In one of the richest nations in the world, it comes as a surprise to learn that 40 million Americans rely on government assistance to afford enough food. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), known as food stamps, is a US government programme that provides food-purchasing help for low-income families to help them "maintain adequate nutrition and health." This comes at the amazing cost of $50-$60 billion a year! And don't imagine for one second that SNAP replaces food banks. In 2016, some 200 food banks, 60,000 food pantries and soup kitchens served 4 billion meals to 46 million people. No, America apparently needs SNAP and food banks. Sometimes I think the US needs a revolution along the lines of the French at the end of the eighteenth century, minus all the bloodshed, of course.
In 2018, SNAPS helped around 10% of US households and around 16.7% of all American kids live in homes receiving SNAP benefits. I confess that the extent of food poverty in America was a big shock to me. The inequality this suggests is off the charts.
Anyway, Trump planned to cut all SNAP payments as of today. This he has blamed on the Democrats who won't agree to his spending plans, and hence the government has been shut down since October 1st, with most spending, including SNAP payments, suspended.
However, the administration has several billion dollars in a contingency fund but has insisted that this money be kept in case a hurricane or other unforeseen disaster strikes. There is enough money to fund SNAPs through November, but Trump simply refused to authorise it.
While all this is going on, he is publishing pictures of his newly refurbished toilet:
It's all reminiscent of Marie Antoinette.
A judge in Rhode Island has perhaps saved Trump from himself by ruling late yesterday that the government must distribute money owed to recipients of SNAP benefits "as soon as possible," just one day before the funding was set to lapse. It took a legal challenge and a judge to force the US government to continue supporting poor American families with money for food. Think about that.
Coupled with swingeing cuts to Medicare for low-income families and the payment of $20 billion to Trump's alter ego in Argentina, and you get the feeling that the Trump government doesn’t care about its own voters and isn’t planning to step down anytime soon.
Rachel Reeves
You can’t help but feel sympathy for Rachel Reeves and her husband. They own a house in London, which they wanted to rent out when they moved into No. 11 Downing Street last year. The house is in Southwark, which is unusual in that it requires landlords to obtain a license before renting out a property. The Reeves’ used a letting agent who offered to apply for the license on their behalf, but by a simple oversight, didn’t. All this has been confirmed through published emails. The agents have now apologised.
The Daily Mail has clearly been scrambling around in the gutter to find something to beat the government with and discovered the missing license since when all hell has broken loose, as if the pair were guilty of some serial heinous crimes, instead of a minor, technical infringement of some bureaucratic rule. Even Southwark council say they don’t pursue anyone unless they refuse to get the necessary license within three weeks of being told to, which the Reeves obviously will not do. It is a non-story.
Now, The Times is getting in on the act with a piece that talks about Reeves still facing the possibility of being ordered to hand back more than £41,000 her tenants have paid in rent. She could also, they claim, face a civil fine of up to £30,000 and be added to the national “rogue landlord” database. The chances of these events happening are perhaps even less than the moon flying off towards Jupiter next weekend.
The Times has checked the details of the mortgage to discover that it permits short-term letting until December next year and is all legal and above board. I am sorry to say that the BBC has disgraced itself by publishing a story which also tries to sensationalise the whole thing: How much trouble is Rachel Reeves in over rental rule break?
Question: How does this ridiculous witch-hunt help to recruit the best people into frontline politics?
