By CHRIS POWELL
Food subsidies for the poor and disabled are being used as political weapons by both Democrats and President Trump.
Democrats in Congress have shut down much of the federal government, including food subsidies, by withholding the votes needed for ordinary appropriations to pass the Senate. The Democrats seek to force the Republican majorities in Congress to address federal medical insurance subsidies sooner than the Republicans want to.
‘Nip’ bottle fees don’t recover their cost in litter and drunken driving
Connecticut’s contradictory ideals: local control vs. equality
Corrupt ex-official’s trial evokes musical comedy
President Trump has pushed back, refusing to use emergency funds to keep the food subsidies flowing, hoping to pressure the Democrats to vote to reopen the government if they want to restore the food subsidies.
The Democratic position is unpersuasive, since feeding people is more urgent than any particular level of medical insurance subsidies. Indeed, the normal functioning of the entirety of the government is infinitely more important than any particular level of insurance subsidies. Democrats in Congress, including Connecticut’s entire delegation, are saying, in effect, that much of government should cease and federal employees should do without their pay so that Democrats get their way on one issue. It’s a catastrophic tantrum.
Democratic senators, including Connecticut’s Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, should stop what is essentially their filibuster against normal government operations. Republicans haven’t put food subsidies at risk; Democrats have.
But food subsidies present a bigger issue yet to be addressed: Are all 42 million people receiving them, 12% of the population, really unable to feed themselves and their families? Are they all really disabled or destitute? Are they all really deserving?
Of course not. Though their children must be fed in any case, many recipients are unmarried single parents with more children than they ever reasonably could have considered themselves able to support. Some view their anti-social behavior as an entitlement. Many recipients are recent immigrants whose ability to support themselves was not considered when they were admitted. Many recipients use food subsidies to buy inessentials. Many could work for a living but don’t.
In 1974 only 6% of the population received food subsidies. Now it’s double that. Has poverty really doubled in 50 years?
Now that the federal government deficit exceeds $38 trillion and is rising quickly, are there to be no limits?
The country long has been living far beyond its means, with these deficits causing terrible inflation, especially for food, and the rest of the world is losing its enthusiasm for supporting the richest country by buying its bonds. That promises more inflation.
Democrats should vote to reopen the government and try to economize.
TOO MUCH DISTRACTION: Should people be allowed to stage protests on highway overpasses and attach signs to overpass fencing to gain attention from the motorists traveling below?
The state Transportation Department says this is against its regulations but a Superior Court judge recently dismissed charges against a woman who was arrested for such a protest. She was accused of trespassing but fairly asked how one can trespass on public property — a roadway or sidewalk — that is open to everyone.
Signs and banners are often waved and affixed on highway overpasses without prompting police action. There is suspicion that the woman who was cleared in court the other day was targeted because she was protesting the Trump administration. Politics should have no bearing on law enforcement.
But the regulation against such displays is justified even if, because it lacks standing as criminal law, it cannot be enforced. Signs and banners on overpasses are meant to distract motorists, who shouldn’t be distracted, especially on the high-speed, limited-access highways where most of this protesting occurs. Additionally, signs and banners affixed to overpass fencing can fall onto the highway and cause more distraction and damage vehicles.
Of course people often gather on local roadsides to hold signs and banners to distract motorists there. This is tolerated because traffic is not as fast.
But if a criminal law is needed to prevent the commandeering of highway overpasses, it should be enacted. Protesters still will have many ways to make their point.
Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years. (CPowell@cox.net)
Chris Powell column 