Republicans Take from the Poor and Give to the Rich
Helping the very poor is a real scandal for Republicans, who are more extremist than ever, whereas they see no moral problem offering generous subsidies to the very rich.
This is exactly what happened at the beginning of July, with the vote by the House of Representatives on the agriculture budget. We are beyond egoism. Instead we must talk about cruelty.
A party voted to cut aid to the poorest people.
The agriculture budget, approved by the Republican majority of the House subcommittee, is proof of the cruelty and unfeelingness of a GOP dictated by hypocrisy. For decades the “Farm Bill,” which governs agricultural policy in the United States, has comprised two parts: one part on subsidies for farmers and one part on subsidies given to the very poor. These subsidies, known as “food stamps,” have recently been renamed SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).
In the budget voted on at the beginning of July, Republicans simply cut SNAP. However, they were very careful not to cut subsidies to farmers — the richest farmers and agribusiness. A recent audit of the distribution of aid by the government showed that subsidy fraud added up to hundreds of millions of dollars, while fraud on the food stamp program, which allows the very poor to buy food, was barely 1 percent. But for Republicans, 1 percent is still too much when it comes to the poor, accused of being encouraged to do nothing, preferring to live handsomely off $134 allocated each month by SNAP ….
The GOP’s reasoning is simple: “You are, by all means, free to help the poor, just not with government money.” On the contrary, the very generous subsidies granted to agribusiness by the same government pose no problems of conscience to Republicans.
The funniest thing, if one can say so, is that this cruelty is wrapped, as it often is, in the Bible. Stephen Fincher, the representative from Tennessee, cited the New Testament: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” Without a doubt, but Stephen Fincher himself received $3.5 million in subsidies from the government between 1999 and 2013.
One might think that it is the racism of conservatives that motivates them. But in the state of Tennessee, that of Stephen Fincher, 63 percent of those who receive government aid were “non-Hispanic whites.” It is, therefore, simply cruelty that makes the GOP prefer to dispense its generosity to the very rich and kick again those who are already down — the famous 47 percent referred to by the GOP candidate of the last presidential campaign, Mitt Romney.
This is exactly what happened at the beginning of July, with the vote by the House of Representatives on the agriculture budget. We are beyond egoism. Instead we must talk about cruelty.
A party voted to cut aid to the poorest people.
The agriculture budget, approved by the Republican majority of the House subcommittee, is proof of the cruelty and unfeelingness of a GOP dictated by hypocrisy. For decades the “Farm Bill,” which governs agricultural policy in the United States, has comprised two parts: one part on subsidies for farmers and one part on subsidies given to the very poor. These subsidies, known as “food stamps,” have recently been renamed SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).
In the budget voted on at the beginning of July, Republicans simply cut SNAP. However, they were very careful not to cut subsidies to farmers — the richest farmers and agribusiness. A recent audit of the distribution of aid by the government showed that subsidy fraud added up to hundreds of millions of dollars, while fraud on the food stamp program, which allows the very poor to buy food, was barely 1 percent. But for Republicans, 1 percent is still too much when it comes to the poor, accused of being encouraged to do nothing, preferring to live handsomely off $134 allocated each month by SNAP ….
The GOP’s reasoning is simple: “You are, by all means, free to help the poor, just not with government money.” On the contrary, the very generous subsidies granted to agribusiness by the same government pose no problems of conscience to Republicans.
The funniest thing, if one can say so, is that this cruelty is wrapped, as it often is, in the Bible. Stephen Fincher, the representative from Tennessee, cited the New Testament: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” Without a doubt, but Stephen Fincher himself received $3.5 million in subsidies from the government between 1999 and 2013.
One might think that it is the racism of conservatives that motivates them. But in the state of Tennessee, that of Stephen Fincher, 63 percent of those who receive government aid were “non-Hispanic whites.” It is, therefore, simply cruelty that makes the GOP prefer to dispense its generosity to the very rich and kick again those who are already down — the famous 47 percent referred to by the GOP candidate of the last presidential campaign, Mitt Romney.