ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

SNAP cuts real, painful II

| Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Regarding the editorial “The SNAP ‘cuts': Food for thought”: If opponents of America's food stamp program “focused more attention on helping benefit recipients become breadwinners,” they wouldn't be stomping their feet over needed increases to the program — because there wouldn't be any.

In fact, many of the same people — including the Trib's editors — who complain about food stamps costing too much and about advocates not doing enough to get people off food stamps also opposed the economic stimulus, supported sequestration cuts to domestic spending, supported the job-killing government shutdown.

They oppose infrastructure-related investments that create jobs, oppose increased aid to education and oppose increasing the minimum wage.

They also don't seem troubled that 95 percent of the recovery's economic gains have gone to the tiniest fraction of the American people.

Claiming that anti-hunger advocates are trying to keep people on the dole because this somehow suits their political purposes (Do the poor make campaign donations? Do they even vote?) just seems uninformed.

The Trib can put “cuts” in quotes, but can't hide the fact that what happened Nov. 1 was an actual cut that took actual food out of the mouths of hardworking but under-earning men and women, 22 million children, seniors and the disabled.

Nick Chubb

Friendship

The writer is an intern with South Side-based Just Harvest (justharvest.org).

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.

click me