Showing posts with label Welfare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Welfare. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Fat shaming isn’t cool guys



I have Facebook friends I grew up with, and a handful of us would probably be friends now if we hadn’t emotionally scarred each other during puberty. Specifically, a few of these kids went vegan, which I did in undergrad. I had to reincorporate some diary after I became really sick. Mostly this resulted from me not paying attention to being healthy. Overall, these kids have a very progressive outlook on life, which is awesome. But every once in a while I just don’t know what the fuck is going on. I’m not picking on these people, by the way, but I’ve noticed vegans and environmentalists get real preachy on people and often say very disgusting things about those who opt out of their lifestyles. I once got into an argument with a girl over how funding should be spent on social justice causes. She was an environmentalist who wanted new recycling equipment; the equipment was still in working condition. I wanted to use the money to feed the poor, and we fed the poor via donations. Both of our stances had working solutions, but we both though the funding applied to our cause would be better spent. She accused me of not caring about the environment, which I pointed out I was the vegan in the conversation, and she still ate meet, but for me compassion for people trumps compassion for animals.

I bring all this up because Tuesday morning, I once again saw an article that has been circling the internet for at least a month. It was posted by a vegan I grew up with. An obese woman in the UK receives welfare benefits and claims she needs more money if she is going to lose weight because she doesn’t want to give up fast food and junk food. Look, we can all make better decisions about our food choices…I mean I drink soda, which has no nutritional value. Everyone has something. Additionally, a lot of these junk foods and fast foods are targeted toward the low-income, particularly low-income children (I’m looking at you kid’s meals).

There are a few not so great facts about poverty that people would rather overlook:
  1. Low-income people are predisposed to certain diseases including obesity and diabetes. This can stem from lack of access to medical care from childhood through always.  This isn’t just diet by the way; the poor have increase rates of respiratory illnesses as well including asthma.
  2. Low-income people have lack of access to healthy food choices, which is evident when you see five fast food places on a block and the only grocery store closed or a corner store (for those playing back home remember when Finest closed on Broadway and our parents had to drive to the suburbs for a grocery store because Dave’s was always selling out?). This is called a food desert. Corner stores, gas stations, etc. have low quality food choices, and then of course the ever present fast food…back home if you ordered fries before your burgers at the Wendy’s on Broadway and Harvard, you’d get narcotics. Helpful life tips.
  3. Low-income neighborhoods also have fewer recreational places to exercise, and if they do exist like the shiny Boys and Girls Club on Broadway with the high fence to keep the dealers out, the dealers just hang by the entrances and exits. Parks, pools, etc., hell even our roads lack funding. And I dare someone to run in my neighborhood. Then again, last time I was home my dad said he say some guy running down Fleet looking stupid so we know gentrification is coming.
Additionally, I wanted to point out that once a benefit is dispersed then you don’t really get to decide anymore how it is spent (as long as it is within the confines of the law). It isn’t my or your choice to make. It is their choice. Once, I listened to a fellow-student complain that an EBT recipient in line behind her had nothing but ice cream and a ready-made cake in her basket. I pointed out it could have been someone’s birthday because you don’t know anything about other people’s lives. The student conceded that there are reasons someone might only buy those items…no shit, how big of you. What this comes down to is a lack of empathy for people outside your circle. I find this all the more disturbing when you consider these are people pushing for compassion for animals.  

Finally, the last real issue here is that the person who posted this article (and I use the word loosely), was trying to fat shame this poor woman because there is nothing worse than poverty except poverty co-occurring with unattractiveness.

Thursday, March 13, 2014

Breaking Paul Ryan continues to be an idiot.



First let’s remember that Paul Ryan is the House Budget Chairman, which makes me want to punch things. According to Igor Volsky for ThinkProgress, Ryan seems to think poor people are lazy, and all problems are caused by poor inner city men, think he’s alluding to anyone there? Apparently, Ryan appeared on Bill Bennett’s Morning in America, which as far as I can tell is just another conservative circle jerk, on Wednesday alluding to reforms Ryan is interested in such as work requirements for men “in our inner cities” and deal with the “real culture problem” in the inner city.

And, as we’ve discussed before, Ryan is trying to reinvent himself as the thinking man’s bigot. This time he cited Charles Murray, who is a social scientist who believes African-Americans are less intelligent then whites because of genetic differences and that poverty is a problem because “a lot of poor people are born lazy.” So he'd be a bigot if that isn't clear.

Beer me strength.  Ryan has release that report I wrote about early, and is expected to release the FY2015 budget with proposed reforms to social programs. *head desk*  Ryan said, “[W]e want people to reach their potential and so the dignity of work is very valuable and important and we have to re-emphasize work and reform our welfare programs, like we did in 1996.” He continues, “We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with.”

Many programs have work requirements such as cash assistance, long-term unemployment insurance, and the Earned Income Tax Credit…but Ryan is probably talking about SNAP and probably the free lunch programs.

Alright, a review of 1996 Welfare Reform (PRWORA) was passed during the Clinton administration much to the delight of people who hate the poor everywhere and want to punish them for in fact being poor. That’s the subtitle in fine print, just kidding. It turned welfare into a block grant, which means each state gets what they get and no more, so if a state runs out too damn bad. Work requirements are required for most welfare cases, which are a variety of preapproved activities, including volunteer work. It was highly lobbied for by low-wage employers like Walmart and McDonald’s (singing a different tune now, but these people don’t want to pay a fair wage). Failure to comply with a work requirement results in a full family work sanction, which often closes the case for 30 days, even cases with children, so you know, no money for 30 days with kids, no big deal. Finally, the 60 month time limit, after 60 months you no longer qualify for cash assistance ever again. Cases that are child-only are exempt from this one. Also, in some states like Ohio if you have a child while receiving cash assistance that child doesn’t qualify for assistance until they turn 18. End Scene.

What we know since reform? Well, work requirements haven’t reduced poverty. They have contributed to the decrease in the number of people on the welfare rolls, but as mentioned above, the time limit has resulted in people being disconnected. Additionally, work requirements push recipients into low-wage work with high turnover so people cycle on and off welfare, arguably creating the illusion of fewer people. When the economy is bad work requirements are particularly ineffective because no jobs. We also know that work requirements push recipients into jobs with poor employment outcomes like lower wages, instability, etc. The jobs that have better outcomes have more success moving welfare recipients from welfare to sustainable employment, but these jobs are far and few between. Also, fun fact, it appears as those employers (NAICS) codes that have unions affiliated with them, even if the recipient isn’t part of the union, have better employment outcomes. Unfortunately, data to support this correlation is hard to find, with the whole, we don’t care once your off the rolls thought process. All of this has resulted in people in poverty being pushed even further down.

But let’s get back to what Ryan is saying: blame black men for poverty because they are lazy and shirking responsibility.  SHENANIGANS! I’m serious, we can’t blame black men for social problems when we incarcerate them at such a high rate. They would presumably be more active and work if employers couldn’t ask about felonies. I hate this kind of logic, look we’re going to oppress you guys, and then blame you for the problems resulting from that oppression. Secondly, his assertion that this poverty is a cultural flaw is lunacy. Poverty is a result from inequity, people don’t wake up and say “I’m going to be poor today” or” I’m going to be wealthy.” There is a culture to blame though, the one that favors capitalism and greed above everything and everyone else. However, when you have limited means and power then you aren’t part of this culture.

For real though, it is time Ryan stop talking about poverty because he looks like an idiot. Someone help him, I’m starting to feel bad for him.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Will poverty always exist?



Discuss the notion of long term welfare dependency- have we solved this problem? Will the poor always be with us?

This is the discussion for this week’s Social Welfare and Social Policy course. You can imagine my thrill in anticipation of the responses from my peers. I know that reads as condescending, but a woman in my class stated teachers' unions were the problem with education…I know apparently there is only one problem with education. I had a physical reaction to her statements, so plus for not being in the same group.

Anyway, there are a few things to unpack in the question, the first being the connotations invoked when one says “long term welfare dependency.” You immediately recall images of the socially constructed "welfare queen" from Reagan and the unwed mother letting her sons be killed in Chicago via Romney. The people brought to mind are thought of as problems, burdens, and a drain on the system because they are seen as not contributing to society. I however do not believe long term welfare dependency is bad or good, instead it is necessary. Most people however, think of the “welfare queen” when they hear the phrase. I think about unemployment insurance, Social Security, and school lunch programs. A child going into kindergarten could have free lunch for 13 years. That is long term use. Anyone arguing to starve children? Well, some people are (House GOP and their quest to cut SNAP), but they aren’t going to admit it. I know some people hate Social Security, but it keeps a lot of seniors out of poverty, and people can receive it for decades.

I’m not arguing people should be dependent, but I am saying that if someone is they aren’t a problem. The problem is a society that allows for the existence of the destitute while the upper class continues to accumulate wealth. So we have fixed nothing because we have never actually addressed the real problem. In a world with finite resources, one person profits at the expense of others. A few weeks ago we had a debate in this class on Social Security, and my team was abysmal. They said nothing, but what was scripted for them, which means my leftist self got to run amok. Our professor asked if we were in favor of the wealthy paying into a program they receive little to no payout from. To which I responded, absolutely, they are wealthy at the expense of others so they should have to invest in the people they have exploited and society at large.

The poor will always be with us because we embrace systems and structures to profit off their poverty and that work to keep them in poverty. As long as this is the case, long term welfare dependency will be required. After all it is in corporations’ best interests to push for work requirements that don’t require a living or minimum wage. The uncomfortable reality is that some people benefit from keeping a subclass of people, with less economic power and limited (and continuing to be limited) rights. Poverty isn’t the result of individual bad choices, though that can exacerbate it. Instead, bad choices are the results of systematic oppression, which leaves only so many options to the oppressed.

Friday, October 18, 2013

So that TANF Marriage Emphasis, might not be such a hot idea



A long held belief is that people can be lifted out of poverty via marriage. The idea is that two incomes are better than one, which is obviously true unless they are both poverty wages...but I digress. However, the emphasis on marriage as a solution to move women off welfare (thanks 1996 Welfare Reform) has been happening as divorce rates and intimate partner violence incidents (IPV) rise. I'm not drawing causation, but they are all happening at the same time. We also know that IPV increases during economic crisis. A large criticism of this policy is that people are forced into unhappy and sometimes violent marriages with the expectation of being lifted out of poverty, but with increasingly lower and lower wages two incomes can’t sustain a family of four anyway (*make the minimum wage a living wage dance* well it is more like a shuffle).

Regardless, depression is often associated with economic hardship, but being married and having access to the support of neighbors does little to ease the symptoms of depression experienced by poor mothers. According to PsyPost, the study due out in Springer’s American Journal of Community Psychology, Sharon Kingston of Dickinson College directly challenges the perception that marriage and other forms of interpersonal support can buffer the effects of poverty.

The study consisted of 1,957 mothers from 80 neighborhoods in Chicago. It studied the effect of economic adversity and access to interpersonal resources. Economic adversity was measured by financial strain and poverty levels within the participants’ communities. Being unable to meet the needs of their families mothers feel stress. Kingston found all of this increased the depressive symptoms among mothers. While being married was associated with fewer depressive symptoms than being single, it did little to alleviate the depressive symptoms among poor mothers.

Kingston found that women who had interpersonal support felt fewer depressive symptoms, but these interpersonal relationships didn’t counter the effects of poverty. Kingston concluded, “Risks related to economic adversity will in all likelihood not be mitigated by efforts to bolster interpersonal support such as marriage support programs targeted to low-income parents. Interventions that directly target economic conditions at the family or neighborhood level may be more likely to have positive effects on a mother’s well-being.”

I haven’t read Kingston’s study yet, but I’d be very interested in whether any findings indicated or reinforced the findings that growing up in poverty has long lasting consequences, which in addition to learning disabilities and lower academic achievement, I believe also includes depression.

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Food Stamps still under fire



The GOP is still coming after SNAP. I’m about to lose my damn mind. Last week I screened the movie, A Place at the Table. It is pretty good. There are obviously issues with it, but I was pleased overall, and the Civil Wars made up a good portion of the soundtrack. One of the panel speakers after the film spoke to the House GOP’s interest in cutting an additional $40 billion from nutrition programs over ten years. 

The Washington Post has an article by Derek Wallbank entitled “GOP to vote on $40 billion in food-stamps cuts”. The House of Representatives will be voting on Thursday on a 5.2 percent reduction from the Congressional Budget Office estimates based in current policy. Obviously, this would result in people in need being pushed off the program. The assumption is that charities will fill in, but these charities are tapped too. They have very few funds left. About 48 million people are on Snap in the US, which is about 23 million households. Republican’s plan to cut spending through restrictions to eligibility requirements,

Supports of this measure claim it is going to curb abuse, but abuse isn’t much of a problem with SNAP. As mentioned on NPR on Monday by Michael Wilson, Director of Maryland’s Hunger Solutions, fraud is more of a problem at the Pentagon than with SNAP. Actual SNAP fraud is probably between 2 and 6 percent. Additionally, this line about all able bodies people who can work should doesn’t take into account a shitty economy where employers don’t have to pay a living wage. Am I the only one who can’t follow this kind of ridiculous logic? Their goal is to end benefits for more than 6 million low-income people.

It also offends me to my very core that the GOP is assuming everyone on SNAP is lazy and cheating the system. Yes, SNAP utilization is growing because the economy continues to blow. Yes, if it continues to grow at this rate we’re going to see it reach $764 billion over the next ten years. Improve the social safety net, it costs more upfront, but like most preventative measures it is cheaper in the long run.

Contact information for House Representatives from DC, Maryland, and Ohio can be found below. I know most of the Dems will vote against it, but the GOP will pass it. So work on the Republican reps.

DC
Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton: 202-225-8050
Maryland
Rep: Andy Harris, 202-225-5311
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, 202-225-3061
Rep. John P. Sarbanes, 202-225-4016
Rep. Donna F. Edwards, 202-225-8699
Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, 202-225-4143
Rep. John Delaney, 202-225-2721
Rep. Elijah Cummings, 202-225-4741
Rep. Chris Ban Hollen, 202-225-5341
Ohio
Rep. Steve Chabot, 202-225-2216
Rep. Brad Wenstrup, 202-225-3164
Rep. Joyce Beatty, 202-225-4324
Rep. Jim Jordan, 202-225-2676
Rep. Robert E. Latta, 202-225-6405
Rep. Bill Johnson, 202-225-5705
Rep, Bob Gibbs, 202-225-6265 (Agriculture Committee)
Speaker John A. Boehner, 202-225-6205
Rep. Marcy Kaptur, 202-225-4146
Rep. Michael Turner, 202-225-6465
Rep. Marcia L. Fudge, 202-225-7032
Rep. Pat Tiberi, 202-225-5355
Rep. Tim Ryan, 202-225-5261
Rep. David Joyce, 202-225-5731
Rep. Steve Stivers, 202-225-2015
Rep. Jim Renacci, 202-225-3876