SNAP to the tune, my darling!

I meant to talk about this Friday, but forgot in the evening. But SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; AKA Food Stamps) was cut on Friday as the boost from the stimulus act went away.

But what I wonder about is this. Much of the stimulus act consisted of tax cuts (which, if you're looking to boost the economy, is the least efficient way to do it. The GDP boost from SNAP, for instance, is about three and a half times as much, on a per-dollar basis, as a tax cut for the rich); I believe it was about a third.

Anyway, I wonder if the tax cuts went away as well; I suspect that they're still with us, thanks to stuff like budget battles. After all, why would we risk making the rich lose a few cents of investment return when we can make the poor starve.

I go to a church that is generally very good about this sort of thing (one of these days, I'll write about why that is), but I was disappointed to see no mention of this during mass this weekend. It was especially weird, given that the Gospel reading was about marginalized people. Well, here is a major, current case of people being increasingly marginalized. Slightly disappointing.

All men are (not?) born equal

I don't know a whole lot about adoption, and just found out something that surprised me greatly.

It turns out that it is much more expensive to adopt a white child than a black one. I must admit that this just blew my mind.

The story mentioned that it is likely driven by there being less demand for black children, and the adoption agencies change the pricing to encourage quicker adoption of the black children. A noble goal, I think, but awfully disturbing in implementation (and implication).

I wonder what drives the lower demand. Is it a simple matter of racism in action, that most white people don't want to adopt black children? Is simple numbers, that there are more white people, and therefor more of them doing the adopting? Is it economically driven, that adoption is expensive and more white people can afford it? Does it have something to do with there being more unwanted children from black women (I don't know if this is the case, but I've certainly read many things that at least suggest that it might be)?

I have no idea, but I'd be very curious to find out.

Who should be in favor of supporting the poor and middle class?

Joe Stiglitz wrote an excellent article in Vanity Fair last month that discusses things I've mentioned before, about how it is in the top 1%'s best interests to support those below them. It works much better for all involved than cutting them off at the knees like they've been doing for the past couple of decades. But he says it with a lot more authority and eloquence than I've been able to muster on it. It's worth a read.

The one thing he fails to mention (see?) is that he's giving a long-term perspective, while most of the 1% are just focused on the next quarter. And in the very short term, it isn't true. So I think they will mostly find it unconvincing, even though he is completely correct.