Republicans claim that the bill "closes loopholes," and requires employment to receive welfare - ideas they claim come from Clinton. Democrats argue that the cuts are "draconian," and will "plunge millions into poverty."
With the budget getting farther and farther out of control, it's clear that something has to give - but what?
Public policy is an interesting thing, in that bad policies are often passed due to a small group benefiting strongly and making their voices heard. For example, if the government were to pass a bill saying that all members of our class get $1,000,000 by taxing everyone in the U.S. an extra $.04, you can be sure that we'd be in D.C. urging lawmakers to pass the law - while the rest of the nation is apathetic. And of course this works the opposite way as well - which is why "the rich" seem to always get their way. If the government introduces a bill to raise their taxes, they're vehement while the general populous doesn't feel the effects.
So how do we decide where to cut, and how do we do it in a way that benefits the most people?
There is an interesting equity versus efficiency trade-off here.
ReplyDeleteA bit of data from the USDA:
ReplyDeleteOne in six Americans struggled with hunger in 2012. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (pdf), more than 48.9 million Americans lived in households struggling against hunger in 2012. Of them, 15.8 million are children (21.6 percent of all children). Previously, in 2011, 50.1 million Americans were in food insecure households. The number of people living in households with very low food security – the worst off households – increased slightly, rising from 16.8 million in 2011 to 17.1 million in 2012.60.9 million people, or 19.8 percent of all Americans, lived on less than 125 percent of the federal poverty level in 2011. This means they are income-eligible for most federal nutrition programs, like food stamps and child nutrition programs – assistance which can help them stretch their food dollars and get access to healthy foods.
Children continue to have high poverty rates, with 21.9 percent of children under 18 (16.1 million) living in poverty in 2011. 7.3 million (9.8 percent) of all children under 18 lived in families with incomes below 50 percent of the federal poverty level.
So......yes, the program is expensive. Roughly 20% of American families have not seen the recession recede. So, should we cut food stamp funding? Equity versus efficiency doesn't even begin to define the trade-offs here.
http://frac.org/reports-and-resources/hunger-and-poverty/
From my time working in Detroit, I have seen how cutbacks like this one has taken away one more point of access that marginalized people. The last figure that I heard was that in the Metro Detroit area alone, there would be close to one million people would go without food. It seems to me that programs that offer basic needs are more likely to get cut than other programs our government runs.
ReplyDeleteIts easier to cut on expenditure that don't seem to be taking much of the budget. It like doing a personal budget, you would get rid of miscellaneous spending before you start cutting the big things. Not that I support the cutting but I understand how this is an easier evil to stomach since its seems like the bill does come with some features/requirements to qualify for Food Stamps.
ReplyDeleteYes, the program is expensive and in my opinion there are other ways to reduce hunger and poverty in USA. For instance a recent study claims that American throw away nearly half of their food, approximating $165 billion. Following is a part of the article recently published in Huffington post
ReplyDeleteThe NRDC report said Americans discard 40 percent of the food supply every year, and the average American family of four ends up throwing away an equivalent of up to $2,275 annually in food.
Just a 15 percent reduction in losses in the U.S. food supply would save enough to feed 25 million Americans annually. It also would lighten the burden on landfills, where food waste makes up the largest component of solid waste, according to the NRDC, a nonprofit environmental organization.
when looking at cutting the food stamp program it can serious hurt those that really need it and can also do our budget a favor because their are people who continue to eat off the govt when they are capable of going out and getting a job but they are lazy
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nick's original comment. It does seem to be more important to take away parts of various programs rather than eliminate one fully. This way we may be able to slowly work out of these programs and they can leave an actual lasting effect on the people they were helping rather than leaving all of those needed such a program out to dry.
ReplyDelete