Letter to the Editor

Food stamps

for the hungry

Frequently, articles in various conservative publications complain about food stamps for “those people,” proposing various steps to restrict their use including drug testing. Our governor falls into that category.

Children comprise 45 percent of food-stamp recipients and 41 percent are working people.

An example of “welfare for the rich:” Stephen Fincher of Tennessee received $70,574 in taxpayer cash in 2012 from farm subsidy. The average Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program recipient in Tennessee receives $132.20 a month; Fincher receives $193 a day.

The rebuttal is that direct payments have been eliminated — true, but replaced by a more lucrative crop insurance plan.

The Congressional Budget Office said the legislature could eliminate direct payments and invest some of the savings in good programs and save $5 billion per year. In other words, drop direct payments and leave crop insurance alone. That would not harm SNAP, conservation or farm aid. Thus more savings than either House or Senate bill.

The new crop insurance plan encourages planting in areas or conditions ill suited to farming, because compensation follows even if crops fail. It guarantees income. The insurance premiums are subsidized also.

Here is the kicker: The insurers’ expenses are subsidized and the insurers may be offshore. You can't beat that with a stick.

The big increase in food stamps was due to the large increase in unemployment brought on by the recession, which was caused by deregulation, mainly the finance industry.

Deregulation has always been favored by the conservatives.

Where have the subsidies to end the recession and gains from the recovery gone? Top 1 percent.

The people who have found jobs are working part time, two jobs or low-paying places where they still need food stamps.

There is no reason for people to go hungry in our country.

Leon Logan

Tucumcari