November, 12 2009, 10:32am EDT
Honduran Elections: Over 240 Academics and Experts on Latin America Call on Obama to Denounce Human Rights Abuses by Honduran Dictatorship
Free and Fair Elections Are Possible Only After the Coup is Reversed, They Say
CLAREMONT, Calif.
Over 240
academics and experts on Latin America sent a letter to President Obama
yesterday urging him to denounce the ongoing human rights violations
perpetrated by the coup regime in Honduras ahead of the planned
November 29 elections. They also urged him to demand the immediate
restitution of President Manuel Zelaya and to support a full three
months of electoral campaigning after the coup has been overturned and
"debating, organizing, and all other aspects of election campaigns can
be conducted in an atmosphere that is free from fear; in which all
views and parties are free to make their voices heard - not just those
that are allowed under an illegal military occupation." This would mean
that this month's elections - which Latin America and the European
Union have said they will not recognize - would need to be rescheduled.
"With only days left before the scheduled November 29 elections, the
U.S. government must make a choice," the letter states. "It can either
side with democracy, along with every government in Latin America, or
it can side with the coup regime, and further isolate the United States
in the hemisphere."
Last Thursday, the Rio Group, which includes all of Latin America and
most of the Caribbean, issued a
statement declaring that they would consider the November 29
elections to be illegitimate if Zelaya is not first reinstated.
The current letter continues: "Moreover, the U.S. cannot afford to
maintain its deafening silence regarding the innumerable and grave
human rights abuses committed by the coup government in Honduras - a
silence that has become a conspicuous international embarrassment."
Numerous press reports have described human rights abuses and
violations of civil liberties during the three-month period in which
electoral campaigning is allowed under Honduran law, including illegal
mass arrests, beatings, torture, and shootings by state security
forces, attacks on the freedoms of assembly, speech, and of the press.
This repression has been widely documented and denounced by Honduran
and international human rights organizations, including the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, and
Amnesty International.
Despite this, the Obama administration has yet to condemn the human
rights violations, or to threaten sanctions or other strong action to
force the coup regime to stop them.
Last week, Bertha Oliva, the head of Honduras' most well-known and
respected human rights organization, the Committee for Families of the
Disappeared and Detained in Honduras (COFADEH), also
called on the Obama administration to denounce the "grave human
rights violations" in Honduras, and declared that "It's too late to
have elections on November 29."
The full text of the letter follows:
_______________________________________
November 11, 2009
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Cc.:
Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State
Thomas Shannon, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere
Affairs
Dan Restrepo, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director of
Western Hemisphere Affairs, National Security Council
Dear President Barack Obama,
We are writing to urge you to stand with democracy and human rights in
Honduras. With only days left before the scheduled November 29
elections the U.S. government must make a choice: it can either side
with democracy, along with every government in Latin America, or it can
side with the coup regime, and remain isolated. Moreover, the U.S.
cannot afford to maintain its deafening silence regarding the
innumerable and grave human rights abuses committed by the coup
government in Honduras - a silence that has become a conspicuous
international embarrassment. The U.S. must forcefully denounce these
abuses, and match its words with action as well. It must make the coup
regime understand that the United States government will no longer
tolerate the violence and repression that the Micheletti government has
practiced against the Honduran people since seizing power on June 28,
2009.
Honduras now stands at the edge of a dangerous precipice. The coup
regime remains determined - in the absence of significant pressure from
the U.S. government - to move forward with the elections, in the hopes
that the international community will eventually recognize the results.
In so doing, they hope to legitimize their illegal and unconstitutional
government.
Free and fair elections on November 29 are already impossible, as more
than two-thirds of the campaign period allowed under Honduran law has
already passed, under conditions in which freedom of assembly, freedom
of speech, and freedom of the press have all been under attack
throughout the country. This repression has been widely documented and
denounced by Honduran and international human rights organizations,
including the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Human Rights
Watch, and Amnesty International.
The Rio Group of 23 nations, which includes nearly all of Latin America
and much of the Caribbean, had forcefully declared that it will not
recognize the November 29th elections if President Zelaya is not first
re-instated. Thus the United States is at odds with the rest of the
Hemisphere in its stated willingness to recognize these illegitimate
elections.
Free and fair elections can only be carried out in a climate in which
debating, organizing, and all other aspects of election campaigns can
be conducted in an atmosphere that is free from fear; in which all
views and parties are free to make their voices heard - not just those
that are allowed under an illegal military occupation. We therefore
call on the U.S. government to support an electoral process in Honduras
that allows for a full three months - as mandated under Honduran law -
for electoral campaigning, to take place after the restoration of
President Manuel Zelaya. Only in this way can the electoral process
achieve legitimacy in both the eyes of the Honduran people and the
international community.
In the months that have transpired since the April Summit of the
Americas, we are saddened to see that your promise of treating Latin
American nations as equals is evaporating. You declared at that time,
"I just want to make absolutely clear that I am absolutely opposed and
condemn any efforts at violent overthrows of democratically elected
governments, wherever it happens in the hemisphere." In remarks that
were recorded, cited, and broadcast all over the world, you asserted:
"The test for all of us is not simply words, but also deeds." Since
then, your government has failed to match these words with deeds
regarding the coup d'etat in Honduras. As a result, the United States
is once again isolating itself in the Americas.
The U.S. must also match its rhetorical commitment to democracy with
concrete deeds, and support the immediate restoration of Manuel Zelaya
to the presidency of Honduras and full guarantees of a free and fair
election.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Abercrombie New York University
Leisy Abrego, University of California, Irvine
Alexis Aguilar, Salisbury University
Jordi Aladro, University of California, Santa Cruz
Ece Algan, California State University, San Bernardino
Paul Almeida, Texas A&M University
Mark Anderson, University of California, Santa Cruz
Tim Anderson, University of Sydney (Australia)
Tom Angotti, Hunter College/City University of New York
Craig Auchter, Butler University
William Aviles, University of Nebraska at Kearney
Cesar J. Ayala, University of California, Los Angeles
Nikhil Aziz, Executive Director, Grassroots International
Beth Baker-Cristales, California State University, Los Angeles
Teo Ballve, North American Congress on Latin America
Rosemary A. Barbera, Monmouth University
Francisco J. Barbosa, University of Colorado, Boulder
John Beverley, University of Pittsburgh
Michelle Bigenho, Hampshire College
Maylei Blackwell, University of California, Los Angeles
Andy Bliss, University of California, Berkeley
Aaron Bobrow-Strain, Whitman College
Blase Bonpane, Office of the Americas
Jules Boykoff, Pacific University
Rachel Brahinsky, University of California, Berkeley
Rosalind Bresnahan, Latin American Perspectives
Laura Briggs, University of Arizona
Sandy Brown, University of California, Berkeley
Joe Bryan, University of Colorado, Boulder
Alicia del Campo, California State University Long Beach
Frankie Cardamone, Prescott College
Barry Carr, University of California, Berkeley
Jennifer Casolo, University of California, Berkeley
Julie A. Charlip, Whitman College
Ronald Chilcote, University of California, Riverside
Aviva Chomsky, Salem State College
George Ciccariello-Maher, University of California, Berkeley
Christopher Clement, Pomona College
Nathan Clough, The University of Minnesota
Fernando Coronil, City University of New York, Graduate Center
Dominic Corva, Sarah Lawrence College
Raymond B. Craib, Cornell University
Altha Cravey, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Julie Cupples, University of Canterbury
Antonia Darder, University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign
Juanita Darling, San Francisco State University
Pablo Delano, Trinity College
Guillermo Delgado-P., University of California, Santa Cruz
Jennifer Devine, University of California, Berkeley
Monica Dias Martins, State University of Ceara, Brasil
Paul Dosh, Macalester College
Alex Dupuy, Wesleyan University
Jordana Dym, Skidmore College
Marc Edelman, Hunter College and the Graduate Center, City University
of New York
Steve Ellner, University of Oriente (Venezuela)
Ben Ehrenreich, Journalist and Author
Laura Enriquez, University of California, Berkeley
Arturo Escobar, University of North Carolina
Alicia Estrada, California State University, Northridge
Nicole Fabricant, University of South Florida
Mario Fenyo, Bowie State University
Sujatha Fernandes, Queens College and the Graduate Center, City
University of New York
Raul Fernandez, University of California, Irvine
Ada Ferrer, New York University
John Finn, Arizona State University
Allan Fisher, City College of San Francisco
Bill Fletcher, Jr., BlackCommentator.com
Cindy Forster, Scripps College
Jonathan Fox, University of California, Santa Cruz
Dana Frank, University of California, Santa Cruz
John D. French, Duke University
Gavin Fridell, Trent University, Ontario, Canada
Victoria Furio, Conference Interpreter & Translator
Alberto J. Garcia, California State University, Northridge California
Kim Geron, California State University East Bay
Asher Ghertner, University of California, Berkeley
Shannon Gleeson, University of California, Santa Cruz
Michel Gobat, University of Iowa
Marcial Godoy-Anativia, New York University
Walter L. Goldfrank, University of California, Santa Cruz
Armando Gonzalez Caban, Latin American Perspectives
Gilbert Gonzalez, University of California, Irvine
Evelyn Gonzalez-Mills, Montgomery College
Jeffrey L. Gould, Indiana University
Daniel Graham, University of California, Berkeley
Laura R. Graham, University of Iowa
Greg Grandin, New York University
Richard Grossman, Northeastern Illinois University
Peter Hallward, Middlesex University (U.K.)
Nora Hamilton, University of Southern California
Zoe Hammer, Prescott College
John L. Hammond, City University of New York
Tom Hayden, Author
Mark Healey, University of California, Berkeley
Daniel Hellinger, Webster University
Adam Henne, University of Wyoming
Luis A. Hernandez, School District of Philadelphia
Eric Hershberg, Simon Fraser University
Doug Hertzler, Eastern Mennonite University, Washington Community
Scholars' Center
Derrick Hindery, University of Oregon
Raul Hinojosa, University of California, Los Angeles
Katherine Hite, Vassar College
Jen Hofer, poet, translator, interpreter
Aaron Hogue, Salisbury University
Katherine Hoyt, Nicaragua Network
Forrest Hylton, Universidad de los Andes (Bogota)
Dale L. Johnson, PhD
David Johnson, Xavier University
Susanne Jonas, University of California, Santa Cruz
James Jordan, Campaign for Labor Rights
Gilbert Joseph, Yale University
Nadine Jubb, York University
Karen Kampwirth, Knox College
David Kane, Maryknoll Office of Global Concerns
Chuck Kaufman, Alliance for Global Justice
Robin D. G. Kelly, University of Southern California
Norma Klahn, University of California, Santa Cruz
Sara Koopman, University of British Columbia
Glen David Kuecker, DePauw University
David Kunzle, University of California, Los Angeles
Victoria Langland, University of California, Davis
John Lear, University of Puget Sound
George Leddy, Los Angeles Valley College
Winnie Lem, Trent University
Sidney Lemelle, Pomona College
Deborah Levenson, Boston College
David Lloyd, University of Southern California
Rick Lopez, Amherst College
Tehama Lopez, Duke University
Agnes Lugo-Ortiz, University of Chicago
Sharon Luk, University of Southern California
Sheryl Lutjens, California State University, San Marcos
Milton Ricardo Machuca, Pitzer College
Kathleen A. Mahoney-Norris, Air Command and Staff College
Maya Manzi, Clark University
Greta Marchesi, University of California, Berkeley
Peter E. Marchetti, Researcher, AVANCSO, Guatemala
Lourdes Martinez-Echazabel, University of California, Santa Cruz
Kathleen McAfee, San Francisco State University
Kendra McSweeney, The Ohio State University
Breny Mendoza, California State University, Northridge
Frederick B. Mills, Bowie State University
Laura-Anne Minkoff-Zern, University of California, Berkeley
Ellen Moodie, University of Illinois
Stephanie Moore, Salisbury University
Dorinda Moreno, Hitec Aztec Communications/FM Global
Lena Mortensen, University of Toronto Scarborough
Robert Naiman, Just Foreign Policy
Guillermo Narvaez, University of California-Irvine
Joseph Nevins, Vassar College
Enrique Ochoa, California State University, Los Angeles
Gilda L. Ochoa, Pomona College
Elizabeth Oglesby, University of Arizona
Almerindo E. Ojeda, University of California at Davis
Andrew Orta, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Paul Ortiz, University of Florida
Mark Overmyer-Velazquez, University of Connecticut
Tanalis Padilla, Dartmouth College
Yajaira M. Padilla, The University of Kansas
Pramod Parajuli, Prescott College
Sirena Pellarolo, California State University, Northridge
Anthony Pereira, Tulane University
Hector Perla, University of California, Santa Cruz
Brandt Peterson, Michigan State University
Adrienne Pine, American University
Martin Plot, California Institute of the Arts
Aaron Pollack, Instituto de Investigaciones Dr. Jose Maria Luis Mora
Deborah Poole, Johns Hopkins University
Suyapa Portillo, Pomona College
Margaret Power, Illinois Institute of Technology
Vijay Prashad, Trinity College
Mary Louise Pratt, New York University
Marina Prieto-Carrron, University of Portsmouth
Sean Purdy, Universidade de Sao Paulo
Kathryn S. Quick, University of California, Irvine
Marie Phillips Rayanne, Prescott College
Marcus Rediker, University of Pittsburgh
Daniel Reichman, University of Rochester
Gerardo Renique, City College of the City University of New York
Kenneth Roberts, Cornell University
William I. Robinson, University of California, Santa Barbara
Dylan Rodriguez, University of California, Riverside
Victor M. Rodriguez, California State University, Long Beach
Cristina Rojas, Carleton University
Sarah T. Romano, University of California, Santa Cruz
Renato Rosaldo, New York University
Karin Alejandra Rosemblatt, University of Maryland
Jan Rus, Latin American Perspectives
Ricardo Daniel Sanchez Cardenas, Northwestern University
Rosaura Sanchez, University of California, San Diego
Mario Santana, The University of Chicago
Felicity Schaeffer-Grabiel, University of California, Santa Cruz
Ellen Sharp, University of California, Los Angeles
Freya Schiwy, University of California, Riverside
Aaron Schneider, Tulane University
Tammi J. Schneider, Claremont Graduate University
T.M. Scruggs, Professor Emeritus, University of Iowa
Adam Shapiro, Prescott College
Ellen Sharp, University of California, Los Angeles
Kirsten Silva Gruesz, University of California, Santa Cruz
Victor Silverman, Pomona College
Richard Simpson, Stanford University
Julie Skurski, City University of New York, Graduate Center
Darryl A. Smith, Pomona College
John Soluri, Carnegie Mellon University
Dale Sorenson, Director, Interfaith Task Force of the Americas
Rose Spalding, DePaul University
Susan Spronk, University of Ottawa
Richard Stahler-Sholk, Eastern Michigan University
Lynn Stephen, University of Oregon
William S. Stewart, California State University, Chico
Steve Striffler, University of New Orleans
Estelle Tarica, University of California, Berkeley
Diana Taylor, New York University
Miguel Tinker Salas, Pomona College
Sinclair Thomson, New York University
Steven Topik, University of California, Irvine
Mayo C. Toruno, California State University, San Bernardino
David J. Vazquez, University of Oregon
Jocelyn S. Viterna, Harvard University
Steven S. Volk, Oberlin College
Hendrik Voss, School of the Americas Watch
Christine J. Wade, Washington College
Diana B. Waters, Goddard College
Penny Waterstone, University of Arizona
Jamie Way, Venezuela Solidarity Campaign
Jeffery R. Webber, University of Regina, Canada
Barbara Weinstein, New York University
Mark Weisbrot, Center for Economic and Policy Research
Kimberly Welch, University of Redland
Allen Wells, Bowdoin College
Marion Werner, University of Minnesota
Eliza Willis, Grinnell College
Tamar Diana Wilson, Independent Scholar
Sonja Wolf, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM)
Justin Wolfe, Tulane University
John Womack, Harvard University
Megan Ybarra, University of California, Berkeley
Susy Zepeda, University of California, Santa Cruz
Chris Zepeda-Millan, Cornell University
Marc Zimmerman, University of Houston
* Institutions listed only for identification
LATEST NEWS
South Carolina Bill to Execute People Who Have Abortions Gets Support From 21 Republicans
"Executing women is not fringe GOP," said one human rights lawyer. "It's your horrifically mainstream 'pro life' GOP."
Mar 14, 2023
A new pro-forced pregnancy proposal in the South Carolina General Assembly that would make people who obtain abortion care eligible for the death penalty was portrayed as coming from the fringes of the Republican Party by one GOP lawmaker—but with 21 state Republicans backing the legislation, critics said the idea is representative of the party's anti-choice agenda.
Proposed by state Rep. Rob Harris, the South Carolina Prenatal Equal Protection Act of 2023 would amend the state's criminal code to give a zygote, or fertilized egg, "equal protection under the homicide laws of the state"—meaning obtaining an abortion could be punishable by the death penalty.
The bill does not include an exception for people whose pregnancies result from rape or incest, and political commentator Brian Tyler Cohen noted its language is vague enough to suggest that some people who suffer miscarriages could become eligible for the death penalty.
The exceptions provided by Harris include only people who are "compelled" by others to have an abortion against their will or people whose continued pregnancies carry the threat of "imminent death or great bodily injury," although numerous cases since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade have demonstrated how exceptions to protect a pregnant person's life often put their safety at risk.
U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), a rape survivor, spoke on the House floor last Friday about the bill and warned that its lack of exceptions for rape survivors was part of a "deeply disturbing" trend.
"To see this debate go to the dark places, the dark edges," said Mace, "has been deeply disturbing to me as a woman, as a female legislator, as a mom, and as a victim of rape."
But with nearly two dozen co-sponsors, said human rights lawyer Qasim Rashid, the proposal appears to come from the "horrifically mainstream 'pro-life' GOP."
"It's not just one lone extremist," wrote Tessa Stuart at Rolling Stone.
Harris and his co-sponsors—seven of whom have requested to have their names removed from the legislation as it's garnered national attention—are just the latest policymakers to propose punishments for people who obtain abortions. Alabama's attorney general said in January that residents should be prosecuted for taking abortion pills, and former President Donald Trump said as a presidential candidate in 2016 that "there has to be some form of punishment" for abortion patients before walking back the statement.
A number of Texas lawmakers have proposed making people who obtain abortions eligible for capital punishment in recent years.
"If this surprises you," said historian Diana Butler Bass of the South Carolina proposal, "you haven't been paying attention."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Warren, Watchdogs Demand Independent Probes of Fed Role in Bank Failures
"Fed Chair Powell's actions directly contributed to these bank failures," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren. "For the Fed's inquiry to have credibility, Powell must recuse himself from this internal review."
Mar 14, 2023
Sen. Elizabeth Warren joined financial industry watchdogs Tuesday in demanding an independent investigation of the Federal Reserve's role in two of the largest bank collapses in U.S. history, failures that experts say were caused in part by the deregulatory actions of Congress and the central bank.
After joining the Treasury Department on Sunday in launching an extraordinary intervention to backstop the financial industry and prevent systemic fallout from the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and Signature Bank, the Fed announced that Michael Barr—the central bank's vice chair for supervision—would undertake a "review of the supervision and regulation of SVB."
The Fed said the results of its internal investigation will be made public by May 1.
In a statement, Fed Chair Jerome Powell said that "the events surrounding Silicon Valley Bank demand a thorough, transparent, and swift review by the Federal Reserve," which was the primary regulator of SVB.
But Warren (D-Mass.) argued in a tweet that Powell shouldn't play a role in the probe given his record of weakening the Fed's oversight of banks like SVB and Signature Bank.
"Fed Chair Powell's actions directly contributed to these bank failures," wrote Warren, one of the most outspoken critics of Powell's policy decisions, which include scaling back post-financial crisis safeguards.
"For the Fed's inquiry to have credibility, Powell must recuse himself from this internal review," Warren added. "It's appropriate for Vice Chair for Supervision Barr to have the independence necessary to do his job."
Warren's demand came a day after the watchdog group Better Markets called for an independent inspector general probe of "the failures of Federal Reserve supervision," declaring that the central bank can't be trusted to "do a thorough and independent investigation of itself."
"The Fed must immediately ask the Department of Justice IG Michael Horowitz who is the chair of the Council of the Inspector Generals on Integrity and Efficiency to appoint either himself or another independent IG to conduct a thorough investigation," Better Markets president Dennis Kelleher said in a statement Monday, arguing that Fed IG Mark Bialek can't do a credible job because he serves at the pleasure of Powell.
Kelleher likened the Fed's oversight performance to "a bank guard asleep on the job with headphones on during a robbery," pointing to public warning signs of a looming disaster at SVB months before it collapsed.
"Whether the bailouts to prevent contagion and more damage from the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) are successful or not, the Biden administration must hold those who caused SVB's failure or otherwise contributed to or enabled it or whose job was to prevent it accountable," said Kelleher. "First, SVB's executives must be sanctioned for their gross mismanagement if not reckless and illegal conduct."
"Second," he added, "the Federal Reserve must be investigated and held accountable for its failure to properly regulate and supervise the bank. While the impact of the Fed's interest rate policies was a key driver of the failure (discussed in detail here and here), the bank undertook enormous unreasonable risks and the Fed failed to identify and require those risks be mitigated."
"Personal, meaningful accountability for everyone who failed in connection with the collapse of SVB must happen quickly and visibly," Kelleher said. "The American people expect and deserve no less."
Since the fall of SVB and Signature Bank, top progressive lawmakers including Warren, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) have spotlighted and demanded the repeal of 2018 legislation that weakened regulatory scrutiny for banks with between $50 billion and $250 billion in assets—a category that includes the two failed institutions.
Lawmakers and experts contend that the measure, signed into law by former President Donald Trump, made the market-rattling collapses more likely.
During congressional testimony in 2018, Powell voiced support for the Republican-authored bill, which was also backed by a number of Democrats including Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).
Siding with the bill's proponents, Powell brushed aside expert warnings that the regulatory rollback would heighten risks in the financial industry.
"I think it gives us the tools that we need to continue to protect financial stability," Powell said, specifically endorsing the part of the 2018 bill that loosed regulations for banks with less than $250 billion in assets.
"Personal, meaningful accountability for everyone who failed in connection with the collapse of SVB must happen quickly and visibly."
But Powell, who was first appointed by Trump and later reappointed by President Joe Biden in 2021, has done much more than endorse deregulatory legislation.
As Americans for Financial Reform (AFR) noted in a detailed summary of Powell's tenure, the Fed chief has directly helped turn off "some of the early warning systems regulators used to detect emerging risks to the financial system."
"Dodd-Frank introduced stress tests to assess how a bank would perform in the face of economic shocks and to work in tandem with rules improving resiliency to those shocks," AFR observed, citing a key post-financial crisis law. "The Powell Fed dumbed down the tests, and even revealed the criteria to banks beforehand, akin to giving students the exam questions in advance. This allows banks to camouflage risk-taking."
"The Volcker Rule was a pillar of Dodd-Frank that restricted the ability of banks to speculate with federally-insured money," AFR continued. "With Chair Powell's vote, the Fed diluted bothparts of the Volcker Rule: the restrictions on proprietary trading and the restrictions on bank investments in particularly risky vehicles, like private equity and hedge funds. The Fed also relaxed rules that would curtail risky derivative activities by banks. After these rule changes, bank exposures to derivatives can increase via complex and opaque transactions with their affiliates."
Renita Marcellin, AFR's advocacy and legislative director, said Monday that "rolling back commonsense safeguards to ensure banks were liquid enough to pay their depositors was clearly the wrong decision."
"The collapse of these banks gives the Fed all the more reason to resist the self-interested arguments from banks and their allies in Congress," said Marcellin. "No one should give these arguments a sympathetic ear. Banks should not receive government backstopping when things go wrong and simultaneously lobby for weaker rules. Ordinary Americans are not afforded the same benefits when their finances are in the red."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'They're Such Cowards': GOP Pushes Bill Targeting Food Aid for the Poor
"If they'd had any real courage," said one critic, "they'd be taking on Pharma and drug spending instead of trying to crack down on food stamps for poor people."
Mar 14, 2023
More than a dozen House Republicans are expected to release legislation Tuesday that would impose more harsh work requirements on certain recipients of federal food aid, a clear signal that the GOP intends to target nutrition assistance in critical debt ceiling, budget, and farm bill talks.
Led by Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.), the measure would "expand the age bracket for able-bodied [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] recipients without dependents, who have to meet complicated work requirements," according toPolitico, which obtained a copy of the bill ahead of its official introduction.
Johnson's legislation, which currently has 14 Republican co-sponsors, would broaden the SNAP work requirement age bracket for able-bodied adults without dependents to 18 to 65, adding 16 years to the current age ceiling of 49, Politico reported. Former President Donald Trump previously proposed raising the age ceiling to 62.
Under SNAP rules, people categorized as able-bodied adults without dependents are only allowed to receive federal food benefits for three months during any three-year period when they aren't employed or taking part in work training, a restriction that experts and advocates have long decried as cruel and punitive.
"Essentially, this is a time limit—which disproportionately affects people of color—that takes SNAP away when people aren't working, withholding food as a punishment for not having a stable job," the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes.
Most adult SNAP recipients already work, though they are often precarious, low-wage jobs with poor benefits.
While Johnson and other Republicans claim their support for more stringent SNAP work requirements stems from a desire to boost employment, research has repeatedly shown that they are ineffective at doing so. Work requirements do, however, succeed at booting many people off the program.
States are currently allowed to request waivers for the SNAP benefit time limits, but Johnson's bill would constrain the federal government's ability to grant such requests, Politico reported.
"These guys talk about states' rights all the time, except when it comes to poor people," Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said in response to the GOP bill.
Johnson's legislation comes as food insecurity is mounting across the U.S. after emergency SNAP benefit expansions lapsed earlier this month, slashing benefits for tens of millions of people amid high food prices. The cuts—the result of an end-of-year deal in Congress—have been dramatic for many, costing families hundreds of dollars per month in food aid.
"These enhanced benefits were a lifeline for millions—many of whom will now go hungry," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. "And Republicans want to cut these programs even further."
Politico reported that while Democratic lawmakers are publicly voicing opposition to the Republican Party's latest attack on food benefits, "some House Democrats are quietly raising alarms about their lack of plans to push back on the GOP proposals."
"We need to be prepared for a showdown on food security—and right now, we're not ready," one unnamed House Democrat told the outlet.
Anti-hunger campaigners are pushing Democrats to protect food benefits and fight for a permanent SNAP expansion during upcoming farm bill negotiations.
But as Slate's Alexander Sammon wrote last week, "the lack of willingness to fight for SNAP when it was already expanded is not a heartening sign."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.