The October issue of Smithsonian magazine highlights a profound observation: with just five words in the Declaration of Independence—”all men are created equal”—Thomas Jefferson dismantled Aristotle’s long-held belief that, from birth, some individuals were destined for power while others were meant for subservience.
While Aristotle’s view is clearly outdated, one can’t help but feel that Jefferson’s assertion is equally flawed. If you’ve ever waited for jury duty, surrounded by a diverse group, it’s evident: humanity exists on a vast spectrum, from brilliance to ignorance.
Thomas A. Patterson, in his work “The American Democracy – Alternate Edition,” explains that Jefferson, despite being a slave owner, intended to convey that all Americans should receive equal justice under the law. Smithsonian attempts to address the contradiction between Jefferson’s ideals and his actions, suggesting, “The existence of slavery during the American Revolution is a paradox we often choose to overlook, as such contradictions provide a sense of moral comfort.”
We’ll leave the interpretation of “moral comfort” to our readers. What intrigues us is Jefferson’s belief in equal justice for all individuals. This is a principle worth upholding, yet, regrettably, it has been diluted over time.
Since Jefferson’s era, the concept has warped into the belief that everyone is entitled to equal benefits, regardless of merit. Though Jefferson had his moral imperfections, it is unlikely he envisioned a government that facilitates daily sustenance for 46 million people, both citizens and non-citizens.
Subject to Extreme Abuse
As it stands, approximately 46.6 million individuals are enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), equating to about one in seven Americans who rely on government-provided food assistance. Furthermore, SNAP expenditures are projected to quadruple over the last 12 years.
So, what’s the underlying issue? asks Kate Havard at the Weekly Standard.
“Many individuals are indeed poorer today compared to a decade ago, but the rise in food stamp enrollment cannot solely be blamed on a struggling economy. A decade ago, nearly 12 percent of Americans lived beneath the official poverty line; today, that figure stands at 15 percent. While the poverty rate increased by only 25 percent, spending on food assistance surged by 400 percent.”
Significantly, the U.S. lost 1.3 million jobs from January 2009 to June 2012. However, during the same period, SNAP enrollment grew by 15.1 million. The stark contradiction puzzled us until we uncovered evidence of widespread abuse within the program.
Since 2004, the USDA has collaborated with the Mexican government to boost SNAP enrollment among “Mexican nationals, migrant workers, and non-citizen immigrants.” Mexican consulates are even distributing informational materials about SNAP throughout the U.S.
Besides migrant workers, college students are also benefiting from government assistance. “Last summer, officials in Michigan discovered that around 30,000 college students enrolled in the state’s food stamp program, many of whom came from middle-class backgrounds. These students received monthly benefits of up to $200, costing the state approximately $75 million annually.”
Falling Off the Hunger Cliff
With so many individuals growing dependent on government Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards, could it be that they are being led toward impending hardship?
This time next week, we will have clarity.
As we pen this commentary, Congress is in a state of turmoil over the looming hunger cliff that millions may face if they do not pass the 2012 farm bill before the current legislation expires on September 30. Typically, these bills pass with minimal controversy since they combine agricultural subsidies with food stamps, making them palatable to many lawmakers. Yet, given that SNAP spending has quadrupled in the past twelve years, it has become contentious among some Congress members, who point out that “nearly 80 percent of the $1 trillion the 2012 bill is set to spend over the next decade would be allocated to the food stamp program.”
“This isn’t a farm bill; it’s a welfare bill,” stated Republican Senator Ron Johnson.
“This legislation exemplifies what’s wrong in Washington,” he added. “Years ago, someone recognized that amalgamating food stamps and agriculture programs into one bill would facilitate both passing with little to no debate.”
Johnson’s proposal to separate the food stamp provisions from the farm bill failed, and the Senate subsequently passed a bill allocating $1 trillion over a decade, with $800 billion directed toward food stamps. Now, however, the bill has stalled in the House of Representatives.
Time is running out for Congress. An extension of the current farm bill may be the only solution to ensure that EBT cards remain funded. The thought is alarming: if no action takes place, 46 million individuals could fall off the precipice of food security.
MN Gordon
for Economic Prism