While the well-deserved departure of Anthony Weiner draws rapt attention in our tabloid nation, the depredations of less colorful but more powerful politicians go unnoticed, so long as no genitalia are involved.
At the moment, for instance, Republican leaders in the House and the Senate are mounting yet another series of assaults on some of the most vulnerable Americans — the poor single mothers who cannot feed their children, and the long-term unemployed who still have no prospect of work nearly two years after the recession supposedly ended.
Hardly anyone other than a lobbyist would normally pay much attention to the machinations of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, but that is where truly indecent behavior is running rampant these days. Members of that subcommittee, who oversee the Women, Infants and Children (or WIC) federal nutrition support program for the poor, recently decreed reductions in its annual funding, just as food prices are rising more rapidly than in many years.
Breaching a long bipartisan commitment to making sure this successful program's funding will be sufficient to the need, the subcommittee's Republican majority has decided we can no longer afford to ensure healthy nutrition for every hungry mother and child. (What we can apparently always afford, however, are more and bigger tax cuts for billionaires and petroleum companies.)
By cutting $650 million from WIC, according to the experts at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the subcommittee will deprive hundreds of thousands of indigent women and children of program services, which include healthy foods, nutrition counseling and referrals to health care providers when necessary. The exact number of victims will depend on how fast food prices go up. But there will surely be many more infants and children who must cope with the ill effects of low birth weight and anemia, and all the other ills arising from bad nutrition in this wealthy and verdant nation.
As usual, the mean impulse to save money by punishing the poor is short-sighted, since the obvious result is a growing population that is either crippled at birth or ruined in youth, requiring expensive hospitalization, special education or, eventually, prison cells. And as usual, the justifications for stupid policy are based on botched data and false arguments, such as the Republican claim that WIC is wasting 40 percent of its budget on administrative costs, when the actual number is 9 percent.
But then there is little real prudence among the proponents of these cuts.
Nor is there much mercy among them, either, despite the professed Christianity of the Ag subcommittee members, who mostly come from bastions of religiosity such as Iowa, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama. No doubt these Bible-thumping politicians all know that Jesus once told his disciples to "suffer the little children to come unto me, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Somehow in conservative circles, his profound remark seems to end at "suffer the little children."
Slashing WIC is only one aspect of the broad assault on the poor mounted by Republicans in Congress since they regained power. Just last week, House Ways and Means chairman Dave Camp, R- Mich., and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, proposed radical changes in unemployment insurance that would snatch $31 billion in benefits from families whose breadwinner has been jobless for six months or more.
Their bill would permit states to stop paying any benefits to those families — and to use the money instead for other purposes, like reducing business taxes. If passed, that legislation will further reduce economic demand and drive more families into poverty.
And then there are the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program cuts in the 2012 Republican budget, which would reduce spending on food stamps by more than $120 billion over the coming decade. If you've lost your job, after all, why should you or your children expect to eat?
Yes, Weiner is gone from Washington, and good riddance. Will we now scrutinize the far deeper immorality that reigns there?
To find out more about Joe Conason, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
Of course "we" won't "scrutinize the far deeper immorality that reigns there". For that would cause us to ask too many awkward questions about whose benefit is served by the system as it stands, whether those beneficiaries are in any way accepting financial or even moral responsibility for their acts, and how "we" as ordinary Americans were deceived into this treasonous mess in the first place.
And "of course", as the media folks always say, that would NEVER do. Why, members of the media-legal complex might lose their jobs! Or, worse, the dozens if not hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate welfare paid for by Americans every year might be threatened! No, that must be prevented at ANY cost, our minders say.
Right now, the Federal Government spends about three dollars for every two it takes in, borrowing the rest. That isn't because Americans are lazy, or because more tax cuts need to be made. If you look at the historical periods of American strength, particularly from the end of the first world war until the early 1970s, and compare to now, one thing becomes clear. In the times of American greatness, more tax was paid by corporations than in income tax by individuals and, of the individual income taxes paid, they tended to be far more proportional than today (i.e., the rich paid more than the middle class, who paid more than the poor). Further, there were fewer dodges around the primary taxation system (like "user fees", surcharges, etc.) to shift the burden away from where it officially was.
Now, we read figures that say that the lower 90% of wage-earners, particularly the bottom 50%, pay more into "the system" than the top 10% of wage-earners and corporations COMBINED. Several reputable studies have shown that, if the taxation system were returned to 1958 or even 1973 structures, there would be NO deficit at present spending levels and the surplus could be used to either rebuild infrastructure (that was paid for during those earlier times and is now laid waste) or could be used to pay down the debt.
Imagine. If EVERYBODY pulled their own weight, we could either rebuild the country or pay our way out of economic slavery to the bond-holding classes (and foreign countries).
No, say the media-legal complex, the banksters and the bond-holders, THAT would NEVER do.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Jeff Dickey
Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:23 PM
I fully agree with your article. But it also runs much deeper with the Republicans trying to cut Medicare and Social Security. Maybe, just maybe, they are only using this ploy as a bargaining chip for other concessions. However, I believe Democracy has built within it the seeds of its own destruction since it allows sociopaths to rise to positions of power.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Tom Barron
Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:49 AM
I looked at the WIC guidelines....families up to 8 get 60k a year from the government. This is insanity. Most people know when to stop having children. They can't afford the college tuition, clothing, etc. There is more to this issue than the GOP being immoral about spending cuts.
WIC Income Eligibility Guidelines
(Effective from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012)
48 Contiguous States, D.C., Guam and Territories
Persons in Family or Household Size Annual
Monthly
Twice-Monthly
Bi-Weekly
Weekly
While most States use the maximum guidelines, States may set lower income limit standards. A person or certain family members who participate in other benefits programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Medicaid, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families automatically meet the income eligibility requirement.
Text file of the Federal Register Notice
PDF file of the Federal Register Notice
How to Apply to Participate in WIC
Comment: #3
Posted by: Tom
Sun Jun 19, 2011 5:07 PM