Shutdown hunger games

 Over a century ago Will Rogers, famous for both his acting and pithy social commentary, quipped, “Ten men in our country could buy the whole world, and ten million can’t buy enough to eat.”   Were he alive today, he would have to amend it to say that while 10 men can still buy the whole world, 42 million can’t buy enough to eat.

Because President Trump, while hosting a lavish “Great Gatsby” themed party at his resort in Mar-a-Lago, directed the U.S. Department of Agriculture to withhold SNAP benefits from 42 million children, veterans, and seniors, all while boasting about his new marble bathrooms and gilded ballroom.  

These kinds of gross displays of extreme wealth against a backdrop of desperate poverty have become a common feature of American life today.  A cursory look at how some of the richest people are presently fairing gives us a sense. 

Jim Walton, heir to the Walmart fortune, saw his wealth rise by192 per cent since Trump’s corporate tax breaks were enacted in 2017.  According to Americans for Tax Fairness, this translates to an additional $80 million in just eight years for Jim Walton.

By contrast, a young woman working as a cashier at Walmart recently told me that she was worried about how she is going to feed her nine-month-old baby after WIC benefits were taken away.  She said she works as much as she can at $11 an hour, but her Walmart wages are not enough to afford formula and food, so she relies on WIC to ensure her baby is getting enough to eat.  Accounting for inflation she is making even less in real wages over the same time period Mr. Walton’s fortunes have skyrocketed.  

How do we understand the level of precarity facing millions of people like her when today America’s 916 billionaires have now amassed $8 trillion, a 172 per cent increase since the enactment of the 2017 Trump tax law?  

Joseph Stiglitz gives an answer from his perspective as a Nobel prize winning economist.  In The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future he points out, “There are two ways to become wealthy: to create wealth or to take wealth away from others. The former adds to society. The latter typically subtracts from it, for in the process of taking it away, wealth gets destroyed.”  From this perspective, the extraction of wealth from working people is what is fueling today’s extreme levels of poverty and wealth inequality. 

This extraction and concentration of wealth is made possibly by the policy decisions made by those in power, and to that, Will Rogers has a related quip: “America has the best politicians money can buy.”  As illustration, West Virginia’s entire congressional delegation voted for the “Big Brutal Bill” which permanently extended Trump’s 2017 corporate tax cuts, partly paid for by cutting health care and food access for West Virginians and other struggling Americans. 

Yes the Federal Government is still shut down as President Trump and our representatives in Washington refuse to side with Democrats and restore the premium tax credits that allow West Virginians to access health care.  Even so, the Administration can designate contingency and carryover funds to keep SNAP running, as the USDA has done during previous shutdowns. It can also transfer funds from other accounts to make up any shortfall.

In open letter to West Virginia’s four senators and representatives and signed by over 40 food banks, churches, and advocacy groups, they stated, “Allowing SNAP and WIC payments to lapse and hunger to deepen during a shutdown is a policy choice and a preventable cruelty.”

These same groups also requested that each of our senators and representatives sit down as soon as they can with West Virginians who are experiencing the crushing stress of whether or not they will have enough food for their loved ones to eat.      

If our leaders continue to prioritize wealthy donors and the corporate elite over the thousands of West Virginians struggling to afford health care and food, then you can count on Will Rogers for some final words of wisdom: “The short memories of the American voters is what keeps our politicians in office.”  So let us not forget next time.  

This column by Lida Shepherd, director of the American Friends Service Committee WV Economic Justice Project, appeared in today's Charleston Gazette-Mail.

Big bad ugly bill

 British author and poet George Orwell wrote in his 1946 essay Politics and the English Language, “In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.”

While confronting the monstrosity of the so-called “big beautiful bill” that recently passed the House of Representatives, one might imagine Orwell hollering at us from the past, “Did I call it or what?”

If this bill didn’t have life or death implications for millions of Americans, we could almost laugh at the recent image of moneyed politicians, victorious after the bill narrowly passed the House, their pockets lined with corporate cash, standing behind a sign that reads: “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”

But nothing funny nor beautiful can be found in a bill that adds trillions of dollars to the national debt, strips health care and food assistance away from millions of Americans, all to pay for an extension of tax cuts, the lion’s share of which benefit the wealthiest one per cent. 

How could we be fooled into not seeing that this budget bill is what economics columnist for the Washington Post Catherine Rampell calls “a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich”?  

At over 1,000 pages, I’ll concede that the bill is big, which is by design.  The sheer volume of it, the number of programs and tax policies it touches makes it difficult for most of us to understand all the implications of a budget bill this size.  My friend and colleague with American Friends Service Committee Rick Wilson has often quipped, “Taxes and budgets are boring. Breathing is boring too until someone starts choking you, in which case it’s fascinating.”

We should be fascinated – and equally horrified - by what is in this bill. According to Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, two-thirds of the proposal’s tax cuts benefit only those earners in the top quintile of income brackets.   

Cuts to the corporate tax rate, which decreased from 35 per cent to 21 per cent after the tax cuts were originally passed in 2017, would be made permanent.  Those corporate tax cuts have helped drain our federal coffers.  From 2018 to 2021, according to an analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the top corporations in the US saved a combined $240 billion in taxes.

This massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich is made plain by the fact that the tax cuts would be paid for largely by cutting people off Medicaid and SNAP.  

Words like “waste, fraud and abuse” hide the bill’s true aims.  Stereotypes of an unworthy poor person are updated.  President Ronald Reagan used the racialized trope of “welfare queen” to defend welfare reform in the 1980’s.  Today Speaker Mike Johnson describes “29 year old males sitting on their coach playing video games” to gin up anti-poor resentments and peddle the myth that food and health care are luxuries only for those who are deserving.

Political dog whistles are used to support radical changes to the Medicaid program via “Medicaid work requirements” that would, by design, drown people in bureaucratic paperwork.  Quite cynically those who support this bill are not hiding the math: the tax cuts will be offset in part by the number of people projected to be cut off Medicaid.   

The Congressional Budget Office’s latest cost estimate shows that the Medicaid provisions would increase the number of uninsured people by 7.6 million. Over 90,000 people in West Virginia would eventually lose health care coverage.  

When Arkansas instituted work reporting requirements, more than 18,000 people lost Medicaid coverage, mainly due to failure to regularly report work status or document eligibility for an exemption. 

The hypocrisy of the proposed reporting requirements is staggering.  As New York Times columnist Ezra Klein points out, so-called work requirements are “an effort to weaponize the very bureaucratic inefficiency that they otherwise pretend to condemn and root out — against the weakest and most powerless segment of society: people who do not make enough money to get health insurance.”

“Medicaid work requirements” sound good which again is by design. The language obscures the fact that two thirds of people who receive Medicaid via expansion under the Affordable Care Act are already working full or part time.  The other third of people are not working due to caregiving responsibilities, unaffordable child care, or any number of life complications that crop up, particularly when facing economic hardship every single day.  

Orwell concludes in his essay on politics and language, “One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one’s own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase into the dustbin where it belongs.”

I surely hope that the better and wiser angels of our nature carry the day, and that we all jeer loudly enough to send the “one big beautiful bill” into the dustbin where it belongs.  

(This op-ed by Lida Shepherd appeared in the Charleston Gazette-Mail)

Political blackmail

 The U.S. House of Representatives recently voted on a bill that will, if enacted, will bring nothing but misery to thousands of West Virginians and millions of people across the country. It passed by a two vote majority. 

To quote a former occupant of the White House, “SAD.” 

The so-called Limit, Save, and Grow Act, which I like to think of as the Retch, Croak, and Die Act, will force automatic and devastating cuts in discretionary federal spending that would overwhelmingly hit working class and low-income people. And it will probably hit West Virginia harder than any other state. 

It’s a classic example of political hostage taking by either forcing massive across the board cuts to programs that help families, seniors, kids, and just about everyone else OR creating a global financial crisis if the U.S. defaults on debt payments. Either way, everyday people will be hurting. 

Rather than proposing an unpopular specific budget that its supporters would have to own, the bill would set spending limits that would make the cuts automatic. 

According to the DC based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “The agenda represents failed trickle-down economics at its worst and would narrow opportunity, deepen inequality, and increase hardship.” Specifically, they report that “The bill would make severe cuts – $3.6 trillion over the next decade – to the part of the budget that funds child care and preschool, schools, college aid, housing, medical research, transportation, many other national priorities.” 

For starters, cuts for the next year would mean that more than 900,000 low-income people lose housing assistance and 200,000 children would lose access to Head Start, along with a reduction by $1,000 to the maximum Pell grant that makes higher education more affordable. The only real trickle down that will happen will be a loss of up to $1.3 trillion to state and local governments in federal grants to fund services. 

Pentagon spending would be left untouched, and the bill would also make it easier for wealthy people and corporations avoid paying their fair share of taxes. 

Among the bill’s poisoned pills are the kind of failed bureaucratic reporting and paperwork requirements for SNAP food assistance and Medicaid that West Virginia’s Republican supermajority wisely rejected in the regular 2023 session, but on a massive scale. Such provisions do nothing to promote work but have the effect of increasing hunger and decreasing health coverage due to paperwork and bureaucratic hurdles. 

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources has estimated that the proposed requirements would jeopardize coverage for 21 million people on Medicaid, the majority of whom are either already, working, dealing with disabilities and serious health conditions, caring for family members, or are in school.  

The SNAP changes would fall hardest on older Americans by raising more hurdles for those between age 50 and 55, a group more likely to be subject to age discrimination and/or health issues that affect employment. 

Those changes come in the wake of a decrease in funding for Medicaid and SNAP as the official COVID-era public health emergency ended. It’s probably no accident that the cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF over the next decade are almost identical to the amount of unpaid taxes rich people and corporations would save due to cuts in IRS enforcement.  

For West Virginia, this would also mean cuts to things like rail safety inspections (what could possibly go wrong there?), mine safety, opioid treatment, air traffic control, preschool and child care enrollments, WIC food aid for mothers and young children, and more. 

Fortunately, that’s not the end of the story. The bill has pretty much zero chance of passing the senate in its present form. Once again, in a closely divided senate the votes of our Senators Capito and Manchin will be crucial. 

I’m hoping they will weigh the house bill’s impact on West Virginians and just say no. West Virginians deserve better. 

(This ran as a column in the Charleston Gazette-Mail.)

Unbearable

 

It's an established fact that road trips can be good for the soul (the body is another question) and that COVID has played hell with road trips for the last few years. So I was glad to take a good one this week with some remarkable women from West Virginia. 

Styling themselves "momma bears," they came to Washington to make their voices heard on the need to preserve the expanded Child Tax Credit, which ended Dec. 15. Previously, they tried about everything they could think of. This time around they went for an unusual visual effect. 

To wit, teddy bears. Five hundred to be exact, with each bear symbolizing 1,000 West Virginia kids who will be pushed back into poverty unless the credit is renewed. The moms told their stories, then spent the rest of the day talking with congressional staff about the issue. Here's some coverage from the Washington Post and Huffington Post and here's a video of the event.

The teddy bear event was also the start of a national effort to encourage allies to connect with the "unbearable" campaign and start making noise on social media. It can be as easy as posting or tweeting about the credit with a message as simple "Make childhood bearable again" and using the hashtag #unbearable.

It's far from a certainty, but there's still the chance to get the Child Tax Credit across the line at some point.  Let's just hope not too many kids and families get hurt before that happens.

(I should warn the reader, however, that our experience is that once one goes down this path, it's almost impossible to avoid making cheesy bear puns. And if you add Spanish, there are "oso" many more.)

Long strange trip

 I've been wracking my brain trying to think of what to say about the events of the week and the years that went before it. For most of the fall, I've been very concerned about the possibility of a coup, quasi-legal or otherwise. I'm still wondering what kinds of violent stunts white nationalist groups may unroll and what other long term damage has been done to the democratic process, imperfect as it is. 

I'm hoping that the nation's flirtation with fascism or at least authoritarianism is at least waning.

Aside from issues of authoritarianism, the last four years have involved a lot of defensive fights, mostly revolving around health care (food security too, but that's another story). If there's been a central theme of my nearly 32 years at AFSC, health care would be it.

My first big fight was the Pittston strike, which was mostly about retiree health and pension benefits. These were also factors in the 1990 teachers' strike and the 1990-92 Ravenswood lockout. Ditto the fights about "reforming" workers compensation that lasted for a decade between the mid 1990s and 2000s. 

The coming of welfare "reform" in 1996 started another decade or so of sporadic fights related to Medicaid. These included issues like transitional coverage for people leaving cash assistance, the possibility of block grants, waivers and such. 

Then came efforts to get the state to implement the federal Children's Health Insurance Program in 1998 and then to expand eligibility for it, eventually up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level by 2011. My late co-worker Carol Sharlip was a major player in building support for this in the early years.

In 2009-2010 came the push to enact what eventually became the Affordable Care Act. I remember going to public hearings around the state and witnessing the WV version of the birth of the white backlash and the Tea Party. These included paranoid ravings about the World Health Organization taking over and someone heckling a priest during an opening prayer. And, yes, people who wanted to keep the government's tentacles off Medicare. There were street actions, press conversations, calls, emails, op-eds, bus trips to DC, and all that. Then lots of outreach and education when it passed.

(There were some serious debates within AFSC about whether to sign on in support of the bill. Some didn't think it was good enough. I may or may not have stopped talking with some people after that.)

The version we got was the Senate's rather than the more generous House version in March 2010. Here's a blog post I wrote about it at the time. Then the 2012 US Supreme Court decision which let it stand but made Medicaid expansion--the real public option--a state decision. The biggest social justice victory of my lifetime was then-Governor Tomblin's decision to expand it. Here's a report we published in an effort to nudge the governor in 2013. My retired colleague Beth Spence did the interviews and photography.

I would never have guessed the state would do such a great job at enrolling people. At it's peak around the time of the 2016 election, the expansion covered nearly 180,000 West Virginians (after four years of assaults by the Trump administration, I think enrollment is around 160,000 now). The new president, aided by WV's attorney general, promised to do away with the whole ACA as soon as he came into office.

It was an all-hands-on-deck moment. Health advocates scrambled to the defense. My co-worker Lida Shepherd and I worked with Cabin Creek Health Systems to interview people covered by the ACA and publish the results and generate other media, including a widely seen video report in the New York Times. Given that WV has been ground zero for the opioid epidemic, protecting the ACA, which opened up recovery to thousands, was critical.

We worked with allies to do all the usual stuff. Some friends of ours, nicknamed "the Capito six," were arrested for sitting in at the WV Republican senator's Charleston office. I remember protesting outside WV's giant Boy Scout center when the President spoke. People put lots of effort into bolstering Senator Manchin's support for the ACA. He eventually came around to a "fix, don't nix" position. In a closely divided Senate, WV was in a critical spot, with a conservative Democrat and fairly moderate Republican. People hit it with all they had.

The critical moment came in July 2017 when a dying John McCain cast a deciding vote after returning from hospital treatment for brain cancer, basically saving the day. Here's a post on that occasion that includes his eloquent statement.

After a pause to catch our breath, WV health care advocates turned next to fight off bad state legislation regarding work reporting requirements for Medicaid expansion that would have kicked tens of thousands of low income West Virginians off the program in 2019 and 2020. I'm hoping that COVID-19 has shown this to be a Really Bad Idea.

By the time of the 2020 election, the ACA was battered but still afloat, although it wasn't clear if it could survive another four years of federal assaults. Then there was the added wrinkle of the US Supreme Court taking up another repeal attempt with three Trump appointees. The decision is expected as soon as this spring, but early deliberations seem promising.

So I guess this is another catch the breath moment. We're still far from universal care, but it's been a long hard fight to get as far as we have. I'm grateful to the many friends who have been in the fight from the beginning. Like the ACA, we're battered but still around.

"They'd better start digging graves"

As I mentioned last week, a co-worker and I have been interviewing people who received coverage through the Affordable Care Act. Some of these got it at no cost through Medicaid expansion while others purchased it on the exchange. Some people were on oxygen, in wheelchairs, or both.

Again, the takeaway message was that even those who don't like some parts of the law or who have complaints about the cost agree on this: don't just take it away.

We had some intense conversations and lots of memorable moments, but one thing someone said stuck in my head: "If they get rid of it, they'd better start digging graves 'cause they're gonna be burying people."

Let's hope--and work hard to make sure--it won't come down to that.