My response to the Sojourners (Jim Wallis) 'Death of Compassionate Conservatism' Article
Below is my response to this article. Give it a read, it is about 3 paragraphs.
http://go.sojo.net/nd.tcl?r=l1L1aup1GRdV&n=3465022
I, along with Jim Wallis, agree that we have a responsibility to fight social injustice. That is why I love the ministries of www.blackgenocide.org and www.abortionno.org. Both speaking out again the injustice of murdering the unborn.
I am a subscriber to sojourners. I have a couple of Jim Wallis books that I love. They have really stretched me as I come out of the conservative Midwest. Jim Wallis is a great pastor and social leader. The problem is that he is wrong on this particular issue. I think that he does a great injustice to the cause that you and I would fight for by distorting truth. Especially when the point can get across without lying.
When Jim Wallis tells us that 300,000 people are being "kicked out" of the welfare, food stamp, and school lunch program, it just isn't true. You can visit the center for heath and human services website and get the actual facts. The facts are that not a single person that is receiving any of these programs will be removed, in fact room is being made for more people. What has happened is that not enough people need the program. I saw a commercial here in Charlotte advertising food stamps. Currently there is an excess of funds, 54 billion to be exact. What he has done is take 54 billion and divided it by how many people that would help and bam, 300,000. So rather than use the 54 billion unwisely, they cut them from the budget and make room for more environmental or social protections for America and the world. It is actually a worthy thing for them to do that and allow it to go to a different cause if it is not being used rather than just horde it to there own budget.
The welfare programs were never intended for people to be "lifers" on. The idea is that they would improve their lives and move off of it. It is actually a good sign that less people are needing it not a bad one. Jim Wallis knows that so I am not sure why he is distorting that truth.
Once again, I love Jim Wallis. He fights for great things and I agree with him most of the time. Just not when he lies to make his cause. That very well could be the injustice.
What do you think? Am I wrong?
posted by primitive salvo @ 10:38 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
I checked the HHS website and didn't notice anything about budget being in excess or less people needing welfare. I would assume instead that more people are needing welfare since our economy is worse off than it has been for a while. However, I am not saying you are wrong about that, i'm sure i need to do more research.
I do know for sure however, that the reason there are "lifers" is because welfare doesn't give enough money to get off of it.
Here's an example:
Let's say you have to afford your house, food, and medical expenses for your family.
Now lets say you have absolutely no money, no family, and no resources to fall back on for that money. What do you do? You go on welfare.
Okay. Now however, welfare only give you enough for food --not enough for a house and med expenses!(Actually, this is a lot like what our welfare does, the equation is "food x 3" which is no where near enough for a house, food, medical expenses, child care, car payments, etc.) And the minimum wage job your work for doesn't add up either.
Can you, with less than what you need, now get off of welfare???
What if a national bill cuts the budget so you now get less? Now what do you do? You're only choice is to stay on welfare, because if you get off of it, you are left with absolutely no money once again. Thus, you have become a lifer.
There are two reasons why I find it hard to beleive that HHS does not need the money. One, because the poverty line is too low in the first place (like I said, food x 3) and those people just above the poverty line are still poor. In addition, some of the people who have been cut off from welfare because of time limits are still also poor. In other words, there are always more people that money could help.
Secondly, the amount that is given for most the welfare programs is not enough to help that person or their family as it stands. Taking away more money couldn't possibly be beneficial.
article on the house bill
"While both welfare rolls and the poverty rate dropped in the 1990s, that has changed since the 2001 recession. The official poverty rate, which had fallen to its lowest level in two decades in 2000, increased to 12.1 percent in 2002, according to the Census Bureau. The number of households who had trouble getting enough food also increased from 10.7 percent in 2001 to 11.1 percent in 2002, according to the Agriculture Department."
"Food stamps have been more sensitive to fluctuations in the economy. The number of households receiving food stamps has increased 35 percent in the last three years, to 10 million.
Some families have left the cash welfare rolls because they reached the time limits set by federal and state laws. Some have been removed from the rolls as a penalty for failing to comply with work requirements.
In some states, the application process is so difficult or complex that it may discourage people from seeking public assistance for which they are eligible.
The federal welfare program "is serving a smaller and smaller proportion of people who are poor enough to qualify," said Sharon Parrott, a policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Robert E. Rector, a senior policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said, "In most states, welfare has become a less attractive option."
laws shrink welfare rolls but increase poverty
Not much to say after that great response. Very well said.
I would just add that I agree that Jim Wallis can be somewhat of a pundit in the way he approaches issues. But lying? Hardly!
Estimating the number of people who will be affected by a bill is pretty common practice. While I will admit that it's a shady Washington-insider practice that I wouldn't expect Wallis to employ, it's not like he was deliberately stretching the facts. Chances are people will be cut - if not off of foodstamps, jobs will be lost.
I haven't heard any debate that the current budget cuts are intended to "make foodstamps more effective," as you suggest. While that might underlie their agenda in doing so, cutting funding has consequences on clients served or creates new clients when people lose their jobs.
In your disdain for his use of hyperbole, it seems like you just committed the same sin.
Sorry for not responding. Busy around here.
Only time will tell what will happen with the bill.
Let's make a deal. I work everyday with 100's on the food stamp program and live in a community with more.
Let me know when you meet the first person 'kicked out' of the program because of the cuts.
I don't have a problem with the practice of what they did as long as it is consistant with what is really going to happen.
We budget $400 a month for food in our family. We only spend $350 every month. So now we are fixing our budget to have $350 in groceries and $50 extra to tithing.
We will not have $50 less in groceries each month, it only appears that way because of the way the budget works.
Don't get me wrong. I am in agreement with Wallis on most stuff. Just not this one.
By the way, I wish they would discuss more about welfare reform that involves justice for those on it. Maybe we can work on a plan together????
The interesting thing about lost clients in social services is that rarely will a government say "we are cutting X clients" because of budget cuts. What happens is that the organization makes clear to its social workers that they should be looking for people to cut and ways to cut expenses in general.
That's often the case with public housing today with decreases in funding and the tearing down of high-density housing. Though there's no official policy that HUD and its independent operators want to kick out as many people as possible, the suddenly aggressive enforcement of the "one strike" policy for anyone posessing drugs within a unit and a general crackdown on late payments demonstrates otherwise.
All that to say, budget cuts probably will create a bottom line loss in clients served. I guess you could argue that makes it more efficient, but given the requirements to even get on the program, they could use the help. I'm with you on welfare reform and looking for a vision for new and more effective ways of doing social service, but not at the expense of current clients.
Keep up the good work » »
Looking for information and found it at this great site... film editing classes
Post a Comment
<< Home