By Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger
“A government’s allowing people to starve when it is preventable reflects a lack of concern for human rights, and well-ordered regimes…will not allow this to happen.”
John Rawls, The Law of Peoples (1999)
It ought not be a matter of serious debate that every human being is entitled to nourishment sufficient to sustain life. The right to sustenance is subsumed within the right to life. We acknowledge in our founding documents that protection of that right is a primary function of government. No rational person would choose to live in a society that permitted its members to die for lack of food. Nevertheless, the food stamp program, now called the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), is under attack by Republican members of Congress. The recent vote in the House of Representatives to cut funding for the program, and the arguments advanced in support of the cuts, suggest that the GOP believes that providing the poor with enough to eat is a discretionary exercise , demanded by neither law nor morality. It appears that the Republican Party has adopted what I call the Bauer Theory of Behavior Modification. The formulation of the Bauer Theory can be found in the following statement made several years ago by its namesake, former South Carolina Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer: “My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones who don’t think much further than that. And so what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to curtail that type of behavior. They don’t know any better.”
It would be easy to dismiss Mr. Bauer’s comment as merely unfortunate and aberrational, but for the fact that it has been repeated many times in one form or another by other Republican leaders. In March of last year, for instance, Republican Minnesota State Representative Mary Franson remarked, “Isn’t it ironic that the food stamp program, part of the Department of Agriculture, is pleased to be distributing the greatest amount of food stamps ever? Meanwhile, the Park Service, also part of the Department of Agriculture, asks us to please not feed the animals, because the animals may grow dependent and not learn to take care of themselves.”
Variations on this theme filled the halls of Congress during debate over cuts to the SNAP program. Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R. Kan.) observed, “You can no longer sit on your couch and expect the government to feed you.” Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R Wash.) complained, “Since President Obama took office, SNAP has grown at an unprecedented rate, with one in seven Americans now receiving food stamps.” Rep. Tom Cotton (R. Ark.) claimed that the program is fraught with “rampant waste and abuse.” Rep. Stephen Fincher (R. Tenn.) went biblical with the out-of-context quote, “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” And in a town hall meeting, Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R. Ok.), argued that most aid programs for the poor should be eliminated. “The food programs are designed to take care of people who can’t work, not won’t work. And we all know those people that won’t work, right? They’re abusing the program, and we’ve got to get them off of it.”
The legislation itself reinforces the beliefs expressed in the foregoing comments. It permits drug testing of SNAP recipients, despite the fact that several courts have ruled unconstitutional similar provisions covering applicants for TANF benefits. And, for good measure, it makes lottery winners ineligible for benefits. I suppose gamblers should not be feeding at the public trough.
The Republican criticisms have not been burdened by the facts. SNAP is one of the most efficient government programs, with fraud accounting for only 1% of expenditures, less than the rate of fraud in farm subsidies and far less than the abysmal record in the defense industry. The program’s error rate is 3.8%, compared to 4.7% in the federal crop insurance program. The recipients of what amount to less than $1.40 per meal are not the able-bodied; 83% of SNAP benefits go to households having a child, an elderly person or a disabled person, and 61% of recipient households have gross annual income not exceeding 75% of the federal poverty level. But why has the program grown so much over the last six years? The best answer is one I used to hear from my kids when responding to a perfectly dumb question: “Well, duh, Dad.” With the financial collapse of 2008 and the highest unemployment rates since the Great Depression, there are now almost 47 million people living in poverty in this country. The math isn’t difficult.
The lack of a factual basis for the Republican demand for benefit cuts leads us back to Mr. Bauer. The Bauer Theory is not about poverty, but about the impoverished. The program cuts are not aimed at reducing poverty; they are rather a statement of moral condemnation. Poverty is not about a lack of jobs or educational deficiencies or structural inequality. It is a product of indolence, irresponsibility and immorality. Under the theocratic political philosophy now dominating Republican policy arguments, poverty is proof of moral decay to the same extent that material wealth is proof of moral righteousness.
We are becoming a nation of prigs.
You’ll have to point out where I called you a name. I don’t see it.
Yes, resorting to name calling and some sort of enlightened position obviously doesn’t call for an apology. Civil discourse is out the window if someone disagrees with your point of view.
I’m a Canadian, and a libertarian, I accept the withdrawal of your comment.
You can’t accept what I haven’t offered.
For Bron, Dave and you other “libertarians”:
http://dangerousminds.net/comments/class_war_for_idiots_libertarianism_assholism
I love those people who profess to not be a member of either party and then regurgitate the talking points of the GOP. this doesn’t make one sound impartial; it makes one sound like a fool.
My perspective is likely different than most here. I’m not a dem or repub, but I’m firmly against redistribution of wealth of any kind. The idea you can steal from one person and give it to another is akin to theft. I tend to agree that subsidizing something gives you more of it, welfare is no exception. It isn’t heartless to want to cut these programs, but doing so in one fell swoop would be. These programs should be immediately tapered off and not allow new takers, this will remove the incentive of knowing Comrade Government will steal to protect you. I agree with the author on the sense that you have a right to life, but not a right to another’s, because that’s essentially what stealing from me to give to another is saying. I find it almost a contradiction, advocating the right to life on one hand but using force against another. Soup kitchens, charity and people are more than capable of helping the needy, putting Comrade in the middle does not make the problem societies. I’m happy to help people wherever and whenever I can, I don’t need someone forcing me to do it, because they believe it’s okay to steal from me, for their own ideals.
Oky1: Ron Paul? You must be kidding. He’s a joke. Libertarianism is both naive and impractical.
Juliet N
What kind of Republican? Sarah Palin & Mitt Romney, etc, are not Ron Paul.
Juliet,
Bron engages in what my profession calls “primitive thinking.” That is, an approach to solving problems that are overly simplistic, ignoring the complexities of real life. This is considered a form of magical thinking.
David does the same thing.
OS: It’s very odd, this lack of ability to foresee consequences and reactions. In my experience, folks I know who are not very self-aware, not “thinkers,” and lack an ability to empathize fall into that group.
Bron: You’re starting from a false premise — the Republicans don’t want good schools or a reduction in the military or better health care or good paying jobs.
The two sides are NOT the same.
lottakatz:
Isnt it funny how both sides think the other side is evil.
I have republican friends who think people on the left are evil incarnate and they make a pretty good case.
I have liberal friends who think like you do and they also make a pretty good case for republicans being evil.
Seems to me there must be some common ground in there somewhere.
I think most liberals and conservatives would like to see:
an end to foreign wars.
an honest, transparent government.
a reduction in foreign aid.
a reduction in foreign military bases/troops.
a better tax system.
better infrastructure.
better schools.
better health care.
good, well paying jobs.
If we did all of that, then maybe we would have enough to take care of those in need of help and eliminate our deficit.
Why cant we have a robust economy and a welfare program for those in real need?
Why is it so hard to let the market do what it does best; create wealth?
And for the conservatives, why is it so hard to help a poor family who doesnt have any other options available?
If farmers are receiving hundreds of billions in subsidies, it does seem hypocritical to deny 80 billion for some extra help.
Each side is unwilling to compromise.
When asked if I was was a moderate or conservative Baptist. I replied that if Jesus considered me anything other than radical, I wasn’t doing it right.
BTW: “Is not this the kind of fasting [God has] chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?” Isaiah 58:6 NIV
And that’s why I am a civil libertarian — loosing the chains of injustice and breaking the yoke of oppression!
SWM, Who ever knew you were cool w/ Bush and Christie. Just bustin’ balls, I know what you mean.
Juliet, That’s another matter. I saw it as good people you liked but merely voted Republican. I guess I’m a rarity. I have a very good mix of liberal and conservative friends. Not a conscious decision, just happened. But, we don’t engage in that horseshit you just described. That’s not what friends do or say, IMO.
I know so few old school Republicans. Most of my “conservative” friends have become moderate Democrats, not liking their Tea Party bedfellows. That’s pretty much the way it evolved for me, as well. I respect conservatives like Jon Huntsman, Joe Scarborough (the only show I watch on MSNBC), and Nicolle Wallace. I can’t bear the ones like Cruz, Paul, and Bachmann.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/your-false-equivalence-guide-to-the-days-ahead/280062/ Excellent article by James Fallows on the current political state of affairs.
“We are becoming a nation of prigs.”
No, the GOP is a Group of Pigs.
nick, I draw the line with the Tea Party Republicans. The party is split so maybe we effectively have three parties. There is the Chris Christie-Bush faction and the Ted Cruz faction.
The Dept. of Agriculture spent millions of tax dollars doing ads targeting the Hispanic community. Those ads told Spanish speaking people that they were eligible and that you would be surprised @ how much money you can make and still be eligible. There is a work ethic in the Hispanic community that makes them reticent to accept benefits like this. Now, for those who need it, I FULLY SUPPORT THIS EFFORT. However, there is a fine line between trying to help prideful people who need help, and making people dependent. Apparently the Dept. of Agriculture crossed that line. When the ads were made an issue, they quickly pulled them. I heard some of the ads. They were mostly radio ads on Spanish stations. They were of a soap opera genre and pretty lame.
Politics should not determine friendship, where you vacation, what you eat, what movies you watch, what artists you like, comedy, science, etc. It is only in our lifetime that politics has inserted itself so nastily into areas it has no business. One of the many problems w/ a duopoly. Juliet, maybe if your friends had more than 2 choices they wouldn’t be evil Republicans, or evil Democrats, if the roles were reversed. Maybe they feel the same about Dems but consider you more important than some stupid political party?
Nick: Actually, they’ve ruthlessly attacked me for my beliefs to the point where I can’t have a conversation that doesn’t involve what a “libtard” I am. My faith informs my politics, which dictates how I live my life. It’s not just a matter of picking a person to represent my interests (ha!) in Washington; it’s truly a lifestyle devoted to giving care and comfort to people who are less fortunate than I.