In the 1960s, we had the War on Poverty. In 2011, we’re now seeing a war on people who live in poverty.
One of the most callous examples of this occurred on – you guessed it – Fox News. Charles Payne, in a business segment, acknowledged that anti-poverty programs, food stamps and unemployment insurance were “good programs,” but then went on to attack recipients of those programs.
“I think the real narrative here, though, is that people aren’t embarrassed by it,” Payne said. “There was a time when people were embarrassed to be on food stamps; there was a time when people were embarrassed to be on unemployment for six months, let alone demanding to be on for more than two years… No longer is the man being told to look in the mirror and cast down a judgment on himself; it’s someone else’s fault. So, food stamps, unemployment, all this stuff is something that they probably earned in some indirect way.”
The host of the business show, Stuart Varney, called food stamps, Medicaid and the Earned Income Tax Credit “a form of welfare, income redistribution” benefiting people with an “entitlement mentality.”
Varney and Payne, in effect, dismissed the findings by the National Bureau of Economic Research that showed that such programs keep 1 in 6 Americans out of poverty, mostly the elderly, the disabled and the working poor. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, without those programs, the poverty rate would double.
As states continue to struggle to balance their budgets, some state lawmakers are directing their anger at the poor.
Rep. Lonnie Napier, of Lancaster, Ky., has introduced a bill that, if passed, would require random drug testing for adults receiving welfare, food stamps or Medicaid. Those who fail the drug test would have their benefits terminated immediately.
Napier told the Huffington Post, “This program is gonna save us a lot of money, because there’s gonna be a lot of people showing up on illegal drugs.”
There is no evidence that people benefiting from anti-poverty programs are any more prone to becoming drug addicts than those who do not receive such aid.
Nearly 12 percent of Americans are beneficiaries of the Food Stamp program – 28 percent of Blacks, 15 percent of Latinos, and eight percent of whites.
Recipients, who are at or below the poverty line, are given a plastic card to purchase food, seeds and food plants. Despite those restrictions, the users of food stamps are still used as a political football.
“If people buy fresh vegetables or other relatively expensive though nutritious foods, they are considered to be living high on the hog at the taxpayers’ expense,” the New York Times observed in 2009. “But if they buy cheap foods like hot dogs they are criticized for poor health habits.”
Many people who were quick to criticize the Food Stamp program in the past are now embracing it after they have lost their job. More than 36 million people are food stamp recipients, with an additional 15 million eligible for enrollment.
“This is the most urgent time for our feeding program in our lifetime, with the exception of the Depression,” Under Secretary of Agriculture Kevin Concannon told the New York Times. “It’s time for us to face up to the fact that in this country of plenty, there are hungry people.”
And, those hungry people – many of them facing unemployment for the first time in their adult life – should not be stigmatized by candidates for public office seeking to score cheap political points.
George E. Curry, is the former editor-in-chief of Emerge magazine and the NNPA News Service. He can be reached at www.georgecurry.com.
