The American electorate loves the word "freedom"-and for good reason. No other notion has given birth to a country, successful bids for the presidency, and perhaps now, less food for the impoverished. As the author sites, many house republicans believe that the only objective they have this term is to end President Obama's expansion of "reckless government programs". Furthermore, Krugman suggests that the 2008 recession created two problems. First, with an increasing unemployment rate, far more citizens signed up and are now receiving SNAP benefits (a 22 million person increase since 2007). He views this as a good thing, especially considering that the point of the SNAP program is to temporarily aid those in need. Krugman's second point is a little less positive. He cites that some (the republican party) see that same population increase as a signal of an irresponsible expansion of a government program. Adding fuel to this fire is the increase in cost that the SNAP program carries in the midst of a growing national debit. There in essence is the issue of modern government. Some see federal activity as a prohibitor; a roadblock on the path to "freedom". Others see our known social differences (i.e., race, income, and geography) as roadblocks on the same path. This raises the question, which philosophy we choose? Some in the state of Arkansas would argue that the answer is both. Some would argue that hunger is a bipartisan issue that we should all be able to agree on. Evidently our House of Representatives didn't get that memo. Major congressional leaders such as Paul Ryan have spoken out in a borderline insensitive way and "the good guys [the democrats]" are turtling up as to win re-election. To further complicate the issue, when manifested by an action (such as the massive cuts to SNAP in the House Farm Bill), statements such as Rep. Ryan's could be counter productive to the G.O.P's efforts to bring in young voters. So here is the question we need to ask ourselves, is the expansion of freedom really the driver for cutting SNAP benefits to those in need? Are our Representatives (in both parties) concerned with the public health, or their own political health? To answer these questions, we need a dialogue regarding the definition of freedom and how such a definition relates to the public health and the health of the nation.
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/opinion/krugman-free-to-be-hungry.html?_r=0
I thought this article was really interesting. It definitely presented both sides of the food stamps argument. I was surprised at the studies which showed that food stamps actually fostered productivity in children; I was under the impression that they did exactly the opposite. It seems like the SNAP program has only benefited the population (especially given the fact that most of its beneficiaries are disabled, elderly, or children), but I do have one qualm with the program in general. I have noticed that most people who use food stamps use them to buy unhealthy food in large quantities. An article from the Chicago Tribune (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-06-05/features/chi-food-policy-food-stamp-users-unhealthy-food-choices-need-help-some-say-20130605_1_wic-ludwig-more-soda) shows that SNAP users drink more soda and eat fewer vegetables than other people, which is deeply concerning, especially given the obesity epidemic in America. The program does not include nutritional counseling and may in some ways encourage obesity, according to the article from the Tribune. I think it's excellent that SNAP boosts productivity and helps job growth, but unhealthy eating is an unfortunate (and possibly productivity-lowering) consequence that needs to be remedied.
ReplyDelete