MAZON in the News

This article originally appeared in Citizen Times on September 14, 2024

The following famous quotation or variation thereon has been attributed (perhaps incorrectly) to Mahatma Gandhi: “The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.”

Similar sentiments have been uttered by many ethicists, political and religious leaders over the years; suffice it to say that whether credit belongs to the Mahatma or to someone else, the idea is quite sound. How we treat the poor among us is perhaps the best gauge of the strength of our collective national soul which, unfortunately, seems to be in an accelerating long-term decline. At best, benefits such as SNAP (food stamps) have been given grudgingly to the poor and are constantly coming under attack.

Ostensibly, such attacks are justified in debate as fiscally necessary but more realistically come about because of the ongoing relentless war against the poor here in the good, ole USA. All this during a time when the top 1% far outstrips the bottom 99% in terms of assets, income and opportunity.

I have neither the room here nor the patience to describe the wonky gyrations going on in Washington right now with respect to the renewal of the “Farm Bill,” a comprehensive collection of legislation affecting producer-side and demand-side programs. Originally up for renewal in 2023, this massive and crucial piece of legislation is reworked and renewed every five years or so and currently has a more realistic ETA of no earlier than 2025, even though the current law expires on Sept. 30, 2024. Amazingly, Congress now stands with just a toe over the starting line and miles to go before they are done.

Two versions of a new Farm Bill were released earlier this year, one each by the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, each with dramatically different approaches promising a duel to the finish. Analysis of the version moving through the House right now indicates the bill would severely undermine SNAP’s ability to address food insecurity by restricting future updates to the USDA’s Thrifty Food Plan, preventing benefits from keeping pace over time with the cost of a healthy diet. If the House proposal is enacted, millions of low-income individuals and families would face reduced SNAP benefits in the future, by a CBO estimate of $30 billion over 10 years. While the House Bill purports to “not put politics over people” it would almost certainly harm SNAP recipients.

Contrast that to the Senate Agriculture Committee’s approach that was described by MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger as “comprehensive, recognizing the complexity of hunger and the lives of those who are food insecure, and offering powerful support to the nation’s nutrition safety net while addressing the unique needs of diverse populations who struggle in America.” Their framework protects future updates to SNAP benefits and addresses the unique barriers for groups that have historically been excluded from the program.

Uh, reality check here, folks … SNAP recipients today receive on average just about $6 per person per day. How much more can benefits be cut (or not increased)? And why even cut them? Studies show these “handouts” produce an economic multiplier effect of about 1.5, which means every SNAP dollar generates about $1.50 in economic activity. In other words, SNAP increases demand for farm products, which then puts more money in the pockets of producers who then spend that cash on goods and services of their choosing, and so on. That’s a win/win cycle for everyone.

Perhaps my naivete shows through. Why should something as basic as farm policy, making sure our people are fed, be so politically contentious?

While these issues may appear to reside in the minor leagues of political bloodsport, make no mistake about their seriousness here in North Carolina. Roughly 13% of North Carolina households live below the poverty line and receive SNAP benefits. In the 11th Congressional District, which includes Asheville, Hendersonville and surrounding areas, the poverty rate is a bit higher than the state, around 14%, and the percentage of SNAP recipients a bit lower, around 12%. Bottom line — these statistics are significant and sad, and we can and must do better.

Why this continuing cruel and pointless war on the poor?