Congressman Kevin Cramer (R-ND) sparked some hostile interest when he responded to a message on his Facebook page that implicitly rebuked him for voting in favor of the Republicans’ new SNAP (food stamp) bill.
The message quoted at length a passage in the Book of Matthew in which Jesus says that, at the Last Judgment, those “on the right” will enter the Kingdom of Heaven because “I was hungry and you fed me, I was thirsty and you gave me to drink … Whatever you did for one of the least of these…, you did it for me.”*
Cramer retorts with an excerpt from Thessalonians: “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.”
This has become somewhat of a trope in the right-wing side of the debate — prompted, at least in part, by strong, broad-based advocacy for SNAP and other safety net programs on the part of faith-based organizations.
Congressman Stephen Fincher (R-TN), for example, cited it during the debate over the Farm Bill that failed to pass — largely, though not entirely because the SNAP cuts weren’t big enough to satisfy enough of the Tea Party types.
I first came upon the passage as an injunction against SNAP in some comments on one of my posts — the most extreme of a fair number that trashed on the program or benficiaries thereof.
The commenter, self-identified as Proud NeoCon, A True American, asserted, among other things, that those who are purportedly too disabled to work “are just hiding behind … fake made-up illnesses” and thus “are too disabled to live.”
Don’t ask me to explain the logic here — or how one can read a passage that, as I understand it, refers to some who Paul hears are “disorderly,” idle “busybodies” as a justification for letting anyone who can’t earn enough to afford food starve.
I mention this ripple in the backwaters of my blog because the Proud NeoCon comments recently evoked a heart-wrenching response from Billy.
It speaks to the value of SNAP and also, I think, weaknesses in other parts of our safety net — one of which may soon be remedied by the Affordable Care Act.
Here’s a summary, with some inter-weaved quotations and a parting shot from Billy himself.
Billy is a former marine, married to a woman with a mild mental disability. He used to “work [his] butt off and made GOOD money.”
Then came the recession. He lost his job and, with it, his health insurance. His health “deteriorated,” and his wife was “labeled unable to work.” So the only income they had came from his disability insurance — the SSDI program that’s got the Washington Post on another of its entitlement rampages.
They couldn’t see a way to meet their children’s needs, pay the rent and electricity bills and still afford more than $2,000 a month for the medicines he’d been prescribed. “Of course, the children came first and I had to do without my life-giving medications, which is why I’m terminally ill,” Billy writes.
Now SNAP covers a portion of their expenses, making sure that he, his wife and their two boys (“ages 2 and 5, so way too young to work”) have “JUST enough food for healthy meals.”
“So to CORRECT you,” he concludes, “about ‘can’t work’ and ‘don’t work’, [t]hey are sooo different. I know. I live it.”
Perhaps Congressman Cramer intended his Bible quote to refer only to able-bodied adults without dependents, whom the House SNAP bill would toss out of the program unless they work at least half time or manage to get a slot in a workfare or job training program.
However, the bill invites states to reap rewards from reducing their SNAP rolls by imposing work requirements on able-bodied adults with very young children, even if they’ve no one to care for them.
Also on some adults with disabilities — even those for whom paying work is infeasible.
This last is a feature that the Post‘s extensive story on the sponsor — Congressman Steve Southerland (R-FL) — failed to mention.
We do learn, however, that he too finds justification in the Bible — oddly in Adam’s duty to tend the Garden of Eden, which last time I checked, was neither paying work nor training for same.
But I digress. It’s hard to know whether Billy could have paid for his medications, without depriving his family of food and a home, if he’d signed up for SNAP earlier. The maximum benefit they could have received was nowhere near $2,000 a month.
But what if they’d been able to purchase subsidized health insurance, as the ACA will soon make possible? Too late to save Billy, it seems — and, of course, even more objectionable to Cramer and his colleagues than SNAP.
Which is why we’re wondering how long the government shutdown will last — and whether it will be able to honor the debts it’s already incurred.
If Billy is worried about his SSDI checks and reloads of the EBT card for his family’s SNAP benefits, he’s got good reason.
* I am quoting one of the familiar translations. The passage as posted on the Congressman’s Facebook page ended differently, but to the same effect.