September
19th, 2013 under pressure from the Tea Party, a mostly Republican
voted pushed a bill through the house to eliminate loopholes, ensure work
requirements, and put “us on a fiscally responsible path.” The program cost
almost $80 billion last year, and is projected with the $40 billion cut to cost
$700 billion in the next decade. Following the precedent set by PROWRA, adult
beneficiaries would still be required to work or be in a job-training program,
but also now there will exist a 3-month maximum and a requirement to pass drug
tests for benefits. The bill also designates recipients of other social welfare
assistance ineligible.
In April
2013, 15.2% of Americans received SNAP (30% of which were working and 72% to households
with children). Two weeks prior to the vote the Agriculture Department reported
that in fact 17.6% households did not have enough to eat in 2012 due to lack of
resources to provide food. Two days prior to the vote the Census Bureau
reported that 46.5 million people live in Poverty in America (15%). These
numbers beg further questioning to the claim that the program had “grown out of
control.”
Furthermore,
none of these numbers take into account the many new trends, such as boomerang-kids
and doubling-up on housing to share costs. Almost 4 million recipients will be
cut from the rolls in two months, disproportionately youth. Although the
economy may be improving, a strikingly high percentage of Americans live well
under the poverty line. It is difficult to measure how much of an impact in-kind
benefits as SNAP make on the quality of lives. Nonetheless, I feel that the
social welfare network is called a safety net for the reason to catch individuals
in moments as these- not only during a recession, but for the years following.
While overall things may be looking up, things have not improved at all for most
hard-working, yet underemployed American families.
At The Suitcase
Clinic, we don’t get many requests for assistance from families with youth,
unless already placed in a shelter. Many parents are afraid of asking for help
when suffering extreme poverty due to the fear CPS will take their children. I
really wonder how we will be able to evaluate the tremendous impact of this
drastic cut as it plays out this coming year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/us/politics/house-passes-bill-cutting-40-billion-from-food-stamps.html
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb13-165.html
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err155/report-summary.aspx#.UnM_zRaDd8s
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/opinion/another-insult-to-the-poor.html?hp&_r=0
I had this uneasy feeling while reading your post, and I think it's mostly dread. I remember reading another article recently about how the current conditions of our nation are keeping people out of jobs while at the same time cutting out support for those out of jobs. It leaves them with very few options, and then the blame is put back on them as if they choose to be in poverty or hungry by choice.
ReplyDeleteI specifically zeroed in on how 17.6% of households didn't have enough to eat in 2012. I would imagine that their diets consist of whatever they can get hold of and the nutritional value of what they consume may not be the first to be considered. Studies have been done showing that while SNAP helps feed families, many of these families are not necessarily getting the nutrition they need. With these cuts on SNAP, their options become even more limited, driving individuals towards eating in quantity rather than quality, possibly increasing diet related health risks and conditions.
I definitely agree with you in that if welfare is meant to be a safety net, then it should be reinforced, not cut away. People should be able to depend on it being there whether there is a recession or not. Why would you weaken something as more and more people are finding themselves using it to stand?
Your post, and the comments I've heard from other people about welfare, have really made me think about how Americans see poverty and feel about the role of the state. I really liked the statistics you included; they really help me understand the magnitude of the issue and the significance of the cuts. The most powerful one for me was that 30% of those on SNAP are working, and that 72% have children. This is very different from the conception most people have of welfare/SNAP recipient as lazy degenerates stealing from the government.
ReplyDeleteWhat I want to add to this discussion is a little bit about how we, we being both Americans and university students, understand those who receive social welfare. The fierce reliance on the capacities of the individual that characterizes the American culture has an ugly side: we stigmatize those who are not successful and demonize them for stealing from those who pay the taxes that pay for social services. This is such a prevalent view in the US, among both democrats and republicans, that I hardly even thought of it at first. I think most people believe that welfare recipients are lazy cheats, even though they know nothing about welfare. This brings me back to my post about how we know what we know. There is this idea of welfare that is communicated through rumors and the media that the government is bleeding money to support people who aren't working, which does no good. But how did that idea start? Is it backed up by any evidence? Do most people that think this know how welfare works, who receives food stamps, do they even know anyone who is even close to that walk of life?
I think this elitism is dangerously prevalent in universities as well. Even at Berkeley, the most liberal university in the world maybe, this idea is common. As educated, intelligent, generally affluent, soon to be successful individuals, I think that students feel that anyone should be able to be as successful as them. Its hard to understand the advantages and opportunities you have until you really get to know someone who didn't have those chances. I think people choose to ignore these huge advantages their wealth, their parents education or their intelligence has granted them, and instead attribute their success purely to their own abilities and consider other's failures to be a similarly individual, and personal problem.
Thank you for your informative, if disheartening blog post. The tug-of-war that has been going on throughout the last century around public benefits has systematically denied some people their basic needs at the hands of people for whom basic needs have likely never even been a palpable concern. It is also terrifying that poverty and seeking public assistance is classed as a legitimate reason for separating children from their families, especially as it is causing parents to have to make the difficult decision between allowing their children to go hungry and having them live with strangers, where they will be at risk of being abused or neglected. I especially admire how you brought in your own experience and your sources. This is a very well-done post and I hope to see more from you.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your position on the inadequacy of the United State's welfare system and it's disheartening how people are so critical of dependency and the minutiae when the reality is entirely different.
ReplyDeleteIf I recall correctly, the federal poverty line that we use today comes from estimates made in the 1960's(but adjusted to inflation). The calculations were derived from the idea that households that had to spend more than 1/3rd of their income on food were poor. That measurement carries little weight nowadays when food expenditure is not as dominant due to technological advances. This explains why a family of four can only make up to $31,322 to be able to register into Medi-Cal. And this is a federal limit so it sets the poverty threshold for families that live in say, cheaper Wisconsin and families that live in the ridiculously expensive Manhattan.
Our measurement of poverty is just as ridiculous as our notions about our inadequate health care system.