The Voice of the People
... or at least my own
|
|
|
... or at least my own | | ||||
February 23, 2003
|
A letter to Ms. Kaufmann, author of the February 23rd, 2003 article in the New York Times "Are the Poor Suffering From Hunger Anymore?" --- the said article is pasted below this opinion if you so desire to read it for yourself.Did you read Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser ? In this monumental book the reality of the school lunch program was thoroughly discussed. Another excellent article by the Wall Street journal's Laura Bird explained the same problems of school districts and their school lunch programs. But these sources are not in Ms. Kaufmann's article. No where in your article did you mention how many of the nation's high schools have come to rely on Fast Food Pizza Huts, Taco Bells, McDonalds, and Soda Pop machines. Where are those statistics ? Were you not able to find out the percentages of school lunches that rely on these food providers? Or did you even bother to try ? I have concluded that you were more concerned about pushing some other agenda than you were about writing an honest, informative article. The Bird article states the problem very clearly. "There's [a] compelling reason school districts keep cafeterias stocked with brand name fast-foods and other tempting snack fare -- money. Most schools at best break even on the federally subsidized hot lunches they serve. Yet on premium-priced a la carte foods such as chicken fingers or a ham sandwich, they can earn profit margins of 50% or more, says Mitch Johns, president of Food Service Solutions Inc., an Altoona, Pa., software company." And therein lies the truth. The search for enormous 50% profits (mind you, not just 10% or 20%) is eroding the desire for healthy kids. Schools are strapped for cash, and that fundamental reality is getting worse It costs less when they allow corporations to provide the food, and corporations are all about getting more 50% profit situations. This is why the WIC funds are heavily tilted toward high-calorie foods. Where is this obvious fact in the article by Ms. Kaufmann ? Instead, you try and pawn the argument on the noble goal of avoiding "obesity" and act like the program is just another indication of government waste. You mention some statistics which elude to potential abuse by middle class students who are getting free lunches that the poor are not getting. You cite, Robert E. Rector, of the Heritage Foundation. "All the things about cash welfare that discouraged work and marriage, and encouraged long-term dependence, apply identically to food stamps." You use Mr. Douglas J. Besharov of the American Enterprise Institute's Project on Social and Individual Responsibility who states the problem is about "expanding girth." And the article's very title "Are the Poor Suffering From Hunger Anymore?" indicates that Ms. Kaufmann has a very narrow view of the problems with the school lunch program. Nowhere in your article did you mention how many students do not eat lunch at all ? Why does it seem Ms. Kaufmann was more than willing to let these right-wing conservative think tanks frame the article? You have to wonder at how much Ms. Kaufmann even cares to pay attention. What else can one conclude when Ms. Kaufmann ends the article with the following conclusion: " No longer are advocates for the poor discussing "hunger," with its dire implications, but "insecurity," a more nuanced, less compelling justification for help. If conservatives have got food advocates to concede this much, perhaps they have already won Round 1 of the battle. " Ms. Kaufmann, the only argument that is "nuanced" is your own. Whether you say Poor children are "hungry" or "insecure" about being hungry really doesn't matter much when all a child gets to eat all day is a fat-greasy burger or the 99 cent McDonalds meat or the hot dogs at the circle K. What planet do you come from? These are children whose lives you so arrogantly rebuke when you seem to gloat about "conservatives" winning "Round 1 of the battle." This is about sponsoring a healthy diet for children not about winning battle to pursue this wolf in sheep's clothing agenda for the people you quote when you call them on the phone. ---------- for those of you who want to read the article ... I have pasted it below. February 23, 2003 Are the Poor Suffering From Hunger Anymore? By LESLIE KAUFMAN The Bush administration and Congress are giving almost every poverty program the once-over, pushing changes that will affect everything from Medicaid to housing assistance. But two programs are receiving unexpected scrutiny: food stamps and subsidized school lunches. Advocates for revamping those programs argue that both of them too often serve people who don't need help, and that even among those who do need help, food stamps can encourage dependency. In tough economic times, limiting food aid could be a politically unpopular move. Americans typically do not regard free food as a form of welfare, and other attempts to limit it have met with mixed reactions. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan proposed cutting lunch portions and famously tried to have ketchup classified as a vegetable. Both ideas died after a storm of protest. (He was partly successful in reducing federal subsidies to middle-class students.) And one of the most contentious provisions in the 1996 law that overhauled welfare — denying food stamps to noncitizen immigrants — was largely repealed last year, with White House support. Nevertheless, many Republicans including Representative Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, the chairman of the House Agricultural Committee, say it is now important to reconfigure the food-stamp program, which he contends is rife with fraud and ripe for innovation. There is also rising criticism from conservatives outside the administration that food programs encourage recipients to overeat. "We are feeding the poor as if they are starving, when anyone can see that the real problems for them, like other Americans, is expanding girth," said Douglas J. Besharov, director of the American Enterprise Institute's Project on Social and Individual Responsibility. Food stamps are facing the most significant changes. Earlier this month, the House passed legislation with White House support that would give states more autonomy. Up to five states would be allowed to administer the programs as they saw fit, almost free of federal standards, in exchange for a freeze on financing from Washington. Under current law, any family with an income that falls below 130 percent of poverty level is entitled to food stamps; a family of four can get as much as $465 a month, but the average grant is $185 a month. And unlike welfare, no time limit exists on how long they can collect. While the Agriculture Department says it does not track how long participants stay in the program, the conservative Heritage Foundation says its analysis of government surveys shows that half stay for extended periods, longer than eight years. The White House says the new legislation would give states the ability to streamline disparate poverty programs. And conservatives outside the administration say food stamps have become an escape hatch for those who can, but will not, work. "Food stamps and cash welfare are two halves of a whole," said Robert E. Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. "All the things about cash welfare that discouraged work and marriage, and encouraged long-term dependence, apply identically to food stamps." But opponents say Congress and the administration are using the rubric of flexibility to disguise a move to cut costs. "Right now if the economy goes down, the federal government picks up the cost," said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal Washington research group. "Under a block grant, states would get a set amount and if there are a bunch of layoffs locally the state is stuck with the bill. And if it doesn't want to pay, it can cut back on what it spends. Over time you squeeze down on what the federal government spends for the poor." The Bush administration is also trying to tighten enforcement of the National School Lunch Program. In its budget, the administration proposes to enforce the income eligibility rules for free meals more strictly. The program has grown from serving 7.1 million lunches in all of 1947, the first year it operated, to serving 28 million students a day at a cost of $7 billion a year. STUDENTS are eligible for a free lunch if their households earn only 130 percent of poverty level. Other children are eligible for heavily subsidized lunches if their family's income falls below 185 percent of the poverty line, or $33,400 for a family of four. The Food and Nutrition Service, which administers the lunches, estimates that as many as a quarter of children getting free lunches may come from households with incomes too high to qualify. The administration says enforcement is a matter of fairness. "Because the information collected for school lunch eligibility is also used to allocate a wide array of federal, state and local education dollars," the budget proposal read, "errors in certifying children for school lunches can lead to a diversion of funds away from the lowest-income schools." In recent pilot programs in which families were asked to document household income, approval for free lunches fell by 21 percent and by 8.8 percent for reduced-price lunches. There is no estimate on how much might be saved through tighter enforcement, but the department says savings will be plowed back into other nutrition programs. Food advocates counter that new barriers will discourage poor families from applying, and that in any case, few middle-class students are freeloading. "If it is anyone, it is people marginally above the line," said Joel Berg, executive director of the New York City Coalition Against Hunger. "It is not like you have Donald Trump's kids getting lunch." While the Bush administration is fighting these battles, some on the right are venturing an even more delicate justification for revamping the food programs: obesity. In a new book, Mr. Besharov, for example, criticized the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, known as WIC, which provides generous food packages and nutritional counseling to seven million low-income women and children. Republicans and Democrats have praised the 30-year-old program, and the White House's new budget proposes increasing its financing by $43 million, to $4.77 billion. But WIC packages, Mr. Besharov says, are heavily tilted toward high-calorie foods like enriched fruit juices, cereals and peanut butter. School meals, too, he says, are heavy on starches and meat. He advocates more money spent on nutrition education — and on fresh fruit and vegetables. Advocates of the poor acknowledge that obesity is a problem, but say that Mr. Besharov's formula is too simple. "Hunger in the U.S. is not what it was 40 years ago," concedes Jim Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Center, an advocacy group based in Washington. "Poor people are rarely hungry for 25 days a month, but resources are such that they are hungry for at least a few days." According to self-reported census data, 33 million Americans live in households the government identifies as "food insecure," because they occasionally miss meals and feel hungry. "The result of this insecurity," Mr. Weill said, "is that poor households can engage in binge eating and rely on high-caloric foods." But in that language may lie a lesson. No longer are advocates for the poor discussing "hunger," with its dire implications, but "insecurity," a more nuanced, less compelling justification for help. If conservatives have got food advocates to concede this much, perhaps they have already won Round 1 of the battle. Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
|