National priorities are determined by the manner in which a nation allocates its limited resources; how and where it spends its money. At the end of July Congress passed a $33 billion supplemental war bill for President Obama’s troop surge in Afghanistan. This past Tuesday the president signed a multibillion-dollar bailout bill for cash-strapped states but cut $12 billion from future food stamp funding to help pay for it. Proponents of this measure argue that using food stamp funding in order to save public sector jobs such as teachers, police officers, and firefighters at the state level is a valid trade-off.
Now the Senate is at it again. To pay for the $8 billion Improving Nutrition for America’s Children Act, the Senate has agreed to trim the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps. According to the Huffington Post, “In April 2009 the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act boosted monthly benefits under SNAP by 13.6 percent. As economic misery has worsened, participation in SNAP has risen since then from 34.4 million to 40.8 million as of May 2010. That’s one of every seven Americans” or approximately 41 million people.
As the economy has worsened the need for these benefits has increased dramatically. Currently, the average benefit is $133.77 per month. If the Senate has its way, the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) estimates that a family of four will receive $59 less per month starting in November 2013.
In 1964 President Lyndon Johnson declared the War on Poverty. This was in response to a national poverty rate of around nineteen percent. By placing poverty at the forefront of the American psyche Johnson was able to champion historic legislation that reallocated national resources in order to address poverty at its core. Programs such as Head Start, food stamps, work study, Medicare and Medicaid, were implemented and many still exist today.
In spite of President Johnson’s herculean efforts, according to Reuters the U.S. poverty rate hit its highest level in 11 years in 2008 as the worst recession since the Great Depression threw millions of Americans out of work. The government defines poverty as an annual income of $22,025 for a family of four, $17,163 for a family of three and $14,051 for a family of two. The Census Bureau said the poverty rate — the percentage of people living in poverty — jumped to 13.2 percent, the highest level since 1997, from 12.5 percent in 2007. In spite of these realities, Congress is passing and the president is signing into law legislation that is taking resources away from those who need it most at the time they are most in need.
According to the US Census Bureau, 36 million people live below the poverty line in America, including 13 million children. According to the Bread for the World Institute, 14.6% of U.S. households struggle to put enough food on the table. More than 49 million Americans—including 16.7 million children—live in these households.
In March 2010 the Obama administration announced the implementation of the Supplemental Poverty Measure, a new and more accurate portrayal of America’s poor. The poverty formula from Johnson’s War on Poverty failed to account for the increase of modern day expenses such as child care, health care, commuting, housing, and other expenses. As these standards are put in place, the numbers should only get worse. According to the Christian Science Monitor, “experts expect the new poverty measure will increase the percentage of people classified as poor, especially among elderly Americans. Poverty rates will probably increase from 13.2 percent, or 39.8 million people, to 15.8 percent, or 47.4 million, reports the Associated Press.” In spite of these realities, Congress is passing and the president is signing into law legislation that is taking resources away from those who need it most at the time they are most in need.
At a time when actual unemployment rates in America are in the double digits and the American economy is in its deepest recession in almost 70 years, Democratic leaders in the Senate have agreed to cut funding to pay for food assistance for working families, especially children. They can agree to increase funding for an ill advised war in Afghanistan but vote to cut funding for a winnable war against poverty and hunger at home. As Dr. King stated, we are, “compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor…” and we should attack it as such. Instead of turning swords into ploughshares; instead of ceasing to perpetuate war and start using money to improve the lives of American citizens, the Senate decides to continue making swords.
