[plschwartz]

It is a shame this has to come from a British source
Long queue at drive-in soup kitchen

George Bush's America, the wealthiest nation in history, faces a growing poverty crisis. In the first of a three-part series Julian Borger takes the pulse of the US with elections just a year away

Monday November 3, 2003
The Guardian

The free food is handed out at nine, but the queue starts forming hours earlier. By dawn, there is a line of cars stretching half a mile back. In Logan, it is what passes for rush hour - a traffic jam driven by poverty and hunger.

The cars come out of the Ohio hills in all shapes and sizes, from the old jalopies of the chronically poor, to the newer, sleeker models of the new members of the club, who only months ago considered themselves middle class, before jobs and their retirement funds evaporated.

Dan Larkin is sitting in his middle-of-the-range pick-up truck. Since the glassware company he worked for closed its doors this time last year, he has found it hard to pay his bills. His unemployment benefits ran out six months ago and his groceries bill is the only part of his budget that has some give. He and his wife sometimes skip meals or eat less to make sure their six-year-old daughter has enough.

"I would have a real problem putting food on the table if it wasn't for this," Mr Larkin said, his car inching towards Logan's church-run food pantry. As the queue rolled forward, he reflected on the ironies of being a citizen of the world's sole superpower.

"They're sending $87bn to the second richest oil nation in the world but can't afford to feed their own here in the States."

George Bush's America is the wealthiest and most powerful nation the world has ever known, but at home it is being gnawed away from the inside by persistent and rising poverty. The three million Americans who have lost their jobs since Mr Bush took office in January 2001 have yet to find new work in a largely jobless recovery, and they are finding that the safety net they assumed was beneath them has long since unravelled. There is not much left to stop them falling.

Last year alone, another 1.7 million Americans slipped below the poverty line, bringing the total to 34.6 million, one in eight of the population. Over 13 million of them are children. In fact, the US has the worst child poverty rate and the worst life expectancy of all the world's industrialised countries, and the plight of its poor is worsening.

The ranks of the hungry are increasing in step. About 31 million Americans were deemed to be "food insecure" (they literally did not know where their next meal was coming from). Of those, more than nine million were categorised by the US department of agriculture as experiencing real hunger, defined by the US department of agriculture as an "uneasy or painful sensation caused by lack of food due to lack of resources to obtain food."

That was two years ago, before the recession really began to bite. Partial surveys suggest the problem has deepened considerably since then. In 25 major cities the need for emergency food rose an average of 19% last year.

Another indicator is the demand for food stamps, the government aid programme of last resort. The number of Americans on stamps has risen from 17 million to 22 million since Mr Bush took office.

In Ohio, hunger is an epidemic. Since George Bush won Ohio in the 2000 presidential elections, the state has lost one in six of its manufacturing jobs. Two million of the state's 11 million population resorted to food charities last year, an increase of more than 18% from 2001.

In Logan, over 500 families regularly turn out twice monthly at the food pantry run by the Smith Chapel United Methodist Church.

"In all our history starting in the mid-80s we've never seen these numbers," said Dannie Devol, who runs the pantry. The food comes from a regional food bank, which is stocked by a mix of private donations and food bought from local farmers by the government.

Efficient

Fresh vegetables, cans of meat and tuna, and boxes of cereal are stacked in the car park and as the line of cars breaks into two queues to edge past the pallets, volunteers inspect identity cards (customers have to show they live in the county and are in need) before loading rations of food into the backs of the vehicles. It is an efficient and peculiarly American solution to hunger - a drive-through soup kitchen.

Those without cars hitch rides with neighbours. Mothers come with their children in the back of trucks. Karin Chriss brought one of her three children in a 10-year-old Chevrolet van. "If they stopped this I'd be hurt food-wise. I'm cutting down the amount we eat as it is," Mrs Chriss said. Her husband is a truck driver but does not earn enough to pay the bills. The people in Washington, she says, "need to come down and see how many people are in these lines".

Not many Washington politicians do. There was a time when fighting this kind of poverty was at the core of American politics: Franklin Roosevelt made it his life's work; Lyndon Johnson declared a war on poverty with his Great Society programmes in the 1960s.

There are more Americans living in poverty now than there were in 1965, but neither party has much to say about it. The Bush Republicans see it as a matter for "faith-based charities", the status quo before Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s. The trouble is that hard times are drying up donations at the very time private charities are being asked to take on most of the burden.

Democrats, meanwhile, are anxious not to appear as class warriors, and most of the Democratic presidential contenders in this election portray themselves as champions of the middle class, for good reason. Americans who see themselves as middle class are much more likely to vote than those who know they are poor. Mrs Chriss thinks all parties should be abolished. Angela Cooper, also queuing with a young child, complains that families like hers have been forgotten. But then again, she has relatives posted in Iraq and feels she ought to "support our troops" by voting for the president.

"There's resentment down deep but people don't know what to do with it. A lot of people turn inward, rather than outward. You think it would be ripe for an outcry. But it's not, it's all kind of dulled," said Bob Garbo, who runs a regional food distribution centre in this corner of Ohio. "There's a feeling you can't do much about it, that politicians are all bad. Voting rates are down, and politicians are taking advantage of that. Here, only 20% turn out to vote in some counties."

It is hardly surprising the very poor feel they have no one to turn to. A string of local factories have closed in the past two years to relocate to Mexico, a delayed consequence of the North American Free Trade Agreement established by Bill Clinton in 1994. And two years later, it was Clinton, in cooperation with a staunchly Republican Congress, who dismantled much of the welfare system built in the New Deal and the Great Society. Clinton's welfare reform set a time limit on how long the poor and unemployed could draw social security payments. It helped force people back into work with the encouragement of an array of federally funded job training programmes.

It worked well while the economy was booming, cutting the number on welfare from 12 million to five million in a few years. But now there are no jobs. Those who went to work under welfare reform are among the first to be fired, and often find that welfare is no longer available to them. Some have used up their lifetime maximum. Some have accumulated too many assets to qualify, such as a car or a house that they do not want to sell for fear of falling yet further into destitution.

Others have had difficulty dealing with the welfare system's more demanding requirements. A few in the line at Logan said they were struggling without success to extract vital documents from former employers, who have either gone bankrupt or gone abroad.

Decline

So, while poverty rates have been rising in the past few years, the number of Americans on welfare has been steadily declining. Another impact of the 1996 welfare reform was that the unemployed were obliged to take service jobs at the minimum wage (now $5.15 per hour) without benefits such as paid holidays or health insurance. On paper they were part of the success of the welfare-to-work project, but the jobs stocking supermarket shelves or cleaning offices usually left them worse off, especially if someone in the family fell sick.

In Ohio, according to Lisa Hamler-Podolski, more than 40% of the people in the food lines are the working poor.

The harsh impact of welfare reform was initially mitigated by the 90s boom and Clinton-era social programmes to support the working poor and retrain the unemployed. Those programmes are now disappearing under an administration which fundamentally does not believe government should have a direct role in alleviating poverty.

Melissa Pardue, a specialist on poverty at the market-oriented Heritage Foundation, reflects the beliefs of many in the administration when she argues welfare reform has not gone far enough. "The impact of the recession would have been far greater without welfare reform," she said. "The people who continue to be affected are not working. People who choose not to get a job are not going to see more income. It's all the more reason to give greater incentives to looking for work."

The government still distributes food stamps, but they are worth on average only about $160 (£100) a month, not enough to buy food for a family with no other income. Furthermore, more than 10 million "food insecure" Americans, at risk from hunger, do not apply for them. Often they are unaware they are eligible. Welfare reform pushed them out of a system that they have lost contact with.

A study this year by Washington-based think tank the Urban Institute found that 63% of this forgotten category sometimes or often run out of food each month. All these factors explain why, although the current slump in America has not been as deep as the last major recession a decade ago, the food lines this time are longer. They also explain why hunger remains a largely invisible problem. The Americans in the food lines often do not show up in the statistics and usually do not turn up for elections.

"Hunger is a hidden thing," said Lynn Brantley, who runs a food bank in Washington where the very poor live within sight of Congress. "It's something we don't really want to look at. We don't want to admit it."

· Tomorrow: The chronic health crisis facing America's poor and uninsured

[Paquadez]

Nawh, PLS!

This must be wrong!

I well remember Muldy, Lan and all the other right wingers telling me that my take on this, some two months ago was crap!

Must be an April Fool's joke.

Paq

[columbo]

Well, to play the Devil's Advocate here, isn't it somewhat unfair to draw a direct correlation between a widespread issue such as hunger/poverty and the beginning of the Bush administration?

I mean, isn't this growth in the number of "working poor" and "food insecure" citizens, likely the result of an economic fluctuation that was in the works prior to Bush being elected president?

It might be fair to criticize his Administration's handling of the current situation, but the article seemed to be an attempt to convince the reader that the overall "crisis" is a result of actions that the Bush administration have (or haven't) taken.

Isn't this akin to me selling you a car, then, when that car develops problems a few months later, trying to convince you that the problems must be entirely related to the way that you're driving it?

A poor analogy, I know, but it's Monday, so give me a break.

I miss Mouldy....it was so much more fun to have him rabidly defend Bush, then team up on him

[Paquadez]

I do agree, columbo.

As I have oft posted before, the actions of any administration (socially, fiscally and so on) take considerable time to feed their way through the system.

In fact from what I have read, in credible sources, this has been a growing trend for many years.

Same in the UK.

More worryingly, the incidence of antibiotic-resistant TB is becoming much more prevalent in places like Washington DC, as are other common diseases that were thought to have been all but beaten.

No one can deny that in the US and the UK, there has been a growing disparity of income for over ten years. The poor have gotten poorer and the rich (at the top end) have gotten obscenely rich.

In the UK, this has been exacerbated by increases in social security payments and a top band of income tax at only 40%, no matter how many millions you steal, (oops, sorry, Freudian slip!) earn!

Paq

[rmay635703]

Hmm, my take is the problem may have been growing over the years but the fact that the current administration has done nothing to curb it and in fact has ended up putting greater burden on poorer americans by pulling funding from programs is a black eye for the current republican lead government.

What should be done currently is investment into more programs and more gov jobs to try to stabalize the economy and encourage spending, the do nothing tactic was tried in 1929 and we all know how that worked. Most economists agree that government spending is much more effective in stimulating the economy than taxing less.

Cheers

[ComputerFix]

They're sending $87bn to the second richest oil nation in the world but can't afford to feed their own here in the States."

It isalso unfortunate that those like the British source are also largely a contributor to this persons mis-understanding of exactly what money is going where.

87 bn to Iraq?

I think not.

87.5 billion seems to be the amount appropriated.

64.7 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the vast majority to Iraqi military functions. Pesky things like pay, body armour, aircraft parts, and missles. There is no distinction how much of this money would be spent for such items in the same time period.

18.6 billion goes to "Iraq". This is for the "jumpstart". Police training, power station repairs, clinics, etc.

Eliminated items include the zip code plan (good thing IMO, I'm sure they will get them, but the price seemed shakey at best to me). A little more significant in my mind is the elimination of a childrens hospital in Basra (guess we are leaving that to the Brits in the area....maybe), sanitation trucks (pick up the trash yourselves) and restoration of the (poisened, then) drained marsh areas.

Also included is a 1.2 bn gift to Afghanistan for similar functions, 500 million for US natural disater relief (specifically hurricane Isabel and the Cali fire), and 245 million for peacekeeping in Liberia.

Honerable mentions (but no dollar value listed) include the "reward" money we see for Osama or Saddam, and security for diplomats in both countries.


So what of the 79 bn back in April that all these "cost clocks" use? All of that didn't go to Iraq either. $62.4 did, the rest for the Afghanistan campaign, increased security costs here in the US, and aid to the "failing" airlines.


So, if I may be so bold, before running off screaming that we are "giving Iraq $87 bn dollars", could our international brotheren please wait for the actual appropriation bill to be finalized and take a gander at where the money is actually going to be spent, and who is actually getting it. In this case, it would seem that Iraq itself scores about 19 bn, less than a quarter of the number.

[ComputerFix]

Originally posted by rmay635703:
Hmm, my take is the problem may have been growing over the years but the fact that the current administration has done nothing to curb it and in fact has ended up putting greater burden on poorer americans by pulling funding from programs is a black eye for the current republican lead government.

What should be done currently is investment into more programs and more gov jobs to try to stabalize the economy and encourage spending, the do nothing tactic was tried in 1929 and we all know how that worked. Most economists agree that government spending is much more effective in stimulating the economy than taxing less.

Cheers

Increasing govt spending (which comes from my taxes) which will in turn raise my taxes to fund it, is somehow going to get me to spend more money? Putting more tax dollars into "programs" (which ones?) will also get me more money to spend?

Do you have anything with an economist (or if you yourself can) explaining this in detail?

At first glance, I don't see it. Why not cut out the middle man and just let me keep my tax dollars and spend them straight from my paycheck every week?

[Servant of Eru]

While I was fully in support of Dubya in the beginning, I'm coming to doubt his state of mind more and more as time goes on. Honestly, if I was old enough to vote next election (One dagnabbed year too young!!! ) I think I might find myself voting for a democratic candidate. While the spending bill hasn't been finalized yet, you know most of it is going there, just like it did for Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, and all the other wars before it.

Plus, in light of new evidence, I'm beginning to question more and more whether we should have started this in the first place. While I despise Saddam, it seems to be coming out that he was minding his Ps & Qs more or less (As much as a raving psychopath can anyways! ), and that most of our intel was waaaay over-hyped! Also, do you know how much they've already cut the funds for mental health care, when IMO it was waaaay UNDERfunded to begin with?!!

It's a sad, sad state this country is falling into, and I only see it getting worse before it gets any better.

[ComputerFix]

While the spending bill hasn't been finalized yet, you know most of it is going there, just like it did for Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, and all the other wars before it.

Read the breakdown of the appropriation.

Also, the House passed it on Friday, the Senate did today.

[plschwartz]

C-Fix
You said:
64.7 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the vast majority to Iraqi military functions. Pesky things like pay, body armour, aircraft parts, and missles. There is no distinction how much of this money would be spent for such items in the same time period.

18.6 billion goes to "Iraq". This is for the "jumpstart". Police training, power station repairs, clinics, etc.

Not to get into an arguement because in the end it is a matter of definition but the $65B for military spending is certainly part of the cost of the war, most of the expenses are in Iraq. It is to pay for the occupation, and perhaps also to replenish things used in the invasion.

It is fair I think both to say that were it not for the invasion the money need not be spent but also now that we are there it needs be spent to support the troops.

[Paquadez]

Originally posted by ComputerFix:
Increasing govt spending (which comes from my taxes) which will in turn raise my taxes to fund it, is somehow going to get me to spend more money? Putting more tax dollars into "programs" (which ones?) will also get me more money to spend?

Do you have anything with an economist (or if you yourself can) explaining this in detail?

At first glance, I don't see it. Why not cut out the middle man and just let me keep my tax dollars and spend them straight from my paycheck every week?

CFix

The normal economic rationale behind such a strategy, is that Government spending into a struggling economy, creates more jobs, and spin-out employment, from the host of support and sub-contractors.

Not, of course if it is a Pork Barrel job!

Additionally, often, Governments borrow the required funding, rather than raise taxes.

One problem with this, is a longer term problem: in that large increases of both short and longer term Government borrowing, tends to push up shirt and long term money market rates, this increasing existing businesses financing costs.

A further concern, is that large scale Government borrowing, tends to sop up cash in the system: and then Government is forced to increase money supply; which is inflationary.

No easy solution to ANY economy which has painted itself into a corner!

Paq

[hammerbill]

Out here in Idaho, we have a tradition. We feel it is not the government's job to feed us-it is our own job.

Every government program is, and always has been, a failure-except the military. And the military is often a failure. Governmental programs are like living beings; they seek to grow and will not get smaller if need goes away without a bitter fight. Throw that kind of money into welfare and we would be that much closer to communism.

I feel for the poor. But they will ever be with us. So long as people convince each other that their problems are someone else's responsibility (or the government's) we will continue to increase the poor.

One point that is always left out: I would like to see an accurate study of just who these "poor" are! I know one of them-he has a warrant out for his arrest and cannot work anywhere (without wage garnishment) because of immense debt owed to my wife for (purposely) avoiding child support. He got into this situation by trying to cheat (starve?) their kids. How many of these "poor needing help" are actually illegal aliens, criminals or bench warrant cases, irresponsible parents, etc.? I would like to know so I could see an accurate figure of who actually DESERVES the help.

[plschwartz]

Hammerbill:
Hi
you said:
Out here in Idaho, we have a tradition. We feel it is not the government's job to feed us-it is our own job.

Do farmers in Idaho refuse gov't agricultural subsidies?
http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/r...ho/index.shtml
• Receiving massive federal farm subsidies: Idaho farmers got more than $262 million in direct government payments last year. The federal government spent more than $600 million in Idaho on all farm programs last year, including the direct payments, research, loans and other programs. chart

This works out to about $1300 for every man woman and child who lives in rural Idaho.

[hammerbill]

And how, may I ask, does this relate to the suggestion that $87B be used to feed common people?

Lol I live in somewhat rural Idaho. Where's my 1300 dollars? I'll use it to buy groceries-I promise! Actually, rich farmers do not represent the poor and hungry that the thread is referring to, nor do a handful of welfare state farmers represent the people of Idaho. We are also a high tech state. Micron Corporation, for instance, pays about one fourth of the income taxes in the state!

[plschwartz]

Hammerbill:
I found this which is a treasure trove of info on farm subsidies
http://www.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.p...code=totalfarm

According to them in the years 1995-2002 just over $1B was given in commodity subsidy, $1.4B in all was pumped into the rural Idaho economy. Granted much of this went into agribusiness, but even so the whole host of farm based services on which much of rural life depends has as its basis a healthy dose of Federal subsidy without which I suggest that much of the rural population with its outdoor way of life would disappear

I am not taking a position on whether or no it should be paid, but that your lifestyle is heavily subsidized.
By comparison ID ssi maximums are $597. $837 for a couple. So this rural transfer payment is 1/4 of an individuals SSI checks and almost half of a couples.