Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

T he 113th Congress has stuck it to the poor at pretty much every opportunity.

Posted by on Dec. 9, 2013 at 9:04 PM
  • 10 Replies
1 mom liked this
The 113th Congress has stuck it to the poor at pretty much every opportunity. In fact, if you take all their past and future plans into account, it looks like they have accomplished that rare feat: To close in on enacting an overarching, radical agenda without control of the Senate or the presidency. How did they do it? Probably by escaping scrutiny through a piecemeal approach to legislation, a president who is willing to meet them halfway, and one diabolic word: Sequester.

Let's drill down into each piece:

1. Kick 'em to the curb
Congress will basically start kicking poor people out of their homes early next year. The idea is, if you can't pay for your home without government assistance, you don't deserve to live in one. In this spirit, budget cuts due to sequestration will take rental assistance vouchers away from140,000 low-income families by the beginning of next year, making housing more expensive as agencies raise costs to offset the budget cuts. All in all, about 3 million disabled seniors and families will be affected. The savings?: $2 billion, which is pretty much what the government shutdown cost in back pay to federal workers.

If you're lucky enough to keep your home, don't expect to heat it. Sequester cuts to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) meant that 300,000 low-income families in 2013 were denied government support for energy costs.

2. Take the food out of their mouths. Literally.
The recent reduction in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits has affected more than 47 million Americans and is the largest wholesale cut in the program since Congress passed the first Food Stamps Act in 1964.

The cuts to Food Stamps were implemented on November 1. Yet, Congress won't let the program rest there — House Republicans are pushing to take $39 billion from SNAP over the next decade. If their plan succeeds, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 3.8 million low-income individuals would lose their benefits in 2014 with 2.8 million more getting kicked off the program each year. SNAP is one of the three most effective anti-poverty programs the government has, keeping 4 million people out of poverty last year alone. So the initial and further cuts make a lot of sense — if you despise the poor.

And don't worry, other cuts to food programs ensure both the oldest and youngest among us won't be spared. Cuts to Meals on Wheels will cost poor seniors 4 to 18 million meals next year. Meanwhile, the Women, Infants, and Children program (WIC), which provides health-care referrals and nutrition to poor pregnant and postpartum women and children up to age 5, has grappled with$500 million in cuts this year and faces even deeper ones next. Fair's fair, though.

3. Dim their kids' future
There's nothing that will make our economic future brighter than under-educating our children, right? That's why, again as a result of sequestration, Head Start literally had to kick preschoolers out of their classrooms this March and removed 57,000 children from the program this September (70,000 kids total will be affected). If this weren't enough, more than half of public schools have fired personnel due to the ominous cuts — and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said sequestration "has been one of the good things that has happened." Given that 40 percent of children who don't receive early childhood education are more likely to become a parent as a teenager, 25 percent are more likely to drop out of school, and 70 percent are more likely to be arrested for a violent crime, this is definitely the definition of a "good thing."

4. Erase the road map for employment
The United States has one of the stingiest unemployment programs in the developed world and it is getting even stingier. People who have been out of work for 27 weeks or more — 40 percent of the unemployed — have already begun and will continue to lose a large portion of their benefits between January and March. Eight percent of this year's sequestration cuts are coming from unemployment insurance. The logic here is that the program discourages people from looking for work, so why fund something that just makes the unemployed lazier? The evidence, however, proves that government assistance fuels the job searches of these 4.4 million Americans. Yet by theend of December, about 1.3 million will lose their extended jobless benefits if Congress doesn't renew the program. And cuts to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF, or welfare) means there will be even less of a safety net to fall back on.

5. Make 'em work till they drop
President Obama put Social Security cuts in his budget for fiscal year 2014, and Republicans are thrilled. Switching to a new formula called Chained CPI would lead to benefit cuts of $230 billion in the next 10 years. Apparently, it's Social Security that's driving up the debt, as Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said. The irony here, according to The New York Times's Paul Krugman, is that while debt can indirectly make us poor if deficits drive up interest rates and discourage productive investment (they haven't), investment is low because the economy is so weak, partly from cutbacks in public spending and investment — the cuts, such as this one, that supposedly protect Americans from a future of excessive debt. Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren(Mass.) and Tom Harkin (Iowa) have been fighting an uphill battle to boost Social Security benefits. But carry on, Congress. What you're doing really makes sense here.

In just a few short decades, we've gone from LBJ's Great Society, where many of these ideas originated, to this Congress's attacks on the poor. According to the Census Bureau, safety net programs keep tens of millions of Americans out of poverty each year. But that's just not the federal government's priority anymore. This Congress's message: It's every man for himself.

http://theweek.com/article/index/253820/how-to-stick-it-to-the-poor-a-comprehensive-congressional-strategy

This article is very biased...and long, so I just highlighted some relevant ponts.  The sequester will start taking it's biggest bites starting next year...

by on Dec. 9, 2013 at 9:04 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
meriana
by Platinum Member on Dec. 9, 2013 at 9:28 PM

BUMP!

lga1965
by on Dec. 9, 2013 at 9:34 PM
1 mom liked this

 Ugh.

Citygirlk
by Gold Member on Dec. 9, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Who can defend this?

Healthystart30
by Silver Member on Dec. 9, 2013 at 11:32 PM
Republicans are the "every man for himself" political party. So this doesn't surprise me.

When is the last time republicans offered a real solution to any of our problems?
stacymomof2
by Ruby Member on Dec. 10, 2013 at 12:15 AM

Most of the things listed are the results of the sequester.  It is what the Republicans actually wanted and I'm surprised there aren't some of the conservative women here asking what is wrong with these things happening.

Quoting Healthystart30: Republicans are the "every man for himself" political party. So this doesn't surprise me.

When is the last time republicans offered a real solution to any of our problems?


snookyfritz
by Platinum Member on Dec. 10, 2013 at 12:19 AM

It just doesn't pay to be poor anymore. 

stormy0142
by on Dec. 10, 2013 at 12:25 AM
Sorry but I am tired of always hearing how another form of government assistance is being cut for low income families. I am middle class and I struggle to to maintain that. I work my ass off. I pay a small fortune in taxes and all I hear is we want more. Hell my health insurance shot up 80 a pay period. So cry me a river, I want someone to do something to relieve the burden off the middle class for once.
DestinyHLewis
by Destiny on Dec. 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM

Probably because of that statement. It's inflammatory and wrong. No one wants people to suffer. 

Quoting stacymomof2:

Most of the things listed are the results of the sequester.  It is what the Republicans actually wanted and I'm surprised there aren't some of the conservative women here asking what is wrong with these things happening.

Quoting Healthystart30: Republicans are the "every man for himself" political party. So this doesn't surprise me.

When is the last time republicans offered a real solution to any of our problems?



AdrianneHill
by Platinum Member on Dec. 10, 2013 at 1:08 AM
Maybe the senior citizens who have been voting republican because of evil Obama will rethink their votes when their cuts come...
Who am I kidding? They'll blame obama for the cuts to their own welfare checks at the same time they bitch about Obama giving the lazy poor money.
stacymomof2
by Ruby Member on Dec. 10, 2013 at 1:23 AM

Many conservatives wanted the sequester, in this forum and pundits were saying the same thing.  They said it was a good way to force cuts in spending.  The sequester has and will cause people to suffer.  It's not inflammatory, it's the facts.

Quoting DestinyHLewis:

Probably because of that statement. It's inflammatory and wrong. No one wants people to suffer. 

Quoting stacymomof2:

Most of the things listed are the results of the sequester.  It is what the Republicans actually wanted and I'm surprised there aren't some of the conservative women here asking what is wrong with these things happening.

Quoting Healthystart30: Republicans are the "every man for himself" political party. So this doesn't surprise me.

When is the last time republicans offered a real solution to any of our problems?




Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN