The Great Food Stamp Debacle

Some here on Gloucester Township Patch, in reference to my blogging, have accused me of having no compassion for the poor. That is not true and I would like to clarify why I address the subject of government entitlements, as opposed to true human compassion from the heart of the people, as I do.

A question that needs to be answered is whether people actually fare better when all their needs are met by others? Is it actually beneficial to those who are less fortunate among us to have their needs met by the social engineers amongst us on a long-term basis? Or are people better off when they have to work hard for what they need? What does it do for the self-esteem of an individual when he or she is given the daily essentials in perpetuity because some social engineer thinks that is what is best? Is an individual’s self-esteem better served when that individual can relax at the end of the day knowing he or she brought home the daily meal even if at great cost?

At this point it would pay to consider what is recorded in the Bible concerning the law of the reaping of the harvest. “And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God” (Leviticus 19.9-10 – KJV). Gleaning, for those who might not know, is the act of passing through a harvested field or vineyard and gathering, or gleaning, that which was missed the first time through. In addition, the importance of these statements is emphasized by God's stamp at the end, "I am the LORD your God."

The owner of the field to be harvested was commanded by the Laws outlined in the Book of Leviticus to leave the corners of his field unharvested and to forgo sending the reapers through a second time to gather, or glean, what was missed in the first harvesting. The gleanings and the corners of the field were to be left for the poor among the Israelites. This command shows great compassion and concern for those who were experiencing hardship in the community. Interestingly the owner of the field, who was probably a man of some wealth, was not commanded to gather the gleanings and feed the poor; rather he was commanded to leave the gleanings for the poor to gather themselves. In our day and age, with all of our social programs, including the food stamp program, we have found a better way. Allow the rich man to work hard to gather in the whole crop and then forcibly extract a sufficient amount to feed the poor who either can’t work or won’t work. Apparently, contrary to our more modern ways, God or, if you have trouble accepting that, the writer of the Book of Leviticus thought that it made more sense to allow the poor to work for their daily sustenance. And that, by the way, worked well for a long time.

So, how has our more modern method of dealing with the situation worked out? One study informs us that half of the children in the U.S. are living in, or will, at some point, live in a household that uses food stamps. Additionally, it is reported that 90 percent of children with single parents will live in households that use food stamps at some point. Participation in the food stamp program has reportedly increased from 18 million in 2002 to 47 million in 2011. Understandably, unemployment during that time increased from 6 percent to 9 percent and plays a part in these statistics. But the increase in unemployment during that time is an increase of one half while the increase in food stamp use increased more than two-and-one-half times as much. What’s going on?

Some people use food stamps because of a dire need to supplement what they are already spending for food. Unfortunately there is another whole contingent who are using food stamps for food because all of their income is used for drugs, or something else, leaving nothing for food. But why worry? Isn’t that the reason for food stamps? Isn’t daily sustenance a guaranteed human right and aren’t we entitled to food stamps? The program itself has fostered this type of thinking and the resulting scams associated with food stamps. The social engineers pushing the food stamp program are attempting to remove it from the realm of a temporary boost for people who periodically find themselves between a rock and a hard place to a full blown entitlement program akin to the likes of Social Security. In California, Food for People leader Deborah Waxman was quoted by the Eureka Times-Standard as stating that people were entitled to food stamps as something they had paid for like Social Security and Medicare.

Society once looked upon people that could rise above their circumstances and become independent as a success. In fact, many considered that the wonder of America and left their homes to come here for that reason. But today the government busybodies deem success as getting as many people as possible to accept food stamps (for one thing, this keeps the holders of the government programs in control). The fact is that when people are helped in a way that works to make them ultimately independent, that is good for them and for society in general. Otherwise we end up with a permanent class of people that have become dependent on government and have no incentive or motivation to change their circumstances thus falling into a rut from which they never climb out. Thomas Sowell has commented on “Life at the Bottom,” a study of white, underclass British neighborhoods. Mr. Sowell comments that the underclasses, having their physical needs supplied by the welfare state, as if they were livestock, are left with “a life emptied of meaning.” Unable to take pride in providing even their own food and shelter leaves them with no sense of responsibility in a world that will not tell them otherwise.

President Roosevelt, himself, is quoted in 1933 as saying, “When any man or woman goes on the dole something happens to them mentally and the quicker they are taken off the dole the better it is for them the rest of their lives.” Can we really excuse ourselves for destroying the self-respect, self-reliance, and courage and determination of millions of people by attempting to relegate them permanently to the welfare class?

The end result of all of this is that the taxpayers, who are becoming a smaller and smaller segment of society, foot the bill not only for all those who receive government subsidies but the whole framework of government know-it-alls required to keep such a program going. What is our goal? Is it to have two classes of people, those who need to be provided for and those who administrate the programs that do the providing? Who will ultimately pay for it all? The One-Per-Centers, I’m sure.