Protect food-stamp funding
I agree with the editorial “Food stamps: Chew on this” (Aug. 21 and TribLIVE.com). The farm bill “should be sheared of its outrageous subsides and allowances that benefit Big Ag” at everyone else's expense. But nutrition programs were removed from the farm bill when Republicans couldn't agree on how far to take cuts.
Do work requirements make sense for the 92 percent of food-stamp recipients who are children, elderly or already employed?
Yes, the food-stamp program “continually comes under scrutiny” — by people looking to defund the program. The actual rate of food-stamp fraud and abuse is among the lowest of any government program, now down to 1 cent on the dollar.
Yes, farm bills' passage has historically relied on a broad bipartisan consensus in Congress. But neither hunger nor food-stamp spending is entirely “urban.” Over one in seven rural households, about 3 million altogether, are food insecure. Rural representatives who vote to cut food stamps do harm to millions of their own constituents.
Yes, 204 House Democrats signed a letter. Their stated goal was to protect food-stamp funding, which is critical to the war on hunger and on poverty, particularly child poverty. Now that makes sense.
The writer is volunteer coordinator for South Side-based Just Harvest (justharvest.org).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Clueless on law
- Banding helps birds
- Who’s responsible?
- NK-A consolidation a travesty
- Incomprehensible hatred
- Overlooked by PUC
- Red light cameras II