 |
| 15% of the U.S. population receive food stamp benefits. (Source USDA) |
By Ruth Rosen
The U.S. Congress is fighting over how much to
cut food assistance to needy families. Everyone knows that women and
their children are the poorest people in America, but strangely, the
faces of women have disappeared from the debate
and have been absorbed into abstract “needy families.”
While the rest of the world debates America’s
role in the Middle East or its use of drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the
U.S. Congress is debating just how drastically it should cut food assistance to
the 47 million Americans - one out of seven people - who suffer from “food
insecurity,” the popular euphemism for those who go hungry.
The U.S. Government
began
giving food stamps to the poor during the Great Depression. Even when I was a student in the 1960’s, I
received food stamps while unemployed during the summers. That concern for the hungry, however, has
evaporated. The Republicans - dominated by Tea Party policies - are transforming
the United States into a far less compassionate and more mean-spirited society.
The need
is great. Since the Great Recession of 2008, the food stamp programme - now called
SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program), has doubled from $38 billion in 2008 to $78 billion in the last year.
During 2012, 65 million Americans used SNAP for at least one a month, which
means that one out of every five Americans became part of the swelling rolls of
“needy families,” most of whom are women and children.
Democrats defend the new debit card
program, which can only be used to purchase food, as feeding needy Americans
at a time of high unemployment and great poverty. Republicans, for their part,
argue that the programme is rife with fraud, that its recipients (who are mostly
single mothers) are lazy and shiftless, and that we must make drastic cuts to
reduce government spending. Their most Dickensian argument is that if you feed
the poor, they won’t want to work.
But as the
New
York Times economic
columnist Paul Krugman has repeatedly
pointed out,
welfare entitlements, including the food debit card, are not only good for families; they also good
for the economy. People who receive
such help spend the money immediately. Single mother hold down multiple jobs at
minimum wages to keep their family together. The debit card allows them to go
shopping and to buy needed groceries.
Such entitlements boost spending and the economy, rather than depleting
it.
Despite these arguments, the cuts have already
begun. On November 1, 2013,
Congress cut
nearly five billion dollars from SNAP and Republicans now want to cut another
$40 billion dollars.
The stalemate has resulted in the failure of Congress to pass the farm bill,
which provides SNAP subsidies to farms, mostly of which are large agricultural
corporations.
Meanwhile,
poverty grows, the stock market zooms to new heights, the wealth of the 1%
increases, and corporate executives continue to get
tax exemptions for business entertainment expenses, which allow corporations to
deduct 50% of these costs from their
annual taxes.
In all this discussion, the real face of
poverty - single mothers - has strangely disappeared. Welfare policy in America has
always favored mothers and children. In a country that values self-sufficiency
and glorifies individualism, Americans have
viewed men - except war veterans - as capable of caring for themselves,
or part of the undeserving poor. Women, by contrast, were always viewed as
mothers with dependents, people to be cared for and protected precisely because
they are vulnerable and raise the next generation.
As I read
dozens of think tank and government
reports, and newspaper stories however, I am surprised to notice that even strong
opponents of the cuts describe SNAP’s
recipients as children, teenagers, seniors or the disabled. Why have single
mothers disappeared from such accounts about the poor? There are plenty of “needy families,”
“households,” and “poor Americans,” but the real face of poverty and the actual
recipients of food assistance are single mothers, whose faces have been
absorbed by the more abstract language of “poor Americans” and “needy
households.”
Even the strongest opponents of these cuts don’t
focus on women or mothers. Instead they publicize pinched-faced children - a
better poster image - staring hungrily at food they cannot eat. Or, they
discuss the public health impact these cuts may have
on children.
According to most reports, even from the Agriculture Department, “children and
teenagers” make up almost half of the recipients of food assistance. But they
don’t mention the mothers who receive this assistance in order to feed those
children and teenagers. From the stories about food stamps, you’d think that
only children, teenagers, the elderly and the disabled have gone hungry.
The words
“women” or even “mothers” rarely appear. In a powerful column against the cuts,
the liberal and compassionate
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, for example,
argued that “two-thirds of recipients are children, elderly or disabled” and
warned his readers about the long-range impact of
malnourished children. He, too, never mentioned women, who are the main adult
recipients of the SNAP program and who feed those children, elderly or
disabled. Nor did he point out that those who apply for such assistance are the
mothers and women who seek to nourish these children. It’s as though women are
simply vehicles - not persons - in the reproduction process of the human
race.
Yet the reality tells a different story. In
2010, for example,
42 percent of single mothers
relied on SNAP; and in rural areas,
the rate often rose as high as one half of all single mothers. What’s missing
from this picture - on both sides - is the real faces of hunger, which is not
“needy” families, or “poor Americans", but single mothers with “food
insecurity” for themselves and their families.
According to the
Center for Budget Priorities,
women
are twice
as likely to use food stamps as anyone else in the population. They are the
ones who apply for the SNAP debit card, go shopping, takes buses for hours to
find discounted food supplies, and try to stretch their food to last throughout
the month for their children, teenagers and, less often, husbands. They are the
pregnant women with older children whose infants are born malnourished, and the
“Americans” who, at the end of the month, make hasty runs to relatives, food
banks and even join other dumpster divers.
When journalists do focus on the women who are
recipients of food assistance, they discover a nightmare hiding in plain
sight. These women are either
unemployed, under-employed or service workers who don’t earn enough to feed
themselves and their families. By the end of the month, they and their children
frequently often skip meals or eat one meal a day until the next month’s SNAP
assistant arrives
So why have women disappeared from a fierce
national debate over who deserves food assistance? I’m not actually sure.
Perhaps it is because so many adult women, like men, now work in the labour
force and are viewed as individuals who should take care of themselves. Perhaps it is because Republicans find
women’s appetite, as opposed to that of children, an embarrassment, hinting of
sexual desire. Perhaps it is because this is part of the Republican war on
women’s reproductive freedom: a single mother with children is somehow guilty
of bringing on her own poverty.
Whatever the reason, the rhetoric does not match
the reality. Once in while, the media publishes or broadcasts a “human
interest” story that
gives
poor women a face” “It is late October,” one
reporter begins, “so Adrianne Flowers is out of money to buy food for her
family. Feeding five kids is expensive, and the roughly $600 in food stamps she
gets from the federal government never lasts the whole month. "I'm barely
making it," said the 31-year-old Washington, D.C., resident and single
mother.” End of story. On to weather and the sports.
For the most part, however, poor women remain
invisible, even as the mothers who feed the children, teenagers, elderly and
disable who live with them. They do not elicit compassion. If anything, they
are ignored or regarded with contempt.
Whatever
the reason, Americans are having a national debate about poor and needy
Americans without addressing the very group whose poverty is the greatest. The
result is that we are turning poor, single mothers, who are
85% of all single parents, into a newly
invisible and undeserving group of recipients.
Republicans
may view single mothers as sinful parasites who don’t deserve food assistance.
But behind every hungry child, teenager and elderly person is a hungry mother
who is exhausted from trying to keep her family together. Women who receive
food assistance are neither invisible nor undeserving. They are working-class
heroes who work hard -often at several minimal wage jobs - to keep their families
nourished and together.
Reprinted with permission from openDemocracy.
