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.
Once upon a time I used to say "anything that can be said will be said, whether truth, fantasy or raving lunatic speech." It has become routine to the point that I have better things to do with my time.
My church (near Hermann Park in Houston) provides breakfast 365 days/year for the park's homeless or anyone who walks through the door. Another church up the street serves lunch, and one across the street serves dinner. Starvation in this country is non existent, unless it's intentional.
You forgot designer clothes and shoes and 2000 watt radios in their cars.
Right now we have a Section 8 family terrorizing our neighborhood. The little darlings start using their obnoxiously loud motorized stand-up scooters and pocket motorcycles before 7 am on weekends...
But that's another story.
You mean you didn't see it? I'm amazed. It's right after killing babies in the womb.
done
The 12 million families represent 11.2 percent of all U.S. households. "At some time during the year2," the report said, "these households were uncertain of having, or unable3 to acquire, enough food for all their members4 because they had insufficient money or other resources."
Again, let's play PARSE THE LIBERALTM!
1)Department of Agriculture? Those are the 'free cheese' people, right? Sounds like they fear Bush's budgetary axe.
2) "At some time during the year" IS NOT "all year long" (and can be as little as just once!)
3) "uncertain...OR unable" is a classic means of increasing one's statistical count: classic example is the count of those who "bike or walk" to work is 7%. So we should build more bike paths, right? Well, no--those who walk don't need bike paths. Why are they lumped together--because they have a common contrast to those who drive, not because they have common needs.
4) ALL their members? Gee, this makes it sound like who rooms full of welfare queens, illegal immigrants, or drug dealers. To quote Dilbert, "What were they drinking when they wrote this piece of crud?"
Cheers!
Full Disclosure: Give to the Salvation Army instead of shopping at Target!
Since their retirement, my parents have been doing volunter work at their local food bank. My father takes his pickup to the local grocery stores to get their donations, then he goes to the food bank. This place is run by a Christian pastor. The food is sorted and put on shelves like a real grocery store. They have refrigerators, too. Anyone can come in and pick out whatever they want. The stuff is good, name brand, fresh stuff. They have seen people come in with new Escalades and Lincoln Navigators, but no one is turned down. Most cities have similar food banks. By the way, everyone I have met working with food banks is Conservative, Christian, Republican, George Bush supporters. I guess the libs can only talk the talk.
Hunger isn't so much an urban problem, it's also a rural problem.
"implied bargain" = "pursuit of happiness"
Quote of the week.
Herbert needs to get out of America once in a while and go visit some other countries around the world.
Corollary: Hobbes ran a blog, and was possibly a FReeper!
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."
President Regan said very much the same thing while he was in office...
I donate several times a year to our local food bank.
Lately I've begun donating the local grocery store's gift cards so the recipients might be able to purchase perishable goods like fruit and milk.
Most of the poor in my town are seniors in rural seclusion.
All this talk about food has made me hungry but I don't have anything to eat. I would get something out of the snack machine but there is no ATM in my building.
Well, add me to the "unable to acquire enough food" category.
To be admired. But I wouldn't categorize all of the hungry in America as urban spendthrifts. People in cities can generally hustle the system or make do through other means. People in rural communities have a tougher time. And now, unfortunately, we're starting to see the beginning of "suburban hunger" with people out in the burbs making trips to the food banks and churches.
Corollary: Hobbes ran a blog, and was possibly a FReeper!
I like the idea of dangerous carnivores in pajamas (well maybe Hobbes wasn't particularly dangerous, but as a tiger...), sound to me like the perfect description of Free Republic.
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.