Some Republican policymakers continue to propose basing eligibility for assistance programs on participants’ ability to meet strict work requirements — most recently with House Agriculture Committee Chairman Michael Conaway’s proposal to reauthorize SNAP (formerly food stamps)[1] — despite a lack of credible evidence that the requirements would work as intended.[2]
To build support for work requirements that take away assistance from adults who cannot work a set number of hours per month, conservative policymakers are pointing to three methodologically flawed studies touting the policy’s alleged success in Kansas’s and Maine’s cash and food assistance programs. The three studies misrepresent or omit key findings, and in many instances, make inappropriate claims about the impact of work requirements on work and earnings that the facts do not support.
Our analysis of the same data sharply contradicts the studies’ findings. We found that many adults in these programs already worked or would likely work soon anyway, but many of them found it difficult to find steady work and had earnings far below the poverty line or would have otherwise still qualified for assistance after their exits from the program....
The studies have at least four key flaws....Center on Budget And Plicy Priorities
Some House Leaders Ignore Evidence, Cite Flawed Reports to Justify Taking Basic Assistance Away From Needy Individuals
Tazra Mitchell
3 comments:
Looks like a form of JG...
https://twitter.com/houseagnews/status/986629583578521600?s=21
SNAP E&T
Workfare, not JG.
Two thoughts…
[1] No federal social program (SNAP, Social Security, Medicare, TANF, etc) is supported by federal tax revenue. The US government creates all money for federal social programs out of thin air, simply by crediting bank accounts of various kinds. Federal taxes could be cut to zero, and there would still be infinite money for social programs at the federal level.
SNAP benefits (“Food Stamps”) help everyone in the food, agriculture, and supermarket industry, including farmers, truckers, etc, whether or not they receive direct cash benefits from SNAP. Countless small neighborhood food stores vitally depend on EBT cards (“Food Stamps”).
Therefore to cut these social programs is to hurt EVERYONE in the working classes, directly or indirectly.
[2] The masses will submit to any amount of poverty and abuse as long as they have enough to eat. However when food becomes scarce or unaffordable, the masses rebel. The causes of rebellions vary, but hunger is usually the trigger.
Hence there are limits to how much politicians can cut food assistance. Politicians know that if they starve the masses too much, politicians will face a revolt.
Post a Comment