Reconsidering the definition of crime

 I’ve been thinking lately the definition of crime—or at least the way it’s treated—is kind of relative. The consequences of a harmful act differ widely depending on the social and economic position of the person or group that does the harm.

Corporations and CEOs whose safety shortcuts harm or kill workers on the job usually get away with it, while working class and poor people do serious time for minor offenses.

Some wealthy people cash in on subsidies for industries that damage water, land, wildlife, and public health… but a poor person can get nailed for littering (not that I’m in favor of littering).

Executives at financial institutions whose predatory practices have wiped out families’ life savings have gotten huge bonuses, while petty theft is often punished.

Woody Guthrie summed this up in his Ballad of Pretty Boy Floyd, about a Depression-era robber who became a kind of folk hero:

            Yes, as through this world I've wandered

            I've seen lots of funny men;

            Some will rob you with a six-gun,

            And some with a fountain pen.

To bring Woody up—or down—to date, I’d also have to say that some will kill with a weapon and some with a vote or a policy decision. And it’s happening here and now.

We can start with the impact of cuts to health care in the Big Brutal Bill (not counting the hardships caused by the recent shutdown). Earlier this year, public health officials from Yale and the University estimated that cuts to Medicaid and other health programs would cause 51,000 U.S. deaths per year when fully implemented.

Specifically, the researchers estimate that 42,500 lives could be lost each year from disenrollments in Medicaid and Marketplace coverage and the rollback of nursing home staffing rules. An additional 8,811 deaths are projected from the expiration of the enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) Premium Tax Credits, bringing the total to more than 51,000.

That doesn’t count collateral damage of the current government shutdown or collateral damage done by cuts to other programs such as food assistance or the ongoing damage caused by hospital closings, job losses, debt, stress, and economic insecurity.

To quote Bishop William Barber, “We have to start talking about this budget as a form of social and political murder, social and political deadliness, because they know. And the reason I use the word ‘murder’ is because they know that it’s going to cause death.”

Then there are the even greater number of premature deaths that are already starting to happen in the world’s less wealthy nations due to cuts in USAID food and health assistance since the agency was effectively killed this year, with the majority in congress supporting still more cuts to spending already allocated.

No program is perfect, but a study of USAID work over the past 21 years published in the British medical journal The Lancet showed that it really was working before it was gutted.

During those years when it was functioning, the researchers found a 15 percent decrease in mortality rates by all causes and a 32 percent decrease in children dying under age five. That amounts to helping around 91 million people overall and more than 30 million kids.

This includes a 65 percent reduction in mortality from HIV/AIDS, representing 25.5 million lives saved; 51 percent from malaria, or 8 million; neglected diseases, for around 9 million; as well as decreases in death caused by tuberculosis, nutritional deficiencies, respiratory infections, and maternal and perinatal conditions. These beneficial effects were felt in dozens of countries. Between 2017 and 2000, the program provided assistance in 240 natural disasters and crises.

That was then; this is now. According to forecasting models used by the Lancet author, the cuts will result in more than 14 million additional all-age deaths, including over 4.5 million children under five by 2030.

Compared to these numbers, movie bad guys seem like amateurs.

And none of this had to happen. We’re not like dinosaurs hit by a meteor or medieval peasants suffering from famine through a crop failure or plague victims who haven’t figured out how to wash their hands. All of these deaths could have easily been prevented, And many of our leaders who could have helped block this went along with it.

Washing one’s hands of innocent suffering didn’t do much for the reputation of Pontius Pilate… and I doubt it will for others in the long run.

This piece by was originally published on December 12, 2025 in the Charleston Gazette-Mail.

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.

Statement on big brutal bill

 The American Friends Service Committee issued this statement on the occasion of the signing of the federal bill that will cut taxes for the wealthy and take food and health care away from millions of low-income and working class Americans.

Today, President Donald Trump signed a bill that will initiate one of the largest ever transfers of wealth from the working class to the rich. It will strip health care coverage from millions of low-income people, deprive children of food, accelerate climate change, and funnel billions to military contractors for weapons that threaten human survival. 

To say we oppose this legislation is an understatement. As a Quaker organization, we believe all people contain the Light of God within us. These policies abandon our fundamental commitment to caring for all people and the Earth that we share. If unchallenged, this legislation will directly and indirectly contribute to the suffering and death of so many people in the U.S. and around the world. 

The bill includes:

The largest cuts to public health care in U.S. history, leaving an estimated 17 million people without health coverage and causing an estimated 51,000 premature deaths per year.

New restrictions on SNAP and other anti-hunger programs, which will deprive millions of children of basic nutrition and the opportunities they need to succeed.

Trillions of dollars in tax cuts that provide almost nothing for the poor and working class, while showering the wealthiest households in the U.S. with massive benefits.

New subsidies for fossil fuel corporations while slashing tax credits for renewable energy projects.

More than $150 billion on the Pentagon for its forever wars and wasteful projects.

Billions for cruel anti-immigrant policies that tear our families and communities apart, including expanding detention centers and adding thousands more ICE and Border Patrol agents.

We cannot and will not accept this anti-human framework as the new status quo. Our government should provide for public needs, not transfer billions from the poor and working class to the rich. Already, protests and acts of resistance have been taking place across the country in response to the anti-democratic, anti-working class, anti-immigrant policies of the Trump administration. As the impacts of this legislation are felt nationwide, this resistance will only grow. 

Everyone deserves access to health care, housing, freedom from violence, and the ability to participate in the decisions that impact our lives. While Congress, the courts, and the president have chosen to pursue policies that harm our communities, we can care for and defend one another. We call on all people – in the corridors of power and in every corner of this country – to reject and resist these policies and to work for the future we all deserve. 

The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) promotes a world free of violence, inequality, and oppression. Guided by the Quaker belief in the divine Light within each person, we nurture the seeds of change and the respect for human life to fundamentally transform our societies and institutions. We work with people and partners worldwide, of all faiths and backgrounds, to meet urgent community needs, challenge injustice, and build peace.

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)

Senate needs to step up for SNAP

 I hope that West Virginia’s congressional delegation brings some sanity and humanity into policy decisions being debated in Congress. 

A case in point is the reconciliation bill that passed the US House Agriculture Committee that would blow up Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) food assistance for millions of Americans—and thousands of West Virginians-- to pay for more tax cuts aimed at the very wealthy.

Let’s start with where we are now. In West Virginia, around 124,000 households with around 279,000 people receive SNAP food assistance, including over 90,000 kids and almost 11,000 veterans. That’s around 15 percent of state residents. The program brings close to $50 million per month to the state’s economy.

That money goes directly to local businesses and farmers markets, keeps 2,170 retailers, including endangered rural grocery stores, open, and creates a lot of jobs. In fact, the annual amount of SNAP benefits in our economy is enough to support around 19,000 jobs at $30,000 a year.

According to the Food Research and Action Council, in recent years 69 percent of SNAP households here had at least one member working outside the home; 38 percent had at least one older adult; 43 percent had children; and 54 percent had at least one member with a disability.

All that would change and lots of people would be hurt if the House plan goes through. It would cut SNAP funding nationally by around $300 billion, resulting in a loss of food assistance to 11 million people.

Among other things, the plan would blow up already strained state budgets. It would require states to pay between 5 and 25 percent of the costs of benefits, while doubling state administrative costs. Given the ongoing budget woes facing our state, in part due to recently enacted tax cuts benefiting the wealthiest individuals and businesses, it’s highly unlikely that our state legislature would be willing or able to make up the difference.

It would erode the value of benefits as the price of food increases.

And it would double down on bureaucratic paperwork and work reporting requirements that do nothing to promote work and do everything to provide excuses to kick people off. It lifts the age of these requirements from 54 to 64 for older adults. It makes it harder for states to get requirement waivers.

It would completely eliminate SNAP-Ed, an evidence-based program that helps low-income families access fresh and healthier food.

It will eliminate food assistance for refugees and asylum seekers, many of whom are children and seniors.

One especially mean feature is that it would end exemptions from work reporting requirements for parents of children aged 7 to 17 without any allowances even for the months when school is not in session. It’s a mystery how they expect parents of young children to afford to pay for child care, which can cost more than college tuition, if their income is low enough to qualify for SNAP. And it totally disrespects the value of caregiving and raising children. SNAP eligibility changes may also make it harder for children to qualify for free school meals.

This will have negative social ripple effects that will be felt coast to coast and hit especially hard here. It will have negative effects on the economy, education, public health, and the quality of life.

And the purpose of creating all this unnecessary suffering (not even counting the even larger amount of proposed Medicaid cuts) is to pay for a tax cut bill that would overwhelmingly benefit the richest one percent at the expense of children, seniors, and working families.

I’d like to think that Representatives Miller and Moore would reconsider their support for this, but if not, it’s going to be up to the US Senate to stop this trainwreck. And a lot will depend on the voices and votes of Senators Capito and Justice.

(This ran as an op-ed in the Charleston Gazette-Mail. Text written before last night's house vote.)

Budget bill a disaster for West Virginia

 The US House of Representatives recently voted on a proposed budget that would cut $880 billion from Medicaid and $230 billion from SNAP food assistance while also slashing other programs, including meals for school children…to give $1.5 trillion in tax cuts aimed mostly to benefit the very wealthy.

The measure passed by just a two-vote margin. Both of West Virginia’s representatives voted for it. 

If this becomes law, the damage done to West Virginians across the board would be incalculable. 

Medicaid alone provides health coverage to over 72,000,000 people nationwide and to more than 500,000 West Virginians, including working adults, children, seniors, pregnant women, people with disabilities, and people getting treatment for substance use disorder. That’s close to one out of three of us. 

We’d be hit harder by this than most other states. Nationwide, one out of five people are covered. It’s almost double that in West Virginia.

According to the Kaiser Family Fund, as of August 2024, around half of all childbirths are paid for by Medicaid here, while nearly the same percentage of children are either covered by it or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. It’s the major source of people needing long-term care, including 7 out of 9 people in nursing homes. It provides benefits for 40 percent of people with disabilities.

And while it covers many people who are too young or no longer able to work, most adults receiving it are employed.

The funding, most of which comes from the federal government, supports local economies, keeps rural hospitals open, and keeps people alive. It’s no exaggeration to say that if this goes through, people will die as a direct result. And people would lose their jobs.

If that wasn’t enough, the budget would reduce SNAP food assistance to 42 million people. As with Medicaid, we’d take a disproportionate hit here as well. Our state ranks third highest in the percentage of SNAP households, just behind New Mexico and Louisiana. Nationally, around 12 percent of people receive SNAP, while it’s 16 percent here.

According to the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), SNAP helps 124,000 households here, or 279,000 individuals. It brings over $40 million a month to the state, helping 2,170 grocery stores and farmers markets and creating jobs. It’s estimated that each dollar’s worth of SNAP spending generates around $1.80 in economic activity.

Households receiving SNAP include children, the elderly, people with disabilities, and veterans. As with Medicaid, most SNAP households include at least one working member. And if you’re worried that these people are living high on the hog you can relax. The average daily benefit here is $4.54 per person.

On top of all that, the budget bill cuts $12 billion in funding for school breakfasts and lunches and makes sweeping restrictions to the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), which supports meals for all. FRAC estimates this will reduce access to food in 24,000 schools with 12 million students. 

In West Virginia, we’re talking about impacts in 468 schools with over 180,000 students. This would undo years of progress at the national and state level. CEP has proven very popular in every county in West Virginia since it cuts bureaucracy, improves child nutrition and educational outcomes, removes stigma, and gives working families a break.

The combined impact of these proposed cuts would hurt people across all political and demographic lines. Fortunately, it’s not a done deal. There will be more votes on this over the next few months.  This could give time for people to voice their concerns and for lawmakers to reconsider their actions. 

It’s important to also urge our senators to put the brakes on this. To her credit, Senator Capito said back in 2017 “I didn’t go to Washington to hurt people,” when huge health care cuts were on the agenda. As governor, Jim Justice expanded food aid to low-income children when school was not in session and established the Jobs and Hope program.

Before it’s over, I hope at least some of our representatives will put the people of West Virginia above all else.

(This appeared as an op-ed in the Charleston Gazette-Mail)

Two easy actions to protect food assistance

 There are a lot of scary things about the debt ceiling/hostage crisis in Washington, but the scariest to me at the moment is the prospect of millions of people being kicked off SNAP food assistance in order to pay for tax cuts for rich people. 

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that if work reporting requirements (that don't promote work) are implemented along the lines of the Retch, Croak and Die Act  Limit, Save, and Grow Act, 275,000 people per month could lose benefits. That would be devastating not only to those directly impacted but also to local charities, businesses and communities.

There are two easy actions you can take to try to ward this off. First, the American Friends Service Committee has prepared this easy to use action alert targeting both houses of congress that can be used by anyone in the US. If you're in West Virginia and want to just message Senators Manchin and Capito, here's a link provided by the West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy. 

Why not shoot the moon and do both? I cannot guarantee that doing this will guarantee a fortunate rebirth in the Pure Land of Amida Buddha, but it's couldn't hurt.

Why work requirements don't work

The recent proposal to increase work reporting requirements for people receiving SNAP food assistance under the Limit, Save, and Grow Act is redundant and harmful for several reasons:

*work requirements already exist for SNAP. According to the USDA, these “include registering for work, participating in SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) or workfare if assigned by your state SNAP agency, taking a suitable job if offered, and not voluntarily quitting a job or reducing your work hours below 30 a week without a good reason.” States also have the option to impose additional requirements on able-bodies adults without dependents aged 18-49, although evidence suggests that these have failed to increase workforce participation.

*the term “work requirements” in the context of changing eligibility programs such as SNAP and Medicaid is misleading. A more accurate term would be reporting requirements which involve more layers of paperwork, bureaucracy, and surveillance in exchange for often meager benefits. These reporting requirements impose burdens people receiving food assistance and the businesses, organizations, and/or agencies for which they work and simply result in few people receiving needed assistance.

*work reporting requirements don’t promote work. For example, the New York Times reported that when West Virginia piloted the program in counties with the most favorable labor market conditions, the state Department of Health and Human Resources found that “Our best data does not indicate that the program has had a significant impact on employment figures.” Rather, people lost food aid and local businesses lost out. Similarly, when Arkansas added similar reporting requirements for Medicaid, workforce participation didn’t increase—but the number of uninsured people did.

*work reporting requirements for food assistance hit the most vulnerable people hardest, including homeless people or those with unstable housing—a population that includes many veterans, domestic violence survivors, rural residents, people with disabilities, noncustodial adults supporting children, people in recovery from Substance Use Disorder, and others.

*the “Limit, Save, and Grow Act” would double down on vulnerable populations by imposing reporting requirements on older adults up to age 55. According to AARP, over 9.5 million Americans over age 50 rely on SNAP, a group that faces age discrimination in hiring and employment practices.

*SNAP benefits help local businesses and economies—and loss of benefits costs both. The Food Research and Action Council reports that each dollar in federal SNAP benefits generates $1.79 in economic activity.

*reducing SNAP benefits for millions of Americans would only place greater demands on already stretched food pantries, soup kitchens, and charities which are often staffed by volunteers and seniors.

All of which is to say this is not cool.

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.)

Punching down

 Things are about to get rough for West Virginia families facing food insecurity, defined by the USDA as “the limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways.”

Some hits are coming from federal changes in COVID programs and some from state legislation. But the unkindest cut of all could come from a mean-spirited bill recently introduced in the legislature if it crosses the finish line.

All of these involve the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps, which provides basic food aid to around 167,000 households here.

As of March 1, pandemic-related emergency allotment increases for SNAP will cease. The average household here will receive a monthly reduction of $195 in benefits. The individual will see a reduction of $102, a net loss of $33 million in income to state businesses.

Then there’s this: when the federal Public Health Emergency ends in May, the suspension of work reporting requirements will end for able-bodied adults without dependents will end.

This means that a law passed in 2018 will go back into effect on July 1, imposing reporting requirements and hurdles for non-custodial low-income adults. As many as 24,000 could be pushed off if they can’t satisfy reporting requirements for work activities.

The 2018 bill was touted to promote workforce participation. In fact, it doubled down on a failed 2016 policy piloted in nine counties. A later DHHR report found that “Our best data does not indicate that [limiting benefits] has had a significant impact on employment figures.” People were just cut off and local businesses lost out.

Those are bad enough, but potentially much worse is House Bill 3484. It would add so many reporting, documenting and other bureaucratic restrictions for so many people as to make it unworkable both for people receiving help with food and for the beleaguered state agency that would have to administer the bill if it passes.

At a recent legislative committee meeting, a state agency representative testified that implementing the proposed legislation would actually cost state taxpayers millions of dollars while the additional requirements would reduce number of low-income people receiving food assistance. And that research has indicated that additional requirements reduce food assistance without increasing employment.

A representative of retail businesses testified that the loss of federal SNAP dollars would hurt local business and jobs, especially in rural counties.

Caitlin Cook, director of advocacy and public policy at Mountaineer Food Bank, which serves 48 of 55 counties, pointed out that the state food charity system is already overstretched and couldn’t make up for the loss of federal food aid. According to Cook, “For every one meal the food bank provides, SNAP provides nine, while simultaneously putting additional money into our local communities.”

Despite all the expert testimony, the bill passed out of committee and was reported to the floor of the House. At this writing its fate is unclear.

Aside from hungry people and local businesses, HB 3484 would also mean a loss for West Virginia farmers and farmers’ markets, which now offer SNAP Stretch, a program that allows people to double their purchasing power for fresh and locally grown food.

The bill goes against the grain of actions taken by political leaders in recent times. In 2021, for example, House Speaker Roger Hanshaw, R-Clay, announced the creation of a Food Insecurity Workgroup “dedicated to utilizing every tool at West Virginia’s disposal to help reduce hunger throughout the state.”

The group met regularly to hear from experts in the field and made positive recommendations about increasing CARES Act funding to combat hunger. In December 2021, Governor Justice agreed, providing $7.25 million for food insecurity partners across the state. Reportedly, Speaker Hanshaw may reactivate the group.

Meanwhile, Gov. Jim Justice in his 2023 state of the state speech said that “We need to try with all in us to say, by God we’re not going to have hungry people in West Virginia today.”

The governor released a proclamation declaring Jan. 26 to be Hunger Free West Virginia Day, acknowledging that 217,690 people here, including 63,070 children are food insecure; one in six children experiences hunger regularly; and that many seniors have to chose between lifesaving medications and a healthy diet.

It had strong language, such as “it is essential to provide appropriate, healthy nutrition to all residents of West Virginia suffering from food insecurity;” “Charitable programs are unable to fully support those facing hunger. A combination of charity and government assistance programs is necessary to help bridge the meal gap;” and “food is a human right.”

The senate also weighed in last month with a resolution that stated “The West Virginia Senate recognizes food insecurity is prevalent in our communities, with 1-in-7 West Virginians not knowing where their next meal will come from…”

Things are challenging enough in West Virginia already, whether we’re talking low-income adults, kids, and seniors or people in local businesses, farmers, agencies, and charities. We don’t need a bad law to make a tough situation worse.

It’s sad but some people seem to derive gratification from harming people with less power than themselves, especially if they don’t think their targets can retaliate. Poor people are a convenient target for those who enjoy this kind of thing.

That’s what this is. That’s all this is.

(This ran as an op-ed in the Charleston Gazette-Mail.)

Too good to be true?

 A month or so back, I spoke with New York Times reporter Jason DeParle, who was working on a story about child poverty in West Virginia. That article came out yesterday (or was it the day before?) and it had some surprising conclusions, the biggest one being that child poverty declined dramatically in the US over the last few decades and that this change was even more dramatic in West Virginia:

 Child poverty has plunged over the last generation, and few places have experienced larger declines than West Virginia, a state that once epitomized childhood deprivation. Poverty among the state’s children fell nearly three-quarters from 1993 to 2019, according to a comprehensive analysis by Child Trends, a nonpartisan research group, conducted in partnership with The New York Times. That compares to a 59 percent drop nationwide.

If West Virginia’s child poverty rate was as high now as in 1993, nearly 80,000 additional children would be poor, a population larger than the state capital, Charleston.

That was news to me, especially considering that these changes didn't include the vast influx of COVID related federal aid from the CARES Act and the American Rescue Plan. It kinda sounds too good to be true, although my WV comrades have worked on that issue for years and years.

Just when I was beginning to think my life wasn't a total waste, a friend--we can call him Mr. Buzzkill--sent me this response to the national poverty numbers in the Times article. Short version: different poverty measures show vastly different results.

However that data fights wind up, I did find some encouragement in the story itself, which profiles some West Virginia families living in or near poverty. It showed how years of undramatic grunt work on policy at the state and even county level can eventually show some real positive changes for real people. 

I'm talking about things people worked on here, offensively and defensively, like EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) outreach, defending SNAP, advocating for access to education for people in the "welfare" system and challenging its more draconian aspects, supporting state adoption and expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program to 300 percent of the federal poverty level over13 years, Medicaid expansion, free school breakfast and lunch, defending child care, support services for people on or leaving TANF, raising the state minimum wage and such can really make a difference in the lives of real people.

I think at least those programs and policies that so many West Virginias have fought for made things less bad than they would otherwise have been. I'll take that.

 

More not all bad

 I've been making it a practice lately to notice good things that happen, especially in a year when there have been so many disappointments, when truly historic opportunities to make big  and positive changes slip away.

So here's my latest:

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced an easing of income eligibility requirements for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children program (WIC) food assistance. The program can assist women who are pregnant, postpartum and breastfeeding and cover kids up to five years of age. This means more and better nutrition in a period critical to the health of mothers, infants and young children.

Under the new policy, states have the option of raising WIC eligibility to to 185 percent of the federal policy level. While all bets are off about most things West Virginian these days, I was glad to learn that WV decided to go for the more generous level of benefits. 

The WIC announcement is just one example of many federal efforts, often related to the pandemic, to promote food security. These range from increased SNAP benefits to expanded school meals to pandemic electronic benefits cards to kids when they are out of school. Read more on that here. Unfortunately, some of these are temporary unless further action is taken, which means staying on the case.

A little good news

 This isn't earthshaking, but I'll take what I can get these days. The USDA just announced that it will withdraw a proposed rule issued during the bad old days of the Trump administration. The dead rule would have changed eligibility requirements for SNAP and other food assistance programs in ways that were estimated to have cut food aid to three million or more Americans and also affected the eligibility for free school meals for around one million kids.

Unsportsmanlike, in other words. I blogged about it here and here back in 2019 during the public comment period. As I wrote at the time, 

Here's why it's bad: the proposed change eliminates "broad based categorical eligibility" (BBCE), which allows people who are eligible for other assistance programs (such as TANF or welfare, SSI or other programs) to be automatically eligible for SNAP.

Eliminating the BBCE creates a cliff effect in which people could experience drastic cuts in benefits when their living conditions modestly improve.

I take my food fights seriously. It's nice to have one less thing to worry about.

Hungry times

In case you missed it, here's a great New York Times article about the impact of restrictions on SNAP food assistance in West Virginia. It actually features my hometown, along with the great work of a friend and comrade with the WV Center on Budget and Policy's Seth DiStefano.

Beginning in 2016, the state imposed work reporting requirements on the nine counties with the best employment outlook...and the result was disaster, with over 5,400 people being cut off. As a result of bad legislation passed last year, that failed policy is going statewide.

Now, thanks to a certain presidential administration, that bad idea is about to be nationalized, as I wrote in this blog post for the national AFSC.

Yesterday, WV Governor Jim Justice proclaimed "Hunger Free West Virginia Day." While we're hoping to make some progress in that arena, I wanted to scream that the job would be a lot easier if WV hadn't messed with SNAP to start with.

Forget Christmas-the real war is on food assistance

According to the ancient Chinese classic the Tao Te Ching, which can be translated as The Way and Its Power,

The Tao of heaven is like the bending of a bow.
The high is lowered, and the low is raised.
If the string is too long, it is shortened;
If there is not enough, it is made longer.  

The Tao of heaven is to take from those who have too much
and give to those who do not have enough.
Man's way is different.
He takes from those who do not have enough
to give to those who already have too much. 

For a contemporary example of the latter, you can find a pretty good—or bad—example in the Trump administration’s serial assaults on food assistance, particularly the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps.

Earlier this month, the administration announced a policy that make it harder for adults without dependents to get SNAP, imposing work reporting requirements and limits on the length of time they can receive food assistance. It would also make it harder for states to get a federal waiver to avoid these harsh policies.

This measure could cut off benefits for an estimated 700,000 destitute Americans, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). Those affected by the change are among the poorest in the U.S., with an average income at just 18 percent of the poverty line, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture,

“Most of these individuals are ineligible for any other form of government financial assistance because they aren’t elderly, severely disabled, or raising minor children,” notes Robert Greenstein of CBPP. “For many of them, SNAP is the only assistance they can receive to help make ends meet.”

Not only is the administration’s decision to take food off people’s tables morally reprehensible, it will do nothing to encourage employment among SNAP participants. In fact, the measure is a replay of a failed policy that was tried in West Virginia in 2017, when the state imposed similar requirements as a pilot in the nine counties that had the lowest unemployment rate and presumably the best economic opportunities.

When the results were tabulated, it turned out that this measure resulted in cutting over 5,400 people from the program … and it had no impact on increasing employment. By taking away SNAP benefits from low-income people, it actually took money from grocery stores and the local economy—and placed greater burdens on already stressed charities that had to scramble to meet increased need.

The Trump administration’s latest attack on food security comes in the wake of two other proposed changes that would change the way eligibility for SNAP is calculated, resulting in even more cuts to the program and threatening eligibility for other key food assistance programs, including those that provide free school breakfasts and lunches to children.

All these measures are an attempted end run around Congress, which protected SNAP from devastating cuts in the 2018 bipartisan Farm Bill.

The time limits for SNAP are set to take effect on April 1, 2020, unless Congress or the courts takes action to stop it, according to the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC). “The final rule would cause serious harm to individuals, communities, and the nation while doing nothing to improve the health and employment of those impacted by the rule. In addition, the rule would harm the economy, grocery retailers, agricultural producers, and communities by reducing the amount of SNAP dollars available to spur local economic activity.”

One thing that people around the country could do is talk to their representatives in Congress and urge them to speak out against these cruel changes. Whatever happens next, our goal in West Virginia can be summed up in the saying “food for all.” To state the obvious, the problem isn’t that too many people in the U.S. receive SNAP benefits—the problem is that so many need them.

(This first appeared in a blog post for the AFSC.)

Fatal to be hungry

I've spent a decent chunk of the last several years in working with friends to try to fight off attack on poor people in general and food assistance in particular. It would probably be safe to say our success has been limited.

Several of these fights are still in the works and are caused by the Trump administration's human wave attacks on SNAP (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program).

While musing on that subject, I ran across a couple of quotes about hunger and the cruelty and the enormous condescension people show to people who are poor.

Let's start with cruelty:

"It is fatal to look hungry. It makes people want to kick you."

Now cruelty's close relation, condescension:

“It is curious how people take it for granted that they have a right to preach at you and pray over you as soon as your income falls below a certain level.”

I'm not sure which is worse.

Hate to be a bore, but urgent action needed by Nov. 1 to protect child nutrition

The WV Department of Education isn't known for sounding alarm bells about federal policy. So you KNOW things are bad when they release a statement like this:

Proposed SNAP Changes Could Negatively Affect West Virginia Students 

Charleston, W.Va. – Students in West Virginia could be at-risk for losing automatic free school meal eligibility under proposed changes to the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The proposed changes would adjust how students are directly certified to receive services meaning households across the state will lose automatic free or reduced school meals.

The West Virginia Department of Education (WVDE) and the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services (DHHR) are working closely to quickly and completely analyze the potential impact to West Virginia students during the USDA’s current public comment period.

It is estimated that more than 120,000 West Virginia households could be negatively affected by eliminating broad-based categorical eligibility as a policy in which households may become categorically eligible for SNAP in relation to another benefit, such as non-cash temporary assistance for needy families (TANF). In addition to the direct impact to these households, funding to West Virginia schools could be negatively affected. If the number of directly certified students decreases and those students are not captured by another federal direct certification indicator, school districts may have to discontinue implementing the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP). Many schools could find that they no longer qualify for CEP or that it is no longer financially viable. Therefore, the proposed rule would take away automatic free meals from additional children who otherwise would not be considered as being directly impacted by changes to the categorical eligibility in SNAP.

West Virginia has benefited greatly from the election of the CEP, a federal meal pricing benefit available to areas of high need. All of West Virginia’s 55 counties have at least one school that qualifies for CEP. During the 2019-20 school year, 43 counties have implemented the CEP for all students meaning all students eat breakfast and lunch for free; 10 counties have elected CEP partially, meaning some schools qualify, while other schools in the county do not; and two counties operate under the traditional method of free and reduced price meal applications throughout the county. Community eligibility uses the number of children directly certified for free school meals, primarily due to participation in SNAP, to determine if a school or district is eligible to implement CEP. The analysis of the proposed changes fails to consider the impacts on community eligibility provision.

“The proposed rule changes are concerning with nearly 1 million individuals estimated to be affected nationally,” said Amanda Harrison, Executive Director of the WVDE Office of Child Nutrition. “We know that hungry children do not perform at their best and when we meet the nutritional needs of our students, student achievement increases.”

The WVDE intends to submit comments to the USDA outlining the impact on Mountain State students and will make those comments public. The WVDE’s Office of Child Nutrition is also exploring other mechanisms or indicators that are in place to ensure that our neediest and most vulnerable students are directly certified for school meals.

If you haven't already, please click here to make your comments. The deadline is Nov. 1.

Urgent: act now to fight hunger in our schools

Short version: please act now to protect free breakfasts and lunches for tens of thousands of WV school children. You can click here to make comments to the USDA opposing rule changes to eligibility that could deny school food not only to thousands of individual students but whole schools and counties.

The deadline to make comments is Nov. 1, so this is urgent.

As an example, I submitted something like this, but you could keep it simple with just a sentence or two.

West Virginia has become a leader in child nutrition thanks to the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), which expands free breakfasts and lunches to all students in schools where 40 percent or more of students are directly certified as being low income. The changes to SNAP eligibility proposed by the Trump administration would also impact CEP and could take away meals for one million individual students, as well as many entire schools and counties. Research has shown that universal access to school food has many benefits, including improved academic performance for poor and non-poor students, removing stigma, increasing participation in nutritious food programs, reducing hunger, supporting working parents and reducing paperwork for schools. The proposed changes should be rejected.

For background, here's a pretty scary news release from the WV Department of Education about the dangers this rule change poses for WV schools, parents and students. And not just WV but the whole country.

Please act quickly and spread the word. Thanks!

Easy action to help feed kids

In yesterday's post, I wrote about how SNAP (supplemental nutrition assistance program) rule changes proposed by the Trump administration could take away food assistance from one million school children.

Here's how: by changing eligibility for one, the proposed rule would change it for the other.

The USDA apparently realizes at some level that some folks out there actually want kids to eat, so they've reopened the public comment period. It will be open from Oct. 18 to Nov. 1.

Here's a link to make comments:

And here are some talking points.

I couldn't swear to this, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if those who make comments in defense of feeding kids will be reborn in the Pure Land of Amida Buddha, where they can work to attain enlightenment under the most favorable conditions.

If you care about kids, get ready for another school food fight

It's on again. I've written before about threats to food security from the Trump administration, most recently here. It turns out that things are worse than I thought.

For review, Prince Joffrey's President Trump's administration proposed changes in eligibility for the SNAP program that could take away food assistance from over 3 million Americans and eligibility for free school meals to 500,000 kids. Turns out the latter figure is more like a million.

So they'll be hungry at home AND at school. Nice...

In fact, the USDA is soon going to reopen a public comment period on this for a two week period. Details to come.

Here's the latest word from the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC):

WASHINGTON, October 17, 2019 — A surprise release of data that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) should have disclosed earlier underscores the deep harm of its proposed rule to limit access to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): eliminating food assistance for 3.1 million people and jeopardizing free school meals for nearly 1 million children.

Children who live in households that receive SNAP benefits are directly certified (automatically eligible) to receive free school breakfast and lunch. While the initial estimate showed that the rule could jeopardize more than 500,000 children’s access to free school meals, the new USDA analysis states that as many as 982,000 children could be impacted, with 497,000 children moving from free to reduced-price meals, and 40,000 completely losing eligibility for both free and reduced-price school meals. Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) noted in a statement, “Even for those who remain eligible, forcing low-income families to navigate the burdensome paperwork will inevitably lead to eligible children losing access to a critical source of daily nutrition.”

If this rule is enacted, children will be hungry at home and school. Since childhood hunger is linked to academic struggles, difficulties focusing and concentrating, mental health disorders, and increased behavioral referrals, many schools would struggle to meet the educational, health, and mental health needs of the students who lose SNAP benefits and as a result, access to free school meals.

The administration will reopen the public comment period for 14 days. Once it is reopened, FRAC will have a comment platform on its website where people can submit comments opposing this deeply flawed proposal. 

I'll send word out when we know more, but here's some ammo for your comments: there's a new scientific study that shows free school meals (surprise) improve academic performance. Interestingly, this is true of both non-poor and poor kids.

Gird up thy loins for battle once again...