In 2003, Governor Dave Freudenthal appointed me Director of
Wyoming’s Department of Family Services. During a press conference announcing
the appointment, Wyoming Public Radio news director Bob Beck asked, “What
happened to all the people Wyoming removed from the welfare roles?”
Following President Clinton’s 1996 welfare reform, Wyoming reduced
the roles of the old “Aid for Families With Dependent Children” program by 90%,
winning awards and accolades for this “accomplishment.” Beck wanted to know
what happened to these folks.
I didn’t know but promised I’d make a point of finding out. I
did. They went to work.
Welfare reform put strict limits on the time a person could
receive benefits and also created work requirements. If you weren’t disabled,
you had to find a job. Welfare reform promised taxpayers lower welfare roles.
It promised welfare recipients the support they needed to find work, feed their
families, and find childcare.
The first promise was kept. Families were dispatched from
AFDC into the workplace. Welfare reform did little more than create a forced
labor supply for employers who wouldn’t pay livable wages. Disproportionately
high rates of Wyoming people not only got jobs, often more than one, working
for low wages with no benefits.
Food stamps and Medicaid became a subsidy to low wage-paying
employers. Right-wingers like Congressman
Stephen Fincher of Tennessee quoted the Bible in support of cutting aid for
poor workers, “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” That sort of
scriptural libel reflects a meanness of spirit rejected everywhere in the
Bible. It also conveniently ignores the reality of the world Congress,
including our Congressman Cynthia Lummis, created for low income working
families.
Lummis first
supported a Farm Bill drastically cutting nutrition aid to low-income families
saying, “This bill,” Lummis
said, “was crafted to save billions for our country and establish long overdue
reform to the 1996 welfare and nutrition programs.” The reform she refers to is
the reneging on the promise to the poor that if they worked fulltime, they’d at
least be able to feed their families. That bill would have cut 20 billion
dollars from food aid. It failed mostly because Democrats felt it was too drastic
and many Republicans felt it was not drastic enough.
Senate Democrats
did the poor no favors when they agreed to cuts of $4.5 billion. The well being
of as many as five million
people are at stake. The Health Impact Project, a Washington research group, said the cuts would not only affect the
ability of low-income households to feed their children, but would also
increase poverty.
In the
hyper-partisan House of Representatives, the GOP came up with a solution. They
removed any mention of nutrition programs and passed, on a near straight party line
vote, a bill that would make certain agribusiness subsidies continued even if food
stamps didn’t. Lummis voted for that strategy.
Now we learn the
Bible-quoting-Congressman Fincher received three and a half million dollars in
agricultural subsidies. Lummis
Livestock, of which our Congressman owns a large interest, received $47,093 in farm
subsidies between 1996 and 2002.
The average
monthly benefit paid to Lummis’ constituents who are working yet unable to make
enough to feed her family is $133.41. A monthly average of Lummis’ subsidy
exceeds 400% that amount. Still she insists it’s poor families dooming the
federal budget.
This isn’t about rational,
balanced approaches to solving the nation’s fiscal problems. This is
opportunism. Some politicians have long targeted these programs. Whether it’s
the Wyoming legislature trying to impose drug tests on welfare recipients and
reject Medicaid expansion for the uninsured, or Lummis and her Washington
colleagues’ efforts to reduce nutrition programs and replace Medicare with
vouchers, they are using legitimate concerns over the national debt to make political
statements about their disdain for the poor.
Mr. Fincher and
Ms. Lummis should be made aware of another Bible verse. Deuteronomy 15:11, “You
shall open your hand to the needy and the poor.” God wasn’t talking about the
back of your hand.
No comments:
Post a Comment