There has been a great amount of discussion about the observed “War on Women” from the Republican Party in this nation. Indeed, this was a major talking point in the last two election cycles. However, little has been covered regarding the Right’s “War on the Poor.”

Across the nation, more states have enacted drug testing laws for welfare recipients. According to the National Conference of State Legislature’s most recent statistics, as of this February, 12 states had passed laws requiring drug testing and another 14 are considering similar legislation. However, the most recent law in place regarding the poorest in our country is Missouri House Bill 813, colloquially known as “The Surf and Turf Law.” This legislation bars recipients of SNAP (also known as food stamps) from using this money to purchase “cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak.” All of these laws targeting poor Americans have been proposed and enacted by Republican governors and legislators.

Many of these men and women would argue that such laws are meant to save money and only allow “worthy” recipients to gain benefits. This mindset goes back to the old Elizabethan Poor Laws of the worthy and unworthy poor and the mentality that “God helps those who help themselves.” These are, unfortunately, the principles upon which our nation was founded and they thrive to this day among the right-wing sector of our government.

MediaMatters produced a fantastic article in which several surveys and studies are summarized about the political standing of the American public. The nation overall stands to the center-left of the spectrum in regards to nearly every policy: gay marriage, health care reform, Social Security and so on. Unfortunately, this most vocal Americans are those who are the most extreme on both sides of the spectrum, particularly the right-hand side. This gives Republican politicians a very right-wing bend. It causes them to believe, perhaps rightly so, that to be reelected by their base, they must be the most conservative option on the ballot.

However, Americans on the whole, who stand firmly on the side of liberalism, are supported by facts. They believe that the poor are not inherently bad people and understand that there are greater forces at work in regard to poverty. According to the Huffington Post, in Tennessee, one of the dozen states with drug testing laws, more than 16,000 welfare recipients were tested. Only 37 of the tests came back positive for drugs.

The Missouri “Surf and Turf Law” and other similar legislation assume that welfare recipients will misuse benefits. Put aside the problems with wording—Does “seafood” include canned tuna? What about ground steak, also known as hamburger?—and the law’s discriminatory nature. If the goal is truly to save money and be a temporary assistance program, legislators should focus more energy and resources on poverty prevention programs.

The federal government has made surprisingly little progress in regard to poverty prevention programs since the 1970s. Employment training programs, money management classes and support via free childcare while attending these programs are few and far between. Even in places where they do exist, many have an up-front cost, deterring those already in debt or poverty from joining. Neighborhood betterment programs are all but nonexistent in the most chronically poor areas of the nation. Money for primary and secondary education is unfairly allotted to the most prosperous of neighborhoods.

The war on the poor must change to a war on poverty. The nation is united in its wish to end poverty, albeit for different reasons. Whatever the rationale, be it a wish to create better lives for Americans or to lower the national debt created in part through welfare programs, the best way to do so is by providing assistance to those in acute need and creating programs to help them receive training and resources. If we expect the poor to pick themselves up by their bootstraps, we must first provide the bootstraps.

MEGAN MINDYKOWSKI

Junior

Alpena