Women and children (cut) first

Bush’s proposed 2008 spending on the Women, Infants and Children program (which provides food vouchers to low-income women and their children up to age 5) would leave roughly half a million people in the lurch. The price of food and milk has soared, but Bush’s budget isn’t keeping pace.

Doug Greenaway, executive director of the National WIC Association, which represents state and local agencies, said states probably would deter new applicants and cut new mothers, rather than pregnant women and children.
“Once the word gets out on the street that the program is in some kind of funding jeopardy, people will say, ‘Wow, there isn’t an opportunity for me to participate,’ ” Greenaway said. “It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

Depressing.

and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

27 Comments

  1. Breeder
    Posted November 29, 2007 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    This is no good. I was going to look into wic (temporary hard times) but I think I will just refrain so that some other new mom can stay on.
    Sigh. I can’t verbalize how shitty this is for so many mamas.

  2. Breeder
    Posted November 29, 2007 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

    This is no good. I was going to look into wic (temporary hard times) but I think I will just refrain so that some other new mom can stay on.
    Sigh. I can’t verbalize how shitty this is for so many mamas.

  3. dhsredhead
    Posted November 29, 2007 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

    Surprise surprise. Another example of how republicans expect women to have children regardless of what kind of situation they are in, but then aren’t willing to help women and families in need. Once again, our department of health wants more women to breastfeed, but our president doesn’t want to support an agency that encourages women to do just that.

  4. FuriousFemale
    Posted November 29, 2007 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

    Just another example of a “pro family” republican I guess GRRRRRRR.

  5. FuriousFemale
    Posted November 29, 2007 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

    Just another example of a “pro family” republican I guess GRRRRRRR.

  6. FuriousFemale
    Posted November 29, 2007 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

    Just another example of a “pro family” republican I guess GRRRRRRR.

  7. Cassandra
    Posted November 29, 2007 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

    First SCHIP and now this? To register to vote Republican, do you have to profess you hate women and children or is it more of a subtle, asshat politician thing?

  8. Faerylore
    Posted November 29, 2007 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

    Cassandra, I think it’s something in the water.

  9. Posted November 29, 2007 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

    that’s not depressing…it’s out fucking rageous…what next? i guess we can kiss section 8 good bye too…
    it’s already damned near impossible in some states to get WIC if you need it…in CA you have to be living far below the poverty level for a family of two…here’s the kicker…i would have qualified if my husband hadn’t left me
    they want to cry that programs are causing “welfare queens” (ha!), but they sure as fuck make it damned hard to make it at all…

  10. jstein
    Posted November 29, 2007 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

    As much as I hate to say it (because it makes me sound like a cynical asshole), but what more can we expect from one of the most fiscally incomptetant presidents in US history. (Right now he’s running right behind Reagan, but he’s got another year to pass the master of Reaganomics)
    Frankly, the myth of the “wellfare queen” is the craziest (yes, I said craziest) piece of propaganda to come out of the Republican party.
    I live in Oakland, CA, and regularly work in soup kitchens in Oakland and Richmond (two of the worst areas in the country) and have seen how dependent the people on the welfare system on.
    Still, the government fails worse and worse every year under this administration, and you can see it in the inter-city. The only reason it isn’t getting heard in the senate is because (and I’m a white guy saying this) the system (along with the people who run it) is sexist, racist and classist.
    They don’t care about the poor, female minorities, because it’s not like they come out to the polls, it’s not like they have a lobby in congress. This whole system disgusts me, and what is equally as disgusting is that even with a democratic congress there is still no voice for the people that they claim to want to help

  11. jstein
    Posted November 29, 2007 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

    As much as I hate to say it (because it makes me sound like a cynical asshole), but what more can we expect from one of the most fiscally incomptetant presidents in US history. (Right now he’s running right behind Reagan, but he’s got another year to pass the master of Reaganomics)
    Frankly, the myth of the “wellfare queen” is the craziest (yes, I said craziest) piece of propaganda to come out of the Republican party.
    I live in Oakland, CA, and regularly work in soup kitchens in Oakland and Richmond (two of the worst areas in the country) and have seen how dependent the people on the welfare system on.
    Still, the government fails worse and worse every year under this administration, and you can see it in the inter-city. The only reason it isn’t getting heard in the senate is because (and I’m a white guy saying this) the system (along with the people who run it) is sexist, racist and classist.
    They don’t care about the poor, female minorities, because it’s not like they come out to the polls, it’s not like they have a lobby in congress. This whole system disgusts me, and what is equally as disgusting is that even with a democratic congress there is still no voice for the people that they claim to want to help

  12. jstein
    Posted November 29, 2007 at 11:06 pm | Permalink

    As much as I hate to say it (because it makes me sound like a cynical asshole), but what more can we expect from one of the most fiscally incomptetant presidents in US history. (Right now he’s running right behind Reagan, but he’s got another year to pass the master of Reaganomics)
    Frankly, the myth of the “wellfare queen” is the craziest (yes, I said craziest) piece of propaganda to come out of the Republican party.
    I live in Oakland, CA, and regularly work in soup kitchens in Oakland and Richmond (two of the worst areas in the country) and have seen how dependent the people on the welfare system on.
    Still, the government fails worse and worse every year under this administration, and you can see it in the inter-city. The only reason it isn’t getting heard in the senate is because (and I’m a white guy saying this) the system (along with the people who run it) is sexist, racist and classist.
    They don’t care about the poor, female minorities, because it’s not like they come out to the polls, it’s not like they have a lobby in congress. This whole system disgusts me, and what is equally as disgusting is that even with a democratic congress there is still no voice for the people that they claim to want to help

  13. dananddanica
    Posted November 30, 2007 at 12:57 am | Permalink

    The WIC program, only from what I know personally, does a lot of good but my libertarian sensibilities strain to understand the full load of social programs this country offers. Especially as it pertains to people who have not put anything financially into a system they want to benefit financially from. It might sound cold but I also feel that the size and scope of federal and state programs inhibit the inherent generosity of most of our citizenry.
    Bush has been horrible for our countries fiscal policy. The most personal thing was him using the military as a prop and then cutting a lot of our pays and benefits and not revamping our medical system. There is a lot of info on that out there but it is rarely brought up other than the Walter Reid scandal.
    I would hope that in a country as wealthy as ours we could provide for the least well-off of our citizens and cutting the funding of this particular program is a bad idea but overall we really need to rethink our social benefits programs.
    We need to make all preventitive care free. This would immensely benefit most WIC recipients and replace medicaid which itself is a horrible system. Boggles the mind a person cant get a 1 dollar pill to prevent a condition yet that same person can stagger into an ER and get 200,000 dollars worth of heart surgery to fix that same condition.
    Overall the fiscal mismanagement has gone too far and this kind of funding cut best exemplifies it.

  14. dananddanica
    Posted November 30, 2007 at 12:59 am | Permalink

    The WIC program, only from what I know personally, does a lot of good but my libertarian sensibilities strain to understand the full load of social programs this country offers. Especially as it pertains to people who have not put anything financially into a system they want to benefit financially from. It might sound cold but I also feel that the size and scope of federal and state programs inhibit the inherent generosity of most of our citizenry.
    Bush has been horrible for our countries fiscal policy. The most personal thing was him using the military as a prop and then cutting a lot of our pays and benefits and not revamping our medical system. There is a lot of info on that out there but it is rarely brought up other than the Walter Reid scandal.
    I would hope that in a country as wealthy as ours we could provide for the least well-off of our citizens and cutting the funding of this particular program is a bad idea but overall we really need to rethink our social benefits programs.
    We need to make all preventitive care free. This would immensely benefit most WIC recipients and replace medicaid which itself is a horrible system. Boggles the mind a person cant get a 1 dollar pill to prevent a condition yet that same person can stagger into an ER and get 200,000 dollars worth of heart surgery to fix that same condition.
    Overall the fiscal mismanagement has gone too far and this kind of funding cut best exemplifies it.

  15. Posted November 30, 2007 at 2:06 am | Permalink

    I know many many women who have benefited from WIC. It makes me so sick that poor pregnant women and babies are suffering due to a total lack of priorities in the government. It is so easy to trample on the most vulnerable in our society. Family values my ass.

  16. Posted November 30, 2007 at 2:10 am | Permalink

    I know many many women who have benefited from WIC. It makes me so sick that poor pregnant women and babies are suffering due to a total lack of priorities in the government. It is so easy to trample on the most vulnerable in our society. Family values my ass.
    Oh, and dananddanica, most poor people are working poor. They pay a much HIGHER percentage of their income to the government than rich people who never worked and inherited their money and live off of investments. Or, who put their money offshore, or get huge tax breaks and subsidies. So, stop kicking the underdog and saying they are asking for handouts and don’t give back anything to society. Just like illegal aliens, poor single mothers pay taxes like the rest of us.

  17. johanna
    Posted November 30, 2007 at 7:27 am | Permalink

    Wow, taking food from poor babies.
    But we can still bankroll endless war in Iraq.
    Keep it classy, GWB.

  18. johanna
    Posted November 30, 2007 at 7:29 am | Permalink

    Wow, taking food from poor babies.
    But we can still bankroll endless war in Iraq.
    Keep it classy, GWB.

  19. DivaJean
    Posted November 30, 2007 at 9:38 am | Permalink

    It seems as the Republicans continue to work towards making women beholden towards men- having a husband and being barefoot and pregnant. They are flat out intimidated by women- keeping us economically impoverished by mandated pregnancy (decreased access to birth control and abortion), food, and health care will insure they have the upper hand.

  20. dananddanica
    Posted November 30, 2007 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    hilary,
    the working poor pay more when it comes to regressive taxes (sales tax and the like) but overall pay less in taxes as a percentage of their income when you take into account the eitc and a host of other things such as medicaid and a host of other programs.
    The shame of this is that WIC, though some have an issue with the way its administered, is a great program and it looks like it may be cut while a host of programs we dont need nearly as much will be fully funded.
    Finally, yes as warren buffet was fond of saying, he paid less in income taxes than his secretary (as a %) because he was capped at 15% but youre talking about an incredibly small group in a nation of 300 million. One of the worst places to be, tax-wise, is making about 80-100k a year, not enough money to get tricky and avoid taxes but more than enough to be hit with the full brunt of our progressive tax code (which i support).
    Hopefully this program will not lose any funding.

  21. zizabean
    Posted November 30, 2007 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

    Dananddanica,
    I’m not following your logic. Are you saying the cash value of services provided under Medicaid should be included as contributing to the income of the poor? Do the privately insured have to claim the cash value of medical services as income? If not, your argument about the proportion of income poor households pay in taxes doesn’t make sense.
    Re: Warren Buffett, that was his whole point. It’s the wealthy FEW, the elite, who contribute a lower proportion. (And how exactly is this progressive?)
    You seem to believe WIC is more valuable than other social programs. So in your opinion, which ones should be scrapped?
    Finally, although those in the 80-100K tax bracket may be worse off tax-wise than the very poor, something tells me they won’t be getting much sympathy from the women kicked off WIC, terminated from TANF after hitting the time limit, or on a 6 year waiting list for subsidized housing.

  22. zizabean
    Posted November 30, 2007 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    Dananddanica,
    I’m not following your logic. Are you saying the cash value of services provided under Medicaid should be included as contributing to the income of the poor? Do the privately insured have to claim the cash value of medical services as income? If not, your argument about the proportion of income poor households pay in taxes doesn’t make sense.
    Re: Warren Buffett, that was his whole point. It’s the wealthy FEW, the elite, who contribute a lower proportion. (And how exactly is this progressive?)
    You seem to believe WIC is more valuable than other social programs. So in your opinion, which ones should be scrapped?
    Finally, although those in the 80-100K tax bracket may be worse off tax-wise than the very poor, something tells me they won’t be getting much sympathy from the women kicked off WIC, terminated from TANF after hitting the time limit, or on a 6 year waiting list for subsidized housing.

  23. tostartarevolution
    Posted November 30, 2007 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    These programs suck. My mother (mind you this was 35 years ago) decided to forgo college and have a family instead. She had three children with her first husband and they were divorced at which point she reentered the work force and met my father. They were married, had me, and she discovered my father’s drug problem and they divorced, leaving her a single woman with four children and little means of support. The child support she received amounted to little over a hundred a week so she turned to public aid. These programs barely helped her either. As we aged, they continued to cut her food stamps. Like 10 year olds don’t need to eat as much as 4 year olds. When my oldest sister got an after school job in high school, her father was allowed to pay less child support. The government does not give one flying fuck about single mothers trying to feed their children. What boggles my mind is that they don’t understand what a little bit of support can do for a single parent.
    I do however, have to disagree with Jstein. My mother was a white woman struggling to keep us in a well-to-do suburb of Chicago so we could go to good schools and she couldnt even get subsidized lunches for us while many minority children lied about their addresses and still were able to get their books and all else for free. The system discriminates against EVERYONE, minorities and non-minorities alike.
    Instead of making this rant any more long winded than it is, I’ll just say thanks, johanna for this tidbit; ”
    Wow, taking food from poor babies.
    But we can still bankroll endless war in Iraq.
    Keep it classy, GWB.” I wholeheartedly agree.

  24. dananddanica
    Posted November 30, 2007 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    Bean,
    Dananddanica,
    I’m not following your logic. Are you saying the cash value of services provided under Medicaid should be included as contributing to the income of the poor?
    ———————
    I’m saying that those costs are covered by tax-payers, one might not count it as a cash benefit directly to the recipients but in general the people on medicaid are receiving care far in excess of anything they have put in the system. this is a net loss.
    Do the privately insured have to claim the cash value of medical services as income?
    ———–
    No they do not as they/their employer are paying for that care and as insurance is a for-profit business it is a net plus for the economy, not a drain on other members of the society.
    ——————-
    Re: Warren Buffett, that was his whole point. It’s the wealthy FEW, the elite, who contribute a lower proportion. (And how exactly is this progressive?)
    His point only relates to a very, very few. So low a number that it is insignificant when you compare the taxes they pay with the revenue either their inheritance or their company generates. They have found a way to escape the progressive tax scale but not all of the super rich are in this position, most have incomes that dont just come from capital gains. Either way I think we agree that the tax code is quite broken even if we do accept the stats showing the wealthiest by far pay the most into the system (not the top 500 people but the top 1 or 5%)
    ——————–
    You seem to believe WIC is more valuable than other social programs. So in your opinion, which ones should be scrapped?
    WIC rolls into my outlook of provided basic care services. If I were to scrap programs I would scrap the DOE, quite a number of other alphabet soup agencies, especially the DHS. I would impose legislation reform outlawing riders and pork as well as a number of other things to include rolling back the prescription drug benefit and slashing military legacy programs. Dont necessarily just need to cut social programs to fund other social programs.
    ——————–
    Finally, although those in the 80-100K tax bracket may be worse off tax-wise than the very poor, something tells me they won’t be getting much sympathy from the women kicked off WIC, terminated from TANF after hitting the time limit, or on a 6 year waiting list for subsidized housing
    ———————
    Should the people making 80-100k have a lot of sympathy for a person unable to support themselves and move off that 6 year waiting list willingly? Yes there are many disabled people (my mother and sister are medically disabled, ms and mental problems) but are we to subsidize a person for their entire lives? We need to really reform a lot of our work and education programs so that those who are capable of supporting themselves do in fact do that. Its a tough question when you go case by case, that can pull at the heartstrings but if we are to have policies on the macro scale, we need to do what is best for most. Empower, train, help, and so on, not a complex system of welfare with no real incentive to ever leave the ride.
    Lastly, as far as the war in iraq comments above go, it just makes me laugh. Personally I benefit immensely from this war but for some reason the American people are only now beginning to truly realize the cost (fiscal) of this war and who is getting all that money. No food for babies but they can pay my buddy 200k a year to escort people around, amazing.

  25. EG
    Posted December 1, 2007 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    not a complex system of welfare with no real incentive to ever leave the ride.
    That’s a myth. Most people on welfare are on it for a couple years at a stretch. That’s it. Most people on welfare cycle on and off due to lay-offs, health problems, and the like. The fantasy behind “job training” is that there are enough jobs for everybody and that it’s just an individual’s incompetence or lack of training that keeps him or her from making a living. Such a fantasy ignores globalization and outsourcing of jobs, as well as the breaking of the union power which forced employers to make sure that working-class jobs paid liveable wages.
    as insurance is a for-profit business it is a net plus for the economy, not a drain on other members of the society.
    How do you figure? The insurance business costs untold monies in terms of the hoops medical-care providers are forced to jump through and the battalions of lawyers and accountants needed to push paperwork around. It costs consumers time and energy as it attempts to get out of paying whenever possible. Its arcane policies generate immense costs to its consumers health. Profit does not equal net gain for society. The Mob turns a profit too.

  26. Mina
    Posted December 1, 2007 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    “The fantasy behind ‘job training’ is that there are enough jobs for everybody and that it’s just an individual’s incompetence or lack of training that keeps him or her from making a living.”
    …and that the high-paying jobs you train for will still be available once you’re qualified! For example, I wonder what it was like for students who graduated with computer science degrees just in time to see a lot of those jobs taken by other new computer science grads flooding the labor market or outsourced altogether…

  27. Mina
    Posted December 1, 2007 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    “These programs barely helped her either. As we aged, they continued to cut her food stamps. Like 10 year olds don’t need to eat as much as 4 year olds.”
    Bah. Programs like WIC should be expanded to avoid problems like that. Heck, how about expanding WIC to a gender-neutral PIC? Pregnant women and nursing mothers aren’t the only adults who go hungry while struggling to feed infants and children…

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

193 queries. 0.684 seconds