Posted on 10/29/2005 9:12:02 AM PDT by Dubya
AUSTIN - A higher percentage of households in Texas were at risk of going hungry over the past three years than in any other state, according to data released Friday by the U.S. Agriculture Department. Between 2002 and 2004, more than 16 percent of Texas households were food insecure, meaning that at some point they had trouble providing enough food for all their family members, the USDA report said.
In nearly 5 percent of Texas households, at least one family member went hungry at least one time during that period because they couldn't afford enough food.
That's the fourth-highest rate in the country.
Nationwide, 11.4 percent of households were at risk of going hungry during that period, and 3.6 percent of U.S. households had at least one member go hungry, the USDA said.
While Texas consistently ranks among the top five states, this is the first time it leads the nation, said Celia Hagert, a senior policy analyst at the Austin-based Center for Public Policy Priorities, which advocates more state spending on education and social programs.
Texas was one of just nine states to see statistically significant increases in food insecurity and hunger rates when the USDA compared three-year average rates for 1999-2001 and 2002-2004.
An average of nearly 14 percent of Texas households were at risk for hunger between 1999 and 2001, and an average of 3.6 percent of Texas households experienced hunger.
Nationally, an average of 10.4 percent of households were at risk for hunger between 1999 and 2001, and an average of 3.1 percent of households experienced hunger.
Advocating more spending on education and social programs is precisely the wrong thing to do. The single best thing the state could do would be to completely phase out all government spending for education over a 12 year time span and eliminate all social spending as quickly as possible. As long as people believe the government is going to solve their problems for them, the people will not learn how to solve them for themselves.
America will never be safe as long as a single Democrat or a single liberal holds elected public office.
Anything can be meant by 'trouble' providing enough food, 'at risk' of going hungry, or 'experiencing' hunger. And these dire pronouncements MEAN NOTHING if you refuse to factor in parents who CHOOSE beer, drugs, and meth over feeding their kids.
Yep!
I've done the math. If you add up all the government 'freebies' that people in the system get and compare it to what working folks get AFTER all the collective taxes are deducted, *poor* people actually have MORE disposable income than the working ones!
There is DEFINITLY something wrong with this system. :(
I forget my lunch at least once a month and go hungry.
Not to down play poor people going hungry, but most Americans skip a meal now and then by accident or on purpose. The media loves anything that even hints at making Texas look bad, I guess because GW Bush is from here.
If I'm not mistaken, the school systems in Texas provide breakfast and lunch year round regardless of income.
See my #47.
That's what happens when you let unskilled illegals flood into your area.
So what the statisics really show is that Texas is leading the nation in feeding the poor and needy.
There is DEFINITLY something wrong with this system. :(
Yes, the system is broken.
Fortunately for the taxpayer there are ordinary working stiffs like me. I don't make much money, but I EARN every single penny.
It gives me a little portion of self-respect that I could not have if I was laying back on relief.
That said, I have no problem with the support of disabled folk. But, I am not disabled (not very much anyway) and I will work until I die, retire (ha!) or win the lottery.
When I was a newborn, we were on welfare for a while. Mom just kept finding work she could do and still take care of me. At one time, she was making eight dollars a month too much to qualify for food stamps.
As Ronaldus Maximus said "America needs a social safety net; the problem is, too many people are using it as a hammock."
You're preaching to the choir on that one! :-)
That's why I'm such a strong supporter of "workfare" reforms. A few 40 hour weeks of picking trash or sorting recyclables- for no increase in benefits- would change a lot of folks' attitudes about "their pay" as they call welfare.
I am aware of one chronic-welfare couple that was forced into workfare. The county provided transportation and child care- no excuses!
The husband now works driving truck, and the wife is a nurse's aide. Not an easy life with eight kids (at last count) but I'm told they're happier.
That's the Welfare Trap. For many years, if a person on welfare got a job, the benefits were abruptly cut off.
Benefits need to be set up so that for every dollar you make working, you only lose 50 cents or so in benefits.
One of the few places the Reverend Jesse Jackson and I agree-
"People need a hand up, not a handout."
I know people that tell me they can't afford to work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.