Errrr.....NO One Is Taking Joan Walsh Literally!

Joan Walsh used a reductio ad absurdum ploy to show how bad SNAP limits COULD  become if abominations like Brownback's KS limits on SNAP purchases were accepted. 

Evidently, the blogger who took issue with my take on poverty in Colorado and food stamps, seems to believe I took Joan Walsh's words literally as opposed to a metaphor of  (extreme) reference for what Repukes are trying to do in states like Brownback's Kansas. So let me clear the air here once and for all.

When I gave Joan's quote from a salon.com piece:

if you’re in Wisconsin, and relying on food stamps, remember that Republicans don’t want you to have ketchup on your hamburger.They’d probably rather you didn’t have a hamburger at all, but Wisconsin farmers and ranchers have clout, and so proposed cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program made room for Wisconsin products. But they still don’t want you to have “crab, lobster, shrimp, or any other shellfish.” Or ketchup. Or spaghetti sauce. Really.


I (and she) intended it as a reductio ad absurdum illustration of how bad it MIGHTget if bully programs like those Brownback has tried to implement in KS aren't halted or demolished. To remind readers, this was in reference to Brownback's ill -conceived notion of  limiting what Kansas food stamp-welfare recipients can purchase using their benefits. That included, but was not limited to, some minor pleasures, such as KFC chicken, Snickers bars, giant bags of M&Ms, or even playing an arcade game or two, buying a lotto ticket or paying to go for a freakin' swim.

Joan's point and mine then, is that if a brain dead scalawag like Brownback can get away with this shit in Kansas, what's to stop another state  from preventing or limiting people from buying food perks with their SNAP or welfare money - things that make burgers taste better like ketchup (catsup) or sauce for spaghetti, or hot sauce for rice, or bbcue sauce for spare ribs - oh wait, I forgot they mustn't eat ribs either!  Poor folk gotta stick to rice, oats, and such with no flavor.

Oh, and god forbid they try lobster thermidor or go to Red Lobster for unlimited shrimp. You see what I mean?   Thus, if one accepts Brownback's stupid limits one could see the pukes going even further to deprive SNAP folks of the good things of life. And my point was - as well as Joan's -, they SHOULD be able to enjoy those damned things even if receiving gov't benefits! (Certainly up to the limits they can afford, so if they have $22 left on the last day of the benefits month they ought to be able to get a bucket of KFC chicken - OR a few Five Guys burgers! It's not the state gov't job to wag fingers and say "Oh no!" for fuck's sake.)

The reasons were made clear in and excellent WaPo piece ('What Kansas Gets Wrong with Welfare Decision')  by Emily Badger but perhaps my blogger critic did't get them or didn't want to. To re-reference the point of the piece, Badger flayed the "logic" behind the Brownback bunkum noting,  "the decision is problematic in at least three really big ways" . This was after already skewering  the underlying  canard that it provides  "protection for the taxpayer who shouldn't be asked to help people who squander gov't money on 'vices'".

Ms. Badger's three arguments again:

1) Economic: There's virtually no evidence that the poor actually spend their money in the rash ways advertised by Brownback.  The poor are actually much more savvy about how they spend their money because they have much less of it - as Gweneth Paltrow learned when she tried the "SNAP Challenge" and gave up after 4 days. (She'd already exceeded the $29/ week  limit.)

2) Moral principle of equivalence:  She observes: "We don't require Pell Grant recipients to prove they are pursuing a degree that will get them a real job as opposed to say philosophy or English Lit. We don't require wealthy families who cash in on the home interest deduction to prove they're not using their homes as brothels."   In other words, the strings we attach to gov't aid are uniquely for the poor - as if being poor itself is somehow immoral-  requiring criminal monitoring- like for a felon wearing an ankle bracelet.

3) Prejudicial perceptions:  In many ways the lack of application of a moral principle of equivalence (2) arises because Americans who receive other government benefits fail to see they are also in the recipient class. They don't recognize that, like the poor, they are also getting something from the government and hence - at taxpayer expense.  The issue, again, isn't the specific benefit form - whether Medicare, VA benefits, or Social Security - but that ALL come at taxpayer expense!

But this is covered up in two ways: (i) the belief that their benefits are different because they are "special" or "earned" so can't be classed with SNAP or welfare, and (ii) their benefits are always "submerged" (hidden or more concealed) than compared with a SNAP recipient who must actually produce a special card (see image) at the grocer's so is immediately recognized as "on welfare".  Thus, the SNAP card inadvertently becomes a "badge" of shame that enables other gov't beneficiaries to instantly make judgments.

Political scientist Suzanne Mettler, cited by Ms. Badger, calls the judgmental gov't  beneficiaries part of the "submerged benefits state". This means their own benefits are more "out of sight, out of mind". Thus a SNAP card and a welfare check are "incredibly visible ...while tuition tax breaks and Medicare are not".   This submerged state, then,  is evidence of a basic and pervasive double standard.

It is time we remove that damnable double standard which was the actual thrust of Walsh's reductio ad absurdum. In other words, irrespective of the gov't benefits received (VA,Social Security disability, Social Security proper, SNAP) we let recipients spend them any damned way they wish up to the practical limits they can afford  - without, for example, resorting to theft or shop lifting to satisfy them. (I.e. once your monthly benefit is exhausted,  that's it - THEN you pinch pennies and maybe settle for rice instead of KFC chicken or Five Guys burgers)

Is that point clear enough? I hope so!

Right Wingers Still Don't Get It On Hunger And Food Stamps

In Joan Walsh's salon.com piece cited at the end of my May 26 post, she wrote:

if you’re in Wisconsin, and relying on food stamps, remember that Republicans don’t want you to have ketchup on your hamburger. They’d probably rather you didn’t have a hamburger at all, but Wisconsin farmers and ranchers have clout, and so proposed cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program made room for Wisconsin products. But they still don’t want you to have “crab, lobster, shrimp, or any other shellfish.” Or ketchup. Or spaghetti sauce. Really.

This is the point the Right wingers continually dodge and evade.  They don't want the poorest, no matter their station, background or jobs (e.g. "tattoo artist") to have any comfort (or comfort food) whatsoever unless they're living in a low public services state (like AL or MS) and working their hands to the bone. It doesn't matter if they can't get enough benefits - tough shit - then they ought to move - say from a place like So. Colorado. Meanwhile, they are ok with the lazy rich getting anything they want out of the rest of our hides - using tax dodges, "trusts",  or whatever rentier gambits they can think of to avoid paying their fair share.

Another blogger believed he was very smart pulling up my earlier blog and questioning the image authenticity for a child I claimed to be in the throes of hunger. He said it was a "medical condition". But psychologists and health specialists will tell you that there is very little difference in a child's expression when in the maw of a developmental disability and the extreme anguish suffered in hunger and deprivation. Can he prove the child was not at some point in a similar state due to hunger? No he cannot. The blogger also questioned the circumstances pertaining to the image of Mashel McDonald making oats. He interrogated the setting and specifically pursued the background (D. Post) story to learn her dad was a tattoo artist that moved to Colo. to obtain "marijuana" for his sick child. But so what? This is irrelevant and a red herring. Many parents are now moving to this state precisely for this same reason and I wrote about this earlier, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/12/colorado-promised-land-for-marijuana.html

In most cases the MJ actually pursued is CBD or Cannabidiol,  the MJ-derived substance referred to  as 'Charlotte's Web'.  While CBD has been described as a "strain of marijuana" the fact is, it is not. According to MJ researcher Joel Stanley.

Its importance lay in treating assorted developmental disabilities, including Dravet syndrome, a form of epilepsy. SO why do the right wingers drag this stuff in, including that Pop may be using a bit of weed to calm his nerves too - after all he has to be worried about his sick child? Because it fits in with their noisome template portraying all the welfare or food stamp recipients as being either forlorn losers, slackers, alkies or druggies. In other words, to use Joan Walsh's term - to reduce all these people to "garbage"! But the fact of the matter is that MOST are working poor.

Never mind! Because anyone who's working poor disrupts the Right's druggie-loser caricature, so they don't wish to go there. Better to keep the drugged out, obese (from overeating) and alcoholic tripe going to push the narrative that these people don't deserve any more than they're getting and likely not even that! (Btw, $880 a month for disability in Colorado is not a lot! )

The other lame case made, despite over 300,000 poor families in Colorado - which I guess the blogger expects all to simply pack up and move to MS - is:'Why are they living in a state with high living costs?' But if we all thought that way, I guess we'd all move to Mississippi!  Hell, it's cheaper! The reasons not to are as diverse as there are problems endured by the resident families,  including: our state has more public services available along with the assistance to help people seek them out (my niece used to work for such a public service), our state has better education facilities including for bilingual kids, and our state has better medical facilities, free clinics for the poor.

So again, we have a red herring, a distraction. Besides, if cannabidol can provide relief for a kid's tics and seizures why not live here, where at least the caretakers aren't going to be busted as they would in AL or MS? 

The notion of  just packing up and moving to a "cheaper state" and lower living costs is also absurd on its face. For one thing the thousands of currently struggling Denver workers and families didn't START out living in expensive surroundings!  No , they began in affordable neighborhoods, but could not have foreseen how the fracking boom would lead to thousands moving to Denver and environs every year - buying up homes, renting apartments - and driving up costs. Or, the many rich "amenity migrants" moving here buying up second homes - driving home prices into the stratosphere.

Having already purchased homes, and having jobs - why would they now just move to a cheaper state with no assurance they can get the same work?  Also, where is there any assurance that some form of gentrification won't also occur in these cheap states and drive up home, rental prices? There isn't any! In fact, any movers could be going from the "frying pan into the fire"- especially if it's much more difficult to get benefits! Sure it would be easier for those in apts. and I already noted how many - owing to a state law - had their leases revoked because of "refurbishments".  But again, who is to provide support for these people - many of them seniors in their 70s, and 80s?

It is very easy to proffer "solutions" shot from the hip but more difficult to get at the underlying systemic problems that spawn poverty. Sadly, however, this is the biggest and hardest fact the RIght tries to avoid:: that poverty is a systemic result of irresponsible capitalism and not the fault of the poor (which marks the fundamental attribution error - blaming oneself instead of the fucked up society)

As I noted in a previous blog post on this issue:

ALL citizens are entitled to pursue happiness whether they are poor or rich!  To limit their pursuit using artificial laws is against the Constitution!

Thus, even SNAP recipients must be enabled to pursue happiness even on a limited scale - and this must be defended as their RIGHT under the ninth amendment. That means they ought to be able -  bogus state law or no - to enjoy a bit of luxury when they need to and if they have enough left from taking care of immediate needs to afford it.

They damned sure ought to be able to buy catsup if they want, or candy bars, ice cream or even fried chicken - to spice up their lives - and hell, smoke a little MJ now and then without the pseudo-moral scolds like Sam Brownback having a shit fit and wagging fingers. If we don't wag fingers at the parasitical rich why do we do it at the poor? Well, because we see the poor as powerless, while the rich can maybe give us some goodies. Thus, in our skewed and warped vision the rich become celebrities while the poor are downgraded to garbage.

We'd gladly kiss the rump of Donald Trump if he'd comp us a room and a meal at one of his hotels, but we'd spit on a poor, homeless man because well...."He's too lazy to work".  In such a warped vision it's easy to forget the words of Yeshua: "Whatever thou doest for the least of my brethren that you do unto me".

Note the key words: LEAST of my brethren, not greatest, or richest.

Poverty is not chosen! This is the biggest lie circulated by the Right's poltroons in the GOP - most of whom would happily lick the boots of the Koch brothers, or Sheldon Adelson - in order to get some extra campaign largesse.

I don't expect the likes of these charlatans to change stripes, but I do expect people, ordinary citizens, to have some modicum of compassion on those struggling without attacking them for their benefits - or proclaiming they don't deserve them because they may be a tad overweight, tattoo artists - or god forbid - smoke an MJ weed or two using their benefits $$.

Sheesh! How about we go after the REAL parasites, the rich?

Ok, Maybe The 3rd Time's the "Charm" - Re: SNAP Benefits Spending

It appears a fellow blogger who believes I am a "pretty good chess player" (I am, I nearly always beat my 'Grandmaster Chess' program at the grandmaster level) has misconstrued my recent post on limiting SNAP benefits. He appears to mistake the external claim of gov't "largesse" and perceived welfare - as applied to all gov't benefits to being my own. But let me make this clear, they are emphatically not.

When I referred to VA benefits, Social Security (including SSI and regular S.S.) as well as Medicare being lumped in the same category as SNAP benefits I was not referring to how I perceive them but to how they are seen by the austerity hawks. Of course, S.S. is "earned" as those of us receiving it had to pay into it over years we didn't just have it handed to us. Vets, meanwhile, earned their benefits by putting themselves on the line to defend their country (never mind many of the 'wars' were bogus - they still complied!). Also Medicare was earned by the same qualifying rules as for S.S. 

My point was that none of this matters to those like Peter G. Peterson, David M. Walker, or Richard Haas- who uniformly see all of them more or less in the same "wheel house" as general welfare benefits because: a) they issue from the tax commons, and b) all add to the federal deficit.

This is why Michelle Caruso Cabrera argued on 'Real Time' for Social Security privatization - again not that I would defend such a thing-  my past posts show I do not, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-social-security-privatization.html

 but rather that SHE and her ilk see things that way. That is, one would need a separate privatized account to justify spending however one wants. Of course this is nuts, but that is how THEY see it. I merely report it as the messenger.

Here is where the problem lies for my blogger friend: No benefits are 100 percent secure - even his SSI and VA benefits. Any can be repealed at any time, on any whim or for any congressional bogus reason or tantrum. Whether specific "spending rules" apply to one subset of gov't benefits or not is in the large sense immaterial to the fact ALL benefits are subject to cutbacks, or even cancellation.

As one website (http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html ) notes:

The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish "rights" to certain government services. 

This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments

I point this out, again, not to be a pain in the ass, but to make the salient point that no beneficiary is sitting pretty as far as security goes no matter how much he or she may believe they "earned their benefits".  In effect, even VA benefits can be rescinded or cancelled, as the recent repuke congress in fact tried to do. The harsh fact in these United States is that like the myth of "private property" (which can always be taken under some ruse, say like eminent domain claims) the myth of secure benefits doesn't wash. Any benefit can be removed at congressional whim at any time. We keep those benefits at the pleasure of whatever congress (and President) we get at the time and well, if they turn out to be craven rat assholes, we're all sunk - as much as all those on SNAP or welfare would be.

In effect, if a Supreme Court can rule (as in Flemming v. Nestor) that there is no contractual right to receive Social Security then this can be extended to any other government benefits, including VA disability and medical benefits, as well as Medicare and Medicaid. But the fact most of those now living haven't observed such drastic actions doesn't mean they can never occur.

Again, I am in firm defense of these government benefits but unlike those who adhere to the "submerged" idea of preferential benefits, I insist they need to be protected for ALL - not just  special subsets. The idea of "fairness" again, only entered the picture in the sense that ALL benefits of whatever form are viewed as "welfare" by the austerity hawks and this indeed, isn't fair. So my blogger friend was right to have his outrage evoked when his VA benefits were noted, but that is not MY doing but the perceptions of the austerity hawks. So, if he wishes to vociferously defend his right to those benefits he needs to write the likes of David Walker, Richard Haas et al and take it up with them.

Rather than play the game of beneficiaries fighting one another over who has "the most right" to their own benefits, why not join together in common cause and defend the right to benefits for all - with NO strings attached?  Thus, the state laws declaring SNAP recipients can only spend so much on such and such ought to be shelved, the same way other artificial laws (and all laws in the end are somewhat artificial in that they were generally created by power brokers for their own benefit, with money contributions) ought to be  - including those for eminent domain. Not to mention the recent spate of laws in many cities making homelessness a crime. No place to rest or sit, or one is arrested, as in Denver. This is bullshit and I am glad to see the ACLU and others taking the issue up.

The overriding law ought to be the Constitution and that ought to trump all penny ante state laws set up by temporary political whores who happened to get elected because they gerrymandered their states to enable it.  Thus, the preamble to the Constitution bears the only welfare declaration that matters and it plainly states:

We the PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity….”

This passage has been a source of never-ending squabbling over every issue from states’ rights, to the degree of control vis-à-vis the individual vs. the collective or common good.

Much of this, I believe, is unnecessary and merely discloses an inability of current citizens to think or even conceive of the community or the commons. So brainwashed have we become by the screeds of either ‘rugged individualism’ or Social Darwinism.

Let’s begin by quickly dispatching some of the more common canards, often circulated by the Right's darlings, like the Tea Baggers. One is that the clause refers only to military defense, or that "no positive social rights inhere in the Constitution". (All rights are ipso facto, "negative",  expressing what gov't may not do).This conveniently excludes any basis for social spending, but is erroneous on inspection

The reason is that the phrase – “provide for the common defense” is separate from that to “promote the general welfare.” Hence, the two have no commonality in terms of language, unless one supposes the writer was deliberately redundant.

Another common error is to invoke the ‘fallacy of division’ in this case, disputing that “promotion of the general welfare” refers to anything other than the United States as the entity whose ‘welfare’ is being considered. This again is falsified on inspection. Note that the Preamble begins:

“We the PEOPLE…”


Not “The United States”. In fact, the United States is itself an artifact of the people’s will and their creation, as elucidated say in 'The Federalist Papers', by James Madison, i.e. comparing the federal system to the solar system.. The Constitution, composed by the “people”, engendered the United States as a new national entity. In the context, therefore, the United States as this manufactured entity and abstraction cannot of itself have a “general welfare”. Only PEOPLE (citizens) can possess or aspire to a general welfare.

And THAT, I argue, also inheres in the benefits they are entitled to whether VA disability, Social Security or SNAP. And none of those benefits ought to have artificial limits appended! Instead, the recipients are enabled to use their benefits for whatever they wish - but of course they must be cognizant of the limits or they will run out before the month expires. (Another reason, as Emily Badger of the WaPo noted, the idea of SNAP people running wild buying beer, gambling etc. is bogus as a three dollar bill, because of the limited money they have to start!)

But neither can separate individuals possess a “general welfare”! Since, to say so is to mix the particular with the general. Clearly then, general welfare and its promotion must refer to something essential to the general collective and its good, which also would contribute to the goals set out in The Constitution.

What are these goals, that we might give at least one example of the general welfare?

One is “the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness”.

What  manner of “general welfare” might be associated with this?

Without a doubt, one form is “health care”. Why? Because the accessibility to health care (of a form that doesn’t bankrupt) implies a prerequisite for the opportunity to pursue “life, liberty and happiness.” Without the potential to access such affordable care, a person – say with a severe back injury or chronic disease – cannot pursue the goal. And assuming s/he can, it will not be a pursuit with achievement at the end, in all probability.

But another aspect of this happiness pursuit is it must not be sequestered for some special subsets of citizens while excluding others. ALL citizens are entitled to pursue it whether they are poor or rich!  To limit their pursuit using artificial laws is against the Constitution!

Thus, even SNAP recipients must be enabled to pursue happiness even on a limited scale - and this must be defended as their RIGHT under the ninth amendment. That means they ought to be able -  bogus state law or no - to enjoy a bit of luxury when they need to and if they have enough left from taking care of immediate needs to afford it.

Prof. Garry Wills (‘A Necessary Evil: A History Of American Distrust of Government’, Simon & Schuster, 1999) further reinforces this point in his chapter ‘Constitutional Myths’(p. 108). He notes that citizens alone possess rights, which neither the states nor the federal government share. Both the latter retain powers and prerogatives, but not rights.

The Ninth Amendment states that “the people retain unenumerated rights.” "The people:"  here refers to flesh and blood citizens, not to a bunch of contractual abstractions (states), or to corporations, as Mitt Romney seems to believe.. As Wills emphasizes and underscores (ibid.):

“The states have no natural rights. Their powers are artificial, not natural – they are things made by contract.”

My argument then is that the unenumerated rights of citizens trump any specious rights claimed by states, OR their prerogatives. This is also why I reiterate again Charles Reich's words to do with welfare:

"The claim that government is free to reduce or cut off welfare and other forms of support for people in economic need is totally mistaken. Welfare is not a gift, nor is it, despite frequent assertions, a transfer from those who earn a living to those who are not.  Welfare is rather an obligation from society – and from those who are working- to those who have been deprived of work and the opportunity to earn a living."


I hope that my blogger friend now understands why it's in his interest to defend the rights of SNAP beneficiaries to their benefits, as much as he aggressively defends his own. We are all in this together and to the extent we allow the state to split us apart we all become vulnerable to having our rights - and benefits - taken away!
---------------------------------------
Update: My fellow blogger asks me to address the question: "If everyone is jumping on the bandwagon - then who is left pulling the cart?"   First, not "everyone is jumping on the bandwagon" - i.e. for SNAP benefits, only the most needy citizens are. A position that ANY of us could be in if - god forbid - we're struck by a horrible disease, or injury or disability from an accident. Thereby making it impossible to earn enough to support ourselves.

Second, the rest of us need to pick up the support slack by enabling a greater pool for the tax commons, so that 16 million kids (also under the SNAP program) don't have to go to bed hungry each night. Thus, if enough were made available for these benefits programs - less for military and wars - there would be no problem, and we wouldn't face these constant cuts for budget reasons - as we saw in November, 2013.

In the end,  all the difficulties of not enough "pulling the cart" arise because our priorities are misplaced. We are giving much too much to  overseas military involvement in places we shouldn't be and not enough for domestic needs. We need to be building bridges and new water mains in Skokie and Buffalo not in Ramadi or Kandahar.  We need to be increasing SNAP benefits, not paying good tax dollars for even more F-35 cost overruns.


See also:

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/22/white_americas_gwyneth_paltrow_problem_how_its_playing_games_with_the_lives_of_poor_people/

Excerpt:

Conservative disdain for the poor has reached new heights with the recent passage of the HOPE Act in Kansas earlier this month. This bill, signed into law by Governor Sam Brownback, prohibits those who receive TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) from using funds to go to movies, to go swimming, to go theme parks, to gamble, to visit strip clubs or bars.

Many Americans fundamentally believe that one’s income bracket should determine one’s access to fun, pleasure, and entertainment. The resentment and the lack of empathy that undergirds most of the social policy that emerges from the right prove just how out-of-touch and mean-spirited such social policy is.

....Rather than attend to the systemic causes of poverty, they remain firmly committed to a stance that has no political integrity: that poverty is caused by laziness – not by poor schools, over-criminalization, the outsourcing of jobs, and a lack of living wage. And lazy people, the thinking goes, don’t deserve any forms of pleasure.

Unemployment Insurance Expires Tomorrow for 1.3 Million - Do Repukes Care?

There are roughly 72,800 citizens who stand to lose unemployment benefits in Colorado, including 17,900 by tomorrow - many with kids who will now have to go to bed with hungry bellies. Across the nation, 1.3 million will lose those benefits by tomorrow - with at least 230,000 children affected as well. You can thank a Repuke -controlled congress which drove a draconian "bipartisan" budget deal  earlier this month that left $23 b untouched for the over-stuffed defense industry-Pentagon to go ahead with the building of 2,335 F-35 bombers at a cost of 3/4 billion each .

Paul Ryan,  GOOp doyen who shepherded this despicable deal, admitted in a CBS news clip on December 12 his "concern" about military spending cuts in the sequester so was "pleased" that $63 b of defense sequester cuts were "offset" by $85b in "automatic spending cuts". Unmentioned is that unemployment extension was off the table, as were any new tax increases - which would have helped limit the deficits by nearly $150b within two years.

Of course, Ryan- who professes to be a devout Catholic - obviously doesn't give two craps about  all the hungry kids to be affected, as well as those that had their SNAP benefits cut. (Yes, cut! Never mind it was part of a stimulus package. If fuckin' Reeps can refer to tax cuts being ended as "tax increases" I will sure as hell refer to ending stimulus for SNAP as cutting SNAP!)

The very notion of cutting unemployment benefits at 26 weeks in this economy is absolutely nuts - not to mention cutting them off for the "chronically unemployed" (those unemployed longer than 6 months). What it shows is that either: a) the Repukes in the Tea Party led house don't care about their fellow citizens, or b) they have no grasp of our current economic situation.

For one thing, they don't grasp that there are currently 2.9 job seekers for every available job. (Denver Post, Dec. 26, p. 20A).  This also discloses that the stock market - which has spiked 24% this year- is all based on a fool's  fantasy and no real foundation. As The Post observes: "The 2.9 to 1 ratio compares to a 1:1 ratio in a robust market".

Why isn't the market robust? Basically we are still in a low aggregate demand environment. Aggregate demand is composed of two parts: 1) demand generated by consumers for goods and services, and 2) the demand for investment goods. When the level of aggregate demand is high, both these components are generally equally high, and the levels of production and employment are high. On the other hand, when aggregate demand is low - or even one of the components (e.g. (1)) is VERY low, then levels of production and employment plummet.

We got a first inkling of (1) being low with the just released news (last night)  that Xmas spending was up only 2.3% this year compared to 3.9% last year. Retailers are so desperate now many plan 75% cuts on merchandise leading up to New Year's. Of course, this translates to loss. The stock market meanwhile is flying high. Why? Mainly because of two elements - Bernanke's quantitative easing which he soon plans to end and companies buying back stock to create artificial bumps in share prices.

The below expectation sales numbers indicate consumer demand is  still low meaning the existing wages remain too low to support spending without going into debt.  If Neoliberal hoity toities piss on the fast food workers and service industry for  wanting a "living wage"  ($15/ hr) - as opposed to settling for $7.25/hr then they can't bellyache about low spending! They must accept that consumers are buying less, or resorting to unusual savings ploys (e.g. waiting until after Xmas to buy - to get huge discounts)  because this is the best they can do when low wages won't support more.

Now, add to that the long term unemployed who will be denied benefits from tomorrow and you have a nightmare - even lower spending. Bank of the West chief economist Scott Anderson, quoted in the Post (ibid.) "predicts a wider economic hit that could drag down next year's GDP by 0.2- 0.4 percent if federal benefits are not extended."

The backstory to the predicament of the long term unemployed and those who've lost food stamp benefits is even uglier and especially in the nation's suburbs.  There are 3 million more impoverished in our burbs than in our big cities ('Poverty Comes to Wisteria Lane', UTNE Reader, Jan-Feb 2014, p. 61).  People are having to turn to public assistance or private, in droves, and are often left empty handed. The article notes that services are stretched to capacity and demand has overwhelmed resources. Much of this arises from lower donations, and a Brookings Institution report  cites 1 in 5 nonprofits having reduced services since the start of the recession.

With government now having cut its support too, people are hurting....in a very bad way. To quote the article (ibid.):

"You have families burning pallets in their homes for heat, water that has been turned off, cupboards that are bare."


Where are the Republicans' hearts in all this? Do they have any? Do they care that tens of thousands of kids will only have empty fridges and cupboards to look forward to from tomorrow because their parents are without money? How is it the Teapee -led Reeps couldn't find it in their Scrooge hearts to cut the military bounty as opposed to leaving families destitute and hungry?

Even ordinary Republican voters can't believe this perfidy. As reported in the Post piece (ibid.): "A Public Policy Polling poll released Monday found that more than 60 percent of voters in Mike Coffman's Aurora district favor extending the unemployment benefits. At the same time, Coffman is considered one of the most vulnerable Republicans facing re-election in the House."

The Post goes on to quote Coffman spokesman Clay Sutton who actually said that "if President Barack Obama wants to add another 90 days of unemployment benefits he needs to say how they will pay for it"

Are you kidding me? WHY? You bozos have no trouble launching wars without figuring out how to pay for them, or insisting on tax cuts without paying for them? The way to have paid for them was to have rigorously offset domestic cuts with military in the recent budget deal. That is, balancing the $85b in automatic domestic cuts with $85 b military cuts - as opposed to easing the militarists' burden  by $23b!  But oh no, the Tea-pees would have none of that - hence the decision to leave unemployment benefits off the table.

Evidently, the extension opponents - according to the Post -  argue that the "extraordinary assistance" needs to end at some point and that it can deter people from taking the opportunities available."

So there, in a nutshell, we have these rats'  basis for Scrooging over a million unemployed Americans and their kids. Their very notion of "extraordinary assistance"  is nuts, given it can't possibly be "extraordinary" if there is only one job for every 2.9 job seekers.

"Deter people from taking the opportunities available?" Don't make me laugh! The "opportunities" don't exist in the ratio needed for practical attainment.

Once again, I'm reminded that those who are so sanctimonious and lord it over those in need, have never been in need themselves. It's so easy to feel superior and more moral when you aren't the one who has to burn pallets for heat, or have to face three or four kids crying at night because of hunger.

I just hope the Tea Party Goops are happy with themselves and what they've done, and I also hope - for their sake - they aren't faced with the same predicament so many of their brothers and sisters are in this holiday season.

Latest Budget Deal Seeks to Preserve Military Bullshit Spending - Spare it from Sequester

"No one has recently said to me, 'You can only get so angry,' and escaped with their hide intact, probably because I tend to spend my time with people who know better, and the people who know me know better than to try and tell me I'm making too much of things in this diseased day and age, when "things" make plenty of themselves without my help."- William Rivers Pitt, in 'It Only Hurts When I Laugh' - on smirkingchimp.com


Well we now know, after Paul Ryan's conscious (or maybe unconscious) admission this morning on CBS Early Show, that this new budget deal is designed to spare the military -defense enclave about $23 billion in sequester cuts that otherwise would have gone into effect. Hence, any deficit savings are on the backs of the poor, hungry kids, the unemployed. 

Ryan openly admitted his "concern" about military spending cuts in the sequester so was "pleased" that $63 b of defense sequester cuts are "offset" by $85b in gov't "automatic spending". Unmentioned is that unemployment extension was off the table, as were any new tax increases - which would have helped limit the deficits by nearly $150b within two years. But oh no, none of the Reepos want higher taxes - so the Demos obliged them. The above offset - or rather spending cut imbalance between defense and "discretionary budget allocations" amounts to nearly $23b. That amount will now allow the defense industry-Pentagon to go ahead with the building of 2,335 F-35 bombers at a cost of 3/4 billion each. But oh no, can't cut this piece of waste! Too important to line the pockets of defense contractors! See also:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2013/09/joint-strike-fighter-lockheed-martin

The fact is that in real terms, military spending has exploded the past 11 years, thanks to the American people being scared shitless into believing them there "terrorists" will get them if they don't have massive, sustained and insane  "defense" spending.  Back in 2011 it was noted that Pentagon spending had doubled since 2000, to $790 b a year. This number included both yearly "supplementals" to fund the Afghan conflict and occupation, along with $553b for the base Pentagon budget.

Over the past decade this translates into a pure growth factor of nearly $2 trillion. Thus, Repub Tom Coburn (OK) was correct (for once) when he admitted in a 2011 statement that Pentagon spending :

 "is higher in constant dollars than at any time in the last 60 years, including the Korean War, Vietnam and all the Defense Dept. spending during the Reagan years ($2.2 trillion)".

It is also more than the next 25 nations' military spending combined. The gist of all this? In fact there are no real cuts to military spending in any absolute terms, but only an estimated "trim down" of roughly 23% in the projected INCREASES in Pentagon spending over the next ten years! The point here? Contrary to the bloviators' bollocks of "jeopardizing national security", just the opposite is true: the Pentagon base budget will still be larger than it is today by 2021! This necessarily means, given the zero sum resources we have, everyone else will be much poorer. That means an even more shattered and useless infrastructure with crumbling roads, cracking sewer and water mains and collapsing bridges....and a much more likely intolerable domestic environment over all.

 Anyone who doesn't see this as the distinctive symptom of a nation in decline is a foursquare idiot.

Does the U.S. REALLY need 702 military 'installations' in 63 foreign countries (it has 4,471 bases altogether), according to the Defense Department's  2012 budget statement? ( Figures that don't include bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.) We're talking about our military presence in nations like Germany, South Korea, and Japan. ALL of these represent redundant costs since the wars that incepted the bases are now more than a half century over! While the total cost of these bases is kept secret, the best analysis I've seen estimates their ten-year cost at approximately $1 trillion. Cut that fat and waste, and unemployment insurance could easily be extended and a Farm Bill could be passed that doesn't kill food stamps to the tune of $40 billion over 10 years.

So why the fuck are we blowing so much on this military  bullshit when our own people need help - with 16 million kids going to bed hungry each night - and our infrastructure falling into massive disrepair?  The reason is simple: the defense contractors know if they can squirrel away some amount of jobs into every congressional district they essentially have all the politicos in those districts - now numbering in the thousands - by the brains and balls. They know that being seen to surrender jobs in this low aggregate demand environment would likely see a congress critter getting "primaried"  by some military spending whore, like our own Doug Lamborn here in Colo. Springs, e,g,


Lamborn in his most recent comments to The Denver Post ('Defense Cuts Put Lamborn in Tough Fight'. Nov. 8  p. 5A) on the importance of military spending,  is on record as saying he:

 "intends to find other places to chop, including entitlements like food stamps and Medicare, to shield the military."

The Post piece also went on to note:

"Lamborn receives his heftiest campaign contributions from military contractors. Just in this election cycle, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman- both with offices in Colorado Springs - gave him a combined $10,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. He has also received contributions from Honeywell International and Boeing."

Where will it end? Sadly, as the yen to further bloat the military curries more favor from political Jacobins, traitors and numbskulls, the target of  REEP austerity hawks will continue to be "entitlements".  That essentially is what Ryan implied this morning, as he professed so much "concern about our debt". Funny.....,these fuckers when in power don't worry about debt or deficits at all. Wasn't it Dick(-head) Cheney who actually said: "Deficits don't matter!"  No, I guess they don't when Reep-Turds are in power and blow up the budgets with unpaid for "wars" and tax cuts so the next Dem Prez gets the blame and has to clean up the mess - by cutting  domestic spending!  These Rat fuckers won't be satisfied until we're all homeless, sick, dead or maybe ....walking dead.

Am I angry"? Fuck YES! And if you're not then either you're not paying attention or you're already among the Walking Dead!

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!