaterthanlapsed)
Not that I buy into the “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” thought-process, but in some ways I feel like this assets cap will negatively affect a lot of folks that have been “pulling themselves up” aka, working to get themselves out of a situation where foodstamps are a necessity to survive.
or, rather, what this girl said:
“We all know that families need to save money to get off government assistance and achieve self-sufficiency,” according to a press release from Carey Morgan, Executive Director of the Greater Philadelphia Coalition Against Hunger. “So it’s not only inhumane, but counterproductive to force people to drain their savings before they can get any help. Someone with less than $2,000 in the bank would easily be wiped out by one visit to the emergency room.”
via the Root - by Edward Wyckoff Williams
From Reagan to Gingrich to Santorum, race-baiting has only profited the Republican leaders who have sold it. Those at the bottom, and poor whites in particular, are left to pay the price.
A nice, fairly short article about the political & racial issues that arise when we discuss welfare policies in America.
In Santorum’s mind, when he thinks of programs like food stamps, he automatically associates them with “black people’s lives.”
Why? Just because.
Also note the substance behind the policy position: Santorum thinks he’ll improve “black people’s lives” just as soon as he makes it harder for low-income families to eat and get medical care.
There’s a reason this guy lost re-election by 19 points in his home state.
(via liberalsarecool)
Sorry, what? The overt racism that is pouring through the Iowa Caucuses and the GOP nominations right now is outstandingly frightening. What is even more frightening is that these candidates feel like they can freely say these things and that people are just nodding their heads in agreement. What on earth are these folks thinking that they don’t think they can say?
Here is an article for context, if you feel like you need it.