Exploiting the “can I have some more” loophole.
Sometimes corporate media just come out and tell you what their priorities are. Take a Washington Post story by Reid Wilson (3/26/14) headlined “States Use Farm Bill Loophole to Stem Food Stamp Cuts.”
The “loophole” the headline refers to is a provision in food stamp law that gives slightly higher benefits to people who receive state subsidies for heating bills. The law was formerly written so that people who received as little as one dollar in heating aid were eligible for what is known as “heat and eat” aid, and some were giving just that much to some of their needy citizens to qualify them.
The Republican-led House, apparently driven by the conviction that poor people have too much to eat, insisted on making it harder to get these supplementary food stamps, and so the law was changed so that recipients had to receive at least $20 a year in heating aid to qualify. And governors in eight states said they would comply with the law by raising their heating subsidies to that amount.
This completely logical and predictable response to a legislative change is what the Washington Post describes as a “loophole”—and what it quotes Republican House Speaker John Boehner as calling “this cheating and this fraud.”
The Post makes clear what it sees as the important point here: The story’s lead speaks of the “loophole…potentially wiping out billions of dollars in savings Congress agreed to last month,” while the last sentence concludes, “If all of the states that operate the heat-and-eat program take advantage of the loophole, all $8.5 billion in cuts would disappear.”
That $8.5 billion in savings is a 10-year figure. Bear in mind that US government spending over the next 10 years is projected to be almost $47 trillion, so $8.5 billion amounts to about 0.02 percent—or two ten-thousandths—of federal outlays. Naturally, it’s a much larger proportion of hungry families’ food budget.
The Post‘s spin on this story is a little like describing Oliver Twist as the story of a conniving orphan scheming to bust the poorhouse budget by demanding seconds of gruel.
Out of the mouths of babes
And into the pockets of bastards
Dear Jim, 0.02 is two-hundredths, not two ten thousandths. Regardless, the profundity of the point you made in the second to last paragraph of the above blog is undiminished.
Dear Jim,
Correction: you are correct; 0.02 percent = 0.0002 = two ten-thousandths. My apologies.
Let’s see — how do you say in English — fuck the Washington Post.
Damn those malnourished orphans! There goes the gold-plated toilet in my yacht!
What! Poor people are eating? Stop it! Stop it, right now! Poor people don’t deserve to eat! They can’t be allowed! Their poor. Only rich people are allowed to eat. Don’t you know that? /s.
The Corporate Lords and Masters once again find they do not wish to support the Villains and Peasants, even thought we make them the money.
Yesterday on BBC a theologian (I tuned in late and missed his name) was remarking how Pope Francis and President Obama have in concert the desire to see the poor of this world given, at the very least, a decent diet. He remarked that the conservatives in the Catholic church, like the conservatives in the US, have a quarrel with such thinking. He said that Pope Francis and President Obama should say to those critics: “If you have a quarrel with us on this point, you have a quarrel with Jesus.”
Can’t you seen the fundamentalist ass turning purple if such an accusation was hurled at him.
Confusing. What most people don’t seem to know is that low-income elderly and disabled people on Social Security were enrolled in food stamps some years ago. Many of these live in subsidized housing, assisted living apts., etc. These facilities that include heat in the rent, so they are not eligible for heating assistance. Does this mean that they will lose their food aid?
In all honesty, it is the middle class that has applauded cuts to what little aid the US provides to its own elderly, poor and disabled. Those cuts are made with the support of the Clinton Dems still in Congress. 89 Democrats voted for cutting food aid to the elderly, disabled and poor back in November, and then again with the latest budget. Of course, the middle class has been getting phased out by the very policies they have supported.
Funny, I have not noticed conservatives venting outrage over loopholes the size of Cleveland that let predatory payday lenders rip off low-wage workers and retirees to the tune of $80 billion annually with effective interest exceeding 400% APR. It’s about a month’s hard-earned wages each year for typical payday borrowers. With inflation and rising use, that’s over $1 trillion in the next decade.
There’s only one viable nationwide solution: allowing America’s 30,000 post offices to provide small, low-cost emergency loans — as proposed by the US Postal Service’s Inspector General (Jan. 2014) and supported by Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Different overviews: postalbankingaction.org, postalYES.com.
The thing that always gets me, is the Corporation saying they must special privaliages to make it, only to turn around and demand that everyone must pay special homage to them, because they are the new gods.
I believe it was on KPFA I heard the phrase “Share the Problems, Privatise the Profits.” When you have places like Wal-mart claiming they must have specail breaks because they provide jobs, yet don’t pay enough to get the folks off welfare, there is something horrible wrong. Time to have them “pay up” for thier welfare they are taking.
Now that all those fat poor people are having their food stamps cut, maybe they’ll lose weight. Stop and ask yourself a few questions if you are a consumer of obesity propaganda. Is the problem in this country that poor people have too much to eat or TOO LITTLE? Do people who consume too much (Bloomberg: 11 houses, or am I off by one or two?) like to project their grotesque consumption onto the poor?
The problem I have with this whole thing is the use of the word “loophole.” A loophole is typically an EXCEPTION case to some law or set of laws enabling certain individuals to derive benefit to themselves because their situation meets with certain conditions.
“Heat and Eat” is a policy, not a loophole. At least, I can’t see how a program that is benefiting literally millions of very poor people can be called a loophole. I call it policy, period.
To call Heat and Eat a loophole allows me to call other policies loopholes as well. Like deductions on mortgage interest, the earned income tax credit, and business-related expenses — these are all legitimate deductions and credits intended for the benefit of nearly all taxpayers assuming they meet the requirements. None of these are really special, but I could claim they are, right?
I could claim that interest on mortgages is a loophole because only homeowners get that privilege, and only those homeowners who are paying a mortgage. I could claim that expenses related to running a business are a loophole since only business owners get to exercise them.
I guess when a word’s meaning gets stretched and stretched to cover more and more cases, it can also be used to confuse people. I say it is time to go back to the beginning, when a loophole meant a financial privilege for privileged people, and only that.
We really need an English language board with public oversight…