Of all the horror shows that the Congress of the United States of America
put on over the years, nothing was more horrifying than the latest. It is that
the legislative body has voted to reduce the amount of food stamps distributed
to the millions of poor people who rely on the program to feed their families.
The worst part is that the legislators who supported the resolution justified
what they did – not by citing compelling circumstances – but citing ideological
reasons. Thus, it can no longer be denied that the human condition in America is
sliding down to a level never seen before.
This compels us to ask the question: How do you assess the
state of the human condition in a given society? I submit that there are two
ways to do this, each involving a test that can easily be conducted. There is
the natural test, and there is the comparative test. The first takes into
consideration the availability of what is necessary to sustain life. The second
takes into account how well that society distributes among its people, what is
available in both the necessities of life and the luxuries of life.
Let's take the example of a hypothetical society that is
made of a million people. First, we assume that clean air and clean water –
which are absolutely necessary to sustain life – are available to everyone free
of charge. The next items to go under the rubric of necessities of life would
be food, clothing and shelter. So let's begin with food. If that society
consistently produces enough food to feed say, a million and a quarter people,
we say it is adequately equipped to nourish itself since it produces 125
percent of what it needs. We can also make the same argument with regard to
clothing and shelter if the society produces more than is required to satisfy
the needs of everyone. Thus, based on the natural test, our assessment would be
that this society passes with flying colors.
We now do the comparative test to see where that society
stands. Again, we begin with food. If what can feed a million and a quarter
people is distributed among the million inhabitants in such a way as to give
everyone 125 percent of what they need, we say that this society is governed by
a system that is strictly egalitarian. But if everyone gets nourished
adequately, and the extra food is distributed only among a privileged stratum
of the society, we say that this society is a just one. We can also make the
same argument with regard to clothing and shelter if the same circumstances
apply.
The difficulties begin to be felt when there is not enough
of one or more items to satisfy the needs of everyone. The egalitarian society;
maybe even the just one would consider instituting a system of rationing
whereby everyone will get less than what they need so that everyone get
something. If this happens at all, it will apply to food. And where necessary,
other items such as fuel to heat the home may also be rationed. Alternatively,
the poor may receive a subsidy to pay for the fuel. In many of the advanced
societies, housing and a little of what may be considered luxuries are also
subsidized.
And this is the point at which the difference between the
haves and the have-nots in society begins to manifest itself. It is the point
at which the level of poverty is pronounced enough that it can be measured and
assessed. In fact, something like this is done in almost every nation on the
planet, and done by many international bodies that have devised methods by
which to obtain a snapshot of the human condition. Foremost among the people
who have immersed themselves in the study of the subject is Mark R. Rank who is
a professor of social welfare. He wrote an article that was published in the
New York Times on November 3, 2013 under the title: “Poverty in America Is
Mainstream.” Every legislator in that country should read the article because
there is a mad drive to deny the reality of poverty in America .
And because that is the case, it must be mentioned that
families are being denied food – which is in surplus in that country – based on
the ideological maxim which says that to feed people encourages them not to
seek work. And this is the worst kind of excuse that someone can give – which
is why that act of Congress will go down in history as one of the worst shows
ever staged by an institution that is growing increasingly useless.