"There are 47 percent … who are dependent upon government … who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it." -- Mitt Romney
"Finally, a candidate with the courage to say half of all Americans are freeloaders who believe they're entitled to food. What do they think? Food grows on trees? No. We job creators know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Lunch is $50,000 a plate." -- Stephen Colbert
"Let them eat cake." -- Marie Antoniette (allegedly)
Colbert feeding shrimp to the "mindless masses" was as out of touch as what Romney was suggesting about the 47% of people who he thinks will never vote for him.
People need food every day, but even the most dependent person doesn't insist they are entitled to food. After all, homeless people on the streets aren't begging for shelter, they're begging for food or money toward food.
What Romney and his fellow Republicans are really focused on is food stamps, food assistance, SNAP. You've heard the political rhetoric about President Barack Obama and food stamps. Being the "food stamps president" is supposed to be a source of shame, but it also means that the president wants to help people who really need help.
Standards for SNAP are pretty high; you have to be really poor to be qualified to receive assistance. And if you think government gets in your face too much, SNAP requires government in your face to make sure you really are worthy.
Republicans have a point where ideally private outlets would be a better way to help neighbors who are down and out. However, even in pretty good times (e.g., summer 2008), the demand is too high and the private options fall way short.
Presidential elections are about the future: which candidate will do better? But each race gives the challenger the hypothetical of what things would have been like under that leadership. Mitt Romney would not want to be known as the "food stamps president," but that would have meant millions of Americans not getting the help they need.
When it comes to food assistance, Romney and a lot of members of his party and some of the Democratic side of the aisle have no problem with food assistance as long as it falls into the hands of rich people and corporations. We are coming to the end of the current Farm Bill at the end of the month. Reducing the deficit and reducing the impact of factory farms are worthy bipartisan/nonpartisan goals that can be helped by a strong farm bill that helps farmers who need the help but not those that are doing just fine. Yet getting a decent farm bill is a gigantic chore in the GOP-led House.
Even as food assistance (food stamps) has less of a stigma, no one wants to be on food stamps if they can't help it. There are lazy people and even some fraud. But the government has worked to make it a lot harder to get away with waste, something that can't be said for giving food assistance to those who can afford to eat.
Provided the economy does improve (Romney might want to ask his fellow Republicans why the GOP-led House hasn't passed a jobs bill in 21 months), fewer people will need food assistance. But there will always be some people who need help, and unless we come up with a better system, government has the resources to help those who need a hand.
Government assistance isn't an entitlement. People pay taxes so we have a safety net. The person who may be in good shape one day might not be in good shape the next day. The depressive recession of 2008 produced a lot of people who have said, "I never thought this would happen to me." And these people were glad there was help for them when they really needed assistance, food assistance.
Comments