What the Biden administration means ...

Jason DeParle writes about poverty for the New York Times. "Poverty" as a broad descriptive explanation for the suffering around us is not as common as it once was. Why 55 years ago, we embarked upon (and lost?) a War on Poverty. But what is the homeless man sleeping on the street but the end result of an economic and political system which leaves its unlucky members without means to live decently, leaves too many in poverty? Why did local community activists organize food deliveries to women locked in with children during the worst of the pandemic, women trapped in poverty? This country has far too much poverty.

Because poverty has been his beat for a long time, DeParle is stunned by the Biden administration's determination to use its powers to fight poverty, through legislation if possible, but also through deft administrative footwork. Here's a tale:

... A few years ago a Republican Congress ordered a revision of the nutritional standards [for SNAP/Food Stamps] and omitted language that had previously required the revisions to be cost-neutral. This change in legislative instructions, seemingly inadvertent, opened the door to increased aid. Accelerating the nutritional review, the Biden administration issued a new Thrifty Food Plan, which caused an average benefit increase of more than 25 percent. About 42 million Americans—one in eight—will now get more money to buy food, and unlike the other pandemic-era expansions, the increase is lasting. 

As the product of complex bureaucratic machinations, the SNAP increase could easily be described as an embodiment of insider-driven change. But when I talked to Tom Vilsack, the agriculture secretary, in August, he didn’t just tout the studies of how quickly the old benefits ran out or the science of apportioning legumes. He talked about the threat that poverty posed to American democracy. “We may have a Constitution and a Declaration of Independence, but if we had 42 million Americans who were going hungry, really hungry, they wouldn’t be happy and there would be political instability,” he said (meaning more instability than already exists). “The safety net is part of how you build a democratic fabric that works. It creates a much more stable and secure country.” Perhaps what he said was obvious, but I don’t recall previously hearing a Cabinet official justifying aid with a reference to democracy’s vulnerability.

Another observation from DeParle:

Even if the safety net shrinks to its pre-pandemic size, and the current statistics become a blip on a chart, it will be a blip to remember. It’s a blip that says high levels of poverty are a political choice, not a fate. ...

That's the choice we are making when we elect even boring Democrats.

EBT is California-speak for Food Stamps/SNAP. You'll find signs like this in every corner store in poor neighborhoods.