The New York Times vs. Fiscal Discipline, Again
The New York Times vs. fiscal discipline, once again. Monica Davey reported emotional anecdotes from Michigan Wednesday against attempts by the state to rein in costs: “Families Feel Sharp Edge of State Budget Cuts.”
Here in Michigan, more than 11,000 families received letters last week notifying them that in October they will lose the cash assistance they have been provided for years. Next year, people who lose their jobs here will receive fewer weeks of state unemployment benefits, and those making little enough to qualify for the state’s earned income tax credit will see a far smaller benefit from it.
Some political leaders see these sorts of cuts as unfortunate necessities to help bridge their state’s financial gaps. Others see them as overdue limits on out-of-control government handouts -- some lawmakers here fumed, for example, that 30,000 college students, newly dropped from the state’s food stamp rolls, should never have been allowed to collect such benefits in the first place.
Whatever the motive, such policy changes come as the downturn has left a growing number of low-income families in worse financial trouble.
The percentage of children living in poverty rose during the last decade, particularly once the recession hit and unemployment soared.
....
Signs of new poverty are already evident. A project by the Annie E. Casey Foundation Kids Count Data Book found that by 2010, nearly 11 percent of the nation’s children, or 7.8 million children, had at least one parent who was unemployed, when only about half as many were in such circumstances in 2007. And since four years ago, the study found, at least 5.3 million children have been affected by home foreclosures.
Davey found an odd, surely atypical example of poverty allegedly caused by state stinginess:
Six states have approved reductions in the length of state unemployment benefits. The notion appalls people like Jeananne Bishop, who has been desperately searching for a job since July 2010 and found herself washing her hair with laundry detergent at one point because she could not afford shampoo.
It’s not Davey’s first foray into the cruelties of cost-cutting by Midwestern states. On June 23, Davey co-wrote a similar emotional jeremiad against fiscal responsibility in Indiana, summarized by the line: “Fiscal conservatism, in other words, comes with its own costs.”
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Hey NYTs: how about an
Submitted by rbosque on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 10:50am.
Hey NYTs: how about an article on how half of America supporting the other half including illegals? BIG reason why were running a defecit.
Oh, sorry, Snowflake...
Submitted by TC Lynch on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 10:51am.
but "they have been provided for years" means the system was busted and needs to be fixed, same as college kids getting food stamps.
It's about time.
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 10:58am.
The unfairness of it all, those on welfare will only be able to collect cash for 48 months, not indefinitely forever now. They'll still be eligible for the Bridge Card(food stamps), they'll still not pay anything in income taxes and will still get money back, both from the state and feds. They'll just have to budget their money, excuse me, they'll just have to budget our money over the year, instead of blowing it on lobster and steak right away.
According to one of our local media outlets, of the 30k "kids" who were given the Bridge Card, very few of those 30k needed assistance, they just knew it was there and it was their "right" to collect.
they should check
Submitted by OuttaMyWay on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 1:41pm.
they should check the number of those kids at private vs public schools.
Glad that Queen Jenny is gone. it was her illegal change that made that happen. Now they just need to roll back the Mac bridge fare to $1.50
Government isn't a charity,
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 11:06am.
Government isn't a charity, these people should seek assistance from their local churches, synagogues, charities, etc.
responsible for protection from feeling poor?
Submitted by kata on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 11:35am.
Holy crap who knew.
The welfare letter posted in that article has me a bit confused. Are they or are they not going to get more government help? The letter makes it seem like they are.
Lift the yoke, for heaven's sake!
Submitted by Now_I_Want_Change on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 12:38pm.
"they will lose the cash assistance they have been provided for years" !?!?!?!?
It's obvious that this 'cash assistance' has done nothing to help improve their situation, but has instead kept them down, pinched in the yoke of government bondage and breaking their ability to do something for themselves.
I was listening to a nitwit on the radio the other day,
Submitted by WhoIsJohnGalt on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 12:48pm.
being interviewed by a most-of-the-time conservative, and this idiot was blathering on about "food deserts" and how we need to help people get access to food.
WHAT?!?! What idiot moves to a place where they don't have access to food? And if they do...isn't that natural selection at it's best?
Seriously, she was concerned that those who need food assistance (and she started going down the path, and you can see it coming) don't have access to the BEST quality HEALTHY foods, and how we have to make sure that they have local sellers of healthy food. Because, as she said...healthy eating IS a healthcare issue. Here it comes...we need to subsidize food stores where libs think they need to be, an it sure sounds like she was aiming at healthcare dollars to do it with. Oh, and of course we need to make sure these people on assistance keep their dignity by not singling them out with obvious food stamps or limiting what they can buy with their gubmint' issued debit card...they should also not be barred from using these cards at restaurants, she said.
Listen, here it is...if you're on public assistance, 99 times out of 100, you've mismanaged some aspect of your life, and you SHOULD feel bad about it, and you SHOULD be eating Ramen noodles and other cheap, less-than-gourmet foods. Fix your life, get off public assistance and support yourself and your family, and get out of my pocket.
Hunger and embarrassment are great motivators.
just saying...
Submitted by OuttaMyWay on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 1:43pm.
the cities in michigan have a huge problem with too many deer, inside the city.
i have 2 problems that can be solved at once: kill deer, feed people.
It's not they move to areas
Submitted by amyshulk on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 2:12pm.
It's not they move to areas with no food, it's that the areas become so riddled with crime, there is *no* profit margin worth the risk, so they close up shop!
My sis thinks this way - that they are oppressed through NO fault of their own. Duh. Try policing your own community!!!
Ronald Reagan
I call bs on "...found
Submitted by amyshulk on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 12:47pm.
I call bs on "...found herself washing her hair with laundry detergent at one point because she could not afford shampoo" You can buy a bottle of Suave for 99 cents - laundry detergent is expensive in comparison!!!
Ronald Reagan
ten minutes on google
Submitted by kata on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 1:01pm.
would puncture this story in so many places.
This example could also prove
Submitted by WhoIsJohnGalt on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 3:13pm.
the point that those who are on assistance are not terribly capable of spending wisely.
Besides - they will {mostly}
Submitted by amyshulk on Fri, 09/09/2011 - 12:50pm.
Besides - they will {mostly} just have to give up the perks the rest of us had to years ago. Hardest hit? Starbucks and McD's. Not to mention a cell phone for every family member, full cable...
Ronald Reagan