Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rights and Liberties

The Cruelest Cuts

By Mark Winne, In These Times. Posted May 6, 2005.


As Congress haggles over food stamp cuts, soup kitchens fear longer lines.
Advertisement

The line for food starts forming at 7:30 each morning. Mostly women, many small children and some single men are shaking off daybreak's chill hoping to be one of the first 100 people let into the Storehouse, New Mexico's largest emergency food pantry. It isn't that this free food distribution center, located just off Albuquerque's historic Route 66, is stingy; it's just that the Storehouse has enough donated food to feed only 100 families per day.

"In 1999, we served the equivalent of 200,000 meals each year," says Lee Maynard, the Storehouse's executive director. "Right now, we're serving 1.4 million meals per year, 45 percent more than last year. Things are getting worse." And if the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives has its way with essential safety net services like the food stamp program, things will be getting much worse for Maynard and thousands of his counterparts at emergency food sites across the nation.

To comply with President Bush's budget proposal, which includes tax cuts for the wealthy and more money for the Iraq war, both houses of Congress issued separate budget resolutions that prescribe how much money each of its committees must cut. Where those cuts will come from is up to the respective committees. For instance, the House and Senate agriculture committees oversee tens of billions of dollars in expenditures for programs like conservation, food stamps and crop subsidies for commodities like corn, wheat and cotton. According to their respective resolutions, the Senate Agriculture Committee is required to cut $2.8 billion over five years from these programs while the more aggressive House must chop $5.3 billion. Whatever differences emerge between the two committee's budgets--and there will be differences--will be resolved by a House and Senate conference committee.

So where will the cuts come from? The president's budget showed uncommon courage by proposing a much-needed limitation on crop subsidies, considered sacrosanct by American agriculture's commodity producers. Republican congressional leaders don't appear to be so bold. Rather than face the ire of the likes of the American Corn Growers Association, House and Senate leaders may find it easier to meet their budgetary reduction quota by cutting food stamps, a program whose recipients don't have access to the well-heeled lobbyists of "Big Ag."

Bush did propose a $600 million cut in the food stamp program over five years. While not a kingly sum by Washington standards, it's still enough to eliminate 300,000 lower-income Americans from the nation's most important nutrition program. But Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-Va.), chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, may not be content with making only 300,000 people hungrier. Both chairmen have made statements to the press indicating that a disproportionate amount of agriculture program cuts will come from food stamps, especially if a conference committee favors the House's higher budget resolution figure.

The impact of such cuts on lower-income families would be enormous. Created by executive order in the early days of the Kennedy administration, the Food Stamp Program is far and away the nation's most important safety net. For millions of households, food stamp benefits--now encoded on an electronic card that can only be used to purchase food at retail food outlets--are literally the only thing that stands between them and hunger. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the number of people who receive food stamps now stands at 25.5 million--2 million more than just a year ago. Are these freeloading welfare cheats? To the contrary, about half of all food stamp recipients are children and about two million are elderly. The average food stamp benefit equals $1 per meal per food stamp recipient. Hardly enough for that filet mignon food stamp shoppers are so often accused of purchasing.


Digg!

Mark Winne is a freelance writer from Santa Fe, N.M.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Nothing new here...
Posted by: dennyduke@earthlink.net on May 6, 2005 2:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just another step in the continuing class war by the very rich against all of the rest of us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Food Stamps? What Food Stamps?
Posted by: freerain on May 6, 2005 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For those who think that food stamps "feed the poor" my response is "get real!" A disabled person, single, on a fixed income of $579 get about $63 of food stamps. Wow! Been to the grocerie store lately? Hamberger is nearly $4/lb, bread is about $3 a loaf, Milk is around $3/gal, eggs are going for more than $2 a dozen. The retail price of food has risen 70% in the last two years but food stamps are still where they were at 8 years ago. This is a necessary program but it is not one that changes the economic security of those who use it. Higher wages would do more for the working poor than saving food stamps.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Food Stamps? What Food Stamps? Posted by: MegOnTheMountain
Recipients of Food Stamps
Posted by: Sandra on May 6, 2005 8:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does anyone know if illegal immigrants are obtaining food stamps? I know that the medical costs in my county have increased 900% through treatment of illegal aliens and that the local health department is writing grants to find additional funds to pay for their care. I haven't heard anything regarding food stamps and whether these are being used to feed these illegal immigrant families. We have a lot of illegal immigrants working the Christmas tree farms and fruit orchards, they don't get paid very much and their families are with them. I am curious regarding whether this group makes up a significant portion of the increase in use of food stamps.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ecipients of Food Stamps Posted by: Karieson
» RE: Recipients of Food Stamps Posted by: CurtisBryant
shame, shame
Posted by: villinmomma on May 6, 2005 8:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Representitives need to admonished for their shameful behavior. Cutting benefits and safety nets for the poorest and most vulnerable citizens is shameful action by such a wealthy nation in the eyes of any humantiarian view, and downright sinful for Christians.

I, for one, will be writing to my representives to urge against these cuts and FOR change in the OTHER direction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Different Americas
Posted by: gonzoskismet on May 6, 2005 8:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the real America, you go hungry, you go jobless, you go live in shelters and on the street. In Washington, D.C. America
you don't see the hungry, you don't see the jobless, you don't have to look at the homeless. As usual, it's not their fault. Ever wonder why we put up with this from our duly elected officials?
Obviously not. We re-elect them every time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can't See Hunger From the White House
Posted by: monkeywrench on May 6, 2005 8:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My comment is simple: in the richest society in the history of the world, one that is plundering the resources of the rest of the world, that ANYONE, let alone MILLIONS, have to stand in line at soup kitchens to avoid starvation is A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY!

Any day now I expect Laura Bush to stand on a balcony of the White House and proclaim, "LET THEM EAT CAKE!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Can't See Hunger From the White House Posted by: Iamnotafruittree
We The People...
Posted by: bgentry on May 6, 2005 9:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remember, there is still power in the People. Even if our taxes are going for egregious purposes instead of what our hearts would choose, we can still donate to private programs instead of buying yet more consumer toys and we can actively campaign to oust our cruel representatives in Congress and the White House.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why do we need a revolution- agian?
Posted by: danopacki on May 6, 2005 5:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is but one issue of many, ongoing, that middle class voters have no knowledge of because working class families and the poor have no lobby now that unions are almost dead and buried. Corporate media and pop culture dictate what people know, think, and do, and caring about what happens to the poor is not family value issue of the Konservative Khristian Kult. America is in a coma, shocked into stupidity and fearsome awareness that this country is vulnerable to a serious depression, soon. As long as they can, they will ignore reality for the sake of "reality like programming" at the direciton of corporations, the pentagon and the religious radicals, and continue to let electronic voting machines make their decisions for them. I say to hell with Eat the Rich, I woulnd't feed them to animals. Just kick their ass and take their momey!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How do we combine our efforts
Posted by: kilmer7165 on May 8, 2005 12:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are organizations out there, but they need organizers to address all the issues, this is not a small problem of lack of available food sources. America is one of the most wasteful nations in the world we throw away perfectly good products in the name of corporate profit, we have many abandoned buildings that with some creativity could be turned into a haven for the 500,000 homeless families in this country. Addressing issues like illegal aliens is almost non sensical in a country made up of nothing but immigrants. Don't these people deserve the same possibilities afforded to our ancestors? There is enough money wasted each year on the bigger better deal for military superiority in America to feed the homeless in the world for five years or more. What needs to be addressed is the advertising in America where we are constantly bombarded with what they say we need to live a fulfilled life. If the money from advertising or campaign spending were regulated we could take that excess and make a better product or tell the truth in politics that alone would make a signifigant difference in how the average American thought about mass marketing. Please people make it your business to inform the un informed and bring this country back to the moral standards of the past. If anyone has suggestions email kilmer7165@yahoo.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rich Get Richer....
Posted by: mrsmagoo on May 8, 2005 8:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nothing new here. The rich get richer and the poor, well, they get NOTHING.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]