The Center for Economic and Policy Research released a report on the changing face of labor unions. In 2008, labor unions had a greater share of women, Latinos, Asian Pacific Americans, older, and more-educated workers. Furthermore, there is a shift out of manufacturing towards services. One author of the report said, "The view that the typical union worker is a white male manufacturing worker may have been correct a quarter of a century ago, but it's not an accurate description of those in today's labor movement." (Full Story)
An MIT economist, using data from the Congressional Budget Office, conducted a study that found that under the Senate's health reform bill, Americans buying individual coverage will play less than they do today for typical individual market coverage, and would be protected from high out-of-pocket costs. Individuals buying insurance would save an annual $200 (singles) to $500 (families) in 2009 dollars. And people with low incomes would receive tax credits that would reduce the price that they pay for health insurance by as much as $2,500 to $7,500. The economist, Jonathan Gruber, added, "This is in addition to the higher quality benefits that those in the exchange will receive, with actuarial values for low income populations well above what is typical in the non-group market today. It is also in addition to all other benefits that this legislation will deliver to those consumers -- in particular, the guarantee, unavailable in most states, that prices would not be raised or the policy revoked if they became ill." (Full Story)
"While use is greatest where poverty runs deep, the growth has been especially swift in once-prosperous places hit by the housing bust." For example, in 2007, Forsyth County in Georgia, which is just outside of Atlanta, had the highest household income in the South. Food stamp use has more than doubled there. Furthermore, there is growing diversity among food stamp recipients in the United States. "Virtually all [the people on food stamps] have incomes near or below the federal poverty line, but their eclectic ranks testify to the range of people struggling with basic needs. They include single mothers and married couples, the newly jobless and the chronically poor, longtime recipients of welfare checks and workers whose reduced hours or slender wages leave pantries bare."
Although the program is growing, federal officials report that they would like it to grow even more. Nationwide, food stamps reach about two-thirds of those who are eligible -- that still leaves about 15 or 16 million people who could benefit but are not taking advantage of the program. An under secretary of agriculture argued that lagging states need to do more to help eligible people enroll in food assistance programs.
The stigma of food stamps or welfare assistance still seems to persist, despite the growing number of people using food stamps. There seems to be a stigma that only lazy, idle people use food stamps instead of getting a job (which is obviously not the case, as these statistics point out). The article mentioned how when some new individuals join the ranks of the beneficiaries, they try to explain how they're different. One electrician -- who has kept his job but has high costs from gas bills as a result of driving to distant work sites, food prices rising, and increased health care premiums -- has started to use food stamps. He argues that people often abuse the system [with what evidence does he make this point...] and says he's different because he's married, unlike those people that "choose not to get married, just so they can apply for benefits"; he's a churchgoing man; and he works. He also said it's "morally wrong" that people use their food stamps to buy steaks, coffee, or soda. He says he will not use the government's money for luxuries like that. (Full Story)
And that's fine if he chooses to do that, but other people can buy steaks or coffee if they choose. It is their decision. Coffee might be seen as a necessity for some people. Are people not allowed to buy soda for their children because they're recipients? Recipients are only given a certain amount a month, and it's up to them how they spend it. If they make unwise decisions and run out of staples or quality food before the end of the month, that was their decision. However, most recipients don't blow their money on candy and sodas, they genuinely are interested in providing food for their families.
And I get annoyed by the people that say it's terrible that people choose not to get married, just so they can get benefits. These people aren't terrible, the social welfare and benefits system that is in place is terrible. This assumption that once two people are married they are more financially well-off can be misleading. Two-earner families can still be below the poverty line. Marrying someone doesn't necessarily pull you up financially, it could pull you down. The way our welfare and tax system is set up, the amount of benefits a single mother is eligible for (including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; food stamps; subsidized child care; subsidized housing; health insurance from Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program; and the Supplemental Feeding Program for Women, Infants, and Children) can be reduced if she gets married and the amount of income tax she owes could be increased. So you can't blame someone for acting in their own self-interest and doing what's best for them or their family. If remaining single keeps them in a better financial situation than if they got married, can you blame them for not wanting to get married? The problem is not these people, it's the system we have in place. It is poor public policy to either push people to get married or to inhibit people from being married to determine benefits.
Furthermore, the electrician's assumption that he's different from other recipients (who he seems to view as cheating, lazy people) because he has a job...he's obviously missing the big picture. If you need food stamps, despite having a job, don't you think there are other people who are in your same situation? The fact that you need assistance despite having a job, don't you think that says something larger about our economy, our job market, our wage system, our health care costs? And that this can have an effect on many people? You're not the sole individual that is struggling despite having a job and being hardworking. And most people are jobless because of larger social social structures as opposed to any individual failing, such as laziness.
No comments:
Post a Comment