Bishops reject House GOP budget approach
Apropos of Matt’s post below on the debt ceiling and compromise, leaders of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops today released a letter (PDF file) that has been sent to all members of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in the name of the USCCB.
The two-page letter (press release version here) clearly rejects the all-cuts-and-nothing-but-the-cuts approach of the House GOP, which is led by prominent Catholics like Speaker John Boehner and Rep. Paul Ryan:
A just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons. It requires shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs fairly. [bold in the original text]
In this letter we do not offer a detailed critique of the entire measure before the House, but we ask you to consider the human and moral dimensions of several key choices facing the Congress. We fear the human and social costs of substantial cuts to programs that serve families working to escape poverty, especially food and nutrition, child development and education, and affordable housing.
We also fear the costs of undermining international assistance which is an essential tool to promote human life and dignity, advance solidarity with poorer nations, and enhance global security. Such assistance supports a wide range of life-saving programs, including: drugs to combat diseases; assistance to poor farmers and orphans; food aid for starving people; aid to victims of natural disasters; and help to refugees fleeing for their lives. The House proposal will require massive cuts in all these areas. We support continuing reform of programs that serve poor people to make them even more effective.
The letter comes at a crucial juncture in the negotiations. I don’t expect the GOP — even its Catholic members — will pay it much heed. But perhaps complicate the meme that the Catholic hierarchy is an arm of the Republican Party.
The GOP House members do not heed BUSH, MCCAIN, Boehner, so why should they even read the USCCB memo? Of course the bishops are not an arm to the GOP. The GOP/TP is a leaderless angry street running gang. Even Rush is running behind them trying to get to the front.. Default is now 3-1 to happen IMHO
I just read the letter. It does not do that at all.
David Smith, how do you figure? They advocate added revenues, and warn against “massive cuts” in international assistance. These are all dealbreakers for the House bill.
Politicians listen to their constituents. If the bishops had convincingly preached the Gospel, the politicians’ constituents would be demanding more tax increases and less spending cuts. If the sheep aren’t listening to the bishops, why do they think the sheep’s representatives will?
I take Felapton’s 7/27 2:53 pm comment to heart. Our bishops can’t be everywhere, so it is up to goofs like me to preach on their behalf, in communion with them.
Felapton, I’m not sure how much the sheep are listening to the shepherds on everything, but surveys show the public backs a mix of cuts and tax hikes to resolve the impasse, much as the bishops are advocating here.
“A just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons. It requires shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs fairly. [bold in the original text]”
Actually, a conservative plan along the lines of Tom Coburn’s accomplishes all these measures: it raises revenues (while lowering rates at the same time), contains cuts to defense spending AND addresses entitlement reform.
Along the same lines, it’s easy to argue that the liberal position of Pelosi blocking ANY common-sense reform of entitlement spending (including means-testing programs to ensure the poorest and vulnerable receive the lion’s share) does NOT pass muster under the latter part of the quoted paragraph.
Maybe the next time the bishops issue a statement on voting, like Faithful Citizenship, they should advise all to vote only for grown-ups, so that we no longer send spiteful, self-interested children into the halls of the World’s Greatest Deliberative body.
But that, of course, would bring Washington to a halt.
Jeff Landry: Coburn is a senator, and his approach was scotched by the House GOP anyway.
Nicholas Clifford: I hear the bishops are discussing the new version of Faithful Citizenship now, but don’t expect significant changes.
There is a coalition of various Christian denominations, in which the USCCB is represented, called “Circle of Protection” which says some of the same things the Bishops’ letter is saying. http://www.circleofprotection.us
I’m glad our faith leaders are all so unified in trying to make sure we reduce our deficit at the expense of poor people.
Felapton, criticism is fine, but your ad hominem comments about certain bishops are over the line as well as juvenile. Cut it out.
Felapton: Are you trying to get banned? I removed the offending comment. You are violating our user agreement by making personal attacks (“fat slob,” for example). Get it together or get lost.
ok, so someone has infiltrated Felapton’s account.
I fear that the Catholic GOP members of Congress may take the bishops’ letter into as much consideration as many Catholic Democratic members have taken their letters on abortion. (I couldn’t resist it; sorry)
No, Mark. Apparently Felapton decided to force me to ban her from the site. Which is too bad, because she had interesting things to say when she wasn’t acting out.
Thanks, Irene (7/27 3:33 pm) for
http://www.circleofprotection.us
Note, please, that their point 4 (of 8 points) says this:
They don’t want the poor hurt, but they’re willing to consider entitlement cuts. As, I imagine, are the bishops. And, like the bishops, they avoid partisan language.
In warning against some tendencies in the House plan the Bishops, perhaps inadvertently, provide an incentive to the President to keep his plan secret, thus not vulnerable to criticism, and available only to those ready to make back-room deals.
Or perhaps they will soon share their views about the need for transparency and accountability in the forming of public policy.
Has anyone claimed to have done a CBO type evaluation of either the Reid or Obama plans? And when will the bishops give us their views on these plans?
Filled with so many false premises, erroneous insinuations, and strawmen, it is likely that none of the “adults in the room” will pay attention to what is likely a staff-produced document.
Again, for the record, I’m opposed to all of the current Republican plans.
What should be done — and would avoid any cuts whatsoever — is to pass a clean debt limit increase bill which increases the debt limit by $500 billion through the end of summer 2012. That still allows for an increase in debt spending by $500 billion over the next year.
True, Obama wants to increase spending at least three times that, but spending less than such extremes is not in any true sense of the word a “cut,” much less quasi-genocide against the poor.
Patrick Molloy,
Since you ask: The CBO has claimed to do a CBO-type evaluation of the Reid plan. I found a report of it on this obscure left-wing site.
My favorite part of the article:
As for Social Security and Medicare, those both have dedicated funding — FICA taxes. They have been placed in a trust fund, a lock box. So they are safe. At least that is what they have told us all these years.
Filled with so many false premises, erroneous insinuations, and strawmen, it is likely that none of the “adults in the room” will pay attention to what is likely a staff-produced document.
Bender,
Are you assuming that if the bishops themselves wrote the document instead of staff, it would have dealt better with economic realities?
Matthew Boudway,
Thanks for the citation re the Reid plan- – an interesting calculation based upon not maintaining the military surges. The mind reels and the heart stops!! I should never misunderestimate Harry Reid, or is it Chuck Schumer?
I note that the obscure left wing site has not been able to report equivalent details on the Obama plan. But if the NYT can steal state secrets they will no doubt soon reveal crunchable numbers from the Oval Office. We should all, as the saying goes, keep hope alive.
“Jeff Landry: Coburn is a senator, and his approach was scotched by the House GOP anyway.”
Really? I wound have never guessed.
I of course am using his plan as illustrative of a conservative plan that would pass the Bishop’s criteria in the quoted paragraph.
To me, it would be a much more effective letter (and effective objection by progressives) if they pointed to specific cuts they view as harming the poor directly. Tell me what program in particular you object to cutting. the vague and general language is not very convincing to me; kind of like saving Medicare by cutting “waste, fraud and abuse.”
And one thing that I don’t see any recognition of: if we do nothing about spending (particularly the entitlements), the poor will also suffer very badly suffer.
So, Patrick: Cutting through your thick veneer of snark: did you really not know the CBO had scored the Reid and Boehner plans?
“ok, so someone has infiltrated Felapton’s account.”
There is a strong suspicion on the part of someone who has researched Felaption extensive and has located said person’s IP address that “Felaption” is not one person, but a small cohort of like-mindless individuals.
“There is a strong suspicion on the part of someone who has researched Felaption extensive and has located said person’s IP address…”
Hmmm, is that type of “research” ethical? Does it comport with the spirit of the ground rules for posting?
Grant – I truly did not know that Reid’s plan had been scored. I follow the Times pretty closely but apparently not as devotedly as Commonweal contibutors.
However I promise to pay special attention to the analytic pieces the NYT will no doubt produce regarding the Reid plan and its military savings. Harry Reid said the other day that he wasn’t too good with numbers but he’s much too modest. I think he has outdone Boss Tweed in his budgetary machinations. And I admire you if you have any defense of that budget.
i keep hoping the bishops will revive themselves to the gospel level. If they can maintain zeal for the poor and downtrodden in solid acts this will do loads to alter their deserved poor reputation. So if they want to have a metanoia I have no objections.
From David G’s post:
“The letter comes at a crucial juncture in the negotiations. I don’t expect the GOP — even its Catholic members — will pay it much heed. ”
You may well be right. Even so, I’m glad the bishops are speaking up – and David, thanks for pointing us to it. If for no other reason than, if some version of Speaker Boehner’s plan actually prevails, we might be doing this all over again in less than a year.
Beyond that, the bishops (and the rest of us) are supposed to exhort, not to mention reprove and rebuke, both in and out of season. This is definitely “in season”, and even if nobody listens this time, if they do it consistently and clearly, it might start to sink in.
FIrst, let me add my voice to those who are appreciative of the bishops’ letter. As is usual with these statements, there’s room for a variety of interpretations. However, it seems to me the intent is fairly clear to all but those who are willfully obtuse (or, perhaps, those who are unfamiliar with the jargon of episcopal correspondence).
@Jeff Landry (7/27, 7:00 pm) As we both know, it’s not in the nature of bishops’ letters to be too specific about, well, most things. Having said that, this statement by Robert Greenstein of the CBPP provides data and analysis of the kind that I suspect the bishops and their staff have been looking at. (Note: I’m not saying the bishops have used, or even seen, Greenstein’s statement—just that they’ve likely used similar information in reaching the conclusions expressed in their letter.)
Here’s Greenstein’s opening:
“House Speaker John Boehner’s new budget proposal would essentially require, as the price of raising the debt ceiling again early next year, a choice between deep cuts in the years immediately ahead in Social Security and Medicare benefits for current retirees, repeal of health reform’s coverage expansions, or wholesale evisceration of basic assistance programs for vulnerable Americans.
The plan is, thus, tantamount to a form of “class warfare.” If enacted, it could well produce the greatest increase in poverty and hardship produced by any law in modern U.S. history.
This may sound hyperbolic, but it is not.”
His evidence and analysis follow:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3548
despite the “diiferent interpretations” in blog world, I think the startling thing is that the Bishops wrote only to GOP House members -that speaks volumes.
@Bob Nunz (7/28, 11:01 am) I agree it would speak volumes if the bishops wrote only to House Republicans; however, my reading of the letter and its accompanying press release is that the letter is addressed to all members of the House. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.)
Question about the “felaptyon” flap (sorry for the alliteration) but aren’t there attempts at manipulation in our wonderful world of blogdom? 8BTW, I think Grant is usually quite pateient).
And is Mark’s plaint about research something important or is he just mad about the unquoted “mindless”?
Luke is right – I read the thread;s beginning and misinterpreted – you can easily see at the USCCB website the letter is to the entire House -all of whom need to heed ot.
Regarding “research.” I asked someone who knows much more about these things than do I (when I put the key in and turn it, the car either starts or it doesn’t; after that it is beyond me) that most blogs have systems that reveal both the email address from which someone posts (and that’s often made public to anyone reading the postings) and the IP source from which someone posts.
In that case “research” seems to be nothing more than understanding what happens when the key is turned and the car starts.
If there are multiple posters under the pseudonym of “Felapton,” isn’t THAT a source of unethical behavior?
Hmmm, is that type of “research” ethical? Does it comport with the spirit of the ground rules for posting?
Mark,
Many forums do not reveal the e-mail addresses of commenters. Commonweal does, and I don’t think the point is to protect our anonymity. Whether Felapton was one person or many, her (or their) anonymity and the use of a disposable e-mail address was cowardice. You (and I) both saw the last message she sent. It was utterly vile. On July 21, I addressed this comment to her: “There’s something creepy about your determined effort to be crude and offensive. It’s a kind of indecent exposure of your psyche.” Anything she had said before her parting shot was mild by comparison. You can take her part if you want to, but I don’t really see the need. Commenters here are guests, and she chose to vandalize the premises. Grant had ample reason to ban her long ago.
I have no reason to believe Felapton is the Internet handle of more than one person (apart from Felapton’s several…personalities).
So is Felapton excommunicated? I think I missed all the fireworks.
Sorry, Jim, can’t pass on this one – in terms of excommuncation, you will have to get confirmation from Olmsted, Burke, or Chaput!
Notre Dame’s Gary Gutting in yesterday’s NYT on the religious and political arguments of religious conservatives:
“There is no honest line of argument from what the Bible says to substantive conclusions about the size of the United States government, the need for a free enterprise system, the right to bear arms or the proper interpretation of the Constitution. Family Leader (and many other religious groups with a conservative political agenda) are disguising partisan political positions as religious convictions. This cripples efforts to have meaningful discussions about their political views.”
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/should-religion-play-a-role-in-politics/?ref=opinion
Jonathan Tobin replies, citing the religious and political arguments of Catholic bishops:
“Gutting has a point, but the problem with the piece–and much of the liberal disdain for conservative Christians and their Tea Party allies–is the same argument can be used to dismiss liberals who employ religious arguments on behalf of their own positions on the profoundly secular question of taxes, entitlements and the public debt. Coming as it did the day after the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops denounced congressional efforts to cut back on entitlement spending as part of a solution to the debt ceiling crisis, the omission was an extraordinary example of bias. The religious left is just as guilty as those on the right of trying to depict God as being on their side of the aisle.”
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/07/28/religion-and-the-debt/#more-762008
It seems the GOP uses the church (when convenient) but doesn’t listen to it (when inconvenient). At least the bishops spoke out. Catholic commentators like O’Reilly and Buchanan will undoubtedly spin and try to neutralize the bishop’s remarks. It takes a pretty thick fog of ideology to not see the Christian message that needs come before wants.
So many words over something so clear, so simple: Meet basic needs. Invest at least this much in people, in humanity.
Patrick Molloy, thanks for those links — I will read them later but just from those excerpts I’d tend to agree with Tobin’s point. I think it may grow shaky when it comes to libertarian Tea Party types, who are saying in effect that neither religion of the left or right variety should have any say.
“@Jeff Landry (7/27, 7:00 pm) As we both know, it’s not in the nature of bishops’ letters to be too specific about, well, most things. Having said that, this statement by Robert Greenstein of the CBPP provides data and analysis of the kind that I suspect the bishops and their staff have been looking at. (Note: I’m not saying the bishops have used, or even seen, Greenstein’s statement—just that they’ve likely used similar information in reaching the conclusions expressed in their letter.)”
I’ve taken a gander at the link; I still don’t see the specifics of which programs directly aimed at the poor and vulnerable will be cut. I did see such a reference in a post from Fr. Sirico (character assassinations may begin after I’m done) which made reference to 18 separate food programs that were being rolled into perhaps one. If such reorganizations count as “cutting”, count me skeptical. Moreover, as I mentioned, the poor and vulnerable will be harmed by the continued amassing of unsustainable debt.
With respect to religious arguments on the left and right, it strikes close to home for me. I left the Democratic Party in large part because I sensed a hostility to religious thought from liberal elites such as John Rawls, Bruce Ackerman, Dworkin, etc. It is now de rigueur for progressive Catholics to bring up Ayn Rand and other anti-religious libertarians, but frequently forget that contemporary liberalism (of the Rawlsian variety) is also hostile to religious claims in the public sphere.
On a more positive note, I see Politico reported on Philip Blond’s visit to DC today. I think American conservatism would be well-served by his insights, if for nothing else than it would give the lie that all conservatives are Randian apostles.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60168.html
@Patrick Molloy (7/28, 5:11 pm) Thanks for this comment and the links.
Here’s where I’d disagree with Tobin: The bishops’ letter focused on the poor and their needs. I agree with Gutting that “there is no honest line of argument from what the Bible says to substantive conclusions about the size of the United States government, the need for a free enterprise system, the right to bear arms or the proper interpretation of the Constitution”. However, there *is* an honest line of argument (and a fairly direct one at that) from what the Bible says to substantive conclusions about the responsibility religious and political leaders have to care for the poor.
Where Tobin is on stronger ground is with his more general and abstract statement about political and religious partisans claiming God is on their side. Admittedly, it’s a fine distinction I’m making (but I thought it was worth making).
@Jeff Landry (7/28, 5:50 pm) Thanks for the link to the article about Blond. I was particularly struck by this quotation: ““If you actually want to progress, if you want your children to do well, move to Germany, move to Canada, move to France”.
It highlights a major social change that we reflect on too little, I think. In the past generation, the US has not only experience historic levels of income and wealth inequality, we’ve also experienced sharply decreased social mobility. It’s now harder for a young American born into a poor family to move into the middle class than it is for a young German or Canadian.
David–
My concern was based on my reading of an earlier post that someone had done extensive research into the IP address of a fellow commenter. Not sure that’s appropriate but perhaps I misread the post. As it is, utterly vile is not too strong a description of the last post from her address. In fact so much so that, given I’d never seen anything but reasoned responses from her in the past (recognizing others may have seen another side), that I was hoping it was simply a case of a disgruntled say, teenage son, who used her account and made the post. I freely admit that’s completely optimistic speculation on my part and I have no issue at all with Grant’s reaction–just sorry to see it happen. He can only deal with what he has to work with. Which, trying desperately to make a connection to the debt limit situation, is it possible, just possible, that Congress needs likewise to suspend (making contributions to) the accounts of the otherwise deserving poor, since the GOP can only deal with what they have to work with? That is, not enough money, and no prospect of getting more by raising tax rates? The poor are not exempt from paying their fair share too, right, especially if they haven’t been paying taxes at all?
” is it possible… that Congress needs likewise to suspend (making contributions to) the accounts of the otherwise deserving poor, since the GOP can only deal with what they have to work with?”
I would say that should only happen if we still fall short after we suspend payments to the accounts of the otherwise deserving well-off.
I think the reason faith leaders are rallying to protect programs serving the poor and hungry is that the harm is so much greater when we take away from those who have so little. If the government is too broke to give me my well-deserved tax refund, that would make me really angry. But it’s preferable to taking food stamps away from people who can’t feed themselves.
“The poor are not exempt from paying their fair share too, right, especially if they haven’t been paying taxes at all?”
The rich should pay more because they get more and they got more. And over the last 10 years they have gotten a lot more, being the main beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts. They did not take these reduced taxes to create jobs in the United States. (So much for the myth of low taxes = job creation.) They did take this money and played the markets. They ended up with a much larger share of the economy than they had before and everyone else ended up with less. Now it’s time for them to pay this back. What’s not just about that?
Mark –
Some poor people eat cat food because they can’t afford better. If their welfare checks are cut, what would you suggest that they eat regularly?
You seem to have no idea of what “poor” means for many, many people.
@Mark Proska (7/28, 6:28 pm) Could you clarify your point about the poor? This sentence, “The poor are not exempt from paying their fair share too, right, especially if they haven’t been paying taxes at all?” makes it sound like you’re under the impression that many poor Americans don’t pay any taxes at all. If so, then you’ve been misinformed.
The US tax code is written so that nearly half of Americans owe no federal income tax in a given year. That’s primarily because 40% of Americans fall into one of the following three categories: poor individuals and families, working-class families with children, elderly for whom Social Security (exempt from income tax) is their primary source of income.
The overwhelming majority of Americans who pay no federal income tax pay multiple other taxes—payroll taxes, state and local income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, etc. It’s not uncommon, in fact, that Americans with below-average incomes have a higher tax burden (i.e., as % of income) than Americans with above-average incomes.
Irene–I do not consider a federal tax refund as something the govt has “given”me.
Unagidon—You’ve not provided any evidence that the rich aren’t already paying way more than their “fair share”, how can you be so sure they aren’t?
Ann—It’s hard for me to believe that people eating cat food can’t do better with better behavior. There are enough jobs out there that that should never happen.
Luke—But we all pay those non-federal income taxes, so that’s not relevant as far as I’m concerned. It’s a crime that half of us pay no federal income taxes, and people who are not paying any have every right to feel ashamed of that fact, given the financial straits the commonweal is in.
Sully links to these analyses debunking the half-pay-no-tax-meme (which was hilariously, or scandalously, tweeted by megapastor Rick Warren!) and a handy graphic:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/07/who-pays-taxes.html
David–
So your rejoinder is that there’s evidence that it’s only 46%, not half???
The articles show that the half-pay-no-tax meme is false, and that the half-pay-no-federal tax trope is more complex than Rick Warren et al let on. Believing that the poor or elderly on fixed incomes should feel ashamed because they don’t pay as high a percentage of taxes as wealthier people do is a value you are welcome to continue to hold.
David–
Please don’t try to put words in my mouth.
@Mark Proska (7/28, 9:44 pm) Thanks for your reply. We can certainly agree to disagree.
From where I sit, a tax paid is a tax paid—whether it’s to the federal, state or local government, whether it’s an income, payroll, property, sales or excise tax.
People can and will feel ashamed of any number of things. Personally, I prefer Warren Buffett being ashamed of paying federal taxes at a lower rate than his secretary and pleading with Congress to raise taxes on people like him. (It’s one of the reasons I respect Buffett even when I disagree with him.)
P.S. As for your response to Ann, it’s simply not true that “there are enough jobs out there….” The official unemployment rate has been above 9% for over 2 years now, and the unofficial rate is around 16%. Why, just today, there was an article in the newspaper about the rising percentage (and number) of malnourished children being treated at our local hospital.
Your words are your own, Mark, as is your mouth. Rock on.
Luke (7/28 5:57 pm):
This is off to the side, but I’d like to ask again why the phrase “wealth inequality” is used so often. Surely, even the far left doesn’t advocate wealth equality, does it? Yes, that’s what literally implied.
@David Smith (7/29, 12:57 am) My understanding of the phrase “wealth inequality” is that it refers to the relative disparities of wealth in a given society—similar to the way “income inequality” refers to the relative disparities of income.
I don’t know what the far left advocates, but when I used the phrase above, I used it merely as a descriptive phrase. It is—so far as these things can be accurately measured—literally true that the wealthiest Americans today have accumulated unto themselves a far greater share of the national wealth than the wealthiest Americans of, say, 30 or 60 years ago had.
If you’d like, we can discuss whether that’s a good thing—either on its own merits or in the light of our Christian faith and of Church teaching.
Ann is right -does Mark understand what being poor means?
What is his deistinction between deserving and undeserving and what experiential base does he bring to that?
Last year at a national bridge championship, I told my partner that if I could i would go to the next room wherre Jimmy Cayne and his well paid by him professional friends were playing in the national team championship and tell him was a disgusting lout (actually the phtrase i used was a bit more street) he was.
The undeserving rich! Get richer.
Meanwhile Mark et al continue to preach the ytheolgy of “I’ve got mine.”
This is the sad state that our Church which helped so many up the ladder has come to !
“Daddy, where do rich people come from?”
“Well, son, we call people rich when they have lots of money. Usually they get the money because other people are happy to give it to them. That’s because other people receive something even more valuable, say, a computer, a popsicle, or a haircut, in return. Otherwise, they would not willingly part with their money, because they work hard for it. So, the more money someone has, the more they’ve given something valuable to other people. The richer people are, the more they’ve given. In a very real sense, they gave at the office. On top of that, the rich pay much more in taxes than we do, because the government taxes them at a much higher rate. They give us the fruits of their labor, and they give us even more in taxes. We should be nice to rich people. They are certainly nice to us.”
“Daddy, where do rich babies come from?”
“Rich storks, son.”
“From where I sit, a tax paid is a tax paid—whether it’s to the federal, state or local government, whether it’s an income, payroll, property, sales or excise tax.”
Luke–Since that sounds like something I might have said myself, albeit in a different context, I’m hard pressed to argue with you.
I also agree with you that there are not enough jobs out there to get the economy where it needs to be. What I meant is that there are enough jobs out there that people should not have to resort to eating cat food.
“Ann—It’s hard for me to believe that people eating cat food can’t do better with better behavior. There are enough jobs out there that that should never happen.”
Mark –
What if you’re an 80 year old woman with severe health problems and no marketable skills (not to mention the fact that nobody hires sick 80 year old women). There are NO jobs for such people. And many go hungery, many cannot afford medicine. A 50 year old man who did odd jobs for my mother and other people in the neighborhood was looking bad. She discovered that he simply couldn’t affort his high blood pressure medicine. He and his mother lived in a housing project. He was a lovely man, willing to work, but couldn’t find better. (My parents paid for his medicine.)
Maybe that’s one of our great problems — many people like Mark simply have no idea of what it is like to be poor, especially when there are no jobs of any sort available to them.
I’m old, so I went to grammar school in the depression with a number of really, really poor kids. I mean the kind who couldn’t afford a toothbrush and whose only meal was lunch at school. I also met many poor people working for the public library at the edge of one of the worst slums in town. And I knew many, many at the black college I taught at.
Believe me, Mark, you simply have no idea what it means for many, many Aericans, and that’s npt just the black and tan ones. Something like a quarter of Amrican kids go to bed hungry often. And that’s a total disgrace. God will not reward us for such indifference and stinginess.
Ann, there’s an awful lot of government health and food assistance available to the poor. Are you sure about that number?
@David Smith (7/30, 7:26 am) Here’s a link to Feeding American, a nonprofit organization that appears to be (primarily) a national network of community food banks and related organizations. If I’m reading their website correctly, their latest figures suggest that 1 in 6 (approximately 16%) children go hungry in the US this year.
http://feedingamerica.org/
Minimize the needs of the poor (especially oif you’re Ok) -that’s what we’ve come to.
The language is even harsher in a letter from the bishops & CRS to the House Appropriations Committee. The first line of the letter reads:
“The FY 2012 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations bill as marked up by the Subcommittee makes morally unacceptable, even deadly cuts to poverty-focused humanitarian and development assistance.”
Pretty unequivocal.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/poverty/poverty-focused-assistance-letter-to-House-2011-07-29.pdf
Ann–
Regardless of what I may have seen or not seen, and I don’t think anyone really knows for sure what others have seen, there are people who’ve lived through those dire conditions and feel much the same way I do. What would you say to them?
We have a safety net for the people in the situations you describe. I think where we differ is how we put that net together. I think your parents’ compassion is a perfect example of the mindset we want to foster–a true sense of our commonweal so that we directly help our neighbors in need. Alas, the evidence shows that the more a person wants government to handle it, the less likely he is to give himself.
David S. ==
No, I”m never sure of numbers. Note, I didn’t say that 1/4 of the kids *always* go to bed hungry, but sometimes do. Still, that is too many. I definitely remember being surprised by the statistic whatever it was, and I definiely remember reading it more than once. . Further, when you consder the 9.2% unemployment rate, that is not at all surprising.
Here are some 2010 statistics from the Feeding America site (FA is a union of food pantries):
“Facts of Child Hunger in America
Nearly 14 million children are estimated to be served by Feeding America, over 3 million of which are ages 5 and under. i
According to the USDA, over 17 million children lived in food insecure (low food security and very low food security) households in 2009. ii
20% or more of the child population in 16 states and D.C. are living in food insecure households. The states of Arkansas (24.4 percent) and Texas (24.3 percent) have the highest rates of children in households without consistent access to food. (Cook, John, Child Food Insecurity in the United States: 2006-2008. iii
The top five states with the highest rate of food insecure children under 18 are Arkansas, Texas, Arizona, Missouri, Mississippi, as well as the District of Columbia
Proper nutrition is vital to the growth and development of children, particularly for low-income children. 62 percent of all client households with children under the age of 18 participated in a school lunch program, but only 14 percent participated in a summer feeding program that provides free food when school is out. i
54 percent of client households with children under the age of 3 participated in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). i
32 percent of pantries, 42 percent of kitchens, and 18 percent of shelters in the Feeding America network reported “many more children in the summer” being served by their programs. i
Emergency food assistance plays a vital role in the lives of low-income families. In 2002, more than half of the nonelderly families that accessed a food pantry at least once during the year had children under the age of 18. iv
15.5 million or approximately 20.7 percent of children in the U.S. live in poverty.
Research indicates that even mild undernutrition experienced by young children during critical periods of growth impacts the behavior of children, their school performance, and their overall cognitive development. vi
In fiscal year 2009, 48 percent of all SNAP participants were children. vii
During the 2009 federal fiscal year, 19.5 million low-income children received free or reduced-price meals through the National School Lunch Program. Unfortunately, just 2.2 million of these same income-eligible children participated in the Summer Food Service Program that same year. viii
i Rhoda Cohen, J. Mabli, F., Potter, Z., Zhao. Hunger in America 2010. Feeding America. February 2010.
http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/child-hunger-facts.aspx
‘What concerns me most about the budget cuts is that I have also read that among the cuts will be some of the programs that feed children.
We simply cannot count on affluent people to take up the slack. In the first place, some are unwilling to help, many do not know the needs, and the number of poor just gets larger and larger these days. Add to that that the rich too often pay nothing in taxes.
David — P. S.
Note that the hunger problem for kids is most severe in the summer. That is probably, I suppose, why there is such a large proportion of kids who are hungry some portion of the year. They get meals at school during the rest of the year.