Downsizing Blog
Are 35 Million Americans Going Hungry?
A news story and op-ed in the Washington Post recently noted that about 35 million Americans, or more than 10% of the population, are “food insecure.” It sounds like there is a massive underclass of people in the nation who are so poor that they can’t get enough to eat and are going hungry. No doubt that is the idea that many articles want to put across on the reader.
But is the hunger problem really that big? Let’s go to the official definitions and data at the Department of Agriculture:
Definitions: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/measurement.htm
Data: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/howoften.htm
It seems to me that it’s only the “very food insecure” folks who might be sometimes going hungry. Less than 3% of the population is very food insecure at any time during a given month, and that drops to less than 1% on any given day.
Douglas Besharov has argued that the main food-related health problem today is obesity, not hunger. Poor Americans are generally suffering not from too little food, but from too much of the wrong kinds of food.
According to federal data, about two-thirds of American adults are “overweight” and about half of those are “obese.” Those rates are actually higher for adults below the poverty level. Similarly, children below the poverty line are more likely to be overweight than other children.
Despite these modern realities, food subsidy programs continue to support an out-of-date model of increasing the caloric intake of low-income Americans. It’s time to cut them. See further discussion here.
Edwards' Budget Law
More evidence that when the government says a project will cost $1, taxpayers will end up paying $2 or more.
The Washington Post notes that Congress is considering further funding of a Navy ship program: ”The congressional action followed months of delays as costs ballooned. The cost for the initial two ships was estimated at about $220 million each but now appear to cost up to double that.”
Washington Post's Popular Programs
Washington Post, September 18: “The Democratic Congress is considering 2008 spending bills that increase funding for politically popular programs….”
Washington Post, September 19: “With a difficult war debate looming and presidential vetoes for a host of popular legislation….”
Washington Post, September 20: “Republicans and Democrats in the [Virginia] General Assembly proposed election-year spending increases for popular programs….”
Notice any pattern?
The Washington Post is a great paper, but like many papers it reveals a pro-spending bias when it reports on government budget issues. One aspect of this is the common portrayal of any increase or cut as affecting “popular programs.” Every type of program is portrayed as “popular,” whether it provides benefits to 50% of Americans or just 0.05% of Americans.
Presumably, Post reporters don’t do a public poll to find out which programs really are ”popular.” Instead, they just automatically stick the word in stories to perhaps suggest, “Ohhh, policymakers better not cut spending on that one or else there will be hell to pay.”
I’ve noticed this for years in the Post. Here’s one on federal grants to local governments: “According to the police group, the most controversial proposals include a $376 million reduction in the popular Community Oriented Policing Services program….”
Washington Post readers sometimes complain that its stories are too wordy. Well, “popular” is one word that editors can look to chop out.
