'Murderers, rapists, pedophiles' to be banned from food stamps

5-31-2013 National:

Republicans and Democrats in Congress have agreed to a proposed amendment to cut funding and add new restrictions for the Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, commonly referred to as food stamps.

According to a whole raft of studies, the program has been the difference between millions of poor and working poor individuals and families eating or not eating. These proposed cuts amount to more than $20 billion over 10 years in the House version, with 2 million people cut from the program entirely.

According to TheRoot.com, these cuts and bans do not go far enough for Sen. David Vitter (R-La.). Vitter has added insult to injury by introducing an amendment that would bar anyone convicted of a violent or sexual crime from receiving food stamps--for life.

There were no objections to Vitter's amendment. And the Obama White House has indicated that it expects to support the new restrictions.

Interestingly, the federal government already bans for life anyone convicted of a drug felony under a law passed in 1996.

But that law was so damaging that 16 states and the District of Columbia exercised their right to opt out of the ban, and 24 states have a modified restriction. Only 10 states fully comply with the original version.

Vitter would have us believe that his amendment applies only to "murderers, rapists and pedophiles." In truth, it will impact youth offenders and those who have already served long sentences as well. And, absolutely no consideration whatever is given to any felon who has successfully been rehabilitated.

Because blacks and Hispanics are already far more likely to be incarcerated, they will be far more affected by this law.

This law reflects a policy that is meant to deliberately further marginalize people coming out of prison. Mark Clements, who was tortured by Chicago police into a confession, spent 28 years wrongly imprisoned, breaks it down in real terms. Quoted in the Socialist Worker, he said the proposed amendment:

“....is just going to hurt people who are already hurting, and their families, too. People need help when they get out of prison. A few dollars in your pocket to get some food in the cabinets--that's important. People just don't know how hard it is for ex-offenders to get jobs in this economy. And now this little bit of help will be taken away? This is just wrong-headed.”

Michelle Alexander has defined and described the stigma of the “prison label” better than most in her book "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.” She wrote:

“In many respects, release from prison does not represent the beginning of freedom, but instead a cruel new phase of stigmatization and control. Myriad laws, rules and regulations discriminate against ex-offenders and effectively prevent their meaningful re-integration into the mainstream economy and society.”

Ex-offenders find it that much more difficult to find work in an already difficult economy. As Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities wrote:

“It's also possible that the amendment could contribute to recidivism. Ex-offenders often have difficulty finding jobs that pay decent wages. The amendment could pose dilemmas for ex-offenders who are trying to go straight, but can neither find jobs nor, as a result of the amendment, obtain enough food to feed their children and families.”

In 2012, the average monthly benefit for people in the SNAP program was $133.41. Not much, but a critical amount for people living with nothing or close to nothing.

But the really devastating effects of this law will affect not only certain ex-offenders directly, but their children and family members as well.

Christine Thomas is a California prison activist. She has has worked in a public defender's office in California for more than 25 years and identifies the broader social inequalities behind this measure:

“When the Wall Street banksters take this country for the crime of our lifetime, they have the victims paying the restitution, while we give them bonuses and watch them laugh all the way to their offshore investments, vacation homes and never-ending luxuries. When poor people are accused of a crime, they're going to be denied food for the rest of their life. And no one will stand up for them--Republicans and Democrats alike--and say that this is immoral.”

Timothy Smeeding is director of the University of Wisconsin’s Institute for Research on Poverty. He has called the amendment “ridiculous.” “It doesn’t save anyone any money,” he told MSNBC. “It just makes sort of a political statement that we don’t forgive people for crimes once they pay their dues. We’re just going to punish them forever.”

Smeeding argued that this law will make it more difficult for convicted felons to meet their basic nutritional needs and would encourage recidivism.

And, of course, there are the very real health risks involved in basically starving people. A Yale University study looked at the ban on former drug offenders receiving food stamps. That study found that those affected "are at greater risk of engaging in dangerous sexual risk behaviors in order to obtain food," according to a report in the Yale News. The study also found that "released drug offenders, particularly women and mothers, are turning to prostitution and other behaviors that put them at risk for HIV and other negative outcomes in order to obtain food."

Earlier this year, the New York Times called for lifting the bans on denying food -- food -- to people convicted of felony drug offenses. "It is already clear that the bans are counterproductive and that it is time for states that have not completely lifted them to do so," the Times wrote.

Instead, Vitter, together with Democrats and Republicans, and the White House, propose to expand the ban, apparently because once a person commits a felony, he or she loses the right to feed himself or herself directly.

Instead, when they re-offend (as two out of three will) and are sent back to prison, the state (through its private contractors) will be happy to provide, at the absolute lowest cost possible, a barely subsistence level of nutrition.

Opinion

I have an idea:

Let's amend and extend Sen. Vitter's amendment to its logical exclusion. Okay, we already deny food, shelter, education, housing, and jobs to ex-offenders, right?

Let's also deny them water. Or better yet, water and oxygen -- and be done with the whole damn issue. ..Source.. by Herbert Dyer, Jr.