Sign up here to enjoy the
full benefits of this site.
Click here to log in.
Forgot your username
or password?
Saturday Rapid Response: Republicans cut food stamps that pull Oregonians out of hunger
Submitted by Oregon Rapid Re... on October 29, 2005 - 9:33am
The following media action alert courtesy of the Oregon branch of the Rapid Response Network.
>
Oregon Report — Saturday, October 29, 2005
1. Republicans cut the food stamp funding that pulled Oregonians out of hunger
2. S-J poll on White House indictments—weigh in!
3. Wal-Mart on a PR offensive
1. Republicans cut the food stamp funding that pulled Oregonians out of hunger
"Oregon's hunger fight pays off"
Oregon has made bigger gains than any state in the nation in its fight against hunger, reducing its hunger rate since 2001 from the highest in the nation to 17th, a new federal report shows…Oregon policy analysts and food relief leaders said the state's aggressive effort between 2000 and 2004 to extend food stamps is probably the main reason hunger is declining.
Good news, right? Yes it is. Fewer Oregonians are going hungry. There’s just one little problem….a piece of news that was not covered in today’s Oregonian:
US House panel votes $844 mln cut in food stamps What was a key rationale for the Republicans’ party-line cuts to food stamps? The “aggressive efforts” of states like Oregon to extend food stamps to hungry people!
Agriculture Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte defended the decision, saying only a sliver of food stamp spending was affected and, for the most part, the cuts would eliminate people not truly eligible…. Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican, said states unfairly “have taken the opportunity to expand food stamp eligibility" beyond what the federal government intended.
letters@news.oregonian.com
billgraves@news.oregonian.com
Contact your elected representatives
letters@news.oregonian.com
Or contact your local paper
Drop a quick line to national media
2. S-J poll on White House indictments—weigh in!
If you haven’t already, please share your thoughts on the indictment with your neighbors and the media!
3. Wal-Mart on a PR offensive
"Wal-Mart decides not to discount its image" [slightly different version than is running the Oregonian business section today, but best I could find]
Your thoughts:
letters@news.oregonian.com
Or contact your local paper
Never give up.
_____________________________________
Oregon RR is a group of volunteers dedicated to advancing the principles of
balance and truthfulness in the media.
www.rapidresponsenetwork.org/web.py/or/
To contact us:
or@rapidresponsenetwork.org
Food stamps...
Yea, and I'm sure the people who are going to end up getting cut are those who hover right around the maximum allowed for their family size.
Cause, you know, it's terrible for us to be feeding people who really don't make enough to be able to cover rent/mortgage, electricity, food, and other essentials.
The maximum allowed is quite low. When my husband got a bonus, or I picked up a small job, we often exceeded the maximum for a family of 3. My husband only made just over $21,000 per year (and me less than $600/year), so it's not as if we were making a whole lot of money. We were right at about 133% of the federal poverty level.
Sure, I want to make sure people who truly don't need food stamps aren't getting them. But all the experts have said that the number of those people is very, very small.
"Welfare" isn't what it was two decades ago-- there's food stamps and for families with extremely low incomes there is TANF (Temporary Aid for Needy Families) that helps to cover some of the costs of rent and electricity and other needs that are not covered by food stamps. That's it.
What is paid out is a pittance-- many families of the same size spend at least twice as much more per month on groceries than is received. And of course it doesn't cover things like diapers (disposable or cloth), toilet paper, shampoo, dishwashing soap, laundry soap, etc.
So what happens when there are cuts is those who are right around the maximum earnings allowed will lose their coverage. And those families will often go without food, as they're over the maximum income allowed for many of the charitable organizations as well.
I'd love to see members of Congress live off food stamps for a few months-- not a week or two, as that's not that hard. I want to see them go at least 2 months, if not more than 3, on food stamps.
Let's see them feed their family of 3 on $127 a month. Let them jump through all the hoops required to not only get on food stamps, but to stay on them. Let them see that living on food stamps isn't the picnic they've painted it as.
Jenni Simonis