Brandon Krampert
In Motion Staff Writer
In early February, President Obama signed off on a farm bill that has been delayed for two years.
There has been much strife over the legislation, such as concessions and subsidies for the agricultural industry, and where to cut and where to add funding.
After the latest legislative battle, the real losers are the poor because the bill includes $8 billion in cuts for the food stamp program in the next 10 years. Republican congressmen aimed for $40 billion in cuts in the next decade to reduce the deficit, so there was certainly a compromise reached.
The Associated Press reported that the cuts only amount to 1 percent of the overall food stamp budget. While seemingly a small number, it does not take into account how many individuals depend on the program in an economy that’s far from recovery, this is in addition to an immediate $5 billion cut to food stamps last November during the automatic budget cuts.
About 47 million people rely on the program and traditionally the majority have been the elderly, children and disabled. They still make up close to two-thirds of recipients, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a non-partisan, nonprofit think tank. An increased rate of college graduates has entered the program, making the welfare queen caricature during the Reagan Administration irrelevant and unfounded.
Another development has been that military families as a group have been reliant on food stamps in 2013, more so than in any other previous year, accounting for over $100 million of the budget. In the most recent cuts in the farm bill, it will affect roughly 850,000 households, cutting $90 from their monthly benefits.
In addition, the farm bill made reforms to SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, as food stamps are formally known. People will now not be able to qualify for the program if they’re convicted of specific crimes and/or are lottery winners.
But is it wise to impose austerity and to make such cuts to social programs when the poor need it most?
Let’s look at the worst case and that is unemployment.
Before the financial crash in 2008, the national unemployment rate was near 5 percent in late 2007 and at the height of the recession, it hit 10 percent in October of 2009. In January of 2014, it was reported at 6.6 percent. At least under terms of unemployment, the economy hasn’t fully recovered from where it was.
Although these rates are often cited in the media, the numbers are quite conservative because the only group that is calculated are adults looking for work and who can’t find it.
A survey known as U-6 released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics is far more indicative of reality. It calculates three groups: adults looking for work, but can’t find it; people who have part time work but are looking for something full time and can’t find it; and those who were looking for work and simply gave up, known as “discouraged workers.”
Put into that context, what is more important? Allowing the government to repay its loans more speedily at the expense of the poor and unemployed? Or allowing the government to alleviate the economic ills of its citizenry in a still depressed economy at the expense of mostly overseas financial institutions?