Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) appeared on Thursday's PoliticsNation to discuss her efforts to prevent $4.5 billion in cuts to programs that feed the hungry.
She even cited the Book of Matthew, Chapter 25, arguing, "The first question Christ asks on Judgement Day is, 'Did you feed the poor?' It's unacceptable that we have Republican advocates saying it's immoral to support food stamps."
Her remarks come as a sharp rebuke to several GOP leaders who, while claiming that their faith guides their policies, also argue against sustaining welfare programs that help low-income families.
PoliticsNation host Reverend Al Sharpton chimed in, saying "I do not believe in a theocracy. I am a firm believer in my faith but I don't think we ought to use it govern," adding that the actions of the faithful should "reflect what you're quoting."
Congress is currently debating the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012, a plan to save around $24 billion over the next decade, largely by reducing food aid and replacing farmers' subsidies with a crop insurance program. If the bill were to pass, the average family needing assistance would receive $90 less per month for groceries, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Gillibrand said she has "momentum" building around her effort to amend the bill so that food stamp funding remains intact. But she also acknowledged that the poor, needy and most at-risk Americans "don't have the big special interest lobby groups that give sway in the debates."
On Wednesday, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) attacked Gillibrand's amendment on the Senate floor, arguing that it would leave the treasury empty.
"Under this reasoning we ought to just increase the food stamp program ten times," he said. "Why not? We ought to just pay for your clothes, pay for your shoes, pay for your housing."
In response to Sessions' remarks, Gillibrand pointed to the work of economist Mark Zandi, who has said that helping feed the needy will stimulate the economy. Food stamp money, Zandi says, goes to grocery stores and farmers who pour the cash back into the economy.
If Sessions "doesn't understand what a return on investment is," Gillibrand said, "maybe we can take some time explaining it to him."
Leave a Comment:
Outstanding conversation in that it gave clarity to the principle that choices have consequences - even for Legislators.
This conversation discusses legislation to eliminate cuts to the Food Stamp (SNAP) program. Cutting this program would put people already financially pinched to pay out more money they do not have for food. This could lead to an increase in hunger in America. I am doing everything I can to restore the cut funding for this program.
Or maybe they could work for a living instead... I don't understand this mentality at all. Tax workers more, so that they cannot afford to live without government help.
Here's an idea pay people more due to less taxes and they wont need assistance at all. And if you cannot afford to live on your own then just don't. Get a room mate or 5. I'm not sure where in the constitution it says the lazy get to enjoy the benefits of my success.
You assume it's that easy to just get a job. I'm sure a majority of those unemployed are actively looking for work, and in case you haven't been following news for the past few years, there's kind of a shortage on jobs at the moment.
David Hicks: you're a kid that hasn't even gone through puberty yet. You are a white male in a first world country that has been provided for your entire life. Why are you talking about things you have no idea about? Oh I forgot...you're a kid that hasn't even gone through puberty yet.
David, no one is trying get rich off your hard work. There are people, like my disabled sister, who are unable to work and support themselves that get lost in the rhetoric of the "lazy system abusers." I am all for keeping the minimal system abusers out of the system, but you can't cut off your nose to spite your face.
I've never heard anybody so unabashedly subscribe to the theory of Social Darwinism as you Mr. David Hicks. Your sentiment seems to be, "I've got mine, everyone else can go to hell." Most people would have the good taste to at least pretend they care about other people living in their country, propose other avenues to help our countrymen. I find your reasoning on this issue disgusting, beside the fact that what you assert is not even true. If you bothered to do any research, you would find this: the largest group of people on welfare are children who obviously cannot "work for a living." Data also shows that a single worker at minimum wage working full time cannot afford a market rate apartment so many people qualify for welfare despite that they are working. Further, Food Stamps take up 1% of the federal budget paid for on your alleged "success". (Welfare programs in total make up 12%) If we as a society cannot part with $150 per adult per year to ensure children have food in their stomachs when they go to bed at night, we can't claim to be a society at all.
I thought it was wrong to inject nutty religious statements into politics. No?
Feeding the hungry is a nutty religious statement? Really? I know a lot of the things that politicians go by in the bible can be nutty, but the fact that one should feed someone less fortunate than themselves isn't just common sense in religion, it is also a basic value of kindness that all humans should hold, even atheists should know that they shouldn't let someone starve while they continue to lead healthy, happy lives. Besides, she is just using religion to show the GOP that even their own rule book disagrees with what they are doing. She's showing that they can be hypocrites when they profess the bible, yet they don't follow some of its most basic morals.