How Trump’s 2020 Budget Hurts Hungry Women and Families

Written by Abby J. Leibman

Earlier this week, President Trump released the top-line figures of his Fiscal Year 2020 budget proposal—revealing a stunning lack of awareness about who is struggling in the U.S. and why.

Trump’s budget proposes deep cuts to non-defense discretionary programs, many of which provide necessary and life-saving services to low-income Americans who struggle to feed themselves and their families, including attempts to decimate vital safety net programs like food stamps (SNAP). Those impacted most by the Trump budget proposal will be, overwhelmingly, women and their children.

The term “feminization of poverty,” coined years ago, described what many hoped was a singular and short-lived phenomenon—but the years have proven that such poverty persists and is only growing more pervasive.

Today, single mothers head over half of all low income households with children, and female-headed households are twice as likely to be poor. One third of single mothers struggle to feed themselves and their children. While 14 percent of all households are food insecure, over 30 percent of female headed households are food insecure. As women age, they are more likely to age into poverty and become newly poor, in need of government resources for the first time in their lives, and work requirements Trump attempts to put in place for SNAP or Medicare recipients will also present senior women with a stunning new reality: that they must return to work or not have enough to eat.

Trump’s proposal reveals how out of touch this administration is with the realities of everyday life in the U.S. On the heels of a government shutdown that revealed the precarious financial circumstance for tens of thousands of federal workers and an attempt to circumvent the will of Congress by imposing harsh time restrictions on eligibility for SNAP, this budget proposal is the latest in a string of heartless attempts to punish working families and low-income Americans—who are overwhelming female.

True leadership requires moderating political impulses with judgement, wisdom and compassion—all of which are in short supply in this budget proposal. These cuts represent a dangerous and deliberate attack on programs founded to help our nation’s most vulnerable meet their basic needs, and the proposal clearly reflects this administration’s agenda to chip away at the social safety net, undermine vital programs that help struggling families and remove the safeguards that keep people from going hungry in this country.

The Trump administration has been nothing if not consistent in their efforts to punish the poor. But rhetoric and cruel ideology will not keep food on the table—and that’s why it’s the government’s responsibility to adequately fund the programs that do so.

This post originally appeared on Ms. Magazine

Photo Credit: FoodBankCENC.org/Flickr

55 comments

Nicky H

MIKE K : thanks for the useful information on the tax cut for billionaires, and paying for his famous wall with money that was designed for military people, like housing, logistics, etc.. You know that such IMPORTANT information never reaches the other side of the world. Maybe in a special political program on the television, they just spend 2 minutes time on such matters, just once, and that's all. That's why it is good that people like you give more information on all his filthy behavior. Some of my friends, as well as I, regularly look up the latest news on CNN, or see YouTube footage so that we are better informed than the other 99% of our population. And our politicians know all these scandals as well but never talk about it.
Nevertheless, we see and hear enough about this "man" that we do not want him to be the next President again. He has destroyed enough, and not signing the Paris Agreement made many people very angry over here.
What I would like to stress as well as that the behavior of this gentleman makes many people believe that ALL Americans are so - or nearly so - disgusting as he is. His behavior with regard to the immigrants, his opinion about the black people, etc... have given the Americans not a good reputation over here, in W. Europe.

SEND
Nicky H

Is there anyone who has expected something else?? I don't think so. STRUMPF is STRUMPF and always will be. When you think he will change his views on the society, on women, and especially on social matters like health care, elderly care, better income for the jobless, the handicapped, the chronicle sick" people who can not work a hard job any longer, or do a 40 hour week job, then YOU BELIEVE IN FAIRY TALES.... He is "robotized" and will only take care of matters as "how to make the rich even richer"??; how to support industries even more where lots of billions of profit are made? (like the weapon industry for instance) How could he ever care about hunger and hungry families? He doesn't have this word in his dictionary!! What means "homeless"? or "disabled", or "chronically ill" or "psychiatric patients"? These are all words which have NO meaning at all for him. First of all, because he never has met such people!! Then, he never had anyone of his family or friends in this position, and he is too lazy and also too "overconsumed" with property and money and status that all the rest is of no importance t him. I have never, never, never met or seen a "human" with NO empathy at all. I know that the 21st century is becoming the worst with regard to Respect, Compassion, and Empathy. And STRUMPF is the King of all Kings in these domains.

SEND
Son Y.
Son Y.about a month ago

Sadly, I read somewhere that, bad as he is, he is still likely to get re-elected. I really, really, REALLY hope Americans can agree on a different candidate, or he might just win by default.

SEND
Karen H
Karen Habout a month ago

Anyone calling themselves "pro-life" needs to consider what "life" they're protecting. Families that are starving because their food stamp allotment was taken away? Children with life-threatening illnesses who have no health care coverage? There are families where parents have more than one job to be able to provide food, shelter and clothing for their children. They are not "lazy", nor are they "living on the dole". Think about that next time you vote. How would YOU survive if your lifeline was cut?

SEND
Jan S
Jan Sabout a month ago

Thanks

SEND
Elaine W
Elaine Wabout a month ago

Only the uninformed would vote for this. We are a better country than this too.

SEND
Michael F
Michael Friedmannabout a month ago

Thank You for Sharing This !!!

SEND
Janis K
Janis Kabout a month ago

Thanks for sharing.

SEND
Leo C
Leo Custerabout a month ago

Thank you for sharing!

SEND
Joan E
Joan Eabout a month ago

How soon can we be rid of this monster?

SEND