Many political conservatives seem to enjoy caricaturing needy families who are receiving SNAP benefits which are now being cut. And I can tell you many families need these programs to make ends meet. It may be the old predestinarian Puritan ethic that makes some conservatives callous, or it may be ignorance. But many girls and women in moments of deep loneliness give in to the smooth talking men who come prowling around looking for another sort of goods. And then, after the fun, he takes off, for good. The girl now is a mother for the first time, or again. It happens. She should say no. But how many ‘shoulds’ have we all caved in on, especially when young?

Or what of the corporate  thieves and raiders, or former Presidents, who exploit human labor and mock human values all week long and plan new rationalizations for paychecks and new wars (success!) before heading to the Yachting clubs on the Cape, summer after summer, living near the waters which for fear of “climate change” should rather make them tremble with concern?

But a  “new proposal from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) would kick millions of people from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by tightening eligibility requirements. The proposal moves to raise the threshold families must meet to qualify for the government assistance program in order to “preserve benefits for the truly needy.” According to the proposal, it would end “broad-based categorical eligibility” for SNAP, which allowed for families to qualify for the program if they qualified for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) without needing to show proof they met federal income thresholds. Generally, TANF eligibility is 130 to 200 percent higher than the federal poverty level, while SNAP qualification is 130 percent. The USDA estimated that approximately 17.6 percent of SNAP participants would lose their benefits—representing 3.2 million households or 6.3 million individuals—in the proposed rule’s first year in effect.

_______

+ Has Trump betrayed Ukraine? Palka says yes.