My must read of the day is "The Republicans' War on the Poor," in Rolling Stone:
The Tea Party radicals and those who either fear or cultivate them are now subjecting the food-stamp program to the same kind of assault they have unleashed on other settled policies and understandings that have been in place for decades. Breaking all manner of precedents on a series of highly partisan votes, with the Republicans barely prevailing, the House in September slashed the food-stamp program by a whopping $39 billion and imposed harsh new requirements for getting on, or staying on, the program. The point was to deny the benefit to millions.
Newt Gingrich, it may be recalled, made a big issue of food stamps in his race for the 2012 Republican nomination, calling Obama the "food-stamp president." But despite Gingrich implying that lazy blacks were the personification of food-stamp recipients, only 22 percent of those who receive food stamps are black (33 percent are white). Of the roughly 47 million Americans on food stamps, nearly half are children.
I support a limited welfare state, but I do not support an expansive one because I don't trust the government to do a good job of running it. I would much prefer the government to provide a safety net for those who need it most and let communities and nonprofits take care of the rest.
But that does not mean I hate poor people.
I just believe programs are riddled with fraud and inefficiently run, which does a disservice to those who actually do need assistance. The fact is there are problems with food stamps and EBT cards. To ignore that serves no purpose.
Do I disagree with some of the legislation Republicans have suggested when it comes to these entitlements? Absolutely. But this article completely writes off legitimate concerns as racism and hate—though there is no evidence beyond the writer’s own biases.
By all means, disagree. But at least acknowledge that there are legitimate concerns and ideas that have motivated lawmakers to take this position. This is a shockingly close-minded article that resorts to name-calling simply because the writer doesn't like or understand conservatives.
Plus, criticizing someone for "unleashing" an assault on "settled policies and understandings that have been in place for decades" isn't very progressive. When did it become taboo to reform antiquated "settled" laws? So much for moving forward.