Social benefits: At the expense of the poor

Every five years, the US Congress must renew a pursuing that supports millions of poor Americans. The hardliners among the Republicans now want to cut aid.

Social benefits: At the expense of the poor
Content
  • Page 1 — at expense of poor
  • Page 2 — Trump advocates cuts
  • Read on a page

    The farm bill, great pursuing of United States, was epitome of what was wrong in Washington, New Republic magazine wrote. The law goes far beyond regulations on agriculture, it has become a atre of war for struggle for welfare state, health care and environmental protection. The law also includes Nutrition Program snap, which benefits well 42 million Americans with a household income below poverty line. They receive food stamps from state. The pursuing is renewed every five years.

    30 Republicans voted against agricultural law on Friday. They wanted to vote on tougher immigration regulations and cut spending on snap programme. Despite nocturnal debates, party leaders failed to persuade hardliners to avoid a public embarrassment.

    The spectacle resembles debacle of Obamacare health program. Conservatives had to postpone voting several times in past year, and opposition to reform eventually failed to resist in ir own ranks. The battle for farm Bill will not end with defeat on Friday. Critics say that vital programs have been taken hostage by a small group of politicians.

    Stricter requirements for food stamps

    For savers in Congress, food stamps, as SNAP program is also called, have become symbol of overpowering state. They cost state 70 billion dollars. They are urging government to redeem its pledge and reduce spending – especially in face of billions of heavy tax cuts that Republicans adopted only a few months ago. The hardliners, with support of president, demand that services of 17 billion dollars be deleted and that requirements for recipients of food stamps be increased. Those who are physically able to do so must prove that y are working 20 hours a week, are continuing to work or are volunteering.

    Critics see demand primarily as an attempt to weaken social programme. "Such a law would deprive Americans across country of benefits y urgently need without improving employment prospects," writes left center on Budget and Policy priorities in a report. The administrative burden on federal states would increase and deter many to seek support at all. There is not enough capacity at all to offer training programmes for all eligible recipients. Hundreds of thousands of people would run risk of losing ir claims under new conditions, authors warn in report.

    After recession, number of Americans who fall back on programme has risen to more than 46 million, and even if it has recently fallen again, more people are still dependent on it than before crisis. So a seventh of waiters in country has to help out with food stamps, because tips are not enough. In addition, social network has become holey in past 20 years anyway. Since system 1996 under Bill Clinton has been reformed, number of families receiving aid from government has fallen from 68 to 23 per cent. In same period, number of Americans living below poverty line has risen by four million.

    The fact that food programmes are part of Agrargesetzes is result of political chess. In 1970s, Republicans had used ir support for mammoth law to persuade politicians in big cities to agree to expensive subsidies and insurance for domestic farmers. The coalition has worked for decades, but for some years now law has increasingly become a test case for all possible demands. Already in 2012, vote had shifted by two years because Republicans insisted on significant cuts in food programme.

    Date Of Update: 22 May 2018, 12:02
    NEXT NEWS