Schools Should Provide A Free Lunch For All Students

You may already have heard about this. It seems that an elementary school cafeteria worker has been terminated from her job because she gave a free lunch to a first grader that had no money or lunch. The cafeteria worker, Della Curry, admitted her "crime" saying:

“I had a first grader in front of me, crying, because she doesn’t have enough money for lunch. Yes, I gave her lunch.”

I don't know about you, but I don't think she should have been fired. When did feeding hungry children become a bad thing in our society?

Now some of you may be thinking that giving that first-grader a free lunch was stealing from the school district. I say that's a load (of what comes out of the south end of a north-bound bull). She gave the child some food that would otherwise have been thrown away after the lunch period was over. If we are so worried about the "stealing" of food about to be thrown away that we would refuse to feed a hungry child, what does that say about our society? It's certainly not the christian thing, or even the human thing, to do.

Personally, I think the schools (at least in elementary school) should provide a free and nutritious lunch to all students -- regardless of their financial situation. The government requires students to attend school, and since we require them to be there, we should feed them. It's just a fact that a hungry child doesn't do as well in school as one who is not -- and it's to all our advantage that every child does well in school (and gets the best education we can give them). And providing all children with the same free lunch would accomplish something else -- it would remove the stigma that sometimes comes with a poor child getting a free lunch.

Some of you may want to claim at this point that the school district cannot afford to provide a free lunch to all students. Again, I call bull-crap. Any school that can provide athletic stadiums, athletic teams and other extracurricular activities, pay coaches an exorbitant salary, buy standardized testing, and other things that have little to do with really educating a student, then they can afford to feed the children they are trying to educate.

It's stories like this cafeteria worker being fired for feeding tiny children that show us just how sick our society has become. We should be better than that.

(The image above is from the website emporium.schoolnutrition.org.)

Another Shameful Statistic For The United States

The Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is an organization containing 34 countries -- with many of them, including the United States, being among the most developed and richest nations in the world. But even these nations are not immune to poverty and hunger. Since 2007, the average percentage of OECD households with children that struggle to find enough food has climbed from 15% to 21%. Some nations have a pretty low percentage (the Nordic nations) and some do not (like Turkey, Hungary, Mexico, and Greece).

How does the United States (the richest nation in the world) fare? One would think that a nation as rich as the United States would have a very low percentage of hungry households -- but it doesn't. The United States actually ranks 6th out of the 34 nations in having the highest percentage of households struggling to feed their families (with a shameful 23%, or more than one out of every five households). And it doesn't stop there. The United States ranks 4th among the nations with the fastest growing percentage of households struggling to find enough food -- growing by 12% in the past 12 months.

This might have been justifiable in the past, when this country didn't have the wealth or adequate social structures to eliminate poverty and hunger. But that is no longer the case. The United States is not just the richest nation in the world -- it has enough money to wipe out poverty and feed all of its citizens. So why are 23% of U.S. households struggling to find enough food?

The simple answer is greed. Too many people in power (politicians, rich, corporations) have decided that poverty and hunger are not as important as excessive profits and incomes for corporations and the wealthy. They are willing to let the poor struggle to find enough food (and other essentials) to keep taxes abnormally low for the rich and the corporations. These politicians, especially the Republicans, will tell you that keeping taxes abnormally low for the rich and the corporations is good for everyone in the United States. That is an outrageous lie, and has been proven to be untrue by the failure of their "trickle-down" policy.

The truth is that we could eliminate poverty and hunger in this country. We just lack the morality and/or political courage to do so. That may seem strange in a country that prides itself on being a "christian" nation, but it is true -- and that should shame all Americans.

The charts above were made from information contained in surveys of the 34 OECD nations by the Gallup Poll.

Hunger Is A Huge Problem - Especially In The Red States

(The image above is from the website of moveforhunger.org.)

In spite of record prices on Wall Street and record profits for giant corporations, these are not good times for most Americans. Millions of people remain unemployed, poverty rolls are growing, the median income is falling, and the middle class is shrinking. But perhaps the worst problem is hunger. A record number of people find it increasingly difficult to feed themselves and their families, and have had to swallow their pride and accept help from the SNAP program (commonly called food stamps).

The United States is still the richest country in the world, and none of its citizens should have to worry about hunger. The fact that hunger is growing in this country reflects a moral failure of our leadership (and our citizens, because they elect those leaders). The primary blame for this immoral failure in leadership rests with the Republicans in Congress, who demanded a $20 billion cut in food stamps and got a $4 billion cut (and then gave that money to rich agribusiness interests). But Democrats are not blameless, because they gave in and agreed to the immoral cuts in food stamps.

The lack of caring for the hungry by Republicans is illustrated by where the problem is the biggest -- and sadly that is in the states controlled by Republicans (the so-called "red states"). The Gallup Poll has just released a new survey on hunger in America (done between January 2nd and December 29th of 2013 by surveying a nationwide sample of 178,067 adults). The huge sample gives the survey a margin of error of only about 1 point.

They asked respondents if there was any time in the last year when they didn't have enough money to buy food for their family, and the results should shock and shame every person in this rich country. I list below the states with the highest percentage of people struggling to afford food and the states with the lowest percentage. The number in parentheses is the actual number of people that percentage translates into.

HIGHEST PERCENTAGE STRUGGLING TO AFFORD FOOD
Mississippi...............25.1% (750,792)
West Virginia...............23.0% (426,490)
Louisiana...............23.0% (1,063,858)
Alabama...............22.9% (1,106,922)
Arkansas...............22.5% (665,858)
North Carolina...............22.2% (2,186,269)
Kentucky...............21.8% (958,174)
Georgia...............21.5% (2,148,315)
Oklahoma...............21.2% (816,320)
Arizona...............21.1% (1,398,217)
Texas...............21.0% (5,554,120)

LOWEST PERCENTAGE STRUGGLING TO AFFORD FOOD
Alaska...............11.0% (80,864)
New Hampshire...............11.3% (149,550)
Minnesota...............11.6% (628,764)
Iowa...............12.3% (380,121)
North Dakota...............12.9% (93,317)
Nebraska...............14.5% (270,935)
South Dakota...............14.6% (123,352)
Wisconsin...............15.1% (867,149)
Massachusetts...............15.2% (1,017,309)
Illinois...............15.2% (1,958,084)

None of these states, whether they have a high or low percentage of hungry people, have numbers they can be proud of. A nation as rich as the United States should be able to adequately feed its own population. But the most egregious of these states are the Republican-dominated red states. That's because the Republicans follow the same failed "trickle-down" theory on both the state and national level -- a theory that says whatever is good for the rich and the corporations is good for all Americans. Of course, that isn't true and it is demonstrated by the disaster that theory has made of the American economy.

Note that Texas, the state Republicans have ruled for 20 years and which national Republican say is an "economic miracle", ranks 11th in the percentage of people who struggle to afford food for their families -- a whopping 5,554,120 hungry people. This really shouldn't surprise us. Texas leads the nation in the number of people and percentage of people who are working at or below the poverty level minimum wage. Texas may be an "economic miracle" for the rich and the corporations, but it is an economic disaster for a huge and growing number of Texans.

I don't wish to let the Democrats completely off the hook, but they at least are willing to make some feeble attempts to help hungry, poor, and unemployed Americans. Not so with the Republicans, who continue their "pamper the rich and ignore everyone else" policies on both the state and national level. They must be voted out of power in November.

Congress Doesn't Care About Poor & Hurting Americans

(The cartoon image above is by Tom Toles in The Washington Post.)

It's only been a few days since CBS News revealed that 20% of all United States households are in the SNAP program (getting food stamps). That's the largest percentage of households to ever be in the food stamp program. And we know there are many others who qualify for the program but haven't signed up to get the food stamps (either out of misplaced pride, or because they don't know they qualify).

These are not lazy people wanting to lay around and let the government support them. Most of them are either unemployed and would love to find work (but can't because of the poor economy), or they are working hard for a wage so low they can't provide for their family. And both groups are in this predicament not through their own efforts, but because of the misguided economic policies pursued by our government for the last few decades. Policies that resulted in a severe recession, the loss of millions of jobs, the outsourcing of more millions of jobs, a falling median wage and a disappearing middle class, and a minimum wage that has lost 1/3 of its buying power.

Now a reasonable person would expect those politicians who created this economic mess to realize the error of their ways, and change those policies to create jobs, raise wages, and more fairly distribute incomes in the country. But that hasn't happened, and it looks like it's unlikely to happen anytime soon.

In fact, just in the last few days, Congress has made it very clear that it doesn't care about those hurting Americans. They have just agreed to a new farm bill -- a bill that will reduce funding for food stamps by $9 billion. These congressional fat cats have evidently decided that those Americans needing food stamps are living too large, and that money is needed to protect tax cuts for the rich and subsidies for the corporations.

I think we're supposed to be grateful that the Republicans didn't get their wish to cut food stamps by $20-$40 billion, and have agreed to only cut the program by $9 billion. But I find it hard to be grateful for this vicious cut to food for the needy (by the same people who caused that need). And the Democrats are not blameless in this mess. They were perfectly willing to cut $4 billion from the food stamp program without any prodding from Republicans, and wound up agreeing to the $9 billion cut.

Frankly, this latest congressional action is disgusting. They need to be fixing our broken economy. Instead, they seem determined to make it worse. A pox on anyone who votes for this odious bill!

CEO Learns A Lesson About Food Stamps

While the recession may be over for the rich, it continues for millions of Americans on Main Street -- as far too many people who would love to work are still without a job, and must depend on federal assistance to feed their families. Last week, the Republicans in the House of Representatives dealt another blow to those hurting Americans, but passing a bill that cuts $4 billion dollars a year (for the next 10 years) from the SNAP program (more commonly called food stamps). If that mean-spirited bill becomes law, millions of people would have to be dropped from the food stamp program.

The congressional Republicans would have us believe that there is rampant fraud in that program, and the benefits are too generous and should be reduced. Unfortunately, a lot of Americans (who don't suffer from food insecurity) have bought into those lies.

Ron Shaich, CEO of Panera Bread, thought he understood what food insecurity (hunger) was like for many Americans. Last week, he decided to live on $4.50 a day (the amount he would get in food stamps if he qualified for them). And even though his experiment was only for a week, and not truly indicative of what life is like for the poor, his eyes were opened. Here is some of what he had to say about it in an article for CNN (and the entire article is worth your time):

I thought I knew a thing or two about hunger. I've met thousands of people who struggle to feed themselves and their families, visited dozens of soup kitchens, food pantries, homeless shelters and food banks, and worked closely with nonprofit organizations in trying to find new ways to end hunger.

I really thought I understood the scope of the problem.

But let me tell you something -- I had no clue. My SNAP Challenge last week taught me that merely observing someone else's plight does not hold a candle to consciously altering your habits to better understand what it might be like to live someone else's life.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program was formerly called the food stamp program. In the SNAP challenge, you live on a food and beverage budget of $4.50 a day, the average amount a recipient of food stamps gets in benefits.

I was hungry last week -- laser-focused on how much food was left in the fridge and how many dollars were left in my wallet. I was scared about eating portions that were too big, and wasn't sure what to do if my food ran out. I canceled two scheduled dinners, knowing they were way beyond my budget.

But I was doing this challenge on my own. Eighty percent of households that have problems putting food on the table include the most vulnerable -- children, the elderly and the disabled. Most people in the SNAP program would have considered my challenge as a "household of one" to be a luxury. . .

 It was really just an imitation of a very real problem facing millions of Americans -- it wasn't my real life. It was over in a week. No other pressures weighed on my shoulders the way they do on those of people who use food stamps. I wasn't worrying about my car breaking down or not being able to pay for gas or having my electricity turned off or finding work or paying an unforeseen medical bill.

All I had to worry about was my food, and that was challenging enough.

One in six people in this country, or roughly 48 million Americans, face this reality. At the same time, they confront other obstacles and manage to deal with more pressing challenges every day. The statistics are alarming. However, it wasn't until I participated in the challenge and heard stories from the hundreds of people who responded to my blog posts that I really understood what a life of food insecurity means. . .

Unfortunately, the debate we often hear in Washington leads to thinking that the issue can be seen in black or white, right or wrong, good or bad.

We all know there are people who abuse the system. I have no doubt that there are some people who accept SNAP benefits when they either don't need the assistance or may not use them appropriately. But SNAP is really an efficient program. There are small problems with the system -- but there always are in large, complex systems.

Tens of millions of people, most of whom are elderly or have children, rely on this safety net to help them cope with very difficult situations beyond their control. And we can all acknowledge our shared responsibility to help these fellow citizens survive and ultimately create productive lives of dignity.

Throughout my SNAP Challenge, I kept returning to the same questions: What kind of society do we want to live in? Do we want to live in a country that turns a cold shoulder to the problem of hunger, or one in which we work together to face it head on? . . .

If the past week has taught me anything, it's that hunger is not a problem of "them," it's a problem of "us." Hunger exists in every community, in every county, in every state. Simply put, this is our problem to solve, and it's time to do so.

Offensive

The above very true statement (found at the blog of Yellowdog Granny) shows just how screwed up the priorities of many Americans are. While they may offend you, words and gestures don't really cause any harm. However, famine and war and the destruction of our environment negatively affects people around the world -- and results in millions of deaths each year. Those are the really offensive things.

Misplaced Priorities

And guess which country spends nearly half of that money spent on the military -- the United States. It answers the question about why we still have poverty and food insecurity in this country -- because our politicians (who were elected by us) simply don't care about the poor. They would rather keep pumping money into the already bloated and extremely greedy military-industrial complex. We have the money to eliminate poverty, and we could do it without raising taxes. All we would have to do is cut a few weeks worth of spending out of the military budget (and we would still be spending far more on the military than any other country). Shouldn't we be ashamed of our decision that killing people is more important than giving them a helping hand?

Hunger (And God)

From the pages of The Atheist Pig.
And for those who think morality can only come from the Bible, here is a bonus cartoon.

Hunger In Texas' GOP "Economic Miracle"

Back during the Great Depression the hunger of hurting Americans was obvious as unemployed people stood in long soup lines to get something to eat. This very public display of hunger spurred the government to act on behalf of hurting Americans and institute policies to put people back to work and protect the elderly. The hunger brought on by the millions of jobs lost in the Great Republican Recession is not quite so obvious. Instead of soup lines, we now have Food Stamps and food banks -- and because of this, most hunger is now hidden from public view behind closed doors. This makes it possible for many of the fortunate in this country (like Willard Romney) to ignore the hunger and desperation of poor Americans (both employed and unemployed).

And many of those desperate, hurting, and hungry people live in the state of Texas. The Republicans have labeled Texas as an "economic miracle" and held it up as an example of what Republican leadership can do. Don't believe that. For instance, take the hunger situation in the state. That is certainly nothing to be proud of. Consider the following:

* About 18.5% of all Texas households (nearly 1 out of every 5) faces "food Insecurity" (the inability to consistently afford enough food).

* Texas has the third highest rate of food insecurity (hunger) in the nation.

* Food insecurity (hunger) in Texas affects people in both rural and urban areas.

* At least 46% of households experiencing food insecurity (hunger) have a person in the household working full-time. (This is not surprising since Texas has the largest number of and highest percentage of people working for minimum wage or less.)

* Over 3.5 million people in Texas receive Food Stamp benefits (mostly children, the elderly, and the disabled).

* Food banks are having trouble keeping up with the growing demand for their services.

This is what the GOP "economic miracle" in Texas really looks like. And the chances are very good (since the state is facing another budget shortfall) that the incoming legislature (dominated by Republicans) will do the same thing the last Republican legislature did -- cut benefits for hurting people. And the national Republicans are trying to do the same. They want to cut $16 billion from the Food Stamp program (while a growing number of Americans, including Texans, find themselves needing that help).

How much longer can we afford the GOP economic policies?

Hunger In The Richest Nation On Earth

(The drawing above was found on the blog silver glimmer dust.)

Everyone knows that hunger is a serious problem in the world. We often see the pictures of people (especially children) starving to death in other countries. As hard as it is to see that, there is at least some justification, since some of those countries are simply too poor to feed their growing population.

But hunger is not just a problem in the developing world among poor countries. Sadly, there is far too much hunger in the nation commonly referred to as the "richest nation on Earth" -- the United States. And that is much harder to justify, since this nation does have the funds to eliminate hunger among its citizens -- it just doesn't have the will to do so, or the moral drive.

The hungry in this nation may not have the extended bellies of dying children in other countries, but that does not mean they don't suffer from hunger far too much (while the rest of us gorge ourselves on seconds and thirds and make ourselves fat). We already know that more than 1 in five children in this country depend on food stamps to have any kind of food on their table. But it is not just children, and it is not just one part of this country that has people going hungry.

The Gallup Poll has released a new survey on hunger in the United States. The survey included 177,662 random adults surveyed in all fifty states between January and June of 2012. The poll has a 0.3 point margin of error (with a 1 to 2 point margin of error for the individual states). And the results of that poll should bother any American with even a shred of empathy or common decency.

The question asked in the survey was -- Was there at least one time in the last 12 months when you did not have enough money to feed yourself or your family. About 18.2% of all Americans answered yes to that question (that would translate into around 60 million people). No state is immune from this hunger. The poll showed North Dakota with the least hunger -- the only state in single digits with about 9.6%. The state with the most hunger was Mississippi with about 24.9%. That means hunger in this country ranges from about 10% to about 25%, and even that lower percentage is shameful in a nation as rich as ours.

There were 15 states with the percentage of hunger being at 20% or above. You can go to page 2 of the link above to see how each state ranked, but here are the worst 15 states with the highest hunger percentages:

1. Mississippi...............24.9%
2. Alabama...............22.9%
3. Delaware...............22.1%
4. Georgia...............21.6%
5. Nevada...............21.5%
6. Arkansas...............21.5%
7. Oklahoma...............21.4%
8. Tennessee...............21.3%
9. West Virginia...............20.9%
10. Louisiana...............20.7%
11. South Carolina...............20.4%
12. Florida...............20.3%
13. Alaska...............20.0%
14. North Carolina...............20.0%
15. Texas...............20.0%

So what would the Republicans like to do if returned to power in November? They want to cut food stamps, free school lunches for children and a myriad of other social programs that help hurting Americans. And they would cut funds for public education (the only route out of poverty for many Americans). And they would make these cuts so the rich and the corporations could have massive new tax cuts.

I don't see how anyone with an ounce of morals, common sense, or empathy for their fellow man could possibly vote Republican in the coming election.

Hunger & Homelessness Rise In U.S. In 2006

We have more proof of the abject failure of the Bush administration. Most people know of the failures in foreign policy, but Bush and his cohorts are also failing in their domestic policies.

The U.S. Council of Mayors has just released a report that shows this failure in stark terms. The report says that both homelessness and hunger have risen in this country in the last year, as they have been doing since Bush took office in 2000.

Here are some of the findings of the Mayors' report:

- requests for food have risen by 7% in the last year
- requests for shelter have risen by 9% in the last year
- requests for shelter by families with children rose by 5%
- children make up a quarter of those in homeless shelters
- families often have to split up & stay in different shelters
- 23% of food requests went unfulfilled
- more than a third of adults asking for food aid are employed

The Bush administration was quick to point out that food requests were actually down in a few cities like Cleveland. What they don't tell you is that the demand for food subsidies in up by 29% in Cleveland since 2000, the year that Bush took office. Food subsidies and food stamps now make up 60% of the budget of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

This is a shameful situation. The Bush economic policies have helped only the rich, who are making larger profits than ever. But the poor and working class are losing ground every day, and the middle class is now being put in jeopardy. Many middle class families are only a paycheck or two away from disaster.

Bush seems to think that whatever is good for his rich buddies is good for all Americans. The above-stated figures show that to be a big fat lie! The Bush economic policies have been an unmitigated disaster for most Americans.

When you combine Bush's domestic policies with his foreign policy failures, we can see that Bush is truly the worst president ever.