Supplies at the food pantry in Lebanon, Ohio in
November 2009, where residents can also enroll in what is formally called the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. (Photo: Stephen Crowley / The New
York Times)
With another cruel cutback in food stamps
approaching November 1, we’re reminded that many states ban stamps for
ex-prisoners, who face a 50 percent unemployment rate, making prison the only
sure place they won’t starve.
As the debate rages over whether poor people deserve
to eat, it’s an apt time to acknowledge that in some states,
the right to food stamps has long been denied to a large group of poor people:
those with felony drug convictions.
The current national conversation around food rights
is an exercise in heartlessness. Regardless of congressional action,
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits - otherwise known as
food stamps - will decrease sharply for all recipients on November 1, when a
temporary boost expires. At that point, the SNAP allowance for a family of
three will wither to about $1.40 per person, per meal. House Republicans recently pushed through an additional cut, which likely won’t pass
the Senate, but still reflects a sense of ingrained, oppressive disregard for
the 47 million people on food stamps.
However, the drug felony ban, which renders untold
numbers of Americans ineligible for SNAP, is no sneaky Republican plot. It came
to us courtesy of President Clinton, who, true to his “wars” on both drugs and
crime, signed off on the ban as part of his 1996 welfare “reform” law.
“Today,” Clinton said upon signing, “we have a historic opportunity to make
welfare what it was made to be: a second chance, not a way of life.”
There’s no question that this bill had a palpable
way-of-life impact, though “opportunity” may be the wrong noun to describe a
path toward desperate hunger. A recent Yale study found that ex-prisoners denied food stamps were “much
more likely to be hungry” than those who could receive them. The ban
disproportionately affects people of color and women, since they’re
disproportionately convicted of drug offenses and also more likely to seek
benefits.
Fortunately, the 1996 law carries an opt-out clause,
and 20 states have tossed the ban entirely. Yet in 10 states,
anyone who has been convicted of a drug felony (mostly nonviolent offenses) is
still out of luck - for life. Twenty more states have set up a partial ban:
People with drug offenses can earn back the “privilege” of receiving SNAP
benefits through mandatory drug treatment. At first glance, that modification
encourages positive steps, but in reality, it is infantilizing, inhumane and
unjust. People who continue to use drugs - or to struggle with drug addiction -
should not have to forfeit food in exchange. Plus, it’s a whole lot harder to recover from addiction if you’re struggling to
eat.
Recently, a group of congressional Republicans
attempted to amp up the SNAP restrictions, proposing a mandate that all
applicants pass a drug test before receiving benefits. Upon introducing a
measure that would squeeze the drug test mandate into the farm bill,
Congressman Richard Hudson (R-North Carolina) announced nobly, “This allows the states to ensure addicts
and criminals are not taking food out of the mouths of hungry children.”
I think we can all agree that taking food out of the
mouths of hungry children is bad practice. But since many hungry kids’ parents
are drug addicts who may be denied SNAP benefits, food is much less likely to
get to their mouths with those barriers in place. And since it’s really
difficult for ex-prisoners to find a job - studies have shown unemployment rates of over 50 percent - SNAP often plays a vital role in
former drug offenders’ families’ subsistence. Benefit denial is a threat to
survival, for both adults and children.
Even if one isn’t ruffled by the blatant cruelty of
forcing other humans into starvation because they’ve used drugs, sold drugs, or
been wrongfully convicted of either of those things, the SNAP drug felony ban
doesn’t pay: An ex-prisoner who can’t get a job and can’t afford food may well
return to the activities that got them locked up in the first place, to
survive. Often, that means selling drugs, perpetuating a long cycle of recidivism
and re-offending.
Ironically, these SNAP-ineligible people are
returning from a place where food was free - a place where, although meals may
have been meager and sometimes moldy, they knew that every day, they would eat.
That place would be prison.
Do we really want to live in a society where the most
desirable “welfare” is distributed behind bars? A society where prison - a hole
within which one is dehumanized, caged and enslaved - becomes a refuge from the
dehumanizing force of starvation? Is this “welfare” at its finest, “welfare how
it was made to be,” in the fateful words of President Clinton?
As the inevitable SNAP cuts descend on this country
in November, the 30 states that refuse or restrict benefits for drug offenders
must reevaluate their denial of food to “addicts and criminals” - and, by
extension, to “the mouths of hungry children.” It’s never a perfect moment to
challenge an entrenched policy, but as food stamps briefly inhabit the national
conversation this fall, it’s high time to uproot this draconian “reform.”
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
Maya Schenwar is Truthout’s editor-in-chief and the
author of Locked Down, Locked Out: Why Prison Doesn’t Work and How We
Can Do Better. Follow her on Twitter @mayaschenwar.
Previously, she was a senior editor and reporter at
Truthout, writing on US defense policy, the criminal justice system, campaign
politics, and immigration reform. Prior to her work at Truthout, Maya was
contributing editor at Punk Planet magazine. She has also written for the Guardian,
In These Times, Ms. Magazine, AlterNet, Z Magazine, Bitch
Magazine, Common Dreams, the New Jersey Star-Ledger and others. She also
served as a publicity coordinator for Voices for Creative Nonviolence. Maya is
on the Board of Advisors at Waging Nonviolence.
No comments:
Post a Comment