Could Repukes Wreck The Economy By Cutting Food Stamps? Quite Possibly!

One doesn't have to read too much in the center right media before encountering the clarion call that food stamps, as part of SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) need to be cut, pared back.  One need look no further, indeed, than the recent (Apr. 13) WSJ Editorial ('Working on Food Stamps') which makes a series of outrageous and unrealistic claims that the SNAP benefit ought to be cut. (The editorial included the graphic shown, claiming food stamps had become an entitlement).  We read, for example:

"More Americans need assistance during recessions like 2008, but the question is why so many have stayed on food stamps even amid the long expansion."

That;s really a "Duh!" response -eliciting statement, given no one outside the upper 1 percent would make it. They'd be regarded as mentally deficient or incompetent. The obvious reason "so many" still need food stamps is that not everyone benefited equally from the so called expansion. Mostly, those at the top made out while the rest saw their wages stagnate so they were simply not enough to cut the mustard, often even working two jobs.

This is why the WSJ's other argument, i.e. "that too many Americans haven't returned to the labor force" is totally false. The "too many" Americans cited are actually children and elderly or retired people - not working people!  The incessant carping about "missing" Americans or the "low labor participation rate" is bollocks, because with an extremely low unemployment rate - sitting at barely 4%  that doesn't fly.

If there are "missing workers" in jobs it's mainly because the immigrants who might have picked up the slack are now in hiding  - thanks to Trump's ICE raids and assaults on sanctuary cities. The situation now so bad that many crops are rotting in the fields, e.g.

• California crops rot as Trump's immigration crackdown creates farmworker shortage

As for the "missing workers" in the other jobs well, blame that - if 'blame' is indeed the word -  on  the baby boomers currently retiring or retired (like yours truly). We have left gainful employment by the millions, well, because we saved and invested and now no longer need to work.  This is not some sudden revelation either. It's been known for years that a "labor crunch" from retiring boomers was imminent, but too many refused to believe it, preferring to imbibe the media jabber we'd all  need to work to 90.

The stupid thing which the clueless Trumpies have done is to make that retirement loss of workers much worse by cracking down on immigrants! Even the WSJ managed to get that right in an earlier editorial, 'The Vanishing Caravan'  (April  6, p. A14) underscoring the folly of the current immigration limits:

"Faster growth from tax reform and deregulation means a tighter labor market that attracts more migrants. Mr. Trump would be wise to trade border security for reform that allows more legal immigration to meet the economy's needs. Then he wouldn't have to pull stunts like hyping a band of poor migrants as an invading army."

The REAL question is why, with the current tight labor market the wages aren't rising faster to support families that need it- so they can get off food stamps! 

To answer this, back in January I cited a Denver Post Business column  (Jan. 7 p. 3K, 'Don't Get Your Hopes Up For A Raise') . Therein it was revealed by Paula Harvey, VP of Human Resources at Schulte Building Systems in Houston:

"Companies are really hesitant to give raises. When you give a raise, it's stuck in the pay system. It is something you're guaranteeing: it's becoming a fixed cost. "

She insists it's much better for companies to preserve "flexibility" so instead companies enact "variable pay". This can come in the form of one off bonuses - say on a per year basis- or if you are a stellar performer you can get a "bigger bump". It is also coming by having more workers work overtime, as opposed to hiring new  workers - either because they can't find them or don't want to pay higher wages. 

One also needs to be mindful -  as Andrew Gadomski, managing director of Aspen Advisors,   observed in the same piece -  that when companies lament they can't find workers to fill key openings, that is code for:

"I can find talent, I just don't want to pay them as much as they cost."

Well, ok, fair enough. But then the media and other whiners can't bitch because more lower wage  - or stagnant wage workers living in high cost areas (like Denver) -resort to food stamps.

This is exactly why Colorado is now experiencing an exodus of many thousands of people from other states, who'd originally moved here to chase the gold ring. They soon learned their new job wages were  inadequate to cover their new location's housing costs. (Trulia recently estimated that only 29 percent of homes listed on the metro Denver market are affordable, and that was to those workers earning at least $70, 790 in 2015.  This from The Denver Post, April, 8, p. 10B)

The median listing price for homes on the Denver market now is:   $529,000

The average teacher and cop wages are significantly less than the $70-k figure, and with rents running nearly $1,500 a month for a typical Denver area apartment, it doesn't take a math genius or Mensa member to run the numbers to see that after accounting for a domicile (whether rent or mortgage) and utilities, food - say to feed a family of 4 - there will be scant disposable income left. Hence, the need to supplement via food stamps.

But here's the issue now, with this new Farm Bill, the GOP is determined to kill the goose that laid the supposed "golden egg" via more growth with their stupendous tax bill.  The reason is they want to cut food stamps by nearly $130 billion over a decade  (WSJ, 'Food Aid Cuts Would Hurt Grocers' p. B1. April 7-8).   That represents a "20 percent reduction of its current annual allotment of $63 billion"  and moreover, "could constitute one of the biggest yearly reductions in program sponsored purchases for retailers since the recession."

How serious is it? According to Alex Baloga,chief executive of the Pennsylvania Food Merchants Association, quoted in the article:

"It's well known that the food industry operates on a 1 percent profit margin. So there's no way to absorb any kind of decrease in sales, It's just that simple. It would be devastating."

SO we are clear, that cut in SNAP would therefore  deliver a major hit to aggregate demand. Recall as per my posts during and after the 2008 recession, that ) Aggregate Demand or AD is the total demand for final goods and services in an economy at a given time. It specifies the amounts of goods and services that will be purchased at all possible price levels. This is the demand for the gross domestic product  GDP) of a country..

Clearly if the grocery sector is clobbered by this Farm Bill, via cuts to SNAP, there'd be a measurable hit to the GDP (estimated of up to 0.4% per year) given some  16 million households would no longer receive all their benefits on cards. (Instead they'd get meager benefits from food "boxes" with oats, canned beans, potatoes, rice, etc delivered to them - via food purchased wholesale by the government.

In other words, Trump's government would cut the national grocers entirely out of the purchase-demand loop, and little wonder grocers and trade groups have criticized this diversion. (ibid., p. B2)  Let's also note, for reference here, that if the grocery sector's  1 percent profit margins are cut or eliminated  they will have no choice other than to lay off workers.  Given the PA Food Merchants Assoc.  alone represents  3,500 grocery and convenience stores, and if an average of 10 workers are laid off from each, that is 35,000 more dependents who'd almost surely be needing food stamps.

Are the Trumpkins and GOP not bright enough to see this? That their SNAP cuts will likely crash their "golden economy" and lead to another recession? I doubt it, because the Right's ideologues - bent on austerity for the masses (who voted for Trump in droves) -  aren't invested in reality.

The reality is how these economic misfits incessantly yap about fiscal discipline and exploding deficits, yet when they're in power, inevitably pig out. The most recent episode of fiscal "gluttony" was their tax bill which promised to deliver huge benefits to corporations and ordinary workers alike.  But the corporations just used their largesse to buy back their own shares, thereby increasing stock valuations even further  '"making it even more difficult for stocks to absorb bad news without falling further". (WSJ, April 11, p. B14)

As for ordinary blokes, well, they aren't spending as the Reeps expected. (WSJ, today, 'Despite Tax Cuts, Consumers Shy From Spending',  p. A3). And why is this? According to Susan Sterne, president of Economic Analysis Associates:

"It's an old recovery, people just don't need as much."

But this isn't too surprising given for a $40,000 a year primary wage earner, the tax cut amounts to a total of barely $300 for a year. In which case  6- odd bucks a week wouldn't even be visible on their pay stubs. But they will most likely need food stamps, given their wages are stagnating while corporations would rather buy back shares than give decent pay.  So the tax cut bill's payoff is....drumbeat!  Zilch, zero, while digging us into $1 trillion-plus added deficits.

And then, lastly, we beheld insult being added to injury as today's WSJ editorial ('Crowding Out K-12 Education') lambasted striking teachers in Oklahoma and Kentucky.  In the case of the Okie teachers, they were too greedy given they were already to receive a $6,100//yr raise (By gasp! raising taxes on oil and gas) and besides "Oklahoma educators' mean annual pay only lags $1,000 - 3,000 behind the overall state mean of $43,340".  In other words, once that $6,100 is tacked on, they're above the state mean so there shouldn't be any more complaints.  As for the striking Kentucky teachers, they failed to appreciate poor little Gubernator Matt Bevin was just trying to make state "pension reform" a priority  - especially preventing greedy teachers from "gaming the system", i.e. "cashing in on accrued sick days at the end of their careers."

NO mention of how these OK and KY teachers have often had to also work Walmart jobs to make ends meet for their families. But that's the way the elites in this country roll.

The WSJ's  editors/ and business elite's hand wringing over food stamps  and Medicaid expansion - as well as striking teachers' greed-   is not to be taken seriously until and unless the GOP and its minions follow their own advice about fiscal responsibility. In the meantime, their best play is leaving the SNAP as it is, unless they plan to increase benefits! Oh, and giving those striking teachers the pay raises they deserve so they also don't have to resort to food stamps.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jill-richardson/78775/another-counterproductive-assault-on-food-stamps

Bill & Hill's Neolib 'Welfare to Work' Legacy Soon To Bite Many African-Americans

In a recent campaign ad for Bernie Sanders, Spike Lee is heard to say: "99 percent of Americans were hurt by the financial crisis and that's why I'm officially endorsing my brother, Bernie Sanders."

But as we learn Hillary and Trump are set to "wrap up nominations" today  (WSJ. Feb. 29, p. A4)  and 'Sanders Is Downplaying The Odds' (p. A6)  do African -Americans agog for Hillary even process what he's saying? One wonders as so many appear to fall all over themselves to jump aboard the Clinton bandwagon which they insist will be foursquare in their corner once she's elected. If she is.

But maybe it's time for a reality check.   As per a WSJ piece five days ago ('Food Stamp Reprieve Is Short On Time', p. A3) millions of blacks in 22 states are set to lose their food stamp benefits unless they comply with tough job requirement benchmarks.  Among these forlorn souls is Tiffoney Greene, 43, who lives in subsidized housing and has needed food stamps off and on the past five years.

Ms. Greene, from Raleigh, NC, was formerly the manager at a barbecue restaurant but she lost her job in 2013 after no longer having a reliable means of transport following a divorce.  She had been working toward an A.A. degree when she lost her job and her options were scuttled. Now, she faces going hungry after receiving a letter from the county that she has until March 31 to buck up and get moving with work - or some alternative -  or else lose her food money.

As the article put it: she "cried when she found out".

And WHO,  we might ask, is to blame for this travesty that afflicts the "unprotected" in this country (in the parlance of Peggy Noonan from her latest WSJ piece) mainly poor and minorities?

Well, to those with lapsed memories it was none other than Bill Clinton, who - under pressure from the DLC - passed (with Republican help) the 'Welfare to work' law back in 1996. The law enraged actual liberals though it was applauded by Neoliberal whores and bootlickers in the media.  As I described in my book, 'Elements of the Corporatocracy', it was an evil affront to justice that mandated - in states like Maryland- welfare recipients could be paid below the minimum wage ($3.50 /hr was often cited by The Baltimore Sun)

After the horrific financial crisis, credit meltdown in 2007-08 the job requirements for SNAP were broadly waived so people like Greene and millions of others could catch a bit of a break. Now, however, with job numbers seemingly improving, the requirements are being reinstated by many states.

This is all despite the fact that "joblessness is higher for many groups who lack a high school diploma" not to mention the 6 million Americans (including many blacks) who are left with only part time work because they can't find full time jobs. And yet, by the new work requirement, if they are unable to work at lest 80 hours a month they will have to have their food stamps cut. Talk about adding insult to injury!

Do any of the African-Americans backing Hillary sincerely believe she will change this draconian law? Why not ask her at the next confab or event and see?  Do you really believe in her heart of hearts that she will tear asunder the ill-conceived program her hubby Bill put in place? Eschew the record of her husband?  As P.J. Podesta writes at salon.com:

"The federal safety net for poor families was torn to shreds by the Clinton administration in its effort to “end welfare as we know it.” In his 1996 State of the Union address, given during his re-election campaign, Clinton declared that ‘the era of big government is over’ and immediately sought to prove it by dismantling the federal welfare system known as Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC). The welfare-reform legislation that he signed—which Hillary Clinton ardently supported then and characterized as a success as recently as 2008—replaced the federal safety net with a block grant to the states, imposed a five-year lifetime limit on welfare assistance, added work requirements, barred undocumented immigrants from licensed professions, and slashed overall public welfare funding by $54 billion (some was later restored)."

At least a Sanders administration would fight tooth and nail to repeal 'welfare to work' or issue an executive order to stop it..

Hillary?  I warrant not so much. A pity so many African-Americans (even Civil Rights stalwarts like John Lewis) are now so blinded to Dem Neoliberalism they will likely rubberstamp it today - with Hillary's forthcoming coronation.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/paul-buchheit/66224/in-bed-with-a-nation-wrecker-5-ways-hillary-is-as-bad-as-bill

Excerpt:

"Hillary actively advocated for her husband's 1996 "welfare reform" legislation, calling the recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) "deadbeats," and despite a doubling of extreme poverty calling the program a success as recently as 2008.."

A Church Rolling in Wealth - But Out of Touch With the Faithful?

It was during one of my Religion classes at Monsignor Pace High that I once more made Brother Stephen squirm with a question he wasn't expecting.  This had been in the context of the role of the laity in the Church and the economic problems often experienced, and reconciling this with the evident wealth at the Vatican. Anyway, my question to Bro. Stephen was: "How much do you estimate the net worth of the Catholic Church to be?"

Dumbfounded, he had to reflect for several moments as he placed a hand on his chin and you could almost see his computer-like brain doing the math. Then he replied:

"I would venture a guess at maybe several trillion dollars in today's currency but it could be more."

He was perhaps more than a little accurate, especially when - nearly 20 years later- all the scandals erupted at the Vatican Bank and many further details became known. (This was around the time "God's Banker" - Roberto Calvi - was found hanging under Blackfriar's  Bridge, London.)

The point here is that like a rotting fungus, the Church's immense wealth always lurks in the background of whatever other actions it takes, or doctrines it proclaims - especially via its Bishops. To the cynic, which I make no bones about being, there is the natural suspicion that the Church's legions of sexual mores are constantly pushed in order to protect its wealth. If the minds of the faithful can be kept focused on their shortcomings,  mainly sexual "sins" and failures - they won't be so preoccupied with the Church's enormous riches and what it's doing with them.

Consider as 'Exhibit A' the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops annual meeting in Baltimore. Now
look at the agenda items addressed to see where its priorities lay.  In this venue the bishops of the richest, most powerful (and increasingly unequal)  nation in the world, convened in a city wracked by generational poverty, and talked about pornography, contraception and gay marriage-   while incidentally addressing questions of minor liturgical importance. Poverty was not on the agenda. Why not?

Did they not pay attention to Francis earlier condemnation of economic inequality? See e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/bravo-to-pope-francis-for-warning-of.html

Did they not hear or process his warnings concerning trickle down nonsense integrated into modern Neoliberal capitalism? Or, could it be that once more they are confirming my suspicions of distracting attention from wealth-poverty-inequality  issues to belabor the faithful with pseudo-moral nonsense (compared to the major moral transgressions inherent in economic inequality)?

But a bit of history is useful. As brilliant and timely as Francis' message, it wasn't really original. In fact, this November marked the 27th anniversary of Economic Justice for All, a groundbreaking pastoral letter that condemned American poverty as a national moral scandal. Seen as a refutation of Reaganomics, the document received substantial media attention - along with severe conservative criticism-  when it was released in 1986.  The construction of the letter was remarkably democratic; economists and theologians were enlisted, drafts were released to the public.


A month later, the bishops of Maryland, the cradle of the Catholic Church in America, met at a soup kitchen in Baltimore to release a statewide plan intended to put its recommendations into effect. Tragically, Economic Justice for All proved one of the last pieces of social justice teaching of its kind.  At that time the Gini coefficient, a measure of economic inequality, was at about 0.37, compared to 0.49 now.

Concerned by its influence, and worried that “national churches,” or conflicting pieces of teaching, might develop if other conferences were left unchecked, the Vatican clamped down and clipped the conferences’ wings. By the 1990s, they could no longer publish pastoral letters that held “teaching authority” without near unanimity. From then on, things started to change around the bishop’s conference. More and more doctrinally conservative bishops were being appointed. The culture wars were raging. Then the sexual abuse crisis hit, and hit again, and the wagons circled.

By 1996, meanwhile, genuine liberals had embraced the message implicit in Charles Reich's Opposing the System, regarding the unfettered reign of coercive markets. As Reich put it. p. 22:

---

A free market produces results that favor the health of society as a whole, because an essential balance is maintained. But in a coercive market, the balance is destroyed, the earning power of work and the standard of living of workers declines, and society as a whole is devastated while those with economic power gain an ever more unbalanced share of the nation's economic wealth.

And nailing the consequences some pages later (p. 103):

When society itself comes to be modeled on economic and organizational principles, all of the forces that bind people together are torn apart in the struggle for survival.

Community is destroyed because we are no longer 'in this together' because everyone is a threat to everyone else

Indeed, an atmosphere of pervasive conflict encourages every form of racial, religious and class hatred as group is pitted against group; it encourages violence and crime and strips people of kindness and compassion as these qualities become disadvantageous in an ever more warlike atmosphere.

Reich went on to show that it is economics upon which much of modern morality pivots. When people therefore must fight over a few scraps to keep their family together, they often are also more likely to turn to crime, prostitution, drugs, the whole nine yards. Economic health begets moral health, in other words. (Not the other way around, as proto-Calvinist capitalists like Charles Murray, Bill O'Reilly and others claim).


Meanwhile, the Catholic Bishops grew more and more out of touch with the economic woes which have now reached a crisis point with 48 million people on food stamps, nearly 27 million under-employed or unemployed and a minimum wage that is nearly THREE whole dollars LESS than it was in 1968, in terms of 1968 dollars.  Imagine then if the bishops had flexed just half as much muscle for certain “liberal” causes, equally deserving of Catholic concern, as they did for pet “conservative” ones. Imagine if they spent one tenth the time on economic inequality and the toxins of Neoliberal market worship - as they have on porn, or contraception.

It is not difficult to see if they had, a powerful moral voice for systemic economic change might have arisen. A voice of ecclesiastical authority supporting the Occupy Wall Street movement, for example, which might have protected that movement from being literally under the guns of the national security state. But the Bishops, flustered at the  sex abuse charges - were too preoccupied shuttling priestly pedophiles back and forth between parishes at the behest of Ratzinger and John Paul II.

More recently, the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops has gone 'over the top' to display a disgusting economic conservative agenda in league with a backward morality on other issues. In 2010 they opposed the Affordable Healthcare Act, arguing that it might conceivably lead to federal funds for abortions. The year after that, in 2011, Paul Ryan’s budget came out, cutting $3 trillion from programs for the poor. Then-Chair of the Conference of Bishops, Timothy Dolan, sent a public letter to Ryan that many of us thought gave him cover for his budget. In other words, Dolan was aiding and abetting the further destruction of the poor.


Some might quarrel and believe this take is offensive and unjust, but they have pitifully short memories.  In the 2012 election cycle, Dolan went further, referring to Ryan as “a great public servant.” Prior to the election year, the Council of Catholic Bishops unanimously voted to declare religious freedom its 2012 strategic priority. In June of 2012 and 2013, periods of prayer dubbed the “Fortnight for Freedom” were held in response to perceived threats to religious liberty. Ah yes, "freedom and religious liberty" - perfect buzzwords for an agenda which, when translated, comes out: "FUCK the poor!"

Of course, the Neoliberal political atmosphere in this country didn't help matters, with so much media attention paid to the Obama "Deficit Committee" starring Alan Simpson and Ernest Bowles. Both were insistent on cutting Social Security and Medicare. While this committee may be moribund, its awful recommendations remain including a "chained CPI".  At the same time, the market worshippers have insisted there can be no increase in the minimum wage, and the Repukes have proposed $40 b in cuts to food stamps over ten years, while the Dems (who always choose the less offensive tactic) want $4b in cuts.  All this after the SNAP program was already cut by the sequester.

Can the Bishops still become changelings? Maybe, and perhaps also space aliens will finally land in D.C. and reveal their existence once and for all. What we do know, is that in June, a report was released detailing the emergence of a “small, but well-funded network” of conservative, Tea-party-like Catholic organizations pressuring bishops to gut the funds of community and anti-poverty organizations with any remote involvement to groups supporting same-sex marriage. Last year, meanwhile, a document entitled Work, Poverty and a Broken Economy, was scuttled when 85 bishops voted against it. 

Do these Bishops care more about the 16 million kids now going to bed hungry each night because of food stamp cuts, or more about the "evils of pornography"?

You be the judge!

 

 

 

Time to End the Afghan Intervention - And Use the $$$ HERE in the U.S. of A.!

U.S. Marines urinate on Taliban corpses almost 2 years ago. It is now time, with the opportunity to leave -  to do so. We can't afford to pour $8 billion a year into this deficit pit to stay another 10 yrs.













With the news of an 8 year old boy killed Friday in Kandahar province, adding another to the list of thousands killed by wayward drone attacks in Afghanistan, it is now time to pull ALL U.S. troops out forthwith and the use the money we'd spend there on needs here. I am talking about nearly 16 million American kids who go to bed hungry each night, after the SNAP program was discontinued and now new food stamp cuts are being proposed as part of a "Farm" bill. A Farm bill, btw, which is actually a subsidy to rich agri-business operations, not to little "moms and pops" as some might believe.

Writing about the bill's  $14  billion a year "crop insurance" subsidy, Jim Hightower wrote in one of his recent columns (e.g. Colorado Springs Independent, Nov. 30):

While the House wants to force food stamp recipients to prove that their incomes are low enough to qualify for benefits, the crop insurance handout requires no means testing and has no limits on how much recipients can get. This means that billionaires who're only incidental "farmers" will be among the biggest beneficiaries


We need to process that, as well as the image of hungry kids by the millions who have to go to school each day with empty bellies, as their parents now struggle to get adequate food supplies after the Reeps cut the SNAP program. With the $36 a month cut to SNAP - enough for nearly a week's dinner meals for a family of 4- people now are pouring into food banks which themselves are finding their shelves bare.

Now, how can THIS be reconciled with the willingness to piss 8 billion a year for the next TEN years into Afghanistan, according to a new "accord" the U.S. wants - to allow up to 10,000 American troops to remain there until 2024? The total intended to be pissed away amounts to $80 fucking BILLION - enough to ensure NO American kid or his parents goes hungry for the next ten years. You want to know where the money is to feed those families before you cut the food stamp program by $40 billion, THERE it is, Mr. GOOPr!

Obama originally promised a pullout next year following 13 years of the longest "war" ever, but now for some odd reason is proffering a "security compact" to stay another ten years with billions spent each year. I am wondering if the stresses of his healthcare.gov debacle have overly muddled his neurons or what?  Whatever, Susan Rice insists the Americans will be forced to withdraw by 2015 without a security deal.

Meanwhile, Hamid Karzai has insisted on his own assurances as part of the deal, including no reckless drone attacks on friendlies and no kicking their doors in, invading their homes and doing spurious searches.  The U.S. in response has made it clear it can't make such guarantees, and Obama evidently wrote a letter to Karzai assuring him that "the U.S. will make every effort to respect the sanctity and dignity of Afghans in their homes."

Well, try running that one past the families already  affected, and nearly 15,000 homes kicked in, and occupants tossed face down on the floors,  over 12 years..

Additionally, the U.S. press is all het up about Karzai's "disparity of reaction" (New York Times, Dec. 1, p. 16) reacting with fury to a U.S. led drone attack, but remaining silent about a Taliban suicide bomber attack. But again, this is another reason to leave the damned place and make no deals with Karzai. Indeed, Atiqullah Baryalai, quoted in the Times piece, observed that Karzai's silence is: "sending a message to the Taliban that he really doesn't want a security agreement with the Americans".

If this is the case, we shouldn't walk out, we ought to race the fuck out and leave Karzai and his nation of fifty tribes and tribal passions to themselves. Even remaining 50 years wouldn't be sufficient to help them!

Essentially, Karzai by his dithering on any security deal has given us a perfect excuse to leave Afghanistan and not look back. But what has the U.S. been thinking of doing? Going instead to Karzai's second in command and seeking a deal with him! WHY? You have the opportunity to leave, TAKE IT!

Our people are the ones that need that money! Our kids are the ones going to bed hungry each night, and 48 million Americans are living off piddling, grudgingly bestowed food stamps that can barely keep body and soul together. 

If Obama has any sense he will take the cue on offer, thank Karzai for his input and LEAVE!  Invest right here at home now, for once, instead of pissing $80 b more into a barren deficit trap!

One more thing: Dianne Feinstein has initiated a new round of terror mongering, asserting we are at increased risk now for terror attacks and more than we have ever been. Obviously and clearly she wants more funding for the national security state which has served her and hers just fine. She likely also wants to keep the NSA spooks fully occupied and funded as long as she can bleed money from the rest of us. Of one thing she is correct: that terror risks will rise the longer we remain with our asses in the Middle East, antagonizing all and sundry.

We seem not to have processed that is what led initially to 9/11 as blowback, as the late Chalmers Johnson has noted.  When asked in an interview with In These Times if September 11 was an example of blowback, Johnson responded:

Of course it is. That's exactly what my book was written for: It was a warning to my fellow Americans, a year ago, that our foreign policy was going to produce something like this. It's important to stress, contrary to what people in Washington and the media are saying, that this was not an attack on the United States: This was an attack on American foreign policy.


Similarly, the longer we remain in Afghanistan the greater the risk of blowback. As with Vietnam we need to let them, the Afghans, determine their own destiny.

We can't be the 'Cops of the World', nor can we be nation builders when our own country daily falls into disrepair as the human fabric is also unraveled by misplaced priorities! We need to attend to our immediate domestic security before any more foreign "war" adventures!

What's With a Country That Lets Millions of Kids Go Hungry -While Rich Pigs & Spooks Cash In?

The question in the header is the one I am considering. This is in the wake of the discontinuation of SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program)  yesterday - even as the spooks (e.g. NSA) clamor for more money to support their  unmitigated spookery (including for a new, mammoth ultra spy center at Bluffdale UT), and the plutocrats (e.g. Peter G. Peterson, the Kochs)demand more tax cuts - while they also insist on cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

This, despite the fact that inequality in the U.S. has never been higher, now rivaling Mexico and the Philippines  - with a Gini coefficient approaching 0.5. (A Gini of 1.0 denotes total income-economic inequality, while 0.0 denotes complete economic equality.)

It's true the SNAP was launched as part of a stimulus back in 2009, when the economy was crashing and 27 million were of work - after the credit meltdown caused by small economic 'bombs' planted in obscure financial instruments called credit default swaps - which were then bundled into bonds - falsely claimed to have 'AAA' ratings (by supposedly reliable credit rating agencies). This led unwary purchasers to grab them unaware of the refuse lurking and how they'd regret it.

To cut a long story short, SNAP came to the rescue of millions of families, but had a sunset date of Nov. 1, 2013. The hammer thus came down on 47.6 million food stamps recipients yesterday - of whom perhaps 60% are children. The effect of the cessation translates to a loss of $11 a month per individual and $36 a month per family of four.

Now, if you think that's diddly squat, please reconsider. Given a whole chicken of about 3.5 lbs. costs $6.75 at a typical supermarket (like our Safeway) and a large package of pasta or Jasmine brown rice comes to about $2.99 we are talking of a loss of up to 22 meals in a month for this family of 4! For those still puzzling that means a total of 22 dinners, or just over one week's worth for a family of 3 and over five days worth for a family of four!  That is what they lose. Those who say the SNAP was "supplemental" anyway (and families ought to have planned for its sunset) still aren't getting that in the interim since it was put into place inflation has risen more than the stimulus delivered.  Thus families are even worse off.

What the hell are these families supposed to eat? Leaves? What are all those millions of kids supposed to eat, so they don't go to bed hungry each night? Well, fortunately food pantries still operate - as in our area by 'Care and Share' - but we know this SNAP cut will see them inundated by people needing help. That means their resources will be stretched thin unless much more in donations pours in. Meanwhile, the rich pigs are rolling in dough - so much that they can afford to splurge on $65,000 all copper bath tubs, e.g.
As well as weekend junkets to St. Kitts for 18 holes of golf, while their wives enjoy $27,000 each rose wine wraps at the spa.

What does all this show? Obviously, a nation in serious, serious decline. We know- as Kevin Phillips observed in his book, Arrogant Capital - that the first sign of major decline is such visible inequality: the wealthy splurging on expensive toys and trips, and gorging on  $25,000 (apiece)  Frrrozen Haute Chocolate   desserts,  while children go to bed hungry.

Meanwhile, an evil, mean-spirited political party castigates the food stamp recipients as "takers" despite the country being unable to generate enough decent paying jobs to support a family of four. This party is so vile, that it had no problem helping World War II vets storm their memorial  on the first day of the government shutdown (that THEY caused, btw) but now have no issue pissing on the same war vets. (Remember how the likes of Cruz and Sarah Palin railed against President Obama for the cuts to veterans’ benefits that resulted from the Cruz-caused shutdown?)

We know that as from yesterday,a  $5 billion cut to the food-stamp program has hit thousands of veterans squarely in their wallets. Where the fuck are all the GOOPrs now? Hiding?  According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), “in any given month, a total of 900,000 veterans nationwide lived in households that relied on SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] to provide food for their families in 2011, a previous analysis of Census data estimated.”

That means the vets will be going hungry along with the kids and their parents? Have the GOOprs no shame? NO pity? Or are they out there purely for political showmanship and posturing, as when they paraded the WWII vets to their memorial? Well, as we know - also from Phillips' work, such displays are also a sign of a country in decline, along with the takeover of most of the economy by financiers, and the selling of financial instruments dominates as manufacturing recedes.

But how vile is the GOP-Tea Bagger House? Understand that the cuts that went into effect yesterday are nothing compared to the $39 billion cut to SNAP over the next 10 years approved by the GOP House in September. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 2.8 million Americans would lose their food stamps next year under that legislation. Meanwhile, as Jon Soltz of VoteVets.org pointed out in a piece for the Huffington Post, there are pricey Pentagon projects the defense department doesn’t even want that Congress insists on funding.

But we already know this is the standard GOP Teepee template: jack up funds for defense and "security" (oh, while demanding more tax cuts) and leave the rest of government (the portion designated to helping vets, hungry children) in the lurch and scream "deficits" and "unfunded liabilities". Also, award the NSA spooks $50-75 billion a year merely to gut our 4th amendment rights, and wreck international good will by spying on long time allies - while kids and vets go hungry.

As I asked:  Has this country - at least one of its major parties - no shame? Evidently not. And it seems we all will pay the price as we head toward more economic shutdowns over stupidity starting in January!