Posted on 11/22/2004 5:48:16 AM PST by 68skylark
Former Senator Phil Gramm, a Republican from Texas who was known for his orneriness, once said, "We're the only nation in the world where all our poor people are fat."
That particular example of compassionate conservatism came to mind as I looked over a report from the Department of Agriculture showing that more than 12 million American families continue to struggle, and not always successfully, to feed themselves.
The 12 million families represent 11.2 percent of all U.S. households. "At some time during the year," the report said, "these households were uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food for all their members because they had insufficient money or other resources."
Of the 12 million families that worried about putting food on the table, 3.9 million had members who actually went hungry at some point last year. "The other two-thirds ... obtained enough food to avoid hunger using a variety of coping strategies," the report said, "such as eating less varied diets, participating in federal food assistance programs, or getting emergency food from community food pantries or emergency kitchens."
These are dismal statistics for a country as well-to-do as the United States. But we don't hear much about them because hunger is associated with poverty, and poverty is not even close to becoming part of our national conversation. Swift boats, yes. Sex scenes on "Monday Night Football," most definitely. The struggle of millions of Americans to feed themselves? Oh no. Let's not go there.
What does that tell you about American values?
We are surrounded by poor and low-income people. (The definitions can be elastic and easily blurred, but essentially we're talking about individuals and families that don't have enough money to cover the essentials - food, shelter, clothing, transportation and so forth.) Many of them are full-time workers, and some have more than one job.
A new study by the Center for an Urban Future, a nonprofit research group, found that more than 550,000 families in New York - a quarter of all working families in the state - had incomes that were too low to cover their basic needs.
We just had a bitterly contested presidential election, but this very serious problem (it's hardly confined to New York) was not a major part of the debate.
According to the study: "Most low-income working families do not conform to the popular stereotype of the working poor as young, single, fast-food workers: 88 percent of low-income working families include a parent between 25 and 54 years old. Married couples head 53 percent of these families nationwide. Important jobs such as health aide, janitor and child care worker pay a poverty wage."
In its introduction, the study says, "The implied bargain America offers its citizens is supposed to be that anyone who works hard and plays by the rules can support his or her family and move onward and upward."
If that was the bargain, we've broken it again and again. Low-income workers have always been targets for exploitation, and that hasn't changed. The Times's Steven Greenhouse had a troubling front-page article in last Friday's paper about workers at restaurants, supermarkets, call centers and other low-paying establishments who are forced to go off the clock and continue working for periods of time without pay.
The federal government has not raised the minimum wage since 1997, and has made it easier for some employers to deny time-and-a-half pay to employees who work overtime.
Franklin Roosevelt, in his second Inaugural Address, told a rain-soaked crowd, "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
I can hear the politicians in today's Washington having a hearty laugh at that sentiment.
There are advocates and even some politicians hard at work addressing the myriad problems faced by beleaguered workers and their families. But they get very little in the way of attention or resources from the most powerful sectors of society. So the health care workers who can't afford health insurance will continue emptying bedpans for a pittance. And the janitors will clean up faithfully after the big shots who ignore them.
These are rough times for the American dream. But times change, and the people who have broken faith with the dream won't be in power forever.
My grocery store sells potatoes for as little as 10 cents a pound. Dozens of other nutritious foods are all less than a dollar a pound (beans, rice, bananas, oranges, apples, bread, corn, even some cuts of meat). So if anyone can't feed themselves or their children among all this embarrassing excess of riches, there's something else wrong with them.
I went hungry th is weekend. My GF was sick and wouldn't make me a sandwich!
When I see seniors jumping on their buses to go to Foxwoods and Mohigan Sun I really start to wonder....
"Didja ever notice that the NY Times, NBCCBSABCCNN&etc. never seem to mention anything about poverty or hunger when a Democrat holds the Presidency??"
How much are Fruit Loops, Coco Puffs, and Boo Berry though? Now with Franco American coming off the market - we are going to be stuck with Chef Boyardee. How can you not understand the plight in America?
Sorry for the bad sarcasm.
If anyone starves to death in the US it is for two reasons: (1) he is an adult who consciously decided to stop eating altogether, (2) he is a child whose parents or foster parents should be imprisoned for murder.
Missing a meal because you spent too much of your last paycheck (or more likely your last government check) before getting your next one isn't starvation.
How fitting that a renowned liberal mistakes truth for orneriness!!
These are dismal statistics for a country as well-to-do as the United States. But we don't hear much about them because hunger is associated with poverty, and poverty is not even close to becoming part of our national conversation.
The interesting statistic that is interesting for its absence, is the number of deaths from starvation. At or near zero doesn't serve the left's agenda very well does it.
If they would rather have cable TV, cell phones, internet connections than food, than that is their problem.
Oops, I forgot marijuana and alcohol.
"The implied bargain America offers its citizens is supposed to be that anyone who works hard and plays by the rules can support his or her family and move onward and upward."
I just checked my copy of the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution. Can't seem to find this "implied bargain" anywhere. But if that's what the study said, then this discovery makes the grant money well spent.
Let's try parsing this language, first looking at the bold added by me.
"Most low-income working families are not young single people...88 percent of low-income working FAMILIES include a parent..."
Right, most families are not made up of single people.
See how deftly they changed the subject from poor households to poor families?
Most poor families have parents--but are most poor households these families?
Among the total number of poor, what is the actual percentage of families with children?
What is the actual number of poor, who have children, how many are more or less part of the PERMANENT underclass, and not just families whose principal breadwinner got downsized--yes, that sucks, but it isn't the same thing!
This article gives the impression that most poor households in the families are depression-era married parents with 14 children, who, due to the bigotry of Christian fundamentalists, have no access to government-funded abortion-services; who, due to greedy Republicans, are forced into virtual slave labor by freezes in the minimum wage; who, due to cuts in government subsidies for education, cannot hope of a better life; and who, due to Republican cuts in welfare, are forced to wander the streets, homelss--and all because YOU personally didn't vote for John Kerry.
I always wondered how they could afford "Air Jordans" but not a $10 belt.
Looks like Herbert is searching for something to slam our government on.
Former Senator Phil Gramm, a Republican from Texas who was known for his orneriness, once said, "We're the only nation in the world where all our poor people are fat."
An interesting quote. I heard a guy from a non-partison organization on National Progressive Radio last year saying the same thing. He was saying that the programs that provide food assistance need more money (big surprise), but he said that the food that is bought with this assistance is ridiculous. The recipients buy foods with little or no nutritious value. The recipients recive 30 minutes of counseling every year (get this: 15 minutes of which is devoted on how to register to vote) on how to spend the money. He said he has worked with the poor since the 60's and that obesity is a huge (no pun intended) problem now with the poor compared to the 60 when the people really couldn't get food.
Are we the fattest nation or are we starving? I have never, in my lifetime, in which I have travelled all over this country, seen any children with bloated stomachs with flies roaming around their heads. What a crock.
Poor people in this country have been fat for at least 40 years. I distinctly recall my mother pointing out a poor person (in the course of conversation; she wasn't being rude, and this was a very small town, so she knew!), and I asked why she was fat, and mom told me it was because she can only afford poor fat food like spaghetti (carbs, folks - even then!).
This drives me nuts! I see bus loads of "seniors" heading towards ACY all the time and they want their prescriptions paid for as well. I guess their fingers get sore punching the machines and pulling the levers. GRRRRRR!
MoodyBlu
You forgot Lottery Tickets too.
" These are dismal statistics for a country as well-to-do as the United States. But we don't hear much about them because hunger is associated with poverty, and poverty is not even close to becoming part of our national conversation."
Send Fox's illegals back to him and let him feed them!
There are many avenues for poor AMERICANS to get food.
Salvation army gives warm lunches, church groups have food programs, food banks, food stamps.
The worse part of poverty is homelessness. There doesnt appear to be any solutions for that, but food is not a problem as far as anyone can tell.
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.