Protecting society's most vulnerable

So, is part of the role of government to protect society's most vulnerable, or is it not? That's one of the core issues separating the left wing from the right today. The reason this is in my mind right now are two proposals coming from the Bush administration: one is proposed cuts to food stamp benefits, and the other is the bankruptcy "reform" bill, both of which are punitive, rather than protective, in nature. Both penalize people for being poor, as if it were some kind of character flaw.

Here's my thoughts on the food stamp cuts:

Remember the government surplus food distribution programs? For those who don't remember this, it was a program wherein those who qualified could go to a food distribution center and receive food products such as milk, cheese, potatoes, apples, flour, etc., that had been identified as agricultural surplus - i.e., the farmers produced more than they could sell for a reasonable profit. The government paid a fair price to the farmers, took the surplus off their hands, and distributed the food to the needy.

The program was a win-win for the farmers, the government, and especially the needy, who got fresh, wholesome foods free of charge or at a very nominal charge (ours were usually free). However, the large supermarket chains and the big food companies like General Mills, Kraft, et al., took a look at that and said, "hey, we want a cut!"

Over the course of several decades, the government surplus food programs got gradually switched over to food stamps. The propaganda that was used was that it was "undignified" and "humiliating" for poor folks to have to stand in lines for the surplus food, and food stamps would "restore their dignity."

The net result was that poor folks ended up getting less food for their benefit, because it's easier to buy prepackaged, prepared foods than to buy fresh foods - and it's generally cheaper, too. So the diets of those on public benefits declined in quality. Farmers no longer had an outlet for their surplus produce, which now rotted in the fields or had to be sold for a loss. The government had to spend a great deal of money administering the food stamp program. But the big food companies and supermarket chains were happy - their profits were up, as they sold soda, chips, and candy bars to the needy. The commodities distribution program was wholesale, whereas with food stamps, the poor are paying retail for their food; a very bad value for everyone except the middleman - the big companies like Kraft and ConAgra and Safeway, who are making a tidy sum off the misfortunes of others.

Oh, and the dignity of the poor? What, precisely, is less humiliating about using food stamps? Everyone can see that you're using them, and everyone then feels entitled to critique your food choices.

And speaking of dignity - what about the dignity of our active-duty military, many of whose families are forced onto food stamps by the abysmally low rate of pay? That's hardly my idea of "support our troops."

And my thoughts on bankruptcy "reform":

On the proposal to make it much harder to file for personal bankruptcy, the propaganda being used is that people need to take greater "personal responsibility" to keep themselves out of debt. However, this ignores fact in favor of partisan rhetoric.

The credit card companies caused this problem themselves. They started loosening credit card requirements years ago. When I was first applying for credit some 30 years ago, it actually wasn't that easy to get. You had to have an income, your debt-to-income ratio had to be fairly low, you had to have something in the way of assets, etc. Now they give credit cards with $5K or $10K limits to college students with NO income and no prospects of an income. Their lending practices have become more and more predatory.

My husband's older brother is mentally retarded. Charlie cannot understand concepts like credit, amortization, or interest rates. He did not have a job, just a small income from SSDI. A credit card offer came in the mail, and his (very elderly and somewhat confused) mother helped him complete it. He got a credit card in the mail with a $5,000 limit. Now, neither he or his mother really quite understood what that meant. He thought it was some kind of gift or supplement check, like the IRS tax refunds he used to get when he was working, or his monthly SSDI check. He went out and bought a car when his died - not a fancy car, but a good used car that, unsurprisingly, the used car dealership priced at his credit limit once they figured out he was using a credit card. Then the bills started to come. He had no way to pay them. The account went into collection. He still had no way to pay them. The car was repossessed, but he was still being harassed by the credit collection agency. This confused and frightened him. Finally, my husband and their sister had to sit down and figure out how to get him filed for bankruptcy. It was the only way to get the lenders' attack dogs away from him. Even after he filed, the collectors continued to phone and visit, despite the law forbidding that after bankruptcy has been filed - they knew someone who didn't know his rights when they saw him.

Yeah, let's make it harder for people like that. What a good idea. Let's not go after predatory lending practices, which cause this kind of thing in the first place. After all, the credit issuers are big campaign donors.

This also ignores one of the primary causes of personal bankruptcy: health care costs and medical problems. Between 1981 and 2001, medical-related bankruptcies increased by 2,200%, an astonishing explosion in a relatively short period of time. This far outpaces the 360% growth in all personal bankruptcies during the same period.

Until 25 years ago, filing for bankruptcy because of debts from a medical problem was virtually unheard of. In 1981, University of Texas law professors conducting bankruptcy research noticed that a handful of the debtors they were studying could never quite pay off their medical bills, but while these bills certainly didn't help, they weren't forcing people into bankruptcy.

Today, by contrast, medical-related debt is the second leading cause of personal bankruptcies, topped only by job loss (and how many of those job losses are caused by health problems?). There are two reasons: First, there's been a dramatic rise in healthcare costs. In 2002 Americans paid an average of $5,440 in medical expenditures, up $419 from the previous year. A September 2004 study by Families USA found that 14.3 million Americans now spend more than one quarter of their earnings into healthcare costs. Let me repeat that. ONE QUARTER.

Second, the past fifteen years have seen an enormous increase in the number of Americans who either don't have health insurance or have such rudimentary coverage they might as well have none--there are currently some 45 million uninsured Americans, a jump of 10 million since 1990.

How many of those filing for bankruptcy were wiped out because of co-payments, deductibles or uncovered services, which add up to thousands of dollars in bills? How many were denied coverage by the very insurance companies to whom they pay thousands of dollars in premiums, through some trumped-up excuse claiming their condition is "pre-existing" or not eligible for coverage? How long are we going to let this go on? WHY are we letting this go on? No other industrialized country has this problem.

Penalizing the poor and the sick is not the proper function of a humane government.