Please Pass The Bread and Water
February 23rd, 2006 | by Ken Grandlund |When I was a young kid growing up in a single parent household, I would often have to ask before I randomly grabbed a snack from the kitchen cupboard. Mom was on a really tight budget in those days, and the weekly allotment of food had to last until the next paycheck. Of course, I never went hungry and didn’t even know how close to the edge we sometimes were. I guess I should consider myself lucky.
According to a newly released report by the American charity network, America’s Second Harvest, the number of Americans going hungry has increased 9% since 2001. Last year, more than 25 million American citizens turned to food banks, soup kitchens and shelters for meals. Perhaps even more striking is the fact that 36% of those people came from households that had at least one person holding down a job. What’s more, 35% already were receiving food stamps too.
But wait, you say…of course there were more people getting help. 2005 had two major disasters in Hurricane Katrina and Rita. Well hold your tongue. The surveys were actually done BEFORE the hurricanes hit. After the hurricanes, demand for help TRIPLED in the Gulf States.
In addition to this report, the federal government releases its own reports. Their findings? The USDA report released last year said 13.5 million American households, or nearly 12%, had difficulty providing enough food for their families in 2004. That number was 11% higher than in 2003.
Sounds like the economic benefits of the Bush agenda are working marvels, just like he says.
20 Responses to “Please Pass The Bread and Water”
By steve on Feb 23, 2006 | Reply
Yeah they are, I have made more money off the Bush the last 5 years than I did the previous 5. If he could run in 2008 I’d vote for him again!
By ken grandlund on Feb 24, 2006 | Reply
Steve- You are in your mid 30’s, right? Ten years ago, in your mid twenties, you had less practical experience, less actual knowledge, and perhaps even less time in your job. All of those factors should combine to offer you a a better wage than you had 10 years ago or even 5 years ago. The measure of how well a society is doing is not based on individual advancement, but in how many are not able to make ends meet despite working as hard as the next guy.
I’ll admit that we don’t have all the information necessary to determine why so many are actually in this situation- could be religious beliefs that promote large families where the women don’t work. Could also be a family driven into bankruptcy because of catastrophic medical bills, or an outsourced working single mother, or a paraplegic veteran. But just because you’re eating better and I’m eating better does mean that our country is doing better as a whole. The theory says that we are only as strong as our weakest link. When the size of that link increases, our overall strength is diminished.
By Jet on Feb 24, 2006 | Reply
Frankly, if the number of poor and hungry are rising, and quickly, this is an embarrassment to a “Christian” president. He ought to know that raising the poor is a biblical priority. His actions belie his professed faith.
By steve on Feb 24, 2006 | Reply
Ken, I was taking a shit on what you said because you appear to be blaming Bush for the problem. Bush is not the cause of the problem and removing him immediately from office does not address the problem.
By liberal vet on Feb 24, 2006 | Reply
Steve another pleasant neo-con, how refreshing, thanks for sharing your bowel habits. I understand that you could care less about the poor and destitute. There are some facts you should consider first Steve. These destitute people do cost the government money and maintaining there health needs is extremely costly. Since the disenfranchised have no health insurance they visit your local ER for primary care, very costly. Now most people without food and shelter can locate charitable organizations if they desire {generous people give}. Some especially those addicted to crack cocaine and other illicit substances are so paranoid they do not unless they come in contact with law enforcement {very costly psychiatric hospitalization rehab. etc]. If you believe these people are worthless and have no rights then say so. Personally I find your lack of compassion and greed appalling. I would however protect your rights Steve. You have every right to continue to be a foul mouthed bigot with no social compass whatsoever. Fondly, LV
By ken grandlund on Feb 24, 2006 | Reply
Steve- I mention Bush once, at the end, and don’t say anything in this post about this being a reason to remove him from office, so don’t put words in my mouth. (Note: I think he should be removed from office, but poor economic policy is not the reason.) However, the pursuit of his economic agenda that he is always touting as giving America a ‘healthy economy’ is not in fact doing that for all Americans. Indeed, for those with few money problems, this economy is great. All the top end tax cuts have really been good for the folks with millions.
To follow your argument, Bush is responsible for your own economic good fortune, not your own experience or hard work. But that is not logical. If he is not responsible for the bad fortune of some, how could he be responsible for the good fortune of others? You don’t get one without the other, so if you take credit for the good, you must also take credit for the bad.
But as I said, the measure of strength is taken from its weakest point. Instead of being uniformly strong, we have an economy that is increasingly creating a wealth gap that is not based on merit or even intellect. It is based on taking more from the poor to benefit the rich. Bush, and his economic policies represent a reverse Robin Hood mentality for the country as a whole.
By steve on Feb 24, 2006 | Reply
“Sounds like the economic benefits of the Bush agenda are working marvels, just like he says.”
That’s the exact statement there Ken, don’t sugar coat it by backpeddling. You are making the implication that Bush is the cause and the rise in poor is the effect. It’s hard to take your thoughts seriously on this one without sensing the typical liberal whining stereotype that a statement like that exudes.
LV, I never said I was against the poor or destitute or actually didn’t care about them. That’s your implication not mine. Change your thought process and read the above statements I have made to Ken.
I gave a guy pandhandling in front of Tower Records last night 5 bucks so he can eat. In fact I think he said, “I am going to get a Hummer like that some day but today I just need to eat!” You have no idea what kind of donations I make, clothing drives I participate in or anything else charitable I do. Seriously, if you believe Bush is the cause for the growing poor than I can thank him because I am not! It’s the same argument Ken is using here.
By liberal vet on Feb 24, 2006 | Reply
He is not to blame if I misjudged you so be it I stand corrected. I would remove him from office because he has done nothing but cut social services. Universal health care should be a right not a privalege. As far as you social beliefs go fine I’ll grant you that based on your donation. You did say you would shit on Ken’s ideas, pretty nasty. I was sarcastic, true. You are as guilty as I of not addressing the issue. Please note I sited several examples of the cost inflicted upon tax payers becauase of the lack of social services. Nice talking with you. LV
By ken grandlund on Feb 24, 2006 | Reply
Steve- Fine. Bush IS to blame. Happy? And there was no backpeddaling in my previous comment either. I just never said that a poor economy is a reason to impeach a president.
By steve on Feb 24, 2006 | Reply
LV:
Hehe… so why is Universal Health Care a right that the Bush Administration is preventing from occuring? Where does it say in our Constitution that we all have the right to Universal Health care? Page 6? No seriously, where… Meanwhile every President before Bush had the chance to provide us all with health care and didn’t. You know who I blame? George Washington!
Ken:
The truth shall set you free…
By liberal vet on Feb 25, 2006 | Reply
The repubs have been blocking unuversal health care forever. Your diatribes a merely the typical neo-con blather he … he..
By John Rogers on Feb 27, 2006 | Reply
Income stats alone are misleading. Currency values change, inflation estimates are dodgy, and the quality of goods available changes.
But there is no doubt that material wealth has been increasing over the last dozen years.
My source? The Census. (http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p23-202.pdf)
American families own more of just about everything than they ever have. And the stuff we own is of higher qualty than it was in the past.
And there’s this:
<blockquote>New reports by the Census Bureau and the Federal Reserve Board on the economic well-being of the typical American family reveal that over the past three decades, the vast majority of families have experienced a rapid growth in their income and wealth. Now that nearly six out of 10 households own stock and two out of three own their own homes, the average family — for the first time ever — has net worth (assets minus liabilities) of more than $100,000. Median family income has climbed to more than $54,000 a year…
…But it’s not just the rich that are getting richer. Virtually every income group has been lifted by the tide of growth in recent decades. The percentage of families with real incomes between $5,000 and $50,000 has been falling as more families move into higher income categories — the figure has dropped by 19 percentage points since 1967. This huge move out of lower incomes and into middle- and higher-income categories shows that upward mobility is the rule, not the exception, in America today.</blockquote>
That doesn’t sound like “bread and water” to me.
By ken grandlund on Feb 27, 2006 | Reply
John- I’ll agree that taking a single or even a couple of statistics and trying to make a sweeping generalization is a tough row to hoe. So let’s look at a few other indicators, like the amount of credit debt and savings rate of average American families.
Savings rate of American families was measured at 1% in 2004. This was the lowest benchmark since 1938. (source)
Credit debt for the average American family is around $8000. (source)
So with these two stats thrown in to the mix, I would still argue that many American families are not experiencing good economic times in real terms. We may own more things, but we’re paying for them ad infinitum. And the debate about quality is spurious to me, when you notice that the largest retailer in the land, Wal-Mart, isn’t a purveyor of high-ticket items, byt rather of marginal quality products produced in cheap, overseas factories who concentrate on quantity over quality.
The increase in stock ownership is another red herring, since that is largely tied to 401k retirement accounts. Most poeple still do not hold large, frequently managed portfolios, but are rather part of a large group of investors who are limited to a degree by the offerings of their company plan.
Finally, using dollars to dollars, of course wages have increased, but can a dollar buy today what it could buy in 1967? Of course not.
The reports that show more hungry, more homeless, plus less employment and dropping family wages (see my diary entry More Great Economic News) equals worse, not better, economic states for Americans.
By John Rogers on Mar 1, 2006 | Reply
Ken:
Well, I give you this. In the future we will know what real economic decline will look like. It won’t be a few arguable statiscal blips. It will be undeniable - the inevitable result of a society that believes it is entitled to everything but that refuses to pay and just passes the bill to young people who cannot vote.
By ken grandlund on Mar 1, 2006 | Reply
Isn’t that the sad truth John R.
Let me ask you this- despite the debt incurred on all of us by an ineffective, wasteful and graft prone government, would you be willing to take on an increased tax burden to reduce the future debt on the unborn? Assuming of course that real fiscal prudence were attached to the whole thing?
By John Rogers on Mar 1, 2006 | Reply
Ken:
I would. That is, I would if I thought it would do any good.
One of the lessons of the last 50 years has been you can’t tax in a vaccum. If we raised taxes by 20% (and especially if we raised taxes exclusively on the rich), we would see a decrease in economic growth: less job creation, investment and wealth creation.
If we raised taxes to European levels, we would have European growth rates - which average about half of ours. (Because of their low growth and toxic demographics, the Europeans are truly and utterly screwed).
With lower economic growth, you have less jobs and you have lower revenue anyway.
Nobody has ever taxed themselves into properity.
People who don’t understand this simple concept would be stunned by this simple fact: federal revenue is about as high as it has ever been - as a real value (and as percentage of GDP). And this in an era of very low inflation. Revenues were last this high in 1998 - at a time when trillions more dollars of wealth existed (at least on paper) at the height of the 90’s boom.
How could this happen? With two massive rounds of Bush tax cuts?
The answer: the economy has been growing robustly. And so has federal revenue collection.
People who hope to raise taxes in order to pay for Medicare and Social Security are kind of like the guy who keeps ripping up his walls for burnable wood to heat his house!
By ken grandlund on Mar 1, 2006 | Reply
I agree that tax increases are not the entire answer, that’s for sure. But along with a radical shift in spending priorities, reining in corporate trickery that helps them elude taxes, and a federal budget that is written by people in the real world who know that spending should equal receipts, some form of temporary tax increase is probably part of any real plan for a recovery.
By John Rogers on Mar 1, 2006 | Reply
Ken:
“But along with a radical shift in spending priorities, reining in corporate trickery that helps them elude taxes, and a federal budget that is written by people in the real world who know that spending should equal receipts, some form of temporary tax increase is probably part of any real plan for a recovery.”
Well, I agree that we could do more to promote tax fairness and transperancy. A modified flat tax would do this. Maybe most people could pay 25%; the rich might pay 30%. No exceptions.
The murkiness of the tax code is a problem. In 2004, John Edwards, the former VP candidate, was worth several hundred million dollars. He declared himself CEO of “John Edwards Inc.” and paid himself a salary so that he wouldn’t have to pay his medicare taxes. It was legal, but it shouldn’t be.
But fraud like that isn’t common enough to pay for all the goodies we want, and super rich people like Edwards are fairly rare, too.
Raising the corporate tax is a terrible idea.
Ireland has grown like a rocket in the past two decades. The reason? Their corporate tax rate of 15% is the lowest in the English speaking world. Every company in the US wants to have something in Ireland - (and India). A higher corporate tax would just push them out the door. Then you have less people working and less people to tax.
You raise taxes and you hurt growth. Without growth, you have LESS to tax and LESS revenue.
You have to cut benefits. I would start with Social Security and Medicare for the rich. THey don’t need it….
I mean: are these things “safety nets” - things you rather not use?
Or are they “swimming pools?” (”Come on in the water is great!”)
Swimming pool programs will keep growing until they bankrupt us, and that is not going be solved by raising taxes.
You are ripping apart the house to get wood for the fireplace….
By ken grandlund on Mar 1, 2006 | Reply
John, I didn’t say anything about raising corporate taxes, merely eliminating the loopholes.
As for the safety net programs, I’ve written several ideas back a bit on my blog, but in general agree that some should be means tested and others severely transformed. Too much to get into here and now, but can be found in the archives at Common Sense.
I don’t take a “rip the house apart for firewood” approach, but neither do I take the “rip the house apart, tear out the plumbing and sell it for scrap profit, put the walls back on and pretend everything is fine” approach either. And that is what we get from our government today.
By John Rogers on Mar 1, 2006 | Reply
I’m sorry if I read anything into to what you said….