Tom Camarello with Progressive Democrats of America at a rally in front of Rep. Henry Waxman's office, June 17, 2013, in Los Angeles. The protesters were asking the congressman to vote against the House Farm Bill, which would reduce federal SNAP spending by $20.5 billion. In the end, Congress "compromised" by cutting $8.7 billion from the food assistance program.(Photo: Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images)
Congress Cuts $8.7 Billion in Food Stamps, But Finds $22 Billion to Fight ISIS
It was all the way back in February, so the memory of this headline has faded:
" Congress passes $8.7 billion food stamp cut
By Ned Resnikoff
It's official: 850,000 households across the country are set to lose an average of $90 per month in food stamp benefits.
It was all the way back in February, so the memory of this headline has faded:
" Congress passes $8.7 billion food stamp cut
By Ned Resnikoff
It's official: 850,000 households across the country are set to lose an average of $90 per month in food stamp benefits.
The Senate on Tuesday voted 68-32 to send the 2014 Farm Bill - which includes an $8.7 billion cut to food stamps - to President Obama's desk. Nine Democrats opposed the bill, and 46 members of the Democratic caucus voted for it, joining 22 Republicans."
The GOP Congress's assault on the American working class has been waged with the pretext that the Federal government has no money (what with being in debt and all). This despite the money being owed to the American people on the whole, and despite the long tradition of deficits in government budgets, which have seldom in history been balanced. But note that when there was a Republican president in the zeroes, the same voices did not demand austerity, but ran up the deficit with obvious glee.
In contrast, Congress has no problem with the war on ISIL in Iraq and Syria, which could cost from $18 bn to $22 bn a year. Admittedly, in military terms this expense is relatively small. The point is that the same people who have trouble justifying a safety net for the working poor and find it urgent to cut billions from the programs that keep us a civilized society rather than a predatory jungle- the same people have no difficulty authorizing billions for vague bombing campaigns that are unlikely to be successful on any genuine metric.
The failure of an air campaign in Syria where there is no effective fighting force on the ground allied with the US, which could take advantage of the bombings, is becoming evident at Kobane. Despite US and other aerial bombings, ISIL fighters have moved to only a couple of miles from the besieged Kurdish city.
In contrast, in Iraq the Kurdish Peshmerga have taken a few villages and a border crossing with Syria back from ISIL in the past couple of days, and may have benefited in this push from close air support from the US and other governments. Even there, while intervention to stop the Kurdish capital of Erbil from falling to ISIL might be justifiable, helping the Kurdish Peshmerga capture Sunni Arab towns is a more delicate proposition.
In any case, all of a sudden I guess cost is no object for the Tea Party and its fellow travelers.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. The final deadline for our crucial Summer Campaign fundraising drive is just days away, and we’re falling short of our must-hit goal. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
It was all the way back in February, so the memory of this headline has faded:
" Congress passes $8.7 billion food stamp cut
By Ned Resnikoff
It's official: 850,000 households across the country are set to lose an average of $90 per month in food stamp benefits.
The Senate on Tuesday voted 68-32 to send the 2014 Farm Bill - which includes an $8.7 billion cut to food stamps - to President Obama's desk. Nine Democrats opposed the bill, and 46 members of the Democratic caucus voted for it, joining 22 Republicans."
The GOP Congress's assault on the American working class has been waged with the pretext that the Federal government has no money (what with being in debt and all). This despite the money being owed to the American people on the whole, and despite the long tradition of deficits in government budgets, which have seldom in history been balanced. But note that when there was a Republican president in the zeroes, the same voices did not demand austerity, but ran up the deficit with obvious glee.
In contrast, Congress has no problem with the war on ISIL in Iraq and Syria, which could cost from $18 bn to $22 bn a year. Admittedly, in military terms this expense is relatively small. The point is that the same people who have trouble justifying a safety net for the working poor and find it urgent to cut billions from the programs that keep us a civilized society rather than a predatory jungle- the same people have no difficulty authorizing billions for vague bombing campaigns that are unlikely to be successful on any genuine metric.
The failure of an air campaign in Syria where there is no effective fighting force on the ground allied with the US, which could take advantage of the bombings, is becoming evident at Kobane. Despite US and other aerial bombings, ISIL fighters have moved to only a couple of miles from the besieged Kurdish city.
In contrast, in Iraq the Kurdish Peshmerga have taken a few villages and a border crossing with Syria back from ISIL in the past couple of days, and may have benefited in this push from close air support from the US and other governments. Even there, while intervention to stop the Kurdish capital of Erbil from falling to ISIL might be justifiable, helping the Kurdish Peshmerga capture Sunni Arab towns is a more delicate proposition.
In any case, all of a sudden I guess cost is no object for the Tea Party and its fellow travelers.
It was all the way back in February, so the memory of this headline has faded:
" Congress passes $8.7 billion food stamp cut
By Ned Resnikoff
It's official: 850,000 households across the country are set to lose an average of $90 per month in food stamp benefits.
The Senate on Tuesday voted 68-32 to send the 2014 Farm Bill - which includes an $8.7 billion cut to food stamps - to President Obama's desk. Nine Democrats opposed the bill, and 46 members of the Democratic caucus voted for it, joining 22 Republicans."
The GOP Congress's assault on the American working class has been waged with the pretext that the Federal government has no money (what with being in debt and all). This despite the money being owed to the American people on the whole, and despite the long tradition of deficits in government budgets, which have seldom in history been balanced. But note that when there was a Republican president in the zeroes, the same voices did not demand austerity, but ran up the deficit with obvious glee.
In contrast, Congress has no problem with the war on ISIL in Iraq and Syria, which could cost from $18 bn to $22 bn a year. Admittedly, in military terms this expense is relatively small. The point is that the same people who have trouble justifying a safety net for the working poor and find it urgent to cut billions from the programs that keep us a civilized society rather than a predatory jungle- the same people have no difficulty authorizing billions for vague bombing campaigns that are unlikely to be successful on any genuine metric.
The failure of an air campaign in Syria where there is no effective fighting force on the ground allied with the US, which could take advantage of the bombings, is becoming evident at Kobane. Despite US and other aerial bombings, ISIL fighters have moved to only a couple of miles from the besieged Kurdish city.
In contrast, in Iraq the Kurdish Peshmerga have taken a few villages and a border crossing with Syria back from ISIL in the past couple of days, and may have benefited in this push from close air support from the US and other governments. Even there, while intervention to stop the Kurdish capital of Erbil from falling to ISIL might be justifiable, helping the Kurdish Peshmerga capture Sunni Arab towns is a more delicate proposition.
In any case, all of a sudden I guess cost is no object for the Tea Party and its fellow travelers.