Faith In The Budget
The Decision Dilemma Frank Lucas had on his desk two documents about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps. Rep. Lucas was the U.S. House Representative for Oklahoma's 3rd District and was Chair of the House Committee on Agriculture, which oversaw SNAP. One document was Paul Ryan's, "Path to Prosperity" budget proposal designed to eliminate a large and growing national deficit, a budget that was based on Rep. Ryan's faith. The other document was a letter from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (U.S.C.C.B.) received on April 16, 2012 asking Rep. Lucas to oppose cuts to the SNAP program because of the impact that the cuts would have on the recipients of SNAP. Rep. Lucas needed to decide whether to support or oppose the proposed budget cuts to SNAP. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Federal expenditures for SNAP, formerly known as Food Stamps, were $78 billion for the fiscal year 2011. Participation in the program was the highest that has been recorded. On average, approximately one in seven U.S. residents received SNAP benefits. The program has grown dramatically in the last decade. In a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) (http:www.cbo.gov/publication/43173), several characteristics of SNAP beneficiaries were listed: * In 2010, about three out of four SNAP households included a child, a person age 60 or older, or a disabled person. * The average income for SNAP beneficiaries was $8,800 per year. * On a monthly basis, the SNAP benefit per household was $287, or $4.30 per person per day. * SNAP benefits increased gross monthly income by 39 percent for all participating households and by 45 percent for households with children. * 85 percent of SNAP households live below the poverty line. An important issue that has impacted the SNAP program is fraud. The USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) had a team of 100 analysis and investigators across the country who worked with state and federal government officials to identify and investigate SNAP fraud. SNAP fraud included the exchange of SNAP benefits for cash, i.e., trafficking, lying on SNAP applications, or retailer abuse of SNAP (FNS, 2013c). Approximately 38,000 stores were subject to FNS surveillance annually (FNS, 2013a). The most recently reported FNS information showed that as of 2011, 99 percent of those who received SNAP benefits were eligible and that payment accuracy was 96 percent (FNS, 2013b). The FNS's most recent trafficking report, which represented the years 2006-2008, said that payment errors had been reduced by $3.67 billion, which was reduction of approximately 50 percent. In addition, over a 15 year period, SNAP trafficking had fallen from 4 percent to 1 percent of the total SNAP dollars distributed. In other words, the $330 million in SNAP benefits that were diverted through trafficking represented 1 cent of each SNAP dollar distributed (FNS, 2013a). Taking fraud into consideration, SNAP had provided assistance for 45 million participants each month in fiscal year 2011, which represented a 70 percent increase over the roughly 26 million participants (or one of every 11) who received benefits in 2007. Total expenditures, excluding administrative costs, more than doubled during that period from about $30 billion to $72 billion. Approximately two-thirds of the growth in spending on SNAP benefits between 2007 and 2011 stemmed from the increase in the number of participants. Of course, there was a dramatic rise in the number of people eligible for the program after the economic slowdown at the end of 2008. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 added benefits for recipients, which increased expenditures by one-fifth. Benefits also increased because of higher food prices and lower incomes. The cuts in SNAP funding proposed by Rep. …
From the Heart of the Church: The Catholic Social Tradition . By Judith A. Merkle. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004. xiv + 273 pages. $26.95 (paper).
grassroots Christian contribution to peacemaking (11). The approach of this work is groundbreaking: cross cultural, empirical research on the forms of grassroots Christian response to violence. The group of research partners and theological consultants met initially at Maryknoll to meet each other, to lay the foundations for their working relationships, to affirm project goals, to identify key components in effective grassroots peacemaking, and to agree on common questions and methods. Quantative and qualitative methods were employed at the local sites to surface detailed descriptions of grassroots activities for systematic comparison of images of the enemy, images of the divine, religious and ideological motivations, belief in a just world. Gender, education and religion were factored in when appropriate. Artisans of Peace applauds the leadership of local churches when they have been instrumental in the peace processes. The failure of Christian churches in situations of political, economic and social violence, however, is recorded and challenged. So too is the limited role of religious motivations and the obstructionist role of churches. Artisans of Peace is essential reading for teachers in peace studies, social ethics, social justice and sociology of religion. Graduate students would also benefit from the empirical research, complex analysis and thoughtful interpretation. Although it may prove challenging reading, faith-based peace activists, cross-cultural missionaries and local faith communities seeking to understand these areas of global conflict will find rich resource in this book.
ThAT is The qUesTion : CoMPAring The AdvAnTAges And disAdvAnTAges oF TesTiFying ACross siTUATions
Criminal defendants are under no obligation to testify on their own behalf and doing so can lead to deleterious outcomes. Specifically, if the defendant has a criminal record, the prosecution can introduce this into evidence in an effort to impeach the defendant’s testimony. Yet, failure to take the stand and proclaim one’s innocence arouses suspicion among jurors that may influence verdicts. In this study, we manipulated whether the defendant testified or not. In those instances where he did testify, we varied whether he had (1) no criminal record, (2) a criminal record for a similar offense, or (3) a criminal record for a dissimilar offense. Results indicated that mock jurors who adjudicated the defendant guilty were influenced by the defendant’s failure to take the stand. Furthermore, mock jurors were more likely to render guilty verdicts when they perceived the defendant as less trustworthy, more aggressive, and less credible (as a witness). However, in no instance were these decisions and perceptions related to the manipulations. This suggests that mock jurors were suspicious of the defendant regardless of whether or not he testified, or whether he had a criminal record.