Tag Archives: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

Tell Congress: Make Millionaires and Corporations Pay Their Fair Share

In his State of the Union address, President Obama emphasized a vital point: that unfair, and even counter-productive, tax breaks for corporations and the very wealthy shortchange needed investments for women and their families.

Instead of showering tax breaks on the wealthy, the oil and gas industry and on corporations that ship American jobs overseas, Congress needs to:

Protect vital programs: Women and their families depend on federal programs to protect their health, get quality child care, attend college, and meet their basic needs during difficult times and as they age. We need to protect vital programs like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, the Affordable Care Act, child care, Head Start, and Food Stamps (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).

Create jobs: Unemployment remains painfully high, and while job growth has started to pick up, millions of women and men are still struggling to find jobs. We must extend federal emergency unemployment benefits to help people who are hurting now and invest in programs that put women and men back to work.

Middle-class and low-income families have already sacrificed enough. Budget deals have already scheduled $2 trillion in cuts to federal programs over the next decade that are important to everyday Americans. But they don’t touch a penny of the tax breaks enjoyed by millionaire CEOs and booming industries like Big Oil. Congress should close tax loopholes and require millionaires, billionaires and large corporations to contribute to getting our economy back on track.

Tell your Members of Congress to make millionaires and corporations pay their fair share, to protect vital programs and to create jobs for the millions of struggling Americans who need them.

Thank you for your help today, and for everything you do to help women and their families.

Sincerely,

Joan Entmacher
Vice President, Family Economic Security
National Women’s Law Center

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Super Advocates Needed in Your State (Washington State) …Joan Entmacher, National Women’s Law Center

08/26/2011 Nativegrl77

Super-committee [Soo-per kuh-mit-ee] noun – 12 Members of Congress, including Washington Senator Patty Murray, who are working on a plan to cut the deficit an additional $1.5 trillion, and have the authority to propose cuts to all federal programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Food Stamps. If 7 members approve a plan, it’s put on a fast track to an up-or-down vote: no committee hearings, no filibusters, no amendments.

Tell Senator Murray to Support Responsible Deficit Reduction!

Super-advocate [Soo-per ad-vuh-kit] noun – An advocate for women and families who urges the super-committee to protect vital programs, make millionaires and corporations pay their fair share, and create jobs and spur the economy.

We need you to be a Super Advocate! Join with us in our campaign to Demand Fair Change, Not Spare Change!™ Tell your Member of Congress on the super-committee to protect vital programs, make millionaires and corporations pay their fair share, and create jobs.

These are principles that any plan for deficit reduction should follow:

*Protect vital programs: Women and their families depend on federal programs to protect their health, get quality child care, attend college, and meet their basic needs during difficult times and as they age. Any deficit reduction plan should protect vital programs like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, the Affordable Care Act, child care, Head Start, and Food Stamps (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).
Make millionaires and corporations pay their fair share of taxes: Middle class and low-income families already given enough. On top of cuts in this year’s budget, the debt ceiling deal cuts federal programs by nearly $1 trillion over the next decade. But it doesn’t touch a penny of the tax breaks enjoyed by millionaire CEOs, Wall Street, and Big Oil. Any deficit reduction plan should close tax loopholes and require millionaires, billionaires, and large corporations to contribute to reducing the deficit and getting our economy back on track.
Create jobs: Unemployment remains painfully high, job growth is slow — and women have actually lost ground in the two years since the recession officially ended. To promote a stronger economy and lower deficits in the long term, any deficit reduction plan should make investments that put women and men back to work and extend federal emergency unemployment benefits.

You can be a super-advocate today — tell the congressional super-committee to protect vital programs, make millionaires pay their fair share, and create jobs.

The deficit deal that averted a disastrous default for our nation came at a painful and unfair price. We need to fight together to ensure that any proposal from the super-committee does not continue to hurt women and their families.

To learn more about what a fair deficit reduction plan means for women in your state, check out our state-by-state fact sheets. www.nwlc.org

Thank you for all you do.

The budget fights this year have been long and frustrating — and they’re far from over. But polls show that these principles have the support of a majority of the American people. We need your help to make sure that Members of Congress, and especially members of the super-committee, hear that message loud and clear!

Sincerely,

Joan Entmacher
Vice President, Family Economic Security
National Women’s Law Center

P.S. Your generous donation allows us to continue to work for a fair deficit reduction plan for women and families. Support our work on the federal budget and other issues today.

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Take Action Today: It’s All On the Line …Joan Entmacher and Judy Waxman, National Women’s Law Center

07/13/2011 Nativegrl77

National Women's Law Center - Don't Discount Women: Demand Fair Change Not Spare Change


	Budgetary Threats Loom Closer: Call the Senate



	Dial 1-888-907-1485 and demand a fair and responsible deficit-reduction agreement that works for women and their families!

	Call 1-888-907-1485 today!

The way deficit-reduction talks are going on Capitol Hill, it’s all on the line for women and struggling families. Programs that help those who need it the most are under threat: Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, child care, Head Start, Food Stamps, Pell Grants and more are at risk of devastating cutbacks. Republican leaders are demanding deep cuts in vital programs, rejecting any revenue increases, and threatening to let the U.S. default on its obligations — causing another economic crisis — if they don’t get their way.

Don’t let these important programs be held hostage in the deficit-reduction debates! Call your Senators toll-free at 1-888-907-1485 today! Ask them to insist on a budget plan that reduces the deficit responsibly and works for all Americans — not just millionaires and big business.

Dial 1-888-907-1485 to be connected to your own Senators’ offices.Tell them:

Your name and that you are a constituent;
You’re depending on them to prevent harmful cuts or caps to programs for low- and moderate-income people in the negotiations to reduce the deficit;
That they must insist on fair increases in revenues from those with the greatest ability to pay to prevent reckless cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and other essential domestic services.

Though reducing the long-term deficit is an important step toward stabilizing and growing our nation’s economy, we must do it responsibly. And, one of the best ways to reduce the long-term deficit is to create jobs now — not to make spending cuts that will eliminate more public sector jobs and weaken the economy.

With negotiations proceeding to craft a deal that may last a decade, we have to act now. So we’re helping mobilize Americans to call the Senate this week to make our position known.

Join our National Budget Call-In Days through the end of the week. We need your voice: Call your Senators toll-free at 1-888-907-1485.

Remember: it’s all on the line. We are determined to Demand Fair Change, Not Spare Change™, and we need your help now, more than ever.

Thank you for your continued commitment. We couldn’t do this without you!

Sincerely,

Joan Entmacher
Vice President, Family Economic Security
National Women’s Law Center

Judy Waxman
Vice President for Health and Reproductive Rights
National Women’s

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

ECONOMY: Hungry For Help

11/23/2010 Nativegrl77

Special Note: The Progress Report will be temporarily suspended starting tomorrow and will return on Monday. We wish everyone a happy and safe holidays!

As the holidays approach, more American kitchen tables will be empty than at any time in recent memory. Last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture released a report saying that “food insecurity” rates are the highest they’ve been since the government began keeping track. Food pantries across the country, meanwhile, are struggling to meet escalating demands for their services, while key safety net measures that could keep homes headed and food on the table, like unemployment insurance and food stamps, are imperiled by Republican obstruction in Congress. Worse, many conservatives and too many in the mainstream media don’t seem to take this crisis seriously — meaning that more families are likely to be left out in the cold.

NO FOOD: As one might expect, tough economic times have created dire situations for many American families, literally keeping many from putting food on the table. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, last year 14.7 percent of American families were “food insecure,” meaning they had trouble feeding one or more family members because of a lack of financial means. This was the highest rate of food insecurity since the USDA began collecting statistics 15 years ago. This means that 50.2 million people lived in food insecure households, including 17.2 million children. According to USDA research, 12.2 million adults and 5.4 million children lived in households with drastic food insecurity. Children’s Health Watch notes that in households with very young children, the rate of food insecurity rose last year to 25.4 percent, from 24.5 percent, meaning an additional 483,000 children under the age of six lived in food insecure households in 2009. Less than half of the affected families — 43 percent — were below the federal poverty line, meaning lack of food isn’t a problem limited to the very poor. Black and Latino households, and households headed by single mothers, were disproportionately affected by food insecurity, with rates almost double the national average. At this time of year, many families turn to food pantries — in fact, the largest rise in food pantry use was over the last two years — and the pantries are struggling to keep up with demand. “Last month there wasn’t a moment when people weren’t waiting in line at least three to four deep to get food. It was non-stop for the entire three hours we were open,” said one food pantry worker in Marietta, OH. “There have been a lot of laid-off workers, and for the last couple of years we’ve been seeing some situations where two families live in the same house.”

IGNORING THE ISSUE: As is too often the case, many prominent conservatives are less than concerned with the plight of working families struggling during these hard economic times. Radio host Rush Limbaugh took up the USDA report, but couldn’t quite figure out what “food insecurity” actually was. He hypothesized that “food insecurity is what causes obesity,” because “if you eat too much to deal with your food insecurity, then you get fat.” He then mocked the idea of “fighting off hunger,” saying that “you can actually see it….you go inside Publix or any grocery store, you can see them walk down the aisles, they reach for something and then they don’t. It’s an amazing thing to watch, people fighting off hunger.” If conservatives aren’t demeaning this crisis, they’re ignoring it. Fox News did not mention the USDA’s report at all and did not tell viewers that food insecurity rates were higher than ever. Though Glenn Beck does like to tell his fans to save and stockpile food, as he did this month, it’s for made-up reasons involving an imminent government collapse. Sadly, though, this inattention wasn’t limited to the conservative Fox News. A Nexis search of cable news networks revealed only four mentions of “food insecurity” following the USDA report, compared with, for example, 53 mentions of “royal wedding.”

POLICY STRUGGLES: The inattention to food insecurity in the public discourse has predictably lead to lagging action to address the issue in Washington. Unemployment insurance and federal food assistance have proved to work when it comes to addressing poverty. As the Center for American Progress notes, unemployment insurance pulled 3.3 million people — including 1 million children — out of poverty in 2009 alone. This is more people than the entire population of the Chicago metropolitan area. Food stamps alone lifted 2.4 million children out of “deep poverty,” which is greater than the number of children living in Los Angeles County. These programs are not only morally responsible, but also benefit the economy. CAP Senior Fellow Joel Berg estimates that hunger costs the economy $126 billion annually. Businesses will also be hurt if these programs aren’t extended, creating further economic instability — CAP’s Heather Boushey and Jordan Eizenga explain that unemployment insurance and food stamps are helping the economy recover from the recession. House Republicans cruelly blocked a continuation of unemployment insurance this week, however. The Senate actually cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides food stamps, by $2 billion in 2013 in order to pay for improved school lunches. And while the Senate did finally extend the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) this week, it blocked TANF’s Emergency Contingency Fund, a successful jobs program that has created more than 250,000 subsidized jobs for low-income workers through grants to states. This type of cruel inaction will leave more families staring at empty holiday tables in the coming months. Rush Limbaugh will surely be eating well, however.

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Reality need not apply

10/08/2010 Nativegrl77

Reality need not apply: Fox continues to deny aid to poor is stimulative

http://mediamatters.org/research/201010070027

Fox News hosts and contributors have recently dismissed estimates of food stamp programs’ stimulative effect on the economy as “some strange multiplier effect study,” “liberal math” and a “complicated economic multiplier theory.” In fact, economists agree that food stamps are one of “the most effective ways to prime the economy’s pump.”

Malkin, Gingrich and Varney all dismiss economic theory to continue attacking food stamps

Malkin falsely claims “the only thing that these programs stimulate, of course, is a bigger government.” On the October 7 edition of Fox News’ Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy stated that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said of food stamps: “It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance.” Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin replied by saying she would “like to know which economist [House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] is talking to. Of course, she’s promoting some strange multiplier effect study to argue this.” Malkin concluded by falsely claiming “the only thing that these programs stimulate, of course, is bigger government.”

Varney dismisses economic consensus regarding stimulative nature of food stamps as a “complicated economic multiplier theory.” Earlier on Fox & Friends, Fox Business Network anchor Stuart Varney dismissed Pelosi’s statement as “the complicated economic multiplier theory that they’re bringing in here.” Varney claimed “the evidence that’s before us” showing that a high proportion of the unemployed are on food stamps and unemployment is still high shows “it would seem you don’t get bigger bang for the buck.”

Varney hosts Santorum to attack food stamps and claim that “the numbers are phony.” On the October 7 edition of Fox Business Network’s Varney & Company, contributor Tracy Byrnes attributed Pelosi’s claim to “the health care calculator that they use…the keys are not working correctly if she’s thinking this is the best bang for our buck.” Fox News contributor Rick Santorum then stated of Pelosi’s claim: “So if that’s the case, why don’t we turn the whole economy over to the government have them pay out all of this money and have a great multiplier effect. It doesn’t work and in fact there have been studies done show just the opposite.” Santorum further claimed “I don’t know where she’s getting the funny numbers, the calculator is not working as Tracy said, but the numbers are phony.”

Gingrich: “I don’t understand how liberal math turns one dollar into $1.79.” On the October 6 edition of Fox News’ On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich said:

I carry around a bumper sticker that says two plus two equals four, so I’d be very curious how a dollar given to somebody becomes $1.79. And I think if we could get that to work at the U.S. Treasury, so if people gave the treasury $1,000, it became $1,790, we could pay off the federal debt and never worry about spending or anything. Somehow, I don’t understand how liberal math turns one dollar into $1.79.

Economists widely acknowledge stimulative nature of food stamps

Elmendorf: “Nutrition assistance” would “have a significant impact on GDP.” In January 27, 2009, written testimony before the House Budget Committee, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf stated that “[t]ransfers to persons (for example, unemployment insurance and nutrition assistance) would … have a significant impact on GDP.” He added: “Because a large amount of such spending can occur quickly, transfers would have a significant impact on GDP by early 2010. Transfers also include refundable tax credits, which have an impact similar to that of a temporary tax cut.”

Zandi: “[E]xtending food stamps are the most effective ways to prime the economy’s pump.” In his July 24, 2008, written testimony before the House Committee on Small Business, economist Mark Zandi, who advised John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, stated that “extending food stamps are [sic] the most effective ways to prime the economy’s pump.” Zandi further explained: “People who receive these benefits are very hard-pressed and will spend any financial aid they receive within a few weeks. These programs are also already operating, and a benefit increase can be quickly delivered to recipients.” Zandi included with his testimony a table stating that a “Temporary Increase in Food Stamps” had the highest “Fiscal Economic Bank for the Buck” of any other potential stimulus provision he analyzed, providing a $1.73 increase in real GDP for every dollar spent.

Attack is the latest in Fox’s ongoing assault on aid to poor and unemployed

Fox regularly ignores economic consensus to attack unemployment insurance. As Media Matters has noted, Fox regularly ignores economic consensus and analysis to baselessly attack unemployment insurance. For example:

On February 22, Hannity falsely suggested the Federal Reserve said unemployment benefit extension increased unemployment.
During the May 15 edition of Fox News’ Bulls & Bears, host Brenda Buttner claimed Americans were “turning down good paying jobs to stay on unemployment. I wish I were kidding.” During the tease, the on-screen graphic said “Cut off freeloaders?”
On July 2, Fox & Friends guest host Alisyn Camerota didn’t understand the “logic” behind Pelosi’s claim that unemployment insurance “injects demand into the economy” and “is a job creator.” Guest co-host Clayton Morris said that “would love to know what economists say that.” Co-host Dave Briggs claimed there were a “few holes in that logic to say the least.”
On the July 15 edition of Fox News’ Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade hosted Partnership Staffing Inc. CEO Bill Auchmoody, who claimed that unemployment benefits prevent unemployed workers from searching for jobs. During the segment, Kilmeade played Pelosi’s comments and asked Auchmoody to comment. Auchmoody stated: “I don’t know how an unemployment check creates jobs. You know, businesses create jobs. The economy and the government getting out of the way, in my opinion, helps create jobs.” Kilmeade concluded the interview by telling Auchmoody that “maybe” the elimination of “unemployment benefits will get people to sober up and take some of your offers.”
On the August 10 edition of Glenn Beck, Beck said “Nancy Pelosi actually made the point that unemployment payment stimulate [sic] the economy.” After playing the clip, Beck suggested Pelosi was wrong that unemployment insurance creates jobs by saying “have you ever worked for a guy who was saying ‘hang on just a second, I’m going to pay you out of my unemployment check.”
On the August 31 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox Business host Stuart Varney cited a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Harvard economics professor and Hoover Institute senior fellow Robert Barro to claim that, in Varney’s words, “If we had not extended unemployment benefits to 99 weeks from the standard 26 weeks, [Barro] says, unemployment would be at 6.8%, not the 9.5%.” According to Varney, Barro argued that “you extend benefits like this and it discourages people from going out to look for work especially, you know, the start of the benefit period because it’s nearly two years.”
On the September 16 edition of Fox News’ Fox & Friends, Stuart Varney attacked the unemployed by falsely claiming that rises in disability were due to the unemployed committing fraud. In fact, what led to the increase in claims from 2008 to 2009 was legislation that President Bush signed into law in 2008, which changed the ways that the requirements for being disabled could be interpreted. The growth in the program was expected and is the result of intentional changes to policy which make it easier to qualify.
During the September 29 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson asked “when will the government turn off government spending and extend tax cuts to stimulate the private sector.” Carlson was referring to a program that “directly paid the salaries of unemployed people so they could get jobs in government, at nonprofit organizations and at many small businesses.