The United States Department of Agriculture's report regarding food and hunger in the U.S. presented a dismal picture for one of the wealthiest countries on earth. Over 49 million people reported "food insecurity" in 2008, which the USDA defines as "not having enough food for an active, healthy lifestyle". This number increased from 36.2 million in 2007 and represents the highest number of people reporting problems procuring enough food for their families since the government started tracking this issue back in 1995. Does this mean that more people are starving in this great country of ours? Perhaps not, but there is definitely more hunger.
It seems unbelievable that anyone, particularly children, should go hungry in America. The Great Recession, however, is taking its toll on almost everyone. People living on the edge are easily pushed into poverty by job loss, illness or any economic hardship, no matter how temporary. Indeed, in an AP article by Henry C. Jackson, the government cited a "lack of money and other resources" as the reason for the increase in hunger.
Some, like a recent editorial in the Washington Post, pooh-pooh the idea that any people in this country are really hungry. They note that the report is based on a survey of 44,000 U.S. households and that both the questions and answers could be misleading. For instance, they posit that being "worried" about having enough food is not the same as not actually having enough. They cite the obesity epidemic as proof that food is easily available. The article noted that "only .1% of children in 2008 went without food for an entire day, down from .2% in 2007". An entire day without food? Well, that's progress.
The very idea that so many people were worried about having enough food to eat is untenable. Tom Vilsak, secretary of the USDA, told reporters that it is "time for America to get...serious about food security and hunger", and congress laudably increased funding for food stamp programs as part of the stimulus bill. However, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization summit in Rome broke up with 192 nations refusing to pledge $44 billion in agricultural development aid per year to address global hunger. The director of this agency dourly noted that much more than that amount was eagerly handed over to financial entities during the global fiscal crisis.
It is interesting that he mentioned that issue. Printed right next to an article on the hunger report was another that described how the Federal Reserve Bank of New York mismanaged the AIG rescue by paying more than necessary for the insurance giant's outstanding contracts. Even when banks were willing to pay less, Geithner wouldn't hear of it. It is estimated that billions were needlessly paid out during this debacle. Is there anyone who wouldn't rather have seen those funds go to the hungry? I think not.
It seems unbelievable that anyone, particularly children, should go hungry in America. The Great Recession, however, is taking its toll on almost everyone. People living on the edge are easily pushed into poverty by job loss, illness or any economic hardship, no matter how temporary. Indeed, in an AP article by Henry C. Jackson, the government cited a "lack of money and other resources" as the reason for the increase in hunger.
Some, like a recent editorial in the Washington Post, pooh-pooh the idea that any people in this country are really hungry. They note that the report is based on a survey of 44,000 U.S. households and that both the questions and answers could be misleading. For instance, they posit that being "worried" about having enough food is not the same as not actually having enough. They cite the obesity epidemic as proof that food is easily available. The article noted that "only .1% of children in 2008 went without food for an entire day, down from .2% in 2007". An entire day without food? Well, that's progress.
The very idea that so many people were worried about having enough food to eat is untenable. Tom Vilsak, secretary of the USDA, told reporters that it is "time for America to get...serious about food security and hunger", and congress laudably increased funding for food stamp programs as part of the stimulus bill. However, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization summit in Rome broke up with 192 nations refusing to pledge $44 billion in agricultural development aid per year to address global hunger. The director of this agency dourly noted that much more than that amount was eagerly handed over to financial entities during the global fiscal crisis.
It is interesting that he mentioned that issue. Printed right next to an article on the hunger report was another that described how the Federal Reserve Bank of New York mismanaged the AIG rescue by paying more than necessary for the insurance giant's outstanding contracts. Even when banks were willing to pay less, Geithner wouldn't hear of it. It is estimated that billions were needlessly paid out during this debacle. Is there anyone who wouldn't rather have seen those funds go to the hungry? I think not.
No comments:
Post a Comment