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.
Call our congress person’s office as soon as you can.
You can leave a massage even tonight.
Tell them you want congress to stay open 24/7 debating wither to vote out articles of impeachment or a vote of No Confidence against Obama & his Gangster thugs & drag out the clock for how ever long it takes.
The Media will have to cover it.
Grow a set of balls Congress!
Tell’em what your guts says!
Phk Obama Scam Care, make the Wallst Crooks pay for the harm they’ve done to the sick & injured!!!
Hey Obama, Reid, Biden, “Reagan/Bush/Clintons/ you USA hatin, racist Aholes Your Broke & Shut Down!
Marget Thatcher was a commie/nazi lunatic that the Brits had every reason to hang but didn’t, but she did say something sort of correct & I’ll fix her words for her right here.
“Socialism works great right up to the point the people have no more money to fund the Wallst/City London Bank/Insurance Trash’s Son’s & Daughter’s Meth habits!!!”
65-85% real taxes on working people, 85 billion $$$ in Welfare Every month for how many years for Wallst Bank/Insurance Trash? 5?
Phk Obama Scam Care, get the money from the Welfare Queens, Buffet, Fox News, GE, Koch Bros, Exxon Mobil, WalMart, Gates & Monsanto, etc…, after all hey are the ones that made most of those people sick in the first place, it’s only right those Deadbeats, Free Riders, should Pay their own Bill!!!
Enough! It’s been long enough & looks like we’re at close to the end of it?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-30/shut-happens
1 something quite a few of you need to understand is you’re once again being distracted by foolishness how? because the repubkes nor the demorats are going to cut snap.. why not? because they need the votes of whats left of the middle class and the majority of them are on food stamps. let’s not forget that who sect of the jewish faith that are so insular and secular that they dont bother to work at all they just get married, and apply for welfare. they receive the biggest share of welfare period. i wish i could remember the link where that story was posted but i shall find it.
back to the story. your distraction is so great that you are now attacking one another for differing opinions which is what this world was founded on. think not? according to history ??????? God created the earth and humans and the angels got upset because they felt God loved us more and for no reason and they formed a sect and tried to attack God which got a particular minion banished to the bottom of the earth known as hell…
they know damn well they cant cut funding they would definitely lose what voters they still have. and the people need to realize one thing no matter what party you attribute the foolishness to. they are all owned by the big corporations and how much money would those companies lose if the people cant go shopping? if the people can’t pay their bills?
now please dont misunderstand im not attacking anyone here we all have our own opinions and thats a HIGHER power given right. and no one is either right or wrong. the truth of it all is in the middle. and remember this also folks since the repubkes are trying to push for stricter voting laws which would leave out. us poor, disabled, elderly, people whether black ,white,yellow, fuchsia or orange that leaves what is left of the middle class. who are now themselves on snap trying to feed their families.. where oh where will the votes for them come from?
No. Juliet called you directly “shrill, histrionic and aggressive”. And “butthurt”. But you called yourself “assholish”. And then proceded to take exception with it. It’s called English. Get some.
Bron, You know my comment was directed to the man obsessed w/ me. Are there stalking rules here?
That’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it, Bron. And to be expected from you, all things considered.
She called me “assholish” by extension. Pretty simple LOGIC. Are you gunning for me Scrappy. Guest Bloggers should have better decorum.
nick:
it depends on the perspective as to whom is the as$hole.
These people have opinions, nothing more, nothing less. Their social, economic and political ideas, no matter how elegantly presented, are still just opinions.
You mean other than you just called yourself “assholish” by extension?
I’m a libertarian. You said, “For Bron Dave and all libertarians.” And the link was to the assholish magazine. What did I miss?
Nick: Until you waded in with a large case of butthurt, I never addressed you. I certainly never referred to you as being assholish.
Again, you need to tone it down.
I thought not. 😉
You call me “assholish” and I’m “shrill, histrionic, and aggressive.” I stand by my point here..not last night, or anywhere else..here. Last night was another topic, other people and dynamic. You are doing what you said, in this thread, you deplore. That being rude and vulgar to those w/ a different political viewpoint. You see, when you’re of no party or persuasion, you have a different perspective. Like many libertarians, I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Because a libertarian says something stupid, racist, etc. does that make all libertarians that way? That’s what I meant when I said I expect more. What did I do or say HERE that warranted your ad hominem. Now, I have no problem mixing it up, but that is not my preference. I hit a nerve w/ pointing out your, well let’s be diplomatic and call it a double standard. If you have a problem w/ me HERE, let it out. My mom always said, “Better out than in.” We can hash it out civilly. I have enormous respect for you. More than just about anyone else here. But, that doesn’t mean we can’t disagree. Hell, agreeing w/ people is greatly overrated. Our founding fathers were libertarians. They would have a stroke if they saw what has become of our “limited government” model.
Juliet,
That is indeed not a rule. Even among the GBs, there is not a single one of us that is in lockstep agreement with JT or even amongst ourselves. We have all disagreed with him and each other at one time or another (although I do personally have a hard time disagreeing with that “overly reasonable” Mike A. fellow :D).
Agreement is not required.
**
Juliet N. 1, September 30, 2013 at 3:45 pm
Oky1: Ron Paul? You must be kidding. He’s a joke. Libertarianism is both naive and impractical.
**
Maybe you could point out to me where Ron Paul’s positions regarding the US Constitution are different then Professor’s Turley’s as I believe they are very close if not exactly the same.
So what I hear you saying is you feel JT is a joke also.
Maybe you should clarify your statement & point us to some current past leaders you find suitable to your political bent?
I’ll check back later tonight.
BTW: Congressman Grayson may turn out to be decent. I don’t know all of the recent new ones from last fall.
Unlike Ron Paul! I believe that all people are created equal! including black people. There’s your difference.
Oh, and I don’t agree with JT on many things, as I’m a Christian Socialist. What your point? Do we have to agree with him to follow this blog? I wasn’t aware that was a rule.
Bron: There may be 100 kinds of Republicans, but the douchebags are running the show. You “reasonable conservatives/libertarians” should try to reign in the crazy among you.
Nick: Because I like you, I’m usually careful not to be too confrontational with you. However, tonight I will make an exception. Both last night and today you’ve been shrill, histrionic and aggressive. It’s unlike what I have come to think about you. Perhaps you might think about toning it down, a bit.
juliet:
“the Republicans don’t want good schools or a reduction in the military or better health care or good paying jobs.”
there are 2 kinds of republicans or maybe 3:
neocons
conservatives
theocrats who have both neocon and conservative leanings.
and then of course there are variations on those 3, but I think that is a reasonable breakdown.
Neocons are very bad juju, while I disagree with Gene H on many things, he is right about neocons. They are a real danger to the US.
So are the theocrats, I would not want to live under a government for and by the Family Research Council.
Conservatives, at least many of the ones I know, are more libertarian in nature.
I think we can do it all, have a good economy and a good social safety net. But that will take compromise on the part of liberals to free up the economy and they dont seem to want to do that from where I sit.
Isnt there some way to reduce or eliminate many regulations to free up the economy and reduce taxes while at the same time making penalties much stiffer for those who violate the remaining laws and regulations?
That way, only the truly bad actors would be punished.
OS, You didn’t make the “simplistic thinking” threshold last night.
Juliet, You are currently engaging in the activity you disparaged your friends for doing. I’m a libertarian, so I guess I have “assholism.” I expected better from you. But, you’ll get some gangbangers to follow you on that. Watch.