The Challenge Of Feeding America’s Hungry
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-12-05/challenge-feeding-america%E2%80%99s-hungry
Americans are relying on what we used to call food stamps in unprecedented numbers. According to figures released in September, more than 46 million Americans, about one in seven, are getting government assistance for food, but it’s estimated that millions more struggle with hunger. The nation’s food banks, supported by private dollars and donations, are straining to fill the gap. Federal funding for food stamps is not on the line in the current tax and spending negotiations, but some believe new limits on government food assistance programs are needed. Please join us to discuss hunger in America and what we can do about it.
Guests
Stephen Moore
member of the Wall Street Journal's editorial board.
Deborah Flateman
CEO, Maryland Food Bank.
Stacy Dean
vice president of food assistance policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Eric Olsen
senior vice president of government relations at Feeding America.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Stephen Moore is making false declarations about the food stamps system left and right. He does not appear to know anything about the current system. It is not easy to admit when you don't have enough income for food...but many people who have been unemployed through no fault of their own reach that point. Recipients submit detailed information about their assets and income.
Looks like you invited the economist just to act as a straw man for the other panelists. Nothing he is saying is off-base. People do not deserve luxury and freedom to buy whatever they want using public assistance! When I was a grocery store checker a little over 10 years ago, there were very specific requirements for the WIC program (I don't know if that is still the case). Why is it not at all a problem to tell pregnant women and their small children exactly what they are allowed to buy and eat with government assistance? If it's so important to ensure the health of the mother and baby, why is the health of the family after that time less of a priority? How about simply eliminating some totally useless things that people can eat, like soda and potato chips? You don't need those things to live, and those types of things are significantly more expensive than whole foods.
Why was Steve Moore on this show? He spouted ugly stereo types and outright lies. I love to see him accept a challenge to live on food stamps. It would be fun watching him starve.
He and his ilk are the the real mouchers. Funny how they had no problems with TARP. Trillions of public money that went to bail out greedy, fraudulent bankers--who by the way gave themselves multimillion dollar bonuses with our money. And this man gripes about a poor person buying crab legs for a meal. Oh, the horror! And what about all the government subsidies and tax breaks American companies help themselves to no matter how stuffed their the CEOs and coffers are. And right on to the person who mentioned Mitt--the first presidential candidate to proudly admit using every legal loophole to avoid paying taxes (Caymen Islands anybody?).
There's a problem with entitlements in this country but it's with the ones the 1% percent crowd are getting. Let's end those and we'll see a pretty penny saved. Steve Moore and his kind are radicals. The America they wish to bring about is one that allows the 1% to flourish at the expense of every other citizen, citizens whose pockets they have picked cleaned before they throw them to the vultures.
This guy sounds oxymoronic! How do you say that we should eliminate the SNAP program and let private donations service the underfed when he just said that 20 million people are unemployed - where would the private donation come from then, the people who need the food? Many of these folks who need the food have various circumstances that are beyond their control. Also, some of these people are tax payers, so why not get back a portion of what they're paying in taxes. I would much rather my tax dollars go to feed the poor than to fund wars where there is no basis for waging! And if you polled most American's they'd probably agree!
It baffles me when I hear people concern themselves primarily with whether someone, somewhere might be 'gaming the system', rather than worrying first and foremost about whether someone might be hungry. Suppose that 3-5% of the individuals benefitting from SNAP might not be eligible or had somehow 'misused' the program. Establishing rules that reduce that number to 1-2% will almost certainly raise barriers for those who legitimately need help, thereby discouraging people from applying for benefits: not the desired outcome!
As for the notion that we are somehow establishing a 'culture of dependency': most people I know -- including all those who are currently unemployed -- would far rather have the dignity of a job than to ask for what society has taught them are 'handouts.' It seems as if a certain fraction of our population has such disdain for those less advantaged, or perhaps so much fear of falling into that category, that they prefer to punish and stigmatize rather than help without question.
Stephen Moore and his ilk believe people want government assistance for food. The rest of us understand that sometimes people need government assistance for food.
Bravo. Boy did you get and say that right! This school of thought would even deny workers minimum wage to unfetter the market from any restraint. You really have to wonder what rock these people crawled out from under.
brwstac wrote:
"You really have to wonder what rock these people crawled out from under."
The one in Plymouth MA.
Diane, thanks for having Steve Moore on. Based on the number of comments on this show, and on the show featuring Grover Norquist, you are on the right track.
Unfortunately, most of the people complaining about him would prefer to live in the fire house where everybody thinks alike. And, as Walter Lippmann said, in those circumstances nobody thinks very much.
"Maumee Muse wrote:
At the food pantry I volunteer, we are going to start cooking classes because just like you said, many have no cooking skills.
December 5, 2012 - 11:03 am"
Many have no cooking facilities. People live in Furnished Rooms, Motels, shelters, etc and must get food where ever and whenever they can.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"AndrewAR22 wrote:
I work for a Head Start program in San Antonio, TX where many of the families we serve are on other governmental assistance programs. My goal is to develop these families so that they are able to gain education goals and strive to develop thier families so that they are no longer part of that poverty level qualifying for programs such as food stamps and can provide for their families. The majority of these families are disinterested in bettering themselves and do not want to work, gain skills or education because it is so easy to live on food stamps, medicaid, social security benefits for their "disabled" child.
December 5, 2012 - 10:54 am"
How much do you get paid for acting as though you give a Rat's a_s about helping Poor Kids, but stab them in the back whever you get a chance.
No doubt your hypocrisy bleeds through into your interactions with the little ____ B______s.
And of course, a GD Texan.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
While it is important to have opposing viewpoints on your show, you should be able to have panelists who don't give out totally incorrect information. Immigrants are NOT eligible for SNAP as soon as they become eligible (they are formally barred from participation for 5 years). Most SNAP recipients do not need a work requirement, because they are already working. SNAP recipients get $35/person/week to meet their food needs. At that rate, few people are buying crab legs, as Mr. Moore asserts. Most people could not meet their food needs on $35/week. That is why hunger advocates often ask policy makers to do a SNAP challenge by trying to feed themselves and their family on a SNAP budget.
And, the usually thoughtful Diane Rehm kept missing the point: food pantries do not require extensive documentation from people requesting help, but SNAP does require extensive documentation. Food pantries are virtually the only charitable service that do not require extensive paperwork. Why? Because the assumption is if you are in a church basement, waiting in a line for a bag of food, maybe you really are hungry.
While it is important to have opposing viewpoints on your show, you should be able to have panelists who don't give out totally incorrect information. Immigrants are NOT eligible for SNAP as soon as they become eligible (they are formally barred from participation for 5 years). Most SNAP recipients do not need a work requirement, because they are already working. SNAP recipients get $35/person/week to meet their food needs. At that rate, few people are buying crab legs, as Mr. Moore asserts. Most people could not meet their food needs on $35/week. That is why hunger advocates often ask policy makers to do a SNAP challenge by trying to feed themselves and their family on a SNAP budget.
And, the usually thoughtful Diane Rehm kept missing the point: food pantries do not require extensive documentation from people requesting help, but SNAP does require extensive documentation. Food pantries are virtually the only charitable service that do not require extensive paperwork. Why? Because the assumption is if you are in a church basement, waiting in a line for a bag of food, maybe you really are hungry.
People often become obese when they eat poor food which is not nutritious.
This man was, and is, a poor representative for your program, unless you are promoting self promoting, apologists for the mantra of the ignorant Right.
The insults to recipients of the SNAP program and the "welfare queens" of before.
There is fraud in any program, ask your WSJ guest; his is one of the largest apologists for the theft of trillions by the Wall Street, yet his concern, and yours by giving this veritable thief a pulpit, is whether or not a family struggling to get by chooses to treat themselves to a special meal of healthy protein to break the monotony of beans, pasta and rice.
I have been there in this flat economy, long-termed unemployed in this economic quagmire largely created by Mr. Moore's previous boss; as a single father of two on SNAP, splitting a ten dollar roast or a bag of shrimp, that will make at least two meals for that money.
When a family is in that position, having every bit of control and choice ceded to the job market, the government programs (UI, SNAP) and the vagaries of life in general, being able to choose a box of whatever cereal or an occasional steak, is a wonderful thing.
This isn't the first time I have endured lies promulgated without response or dispute- it takes away from the informational value of your progam as well as your audience.
It certainly has lowered the returning audience today.
Sincerely.
Massachusetts l... wrote:
"While it is important to have opposing viewpoints on your show, you should be able to have panelists who don't give out totally incorrect information. Immigrants are NOT eligible for SNAP as soon as they become eligible (they are formally barred from participation for 5 years)"
Quite right, Massachusetts. As far as I could tell Steve Moore made one single mis-statement about illegals, which was quickly corrected. That does not make him a liar or unqualified or a right-wing hack as some have suggested.
As for the work requirement, Mr. Moore was exactly right from a MORAL point of view and I agree with him. He was not being mean. If people are ABLE, they should work - do SOMETHING - for the benefits they get. It is good for the soul. That's why FDR, who is not my favorite President, came up with WPA. Getting a handout for nothing is not good for the spirit and destroys morale. THAT's mean, IMO.
Obesity is a form of malnutrition that impacts not just low income people, but people from all income levels. There have been mixed results about the relationship between obesity and low income folks.
Most SNAP participants are children or elderly which does not fit his "abled body" criteria.http://www.ers.usda.gov/ers-staff-directory/mark-nord.aspx
In fiscal year 2011, SNAP served a monthly average of 4.2 million households with disabled
nonelderly individuals. About 57 percent of SNAP households with disabled nonelderly individuals were single-person
households - see http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/snap/FILES/Participation/2011...
Only 4% of SNAP recipients are non-citizens. 41% live in a household with earnings. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/snap/FILES/Other/BuildingHeal...
He painted a much different profile of food assistance recipients.
I direct you to the work of Mark Nord: http://www.ers.usda.gov/ers-staff-directory/mark-nord.aspx for research-based information.
Another important consideration is how food programs stimulate the economy. "Every $1 in [SNAP] new benefits generates up to $1.80 in economic activity." See http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/snap/FILES/Other/BuildingHeal...
As for convenience stores being authorized SNAP retailers, that is a need because of food desserts. There are many myths about what can and cannot be purchased with "food stamps." See http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailers/eligible.htm Retailers should not be limited based on the type of store. Many convenience stores offer salads, sandwiches and the like that qualify and are healthy options.
I've been on food stamps and medicaid, so I get it from a recipient point of view. I absolutely think there should be a work requirement. There also should be minimum wage laws so that two full time minimum wage earners make enough to support a family of four (food, housing, medical, and a bit extra).
That being said, was very very easy for me to get sucked into not wanting to increase my income in order to keep that assistance, especially true of medical assistance.
Health care costs (premiums, deductables, co-pays and co-insurance) is a higher percentage of my budget now that food and housing combined. I make 35,000 a year, and I budget 16,000 a year for health care costs. I don't think government subsidies is the answer; higher wages would be better. Although, I would fully and completely support basic socialized medicine.
As far as food assistance, poverty and obesity - cook from scratch and food stamps go a long way and keep obesity at bay. Access to ingredients and education would help.
Work requirements for most - not all -- but even most folks with disabilities can work to some capacity.
Stephen Moore was an awful panelist. The growing need for SNAP is clearly a symptom not a problem itself. Furthermore, some of the truly innovative programs that are encouraging people using SNAP benefits to purchases fresh healthful food are shining examples of programs focused on holistic problem solving, confronting hunger and diet-related disease and supporting local farmers at the same time. See this webpage for program details http://wholesomewave.org/dvcp/
How dare Mr. Moore talk about fairness of the SNAP program--economic justice is what we should really be talking about. This mindset of resisting helping those in need while waving the banner of fairness is truly disgusting, and very un-American.
200 posts, wow! "crab legs", who would have thought.
MaggieFitz wrote:
"Stephen Moore was an awful panelist."
Really Maggie? Why? Because you disagree with him? Does that make him "awful"? Disgusting? Un-American? Were the others "good" panelists because you liked what they said?
And "economic justice". What the h--- is that, anyway? I don't see "economic justice" in the Constitution anywhere. I see equality of opportunity ... but I don't see "economic justice" in there anywhere! Do you? If so, please point it out, will you?
I often listen to your program and enjoy the lively, informative conversation on many topics. The participants offer diverse assessments on issues. And, they offer these assessment with literacy and respect. So, I was taken aback at the demeanor of Stephen Moore on this broadcast. His obvious contempt for those who struggle to put food on the table was palpable. His rude, arrogant, and demeaning behavior toward the other guests repulsed me. He offered little if any evidence to support his assertions. I realize this is a sensitive and emotionally-charged issue. And, I fully support one's right to a different perspective. But, I fear, Mr. Moore, cares less about solving hunger issues and cares more about "being right".
This is the first time I've taken the time to voice my opinion/thoughts regarding the guests on your program but Stephen Moore is incredibly ignorant of facts regarding those who receive food stamps and the poor in general. Everything he said seemed based on Republican "talking points" which we've come to realize are not based on facts. His comments sound like those of someone who lives so far above and beyond people who work hard and still cannot make enough to support and feed themselves, that he obviously has no concept of what life is like for millions of people. I hope in the future when you choose someone to represent the "conservative" point of view you find someone more educated than Mr. Moore.
bdbounds wrote:
"Stephen Moore is incredibly ignorant of facts regarding those who receive food stamps and the poor in general. Everything he said seemed based on Republican "talking points" which we've come to realize are not based on facts. ... I hope in the future when you choose someone to represent the "conservative" point of view you find someone more educated than Mr. Moore."
Ignorant? Really, bdbounds? Is that your problem? Or do you not like Mr. Moore's opinions? Stephen Moore, for your information, is well educated (Masters in Economics from George Mason), and well accomplished (Cato Institute, WSJ). I offer that information because you apparently were IGNORANT of Mr. Moore's qualifications to be on the program.
This was my first post as well. I was appalled at the lack of respect and statements offered with no evidence.
Wow! Steve takes the cake (no pun intended) for the most fact-free "pundit" I have heard on NPR for a long, long time! What is his evidence to support the outrageous claims he made (e.g. re: SNAP recipients and obesity, recipients needing to try harder to find jobs...)? Yeesh!!!!!!!!!!!!
ecgberht wrote: "Ignorant? Really, bdbounds? Is that your problem? Or do you not like Mr. Moore's opinions? Stephen Moore, for your information, is well educated (Masters in Economics from George Mason), and well accomplished (Cato Institute, WSJ). I offer that information because you apparently were IGNORANT of Mr. Moore's qualifications to be on the program."
Well, maybe someone who has some EXPERIENCE with the issue would be preferable. I think George W. Bush has a degree from Yale, and has flown a jet plane. He would have made a much better panelist (but, I'm sure that Cato couldn't round him up in time to 'perform').
Stephen Moore wants to "break that cycle of poverty" in the cities from which capital has fled to Asia, and left behind the work force that made America great. He has no 'solutions' beyond "people should have to work for any government benefits". He would also like to 'direct' the poor to a diet of which he, personally approves (eg 'crab legs for the people who can afford to pay cash') apparently (which is the kind of policy that his fellow WSJ editorial board strenuously object to, if applied to bankers & securities peddlers). In short, he's a "know-nothing" and a hypocrite (whatever his 'qualifications' may be).
You, yourself would have made a better panelist, since you allegedly have some experience in the matter under discussion. ^..^
In defense of the individual buying crab legs with food stamps: Things may not always be as they seem. We bring our self-righteous judgement based on our own reality and experience. Imagine a different reality, if you will... It could be that man had an ailing wife at home, it was her birthday or their anniversary, he knew it was their last meal together. Crab legs were her favorite food, it was what they ate the night he proposed, or maybe it was her last request before she was put on her hospice IV. OR... maybe he was short-listed for a writing assignment with a food or local culture magazine, interested in seeing his creative writing skills, where he would receive a commission for his work., in hopes of getting off food stamps. Or... I could dream up any number of possible scenarios. And in response to Steven's outburst, " Well, I suppose you think our taxpayers ought to be buying him lobster!" I say, why shouldn't he be "allowed " to eat lobster, crab legs or anything he chooses?! Are you suggesting we eat by Martial law in this country?
One can never walk a mile in another man's shoes. I have been rich and I have been poor. The people who have helped me, without preaching or judgement, in my days of poverty, are those who have lived through a similar circumstance, not my extremely wealthy relatives. Compassion, empathy and a much bigger picture of human experience is required to understand the complexities of life. Let us not quibble about crab legs -there are more important things on the table.
@ Lecroy: (Craig,) I hadn't read your post when I made a very similar comment (above) a few hours later -from the west (left) coast. What narrow minded, ignorant assumptions and judgements are laid on those unfortunate, and sometimes unforeseen, circumstances. Here's to the bigger picture! Thanks for reminding me that I'm not alone.
~Nancy
The larger issue was missed by ideology. The common practice which predates the current administration is for states to push for applications. In almost every state, if you go online to look for any service, you cannot proceed without applying for food assistance first. It's as simple as the states trying to pad the amount of TANF funds from the Feds. I like the DR show, but the guests really missed the big points for grinding policy axes.