Wasn't the economic stimulus package supposed to prevent things like this from happening?
I read in Monday's Press-Telegram that food pantries across California are beginning to see more and more brand new clients:
Like nearly a third of the first 50 customers to arrive at the Emergency Food Bank of Stockton, Hoffman was new to the pantry…
"I'm down on my luck," Hoffman said, squeezing and sniffing the bread. "And food is going through the roof. I need help."
And this is not an isolated occurrence. Edit by Brian: More over the flip.
A survey conducted of 180 food banks in late April and early May found that 99 percent have seen an increase in the number of clients served within the last year. The increase is estimated at 15 percent to 20 percent, though many food banks reported increases as high as 40 percent.
Yet while demand has gone up, food pantries are facing difficulties due to the necessity to transport the food from one site to another, sometimes up to 150 miles. Like so many other problems with the country, food banks are citing soaring gas prices as one of the main reasons why they are having so many problems.
"The way it's going, we're going to have a food disaster pretty soon," said Phyllis Legg, interim executive director of the Merced Food Bank, which serves 43 food pantries throughout foreclosure-ravaged Merced County.
"If gas keeps going up, it's going to be catastrophic in every possible way," said Ross Fraser, a spokesman for America's Second Harvest.
The cost of a bag of flour is up 69 cents from 2007. A dozen large eggs are 55 cents more expensive. A loaf of white bread rose 16 cents. All in the wake up a stimulus package that was supposed to make life easier.
We have already reached the point where anything is possible with President Bush. He could announce tomorrow that the key to ending global warming is to place the sun on the axis of evil list and I wouldn't be surprised. But with that said I still find it hard to believe that President Bush's plan in pushing through his Economic Stimulus Package earlier this year was to price people out of buying their food at grocery stores and super markets.
So with more and more people turning to food pantries, or as demonstrated by this articlefrom the Green Bay, changing the type of meat as the main course for their dinner, it is clear that the Bush Administration can add the "stimulus" package to the long list of its failed economic policies.
In one of the first of what will be many polls giving the big thumbs down to Bush’s 2008 “stimulus package”, Rasmussen reports that 56% of voters nationwide say it had no impact on the economy. Furthermore only 24% of people thought that the stimulus package helped the economy.
The report shows that the public’s mind is just about as clouded as Bush’s when it comes to how to respond to the continuing economic crisis.
Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 57% believe that if Congress and the President do nothing more, the economy will be in even worse shape a year from now.
However, if another stimulus package is passed, just 17% believe the economy will get better and 21% say it will get worse. Most voters say that if another stimulus package is passed, the economy will be about the same a year from today.
Its clear that the "stimulus package" didn't stimulate much economic activity and that further action by the federal government is necessary to prevent this recession from spiraling into something much worse.
Generally I agree with the opinions of the American public expressed in the Rasmussen survey. The "stimulus package" obviously did jack and another stimulus in the same vein as the first would just be more wheel spinning.
But the rub comes in the part of the results that show most Americans still have their heads up their rear ends when it comes to figuring out what to do next.
54% of people polled said that reducing regulation and taxes is the best thing the government can do to help the economy.
Clearly three decades of relentless GOP propaganda still has people mouthing empty Newt Gingrich era platitudes.
This model of achieving a balanced budget is exactly what is crippling the states today. It's not as though this is some sort of new and improved way of tackling the problem from a different angle. Many states have tried this practice as recently as last year to no avail. If this method sounds familiar, it's because this is exactly what Governor Ahnold attempted to do last year. This piece “California Budget 101: What went wrong, when” outlines why this approach goes no where:
When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the state budget last summer, he all but declared "mission accomplished" in his administration's biggest battle. The spending plan not only eliminated the state's perpetual deficit, he said, it also boasted a record $4 billion reserve.
Suddenly though, the Governor found himself in a predicament where the reserve fund was drained and the state was still facing a projected $17 billion shortfall. What went wrong?
Employment growth flattened. Corporate profits sagged. The crash in the housing market slowed consumer spending. Tax revenues that last summer had been expected to total more than $102 billion now figure to come in under $98 billion for the year.
Spending is up, too, though. The forecast for the current year was about $102 billion. The latest figures now put the cost of the state's commitments at more than $104 billion.
But the economic issues only worsened a basic, structural problem in the state budget: Spending is programmed by law to grow each year at a rate that is generally faster than tax revenues can match. Current state law would push general fund spending to $113 billion next year if nothing is done to slow it, according to the Schwarzenegger administration. Revenues, meanwhile, are projected to decline further, to about $95 billion. The budget Schwarzenegger celebrated last summer would have bridged the gap for one year at best.
The government rightfully decided that increasing the money spent per pupil in K-12 education and the money spend on health care for the poor, physically or mentally disabled, and the elderly was a good idea. Yet we are supposed to believe that the plan of reducing regulations and slashing taxes that is being pushed by such enlightened organizations as the Hoover Institution (Conservative Think Tank) and the Club for Growth (100% endorsement of Republican candidates in 2008) is what the economy and the American people need? Because these policies have been so beneficial since they were enacted almost across the board 5 years ago?
In reality, all that reduction of regulations and taxes will do is force dramatic cuts in education, healthcare, and other essential services, which is what we are now being forced to do.
Instead of proposing a long-term, viable solution to California's budget deficit, Gov. Schwarzenegger called for a ten percent across the board cut for all departments and the Legislature passed it. When pressed about this strategy, he stated that he did this to "rattle cages" to get the Legislature and all Californians to think about alternative solutions to the budget crisis. (Emphasis added)
However, his "solution" has caused a firestorm of anger with educators, labor unions, and health care advocates among others who have come out fighting. There's not a group out there who won't feel the stinging effects of these cuts beginning July 1, 2008.
At least the Governor is right about one thing. It’s time for a new brand of thinking, not a reversion back to the line of thought that helped guide us into the muck in the first place.
Oh, and in case any further evidence was needed:
Five years ago: President Bush signed a 10-year, $350 billion package of tax cuts, saying they already were "adding fuel to an economic recovery."
How’s that working for ya?
