Quote:

---

The debate raging in Congress over the fate of our federal budget reminds me of the great judgment of Solomon. Here we are, sharp sword overhead, poised to cut the baby in half, just waiting for the voice of reason and a willingness to sacrifice.

Instead, we’re confronted with arguments framed as a hard, false choice between sound economic policies and social programs, between fiscal realities and compassionate acts. It’s time to stay the sword.

The truth is, at some point in life and regardless of income, virtually every American will benefit in some way from a social safety-net program, whether through a social security check, an unemployment benefit or a school lunch. Programs like these are called safety nets for a reason – yank them away and people get hurt, today more than ever.

Take the special ed teacher’s aide I recently met. She has a full-time job that pays all of $17,000 a year. She works a second job to pay all the bills, but still must rely on a safety net to help feed her two kids. Because she does not earn a living wage, she has no choice.

Yet some conservatives label her a “taker” and view her with contempt, judgments that are neither just nor wise.

As we debate what to cut and keep as part of the spending reductions that will accompany coming tax increases, it’s time to be as wise as Solomon. The truth is, study after study has proven that basic, responsible social service programs like food stamps, housing credits and after-school programs actually work.

Take child care. This single subsidy is a great multiplier that provides terrific return-on-investment as a service cost reducer and a job creator. Moms return to work and families earn – and spend – more. Employers get a more reliable workforce and children are safe. And we all benefit as taxpayers because it pumps money into the economy.

Such programs are not a handout, they are a hand up.

Safety-net programs that help low and moderate-income working families, as well as those among us who are elderly, poor, disabled and neglected, account for only 13% of the total 2011 federal budget. These aren’t Cadillac programs funding big-screen TVs across America. These are programs that help pay for education, affordable apartments and oil to heat cold rooms.

More important to the fiscal hawks among us, these are also programs that help move the working poor into the middle class. I speak from the heart, but it’s my head and basic math that tell me that in our interconnected society, by helping one, we can help all.

For the last 10 years, the so-called “job creators” have enjoyed significant tax cuts and tax breaks – thanks to a beneficent government – and we have yet to see the jobs.

Perhaps the corporate titans should take a tip from one of their own, Henry Ford, founder of the Ford Motor Co. One of the richest men in the nation, but hardly a soft-hearted liberal, Ford doubled his employees’ wages in 1914, paying them enough to actually afford the cars they were making.

Truth is, Ford knew he didn’t have to make a false choice between being a good businessman or a benevolent soul. He paid his employees a living wage because it was the shrewd thing to do, knowing that workers who have money spend money, and that helped ensure everyone’s well being, including Henry Ford’s.

Imagine the impact on today’s gross domestic product if millions of low-wage working Americans, who got short-term help from a social service program with long-range goals, started earning a few more extra dollars. Like Ford’s workers, I bet they’d spend it.

Ultimately, we need to pay living wages so far fewer working people rely on safety nets. But until that happens, the richest country on earth has enough loaves and fishes for all. It’s both compassionate and pragmatic to make sure that low-wage workers and their families eat, have places to live, and access to basic healthcare services to be productive members in our economy. More at http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/13/my-take-fiscal-cliff-presents
-false-choice-between-compassion-good-economics/?hpt=hp_t2]
With that in mind, how about this:

Quote:

---

According to Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, the food stamp program has quadrupled in the last ten years hence the food stamp program is clearly being abused hence the food stamp program should be cut back.

“One in six Americans are now receiving food stamps,” Jeff Sessions told Soledad O’Brien. ”. . . This month was a record increase in food stamp participation, at a time when unemployment is declining . . . .” To Sessions, of course, this means that the food stamp program desperately needs to be cut. Yes, the hordes of “takers” out there, stealing that $4.30 per day/ per person, SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) allotment.

Senator Sessions doesn’t seem to care that in his own home state, Alabama, 20% of the residents are on food stamps – and within that number, in 61.2% of those households receiving SNAP, there’s a child in the home.

“No child, no person who needs food should be denied that food,” Sessions went on to say.

Huh?

47.1 million Americans are now receiving food assistance. Of that 47.1 million, 6 million subsist entirely on the SNAP allotment – about 30 bucks a week per person. 20% of food stamp recipients have no cash income; without SNAP, they wouldn’t survive. But Sessions is determined – in the spirit of Republican “we just don’t get it” – to resurrect the “welfare queen” thought process: People living on government-provided EBTs and driving Jaguars.

O’Brien pointed out, in response to Sessions’ contention that people are thieving food stamps they’re not entitled to, that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points to SNAP as having “one of the most rigorous quality control systems of any public benefit program in recent years . . . has received its lowest error rates on record.” True to Republican form, when O’Brien countered with facts (not generally considered to be fluid things) that interrupted his narrative, Sessions responded, first, that the study was inaccurate. Barring that, his contention seems to be that a program that has gone up “four-fold in ten years” has to be rife with fraud and abuse; it can’t be, of course, that we narrowly averted a second Great Depression, that unemployment has been at its highest level in decades, that income equality is at its highest level in decades, and that there are, simply, hungry people out there.

It’s clear this dude goes home to steak tartar and champagne and doesn’t have a clue (nor does he care) what the very poor face every single day. The food stamp program, overall, is a drop in the federal budget. But it’s not overly generous, and doesn’t allow for comfy eating.

Jeff Sessions, as we’ve seen, thinks the poor are living just a bit too high on the government hog, bilking the government out of that lavish four bucks a day. Eric Cantor has been spotted eating $365 meals while smugly promoting the reduction of SNAP benefits. Michele Bachmann believes the poor should just skip a couple of Happy Meals to pay taxes. Mitt Romney, the bullet we recently dodged, referred to those protesting income inequality as instigators of “class warfare.” A Missouri Rep., Cynthia Davis, advocated cutting off summer meal programs, claiming, “Hunger can be a positive motivator.”

It’s ironic that the same people who’ve spent much of their adult lives feeding at the public trough consistently want to empty that trough when it comes to the poor. More at http://borderlessnewsandviews.com/2012/12/jeff-sessions-wants-to-balan
ce-the-budget-by-cutting-food-stamps/

---

So there you go. That's the Republicans' idea of "compassion". Stick it to the poor.

Quote:

---

I begin my annual task of picking through some FEC and IRS disclosures for different Republican organizations. Eric Cantor, for example, spent $365.00 on one meal in New York in September. That's one meal, equal to roughly ten times what SNAP recipients can spend in a week. On August 4th, he spent $370.00 in Washington DC for one meal. Those were not fundraisers. They were simply meals. http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/elected-officials-try-living-food-sta
mps]
I find other references to the $365 meal, but they all link to http://politicsanonymous.com/?p=5141, which won't come up.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.