Introduction
Different individuals in the government are championing massive tax cuts, which will benefit the rich. In another case, U.S. Representative Garret Graves is seeking to vilify the poor by pushing for legislation that will demand the beneficiaries of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to meet some needless work requirements. The author’s main argument is that the poor are being discriminated against through policies that exacerbate their poverty.
The main points of the article highlight how Garret Graves is taking actions that may hurt the poor across the US. The author starts by claiming that poverty has become a sin in the face of many Republicans going by the recent policy proposals on tax cuts, allowing corporations to influence lawmaking, and targeting programs designed to help the poor. The author argues that most Republicans in Congress come from areas with a majority of middle-income earners. As such, the politicians are pitting the middle class against the poor to cover their policies that seek to benefit the rich. The author specifically talks about Garret Graves and his campaign for massive tax cuts for the rich and the promotion of legislation that requires the beneficiaries of the SNAP to meet useless work requirements before they can receive food stamps.
Main body
The presumption that people who receive food stamps are lazy is erroneous according to the author. As such, Garret Graves’s claims that people prefer food stamps because government services are more profitable than working are slanderous and they amount to ugly slurs. According to the author, the majority of poor people work longer hours than Graves. Additionally, low-income assistance programs do not have any incentives that can discourage individuals from working. The author notes that the available research shows that working is more profitable than getting government incentives. For instance, the US News & World Report indicated that in almost 60 percent of households that benefit from the SNAP, one or more persons are working.
Finally, the author offers a way forward that will help the poor in the US. First, the Republicans need to campaign for the increase of the federal minimum wage to benefit the poor because according to the author, this class of citizens is already working as opposed to Graves’ misconceptions. Similarly, the Earned Income Tax Credit should be enhanced coupled with assisting children from low-income backgrounds to access vocational, technical, or college education.
The tone used throughout the paper is indignant and sarcastic. The author opens the article with a rhetorical question on how poverty shifted from being an unfortunate economic circumstance to a moral failure. He sarcastically notes that while the Bible requires people to have compassion for the poor, the Republicans have rewritten the message to show that wealth is the ultimate test of godliness and virtue. The author is outraged that the poor are not getting justice from the very people who are supposed to be protecting them through policymaking. However, the article is subjective, and it does not highlight any dissenting views about the issue of some poor people who decide not to work due to government services.
I think that the author is right by arguing that the current administration is coming up with policies that will hurt the poor. The proposal for tax cuts will only benefit the wealthy. Additionally, if implemented, the poor will face an increased tax burden, and the national debt will rise by 1.5 trillion US dollars. Such pressure will lead to the slashing of funding to programs such as SNAP. As such, the poor who genuinely need food stamps will suffer and such a scenario should not be allowed. Similarly, I think that most people do not prefer to remain idle and enjoy government services as opposed to working. There are many hardworking individuals among people who live below the poverty line. Even a low federal minimum wage does not discourage this group of workers, and some take several shifts a day to afford comfortable lives for their loved ones. However, I think that there is a small group of poor individuals that would rather stay at home and enjoy government services, and this aspect underscores Graves’ concerns. However, the majority of hardworking individuals living in poverty should not be punished for other people’s laziness.
Conclusion
The author has communicated effectively throughout the article to highlight the plight of poor individuals in the US under the current administration. The article has raised issues concerning tax cuts that will affect the poor negatively. In addition, the author has cleared the misconception that most people prefer not to work in a bid to enjoy government services. The article has shown that working has better incentives than staying at home and benefiting from food stamps. Therefore, the government should focus on improving the welfare of the poor by increasing the federal minimum wage. Similarly, children from low-income families should be supported to join colleges or technical and vocational learning institutions. Throughout the article, the author has used an indignant and sarcastic tone. The article is effective in delivering the intended message.