Republican's SNAP decision is just plain wrong.

The deck really is stacked against poor people in America. The disconnect between our minimum,poverty and living wages defies reasonable advocacy. In fact, the unfairness of a system that keeps 10.4

By United States Department of Agriculture [Public domain],
via Wikimedia CommonsAdd caption

million citizens shackled by poverty - in spite of actively working or looking for work - makes a mockery of the country that was once hailed as “the land of opportunity”. Those who would argue all you have to do to succeed here is work hard are woefully (or willfully) ignorant of the harsh economic realities faced by millions of their fellow countrymen/women every single day. If the Grand Old Party has its way, it will soon become even harsher.

The United States House of Representatives, thanks in no small part to the callous prodding of Republican Congressman and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, has passed a bill that will slash 39 billion dollars from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) , aka “food stamps”, coffers by 2014. This means that 3 million poor people will be removed from the social service rosters, and over 800,000 will have their benefits reduced. “Kick 'em when they’re down”, the GOP mantra.

Food insecurity statistics are staggering: according to America's leading domestic hunger-relief charity, Feeding America, 50.1 million people in the United States (33.5 million adults, 16.7 million children!) can't count on having enough food to eat! Hunger is the cold reality for 1 in 6 Americans. Republicans blame the high numbers on an over-abundance of lazy ne’er-do-well’s scamming the system...and of course, a Democrat in the White House. In fact, a good part of this sad roster is made up of hard working (remember the wage disconnect?) people, seniors and children. Seeking to remove a safety net that keeps food on so many tables is unconscionable.

Adam Smith , the Scottish moral philosopher and pioneer of political economy, (he was, in fact, dubbed “the father of modern economics”) said, “The disposition to admire and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.” No amount of political theory (or theater) can dim the light of truth in those words: taking food out of the mouths of hungry children is both “neglecting a person of poor and mean condition...and a corruption of our moral sentiments.” In other words, it's just plain wrong.

Adding another layer of bureaucracy - like mandatory drug-testing - to an already overworked system is hardly the way to real and positive change, either. Harold Pollack and Sheldon Danziger did a great job of breaking down the latest data on drug abuse and SNAP in an August 13, 2013 post “House Republicans want drug-tests for food stamp recipients. There’s no good reason for that.” for The Washington Post blog, WONKBLOG. Besides showing the relatively small number of abusers on the dole, they question the point of such measures: if it will be used to deny benefits, what do we do about the real life consequences? After all, the applicant may do drugs...but what about the applicant's children? 49 percent of participant households have kids. 55 percent of those are single-parent households. Again, we are talking about taking food from children here!

“When people were hungry, Jesus didn't say, “Now is that political or social?” He said, “I feed you.” Because the good news to a hungry person is bread.” Desmond Tutu, South African social rights activist and retired Anglican bishop said that.  And the truth of his words transcends religious beliefs. We feed the hungry – no matter who they are – because it is the right thing to do. We can find other ways to save money.