This article criticize the cuts in food stamp, part of welfare reform attempt proposed by Republican Study Committee. The author describes food stamps as the "ultimate ground-level crutch for Americans staggering against poverty" and an important factor for keeping about 4.5 million American people stay off the official poverty level. The proposal by the Republicans state that they could save $1.4 trillion across a decade through cutting down welfare programs and yet still help "down-and-out families". The author emphasize the need to protect the needy people first and protecting programs vital to society.
4 comments:
"The author emphasize the need to protect the needy people first and protecting programs vital to society." Not to rock the boat here, but what could be more vital to society then helping to put food on the table for the people who otherwise couldn't? I mean I understand that large amounts of the deficit could be replenished by the monies saved through cutting food stamps back, but the process is slow and wont produce favorable results until after 10 years. In the article posted above I reference Lockhart who is the president of the Fed in Atlanta where he has written a proposal to raise the DR to 2.5% within the next 2 years, this will also reduce our deficit by $1.45 trillion in only 2 years.Lockhart's proposal doesn't aim at taking food of the tables of the needy as the author of the article is suggesting.
I don't believe for one second that the gov't can still help down and out families while cutting down the welfare programs and saving reportedly $1.4 trillion. These people need that money for a reason, they can't survive on their own. Cutting the welfare programs will only result in poverty for these families. Yes, no doubt that money would be saved with cuts, but is this necessarily the right program to cut?
I agree with what Tim has said above. Keeping members of society fed should be a priority. The deficit could easily be eliminated if the Bush tax cuts were repealed and there was an increase in income taxes for people making over $150,000/year. People with that kind of income can afford to be taxed slightly more.
The writer of the article mentions vicious politics as a critical part of the equation. I think it is the most important part, as the elimination of collective bargaining in Wisconsin and attacks on the public sector in Ohio benefit (in the political sense) the republican governors more than they would help reduce the deficit. This bill is no different.
In my opinion this is definitely not the right program to cut funding for. There are several programs that overlap due to soft budget constraints and those are the ones that should be targeted for budget cuts.
Post a Comment