Bush Wants To End Seniors Food Program

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,289
Location
Edge's beanie closet
This certainly isn't the only program for the needy being cut, I read a few articles this week about that subject-it was quite depressing. Yes indeed, how do you justify doing something like this while giving rich people huge tax cuts?


By Frederic J. Frommer, Associated Press | February 11, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The boxes arrive every month at churches, senior citizen centers, and other sites for distribution to nearly a half-million poor elderly people. Each is stocked with a mix of foods such as cereal, peanut butter, fruit, vegetables, and pasta. Sometimes volunteers deliver them to seniors' homes.

Now President Bush wants to eliminate the program, one of 141 federal initiatives that his proposed new budget would scrap or cut dramatically. He is proposing to shift people in the Commodity Supplemental Food Program over to food stamps.

Defenders of the nutrition-in-a-box program say many elderly people are reluctant to sign up for food stamps, and, in any event, the commodity program often provides a more generous package.

''It really does come under the category, in the most extreme way, of balancing the budget on the backs of those who are most needy," said Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations agriculture subcommittee. ''And in this case we're not even balancing the budget.

''I call it misplaced priorities. How do you justify doing something like this, while at the same time giving people like Herb Kohl huge tax cuts?" said Kohl, a multimillionaire.


The commodity program, run by the Agriculture Department, benefits mainly senior citizens, although some new mothers and children also participate. The department wants to move recipients to food stamps in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. The program cost about $111 million this fiscal year, including a $4 million supplement for victims of Hurricane Katrina.

The program, which dates to 1968, operates in 32 states and the District of Columbia. Its lack of national reach is one reason that the administration wants to eliminate it, according to USDA officials.

Kate Coler, the USDA's deputy undersecretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, said the department thinks it can serve people more efficiently through food stamps and the Women, Infants, and Children program, which are both nationwide.

''It's really a duplicative program," she said of the commodity program.

But Tim Robertson, president of the National CSFP Association, which represents state and local organizations that administer the commodity program, challenged the USDA's premise that people will switch to food stamps.

''Seniors have repeatedly said they don't want to be on that program," Robertson said, because of the perceived stigma of using food stamps as well as the paperwork hassles.

USDA statistics indicate that just 28 percent of seniors eligible for food stamps participate in the program.

Sherrie Tussler, executive director of the Hunger Task Force, which administers the program in Milwaukee, said the commodity program helps seniors stretch their food-buying budget.

''Sometimes seniors are choosing between utility bills and prescription drugs and whether they get to eat," she said.

The Bush administration is proposing to provide commodity program beneficiaries with transitional food stamp benefits of $20 a month for six months, or until they are deemed eligible for food stamps, whichever comes first.

Sarah Mayek, 75, of Milwaukee, receives the commodity box as well as $10 a month for food stamps.

''You try to stretch your budget a little bit," Mayek said. Without the commodity box, she said, ''I would have to adjust. But I raised 11 children. I know how to cut corners."

Jean Daniel, a spokeswoman for the USDA's Food and Nutrition Service, said her agency is working to remove the perceived stigma. For example, she said, the agency is getting the word out that food stamp payments are now made through an electronic transfer card, not actual stamps.

''We try to make the point that this is not a welfare program; this is a nutritional assistance program," she said.
 
I'm sorry, but a government should NOT have programs that feed, educate, or help people if it means that people with money are going to have to help their fellow man.... A "big" government is bad, especially if it helps people......:coocoo:

:huh:

EDIT-- I'm kidding, btw...
 
Last edited:
A program like this should never exist on a federal level paid for by federal dollars. Food programs should be run on State by State status to better address the needs of each individual state.
 
theblazer said:
A program like this should never exist on a federal level

government money should be given to churches

faith based charities are best

that way if people need to be fed
there is a chance spiritual needs can be met also
 
theblazer said:
A program like this should never exist on a federal level paid for by federal dollars. Food programs should be run on State by State status to better address the needs of each individual state.

I don't know. Ideally, if states and the federal gov't work well together, then each state would essentially be able to assert its own needs anyway---a state could go to the fed & say "We need this much for this." If the program is run smartly, then each state would have its own needs addressed. I would hope that that's how this program was run anyway---I doubt each state got the same amount of money--especially when you have a state like Florida that's chock-full of seniors. Where the money comes from in that case wouldn't really matter, as each state would get what it needs whether it's from the state itself or from the fed. The reason it should be from the federal gov't to start with is to ensure that every state has a program like it, instead of having some random dumbass state not recognize its usefulness and not have something in place to help its seniors.

In the end, though, the fact is this: The program was there, and now it's not. Worse yet, the reason it's not there isn't to balance the budget, nor to affect the trade deficit, nor to make way for some other good program---instead, this program isn't there because people with the most money in the country are being given yet another tax break. That's the disappointing issue behind this.
 
deep said:


government money should be given to churches

faith based charities are best

that way if people need to be fed
there is a chance spiritual needs can be met also

Seriously? (I'm hoping I just missed your sarcasm...) The head priest at my church at home in NJ was let go when he was caught embezzling. Another church I've been to in NJ is pretty much plastered in gold. At the church closest to me here in DC, they have 8 new Lincoln Towncars for the priests to drive.

Let's not forget what's happened when Bush made our AIDS programs in Africa "faith-based"------prohibiting the distribution of condoms. Whatever spiritual need in a person is satisfied by that now has maybe an 8-year lifespan once that person's 'abstinence' fails and he/she develops AIDS..............:shrug:
 
reply

and......WHERE.....may I ask.....will these "tax cuts" go?................

{cut & paste} {cut & paste} {cut & paste}......what a scrapbook!

:eyebrow:
 
Typical...I often find myself wondering if Bush and many of his "Evangelicals" are indeed Anti-Christ or certainly a prelude to the real one!!! Almost everything they do and say goes directly AGAINST the teachings of Christ.
 
What does Bush care about anything he cuts? His family is wealthy and has ties with all kinds of organizations so he is guaranteed a safe and comfy life until he takes his last breath, not wanting for anything or going without. People like that have NO idea what it is like to go without, to not have the creature comforts. Their callous decisions to simply cut programs have HUGE effect on millions of people and in some cases the benefit Bush is cutting may mean the different between life or death. What an asshole we have as President. Pathetic.
 
The food stamp program should be renamed to the Nutritional Assistance Program, or NAP. Maybe that would remove the stigma. Every senior likes a good n.a.p.
 
BostonAnne said:
I'm confused by your question. Are you agreeing that it isn't acceptable?

You didn't pose this to me, but I'll take a stab at it :p

One man's idea of a "cut" is another man's idea of a "consolidation." I don't have a strong opinion on this particular plan because I don't have the nitty gritty details, maybe both plans should remain in place. But it's not simply a cut, it's a transfer from one program to another. In general, though, I'm in favor of eliminating redundancies.

Big picture, it's much cheaper to the taxpayer to keep a senior fed well rather than have him/her take multiple trips to the hospital for conditions related to malnutrition.
 
Utoo said:

In the end, though, the fact is this: The program was there, and now it's not. Worse yet, the reason it's not there isn't to balance the budget, nor to affect the trade deficit, nor to make way for some other good program---instead, this program isn't there because people with the most money in the country are being given yet another tax break. That's the disappointing issue behind this.

I agree. We can argue until the cows come home that it should be a state and not a federal problem, meanwhile THAT is the real issue - it's a disgrace.

It might a "transfer" but as it is stated in the article, most seniors are very reluctant to use food stamps. I know enough seniors to agree that this is true, many are proud and very stubborn. I don't see the problem in leaving this program the way it is.

The bottom line for me is that it is one symptomatic story of the priorities of the Bush administration.
 
BostonAnne said:
I'm confused by your question. Are you agreeing that it isn't acceptable?

Not necessarily a comment on this particular program, but on the budget process in general.

Let's look at the specific proposed cut. We have duplicate programs to provide food to seniors. An analysis of the situation becomes peppered with emotionally charged questions like "how can we do this to people - while others get tax cuts?"

Not much analysis. And an improper comparison with an unrelated budget issue.

It seems the primary argument in favor of the program is "elderly people are reluctant to sign up for food stamps". Is this true? To what extent? How much weight should we give such an argument? Can it be cured with education? Can a minor adjustment to the food stamp program make it easier for everyone?
 
nbcrusader said:
An analysis of the situation becomes peppered with emotionally charged questions like "how can we do this to people - while others get tax cuts?"

Not much analysis. And an improper comparison with an unrelated budget issue.

Seeing as how the guy in office has never said 'no' to a spending proposal, yet is currently pushing for yet more upperclass tax cuts, it only makes sense to believe that programs are being cut in order to afford the tax cuts. That and the ever-increasing war cost; both pretty crappy reasons to cut useful things, IMO.

It seems the primary argument in favor of the program is "elderly people are reluctant to sign up for food stamps". Is this true? To what extent? How much weight should we give such an argument? Can it be cured with education? Can a minor adjustment to the food stamp program make it easier for everyone?

I don't personally know how widespread such reluctance to ask for foodstamps may be. I can certainly see my grandparents being extremely reluctant. I wouldn't foresee my parents asking for them, either.

Nbcrusader, I would definitely agree that the proposals you suggest---education & tweaking the program---would almost certainly help to remedy the problem. The problem is that if you're going to cut a program that acts as sustenance for people, you first set up the programs that will educate seniors & tweak the foodstamp system. Then, once those are in place, you then cut the program you want to cut. That's how you prevent a lengthy gap between when the program is cut and when something else kicks in. It also ensures that you have something to effectively take the place of the program you've cut. Many actions by this Administration, however, don't work like that. Too often, the mentality is "cut now, figure it out later." Look at the Kyoto Treaty for environmental standards. We thought it wasn't strong enough (bullshit, coming from this Administration, IMO), so we didn't sign it. We wanted someone to write a better treaty. The problem is, however, that we set nothing up to instigate the writing of a better treaty. So, what's now happened is that we have nothing at all. We could have had at least something, but there's now nothing at all.

If you're going to cut something useful, set up the safety system first. Don't simply cut and say we're going to think about it later.
 
Utoo said:

Nbcrusader, I would definitely agree that the proposals you suggest---education & tweaking the program---would almost certainly help to remedy the problem. The problem is that if you're going to cut a program that acts as sustenance for people, you first set up the programs that will educate seniors & tweak the foodstamp system. Then, once those are in place, you then cut the program you want to cut. That's how you prevent a lengthy gap between when the program is cut and when something else kicks in. It also ensures that you have something to effectively take the place of the program you've cut.

I agree with this. If the meals program is a duplicate of food stamps, then slowly have everyone switch to food stamps by educating and tweaking. :yes:
 
Carek1230 said:
What does Bush care about anything he cuts? His family is wealthy and has ties with all kinds of organizations so he is guaranteed a safe and comfy life until he takes his last breath, not wanting for anything or going without. People like that have NO idea what it is like to go without, to not have the creature comforts. Their callous decisions to simply cut programs have HUGE effect on millions of people and in some cases the benefit Bush is cutting may mean the different between life or death. What an asshole we have as President. Pathetic.


:bow: - Carek1230

I think people would feel different if it was their grandmother who was poor and needed help from the federal government.

What an unchristian thing to do - whatever happened to taking care of the needs of the elderly talked about in the New Testament? :ohmy:
 
I think Utoo made some very good points and I generally agree with that analysis of the way this administration has handled finances.

But let's be honest now...that desciption of how well off Bush and his family are could be used to describe ANY of our Congresspeople, Dems or Republicans...they've got a nice healthcare package going on if no one's noticed. And in the same way, all presidents cut/consolidate programs and it never looks good particularly to those that already hate him with a passion, as nbcrusader pointed out. :wink:
 
Utoo said:

Nbcrusader, I would definitely agree that the proposals you suggest---education & tweaking the program---would almost certainly help to remedy the problem. The problem is that if you're going to cut a program that acts as sustenance for people, you first set up the programs that will educate seniors & tweak the foodstamp system. Then, once those are in place, you then cut the program you want to cut. That's how you prevent a lengthy gap between when the program is cut and when something else kicks in. It also ensures that you have something to effectively take the place of the program you've cut.

You raise good points here. We don't know if this has been done already, the extent of analysis and preparation before the cuts take place, etc.
 
Jamila said:



:bow: - Carek1230

I think people would feel different if it was their grandmother who was poor and needed help from the federal government.

What an unchristian thing to do - whatever happened to taking care of the needs of the elderly talked about in the New Testament? :ohmy:


Thanks, Deb.....I don't speak up like this much, but when something really irks me like this mere thought the Shrub has, I gotta stand up and say my piece. This country really doesn't take care of its elderly and it's about time it did. Hate to say it, but I'm sorry it wasn't the Shrub that Cheney took a potshot at!
 
Back
Top Bottom