Letter: Cruelty for political gain

Key Takeaways:

• Millions of Americans may lose SNAP benefits.
• Children make up 16 million of those affected.
• The letter’s author refers to the proposed cuts as “immoral and cruel.”
• Politicians are accused of using people’s lives for political gain.
• New Hampshire’s children and veterans face particular hardship.

Background of SNAP Proposals

SNAP is a critical federal program assisting millions of Americans in purchasing food. A recent proposal to slash or eliminate these benefits has sparked outrage, especially in New Hampshire, where communities feel their most vulnerable members will suffer the most.

Scope of Potential Cuts

According to the letter, 42 million Americans rely on SNAP—16 million of them children. By removing or drastically cutting this support, the letter suggests, these individuals could be left with nowhere else to turn for essential meals.

Moral Challenge

The letter calls the proposed cuts both “immoral and cruel.” It criticizes policymakers for playing politics with basic human needs, suggesting that sacrificing nutrition assistance for short-term political gains is indefensible.

Local Perspective

In New Hampshire, the letter highlights specific groups—children, veterans, and neighbors already struggling on tight budgets—who could be harmed by the policy. By underscoring the personal cost to these individuals, the letter points out that food security is not a partisan issue but a fundamental standard of decency.

Political Implications

Beyond labeling the cuts “bad policy,” the letter asserts that leaders are engaged in “bad governance.” Arguing that effective public service should prioritize human welfare, the author warns that cutting off SNAP funding is an act of cruelty that places politics above people.