Jason Richwine -- who recently resigned from the Heritage Foundation over objectively observing, in the words of a Fox News report, "that Hispanics had a lower IQ than American whites, and that their descendants would too" -- call wherever your new office is. Or maybe go left and apply for a job at Mother Jones.
At that the arch-liberal rag, Erika Eichelberger, in objecting to a congressional proposal relating to the Food Stamp program, has reacted hysterically and predictably. But in the process, she also acknowledged a sad reality, which is a really dangerous thing to do in LeftyLand (HT Twitchy):
GOP Food Stamps Proposal Would Discriminate Against African-Americans
On Wednesday the Senate agriculture committee approved a GOP proposal that would amend the farm bill the Senate is considering to ban "convicted murderers, rapists, and pedophiles" from getting food stamps. On its surface, the idea sounds unobjectionable, but the measure would have "strongly racially discriminatory effects," according to the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).
The amendment, introduced by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), and agreed to by unanimous consent in the committee, would bar anyone who has ever been convicted of certain violent crimes—even if they committed the crimes in their youth and have served their sentence—from ever getting food stamps (called SNAP benefits) ever again.
Of course, there are Democrats on this committee. Unless they were all absent, at least one of them was part of the "unanimous consent" Eichelberger noted.
This proposal would only have "strongly racially discriminatory effects" if ... African-Americans are disproportionately represented among "convicted murderers, rapists, and pedophiles."
Though I am aware that the "murderer" element is correct from FBI statistics, the important thing to note is that I'm not the one saying it. Erika Eichelberger and the liberal (not "non-partisan," Erika; who do you think you're fooling?) CBPP are. When will they be denounced, as Heritage's Richwine was, as racists and forced to resign from their cherished perches? (I know; never.)
Subsequent paragraphs in Eichelberger's post make a case that the proposal is discriminatory because the criminal justice system has historically been discriminatory. Their case is mostly weak, with one possible exception. Perhaps the lifetime ban should instead be in the neighborhood of 10-20 totally crime-free years. There's also an interesting discussion to be had, which apparently hasn't been resolved in the courts, as to whether denial of benefits to which one would otherwise be entitled is a form of double jeopardy. I'd find that argument more compelling if the Food Stamp program wasn't already riddled with loopholes and state opt-outs, which from all appearances would include the ability to opt out of the provision under discussion. Opt-outs and outright fraud have made attempts to control costs and to direct Food Stamp benefits only to those who really need it virtually impossible.
But back on point: Erika Eichelberger, Mother Jones, and the CBPP have made observations which if made by a Republican or conservative would immediately be labeled racist and denounced by the establishment press in the most strident terms. But it's a virtual guarantee that we won't hear a peep out of the usual suspects over what these folks have written and said.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.