Archives for posts with tag: food stamps

censusgap

Cross-posted from my article in Everyday Feminism

In 2012, women were statistically much poorer than men. And women that were already poor in 2011 stayed that way.

Wait a minute – you say – I’m always hearing that women make up over half of the nation’s workforce and are increasingly becoming the primary (or sole) breadwinner in families with children! Plus, isn’t the Recession over? Shouldn’t people be getting out of poverty by now?

While it’s true that our nation is in “recovery,” that’s not the whole story.

A lot of Americans are still struggling with extreme poverty – and women are getting the short end of the stick on pretty much all fronts.

Every year, the United States Census Bureau releases their findings about poverty, health insurance, and much more in September.

This year, the Census data revealed that one in seven women live in poverty. One in seven. That’s almost 17.8 million women – or 14.5% of the female population. For men, this percentage is lower, at 11%.

These crazy-high numbers of poor American women are nothing new – they are almost identical to the 2011 figures. But they’re still unacceptable.

And certain groups of women are having an even harder time than the rest.

Black, Latina, and Native American women are disproportionately poor, as are women who are the primary breadwinners in a household. And shockingly, women 65 years of age and older got drastically poorer in 2012.

In order to understand why this is happening, let’s first look at these statistics in greater detail – and at what else the newest Census data has to tell us about these different groups of women and how the post-Recession recovery period is treating them.

Women of Color Have Exceedingly High Poverty Rates

Women of Color have not prospered during the economic recovery.

The Census data shows that Black women have a whopping poverty rate of 25.1%, and Latina women come in right below them at 24.8%. Even more drastic is the plight of Native American women – one in three Native women were poor in 2012.

Poverty disproportionately affects all People of Color – not just women. Non-white children and men also suffer from poverty disproportionately across the board. As I explained in this article about American poverty, this inequality is a product of a longstanding structure of racial oppression that refuses to go away despite civil rights advances.

Poor Women Heading Households Are Getting Poorer

Studies show that in today’s working economy, four in ten households with kids under 18 years of age have a woman as the chief (or only) breadwinner.

While that fact is exciting in the sense that women are truly viable players in the workforce and completely capable of providing for their families, it doesn’t negate the fact that almost 41% of the women heading these households were poor in 2012.

Not only that, but this poverty isn’t just affecting the women themselves – it’s hurting their children.

A stunning 56% of poor kids live in families in which a woman is the main wage-earner. We’ll get to just why this is later.

Elderly Women Are Suffering More Than Before

Getting older isn’t easy on anyone, and definitely not on poor women.

Health problems become more numerous and costly, menopause changes the body dramatically, and just getting around becomes more difficult. Andeverything costs.

Luckily, many of us have spent a lifetime saving up for retirement to protect ourselves financially in the face of illness or other issues.

We’ve saved a bit from each paycheck, contributed to a 401K retirement plan, or made investments that will (hopefully) help see us through our old age. And ideally, we have family to back us up and take care of us as well.

But what about women who didn’t have the financial flexibility to save for retirement while they were working – or had to use their savings to help another family member in a time of need?

What about the grandmas who are still helping their children and grandchildren get by because those children are struggling with poverty themselves?

A staggering amount of elderly women are poor – and things only got worse in 2012.

According to the United States Census, the number of women 65 years or older living in extreme poverty increased by 23% last year.

That’s unacceptable. After a lifetime of contributing to our economy and society, our grandmothers should not have to worry about how they are going to afford food.

“Why is this happening?” you are probably asking yourself.

Well, there are plenty of reasons why an unequal number of women are poor.

The Wage Gap Is Partially to Blame

The ever-looming gender wage gap is one big reason.

Thanks to the Census, we know that – just like in 2011 – women who work full-time, year-round are only paid 77 cents on the dollar compared to their male coworkers – and that’s only in reference to white folk.

If you are thinking that a few cents doesn’t make much of a difference, think again.

Let’s look at what that wage gap translates into over the course of a year: Over $11k less in yearly earnings. And thus, a much smaller economic safety net. For a woman struggling with poverty, that $11 thousand could make a world of difference.

These numbers get a lot worse when you’re talking about Women of Color. Black and Latina women earn, respectively, 64 cents and 54 cents on the dollar compared to White, non-Latino men.

This inequality is a heinous relic of an oppressive, racist culture that seems to be hanging on for far too long – and yet it seems like no one is even talking about it.

The GOP is Waging a War on Safety Net Programs That Help Women

Republicans and Tea Party members in Congress and in-state chambers across the nation have their sights set on dismantling the programs that provide government assistance to needy women and families.

Nutrition aide for babies and pregnant or nursing mothers in the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is on the chopping block.

So are early learning programs for kids and desperately needed food assistance for poor families.

Nothing is actually safe when it comes to the safety net – no matter how many times these programs are proven to lift millions of people out of poverty and save lives.

When these programs are cut, women and their families take the hit.

Pregnant women who lose their WIC benefits don’t get the proper help they need. Single mothers with hungry children have their food taken away from them. Mothers who rely on childcare assistance to be able to work and earn money for their families are forced to stay home.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps, is a prime example.

The Census data revealed that SNAP helped 4 million people out of poverty and reduced hardship for millions of others in 2012 alone. Simply put, it is a highly effective program that made tens of millions of people less poor last year, as it does every year.

Despite these proven benefits of the program, all SNAP recipients will lose about $30 from their monthly food allotment starting November 1, 2013.

This decrease comes on top of many other cuts to the program driven by government sequestration and the threat of a $40 billion cut in the House’s proposed farm bill legislation.

Women and children will directly suffer from these cuts to SNAP. If pursued to fruition, it is very likely that next year’s Census data will disclose even more severe poverty rates for women.

With so many politicians seemingly working to keep low-income women and families in poverty – and so many other factors negatively affecting low-income women – what can be done?

Educate, Proliferate, Infiltrate!

For starters, you can share this information with everyone that you know.

I truly believe that a big reason that people vote for politicians who want to cut government assistance to the poor is that they just don’t have the facts.

If they knew who they were taking food, education, and medical services from –infants, young children, struggling families, seniors – I have a hard time believing that so many people would still agree with stripping the safety net bare.

Also, remember that the poverty data revealed by the Census is proof that low-income women are struggling – and that things are not getting much better as the economic recovery continues.

When naysayers try to tell you that the government can’t give any more money to food stamps because there are more people enrolled in the program than ever before, remind them that this is the direct result of the Great Recession.

It’s simple when you think about it.

More people fell into poverty because of a recession = more people were hungry = more people became eligible (and signed up for) nutrition assistance programs.

And since we haven’t fully “recovered” as a nation, these numbers have yet to drop back down.

Back up your arguments with facts and people will have a much harder time shooting you down.

Educate your community.

Post about these important poverty statistics on social media, e-mail articles about the Census findings to your family and friends, tweet at your members of Congress asking them to support safety net programs, or write an op-ed for your local newspaper. The Op Ed Project has some great guidelines to get you started on writing your first article.

Volunteering at community organizations that work to secure funding for low-income women is another good way to combat women’s poverty.

Look at a comprehensive volunteer site like VolunteerMatch.org to find opportunities in mentoring, educational services and much more across the country. You can also check out your local chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW) for more ways to get involved in supporting anti-poverty measures for women.

You have the facts. Now go out there and do something about this inequality, with the whole force of the Census data backing you up.

Don’t let partisan politicians take necessary assistance away those who need it most.

Show them that you will fight to protect needy children, mothers, and grandmothers from falling deeper into poverty.

Cross

The actions of Jesus and the teachings of the Bible are constantly being used as justification for the beliefs and actions of people worldwide.

Great – except that sometimes people take them way, way out of context and decide to come up with their own version of what the Bible means. Take the debate over the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps.

SNAP reauthorization has historically been included in the farm bill, a 5-year agriculture and nutrition package passed by Congress. But this year the House Republicans decided to split the agriculture programs off completely from the nutrition title, despite the opposition of over 500 food, farm and conservation groups, including the conservative Club for Growth and the very influential National Farm Bureau Federation. Oh, and basically every nutrition/anti-poverty group EVER!

By removing nutrition, House leadership was able to garner sufficient Republican support to pass the bill in the House and simultaneously make crop subsidies permanent  – and the most expensive that they have ever been. See more in this report from the Environmental Working Group.

But the Senate isn’t having that – and they’ve stated that they won’t pass a split farm bill. This means that getting it passed before the September 30th deadline is dubious – and that SNAP is at risk of being cut if it stays separated from agriculture programs in the bill. For a more wonky take on the matter, read my latest CHN article.

I’ve written a lot about SNAP in the past, but it never ceases to amaze me how many of our elected officials have little to no compassion for the hungry. And it REALLY gets me incensed when they try to use Christianity or Jesus’ teachings as justification for taking food away from struggling families.

Now, I’m not pretending to be an expert on Jesus, or Christianity in general for that matter. But I do know that one of the core tenants of Christianity is to help those in need. Just look at what most of the major Christian organizations in America do with their time: they lobby for low-income people in Congress by supporting safety net programs like low-income tax credits, housing vouchers, child care, and better nutrition. They support the welfare system as a means of lifting people out of poverty.

Simply put, they help poor people. I’m talking about Catholic Charities, the Sisters of Mercy, NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, the Sisters of the Presentation, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church USA, and many, many more. The list includes groups from practically every Christian denomination, all of which vary in their beliefs and practices – and yet the one thing they have in common is a goal to aid the less fortunate among us – and to keep them from hunger by funding the SNAP program.

I certainly won’t argue that all Christian politicians diverge from this goal. For example, during a recent House Ag. Committee debate, Democratic California Representative Juan Vargas cited the Book of Matthew in support of SNAP, noting, “[Jesus] says how you treat the least among us, the least of our brothers, that’s how you treat him.” Vargas supports helping the least among us, which is why he supports a strong SNAP program.

Tennessean Republican Congressman Stephen Fincher has a different outlook on the situation.

Fincher took it upon himself to reply to Vargas’ quote with one of his own, from the Book of Thessalonians: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” He also made sure to point out that he believes that “The role of citizens, of Christians, of humanity is to take care of each other, but not for Washington to steal from those in the country and give to others in the country.”

Some have called Fincher’s response to Vargas “nicely played.” I completely disagree. For so many reasons.

First, there’s the fact that only one in six SNAP household is a nonworking family without kids or an elderly or disabled family member  (read more in this USDA report).

Yep, you heard that right! Many, many people who receive SNAP are employed, sometimes at multiple jobs, and are just as hardworking as the rest of us. Now maybe if the minimum wage were raised to a livable standard, these people wouldn’t have to accept government benefits on top of their income in order to keep their families fed.

And yes, there’s no denying that there are also many SNAP recipients who are unemployed, underemployed or searching for work.

Now let’s take a look at WHY they those individuals are unemployed. Oh right, because we just had a giant recession and the economy is still struggling. Riiighhht…..

Second, in Fincher’s view of what the world should look like, government would not have a hand in supporting low-income people. The only “safety net” provided would be the generosity of selfless individuals and independent charities. This assumes that people will give of themselves in order to help the poor and create a more equal society. That they will give away enough money and time – completely unsolicited and uncompensated – to keep the nation’s 146 million impoverished people fed, clothed and housed.

It’s a lovely dream. But it’s just that – a dream. Would Fincher ever suggest that we should abolish the police department and criminal justice system and simply trust in the decency of human kind not to steal or murder? Once again, while it’s nice  to imagine a world without crime, it is absolutely and positively not realistic.

Sometimes I think many of our conservative politicians desire an anarchist state. And I don’t think that would sit well with most Americans. Or that it would be even slightly functional.

Oh, and there’s one other little thing about Fincher’s “pious” argument to cut food stamps out of the farm bill and move forward only on agriculture proposals (including those subsidies mentioned earlier).

SHOCKER ALERT: Fincher receives the second largest amount of money in farm subsidies in the whole country. So by cutting SNAP while “supporting a proposal to expand crop insurance by $9 billion over the next 10 years,” he’s doing more than merely making himself monumentally richer. He’s using the government to line his pockets with taxpayer dollars from crop subsidies.

But wait, I thought he wanted the gosh-darned government to stay out of people’s wallets?

I guess that’s only important when it comes to giving food to poor families.

But back to my point – I really don’t think that Jesus would appreciate everyone using him as an excuse to justify cutting food assistance to children, the elderly, disabled folks, low-income workers and the unemployed. The Jesus that I was taught about was kind, selfless, nonjudgmental and generous – not just to those who were among the chosen few, but to those in need as well.

#WhatWouldJesusNOTDo? Cut SNAP.

Hunger1

Is this what some Members of Congress think when they go home at night? Since their kids have enough food to eat, why should they worry about those pesky 17 million who don’t know where their next meal is going to come from?

New data from Feeding America tells us that 50 million Americans are food insecure, and that 17 million of these individuals are kids. Kids who need adequate nutrition in order for their minds and bodies to develop properly. Kids who desperately need enough food to succeed in school – and ultimately, in life.

Food security/insecurity refers to food availability and an individual’s ability to access it. Essentially, it means whether or not a person is sure of where their next meal is coming from. Click here to see more information about food insecurity from the Food Research and Action Center.

Again: 50 million people are food insecure. Think about it – that means a LOT of people don’t have a reliable way to get food on a daily basis. And a lot of these people depend on government assistance such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps, in order to get the little sustenance that they can.

A lot of fiscal conservatives think that the SNAP program is out of control – and they want to cut it. They cite the fact that the SNAP participant rolls have increased substantially over the last few years and thus, spending on the program has gone up. Yep – that’s true. And it’s also true that the recession put millions of people out of jobs, out of their homes, and into food insecure positions and poverty. So it kind of seems like common sense that the number of people on SNAP would increase as poverty increased.

Still, many in Congress don’t seem to comprehend (or care) how devastating it would be to take away programs like SNAP from impoverished families. Right now, Congress is trying to come to an agreement on the farm bill – legislation that sets federal policy on forestry, nutrition, conservation and agriculture – and both chambers have set out plans to deeply cut nutrition aid.

The Senate has already passed a farm bill (S. 954) that cuts SNAP funding by $4.1 billion over ten years. Although unacceptable in the eyes of most nutrition advocates, this is almost a paltry sum compared to the House farm bill now being debated (H.R. 1947), which plans to slash $20.5 billion from the program over the same time period.

Today Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA) will bring an amendment to the House floor to reverse the SNAP cuts in H.R. 1947. The amendment does not have enough votes to pass, that is clear – but the level of support it gets will be a prime indicator of the bill’s future.

It’s clear to me – as it should be to all Members of Congress – that cutting SNAP will hurt and endanger millions of families and their children. Rest assured that everyone in the nutrition advocacy community will continue to fight tirelessly to keep our kids fed…

…but what can YOU do? Contact your MOCs today and tell them that cuts to SNAP in the farm bill are unconscionable. It doesn’t take much effort, but it’s something. And those 50 million will thank you.

Stayed tuned – the fight’s not over yet.

For more on cuts to nutrition in the farm bill, read my last two articles for CHN: House and Senate Agriculture Committees Back Farm Bills with Significant Cuts to SNAP (May 29) and Senate Passes Farm Bill with Cuts to SNAP as House Prepares to Bring Even More Devastating Bill to the Floor (June 17).