Newt Gingrich enjoys calling President Obama “the nation’s best food-stamp president.” Despite an outcry against such race baiting, it’s effective at stirring resentment among those who feel others are getting a handout they don’t deserve.
But there’s an even bigger issue here than deplorable racial politics. Food stamps, and the social contract they exemplify, are under attack by the entire Republican Party, not just the provocative Gingrich. Unlike coded overtures to prejudice, the GOP offensive against the poor and middle class is an open, frontal assault. Republicans insist on deep spending cuts while protecting the superrich from higher taxes. Their plan would give only the wealthiest Americans a handout they don’t deserve—or need.
Despite efforts to shred the safety net, food stamps still exist as a safeguard against further devastation. True, the number of recipients has gone up dramatically, to more than 46 million. This is not because President Obama likes to foster dependency. It’s because the recession brought about by the reckless policies of the previous administration has thrown millions of Americans out of their jobs and homes.
The suffering would be much worse without government assistance. Offensive stereotypes obscure the truth: Food stamps keep people from starving. They offer a modicum of stability to families trying to make ends meet. According to the latest Census Bureau figures, food stamps lifted 3.9 million out of poverty. Department of Agriculture statistics indicate that almost 50 percent of recipients are children. Another 25 percent are elderly or disabled. Contrary to rhetoric characterizing recipients as lazy, 30 percent work.
Moreover, food stamps are a good investment. Besides helping people survive, they stimulate the economy by immediately injecting money into it. According to a 2008 study, every tax dollar spent on food stamps lifts GDP by $1.73.
The debate over food stamps is really a debate about what kind of country we want to be. Will we embrace the Republican ideology of “on-your-own” economics that leaves millions behind? Or stay true to the vision President Obama favors: an America that prospers because we stand by one another?
