Scary headline in Monday's Times: "As
Jobs Vanish And Prices Rise, Food Stamp Use Nears Record." Scarier
headline in Britain's Independent: "USA 2008: The Great Depression."
Why didn't the Times editors just say: "Economy In Shambles — It's
All Bush's Fault"? Or the Independent condemn the president for his war
on the poor?
As the election nears, the mainstream
media, unable this time to make an issue out of Iraq, are focusing on
the economy on behalf of the Democrats. And they're more than a bit
overwrought. To see the headlines and to read or listen uncritically to
the stories, one would think the 1930s were golden years by comparison.
What's relevant is the percentage of the population that's on food stamps. And the worst years there are 1993, 1994 and 1995.
Yes, it was during the second Camelot presidency that the largest
portions of the population were using food stamps: 10.4% in 1993 and
1994, and 10% in 1995.
Even if 28 million Americans use food stamps in 2008 as projected —
and eagerly reported — with 303.5 million people in the country, the
rate of 9.2% would still be lower than those three Clinton years.
Any discussion of food stamps should
also include eligibility rules, which have been altered through the
years. At various times, it's been harder to get food stamps. One
example: the years that followed the 1996 welfare reform. At other
times, the standards have been relaxed, as they were with the 2002 farm
bill.
Enlistment drives are another factor. (Where's the federal campaign
to promote self-sufficiency rather than dependence?) Washington is
currently promoting food stamps and changing the system from one of
paper coupons to electronic debit cards in hopes that removing the
public humiliation that comes with using food stamps will encourage
more people to take part.
Things will change, though, if a Democrat
is elected president. Expect to start seeing glowing reports on the
economy about a year from now — no matter what shape it's in.