SNAP cuts real, painful II
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.
The writer is an intern with South Side-based Just Harvest (justharvest.org).