This I Argue
Hunger, Political Priorities, and Systemic Inequality
The documentary "A Place at the Table" addresses the issue of food insecurity in the United States today. The film takes the viewer all across the country, showing them a variety of settings in which many people, from different backgrounds, live with the daily fear of not having enough food.The families portrayed often find themselves jumping between public assistance programs and minimum wage jobs. Charities and good spirits often fill in the gaps, but never enough to pull them out of the vicious circle. From a small town in Colorado, to the inner city of Philadelphia, food insecurity threatens the livelihood of all kinds. With tragic irony, the film shows the true state of the hunger epidemic taking place in the richest country in the world. With too many in this country keenly aware of this crisis, one might wonder why and how did this circumstance occur? Food insecurity is not an accidental or random epidemic, food insecurity is a symptom of America’s systemic inequality, and the skewed priorities of our politicians. As ugly and dark as this assertion may seem, the solutions are hiding in plain sight.
Systemic Inequality
In order to develop a rational approach to ending hunger, one must understand it as a global issue rather than a localized one, because the same forces that are responsible for millions of global poor are the very same forces that keep so many in the U.S. living with chronic food insecurity. In a system where the total global wealth has been rising at a nearly exponential rate one might expect that global living standards would grow as well (Selwyn). It has been quite the opposite. As living standards throughout the world continue to decline, with billions born into decrepit poverty, the top one percent are accruing unprecedented and unfathomable amounts of wealth (Selwyn, 2). A poor neighborhood in an American city, can be viewed through the same lense as a poor country. The population gains access to only basic levels of education and health care (if any at all), and the only jobs available to them are low income, unskilled position with little or no opportunity for advancement. These conditions create a stagnant community,
The livelihood of millions of people become secondary to the assurance of profits for the richest of the rich. The funding, or lack there of, for programs like SNAP has a miniscule effect on food insecurity compared with the power of the global free market and the multinational corporations that run the show. Food insecurity, starvation, lack of adequate medical care, and impoverishment are all results of the globalized system which sustains itself on inequality. This dynamic did not occur by accident, the global corporate oligarchy depends on it. It requires little intelligence to realize that increasing concentration of wealth in the top one percent is directly related to the increasing number of global poor.
Those who live with food insecurity, may occasionally be portrayed as lazy. It might be suggested that they could solve their own problems by working harder. However, the majority of those who suffer from this epidemic are not lazy or stupid, but rather they are victims of an economic system which excludes them from opportunity. People in these circumstances become economically “trapped”, with no way to get out. In certain low income areas, supermarket chains will not even open stores. One could travel for miles and not even be able to buy fresh produce, only finding junk food and unhealthy snacks. The population in this country holds the responsibility of making sure that no one remains economically incarcerated in a “Food Desert” or an area where one has no opportunity for advancement.
Political Priorities
For however much they might vocalize their sympathy to the those who live with food insecurity (49 million in 2008), our politicians actions speak much louder (Stahl). Despite their uninspiring action regarding poverty and hunger, the political class has found more then enough time to ensure the funding of other programs. For instance, the department of defense will spend approximately 620 billion on nuclear weapons during the next decade (What Nuclear Weapons Cost Us). Perhaps the gratuitous campaign donations from defense contractors have affected the minds of our elected officials.
Additionally, the government finds time to subsidize certain private industries, which ,objectively speaking, should not require government assistance. Case in point, Wal-mart. The grocery store chain brought in a profit of over 115 billion in 2013 (Market Watch). And yet Wal-Mart has received nearly 1.2 billion dollars in tax breaks and subsidies. It seems quite rational to suggest that every family in this country should be well fed before a company like Wal-Mart receives one cent of public money.
The actions of the federal government clearly reflect the will of economic elites more than the populous. As the columnist for Counterpunch Newsletter Jayne Lyn Stahl writes “More than 12% of all Americans know what it means to be poor in America” … “conspicuously absent from reality T.V. shows, from box office movies, and political party platforms, they are increasingly visible at food banks, and shelters.” (Stahl). Intentionally ignored in the mainstream conversation, the problem of food insecurity remains unaddressed and continues to grow. It seems as though our politicians would rather wage wars on foreign soil than proactively help the population at home. Stahl goes on to say in the same article “when the president announced today that he intends to ‘finish the job’ in Afghanistan, it becomes clear the job he needs to finish is here, and not in the Middle East.” (Stahl)
The method through which we will end food insecurity is not complex, the victims of our social system need to be directly helped through publicly funded programs. Lets take money out of the nuclear weapons budget, lets end our country's’ war machine. Food deserts can be combated through public funded projects designed to bring healthy varieties of foods to places where supermarkets will not open. Farmers markets could be an excellent way to deliver fresh foods to areas without. Urban areas are more likely to see benefit from this approach because farmers could benefit from the amount customers in an urban environment. Rural communities that suffer from food insecurity could have a harder time using this solution.
Americans should not have to rely on charities for food. We aren't given our civil liberties through someone elses charity. We don't get our freedom our respect and souls through charity. These are fundamental rights, and in this country (where the government operates with trillions of dollars) having food should be a fundamental right. Obviously the nature of food subsidies needs revision. Industries that have the maximum benefit the general population should be subsidized. Healthy foods and centralized farms should be the ones benefiting most from government funding, not mega-corporations. I personally don't know what kind of myths surround people who require food assistance. Perhaps that they are lazy. I believe that most people would rather be doing something than nothing. But when people don't have any opportunities they might sink into depression and inaction. The question for critics of the food assistance program should not be "Are these people worthy of the assistance they receive?" but rather the question should be "Why do these people need this assistance in the first place?"
Work Cited
"Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch." . Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch, 1 Jan. 2007. Web. 29 June 2014. <http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/index.html>.
"What Nuclear Weapons Cost Us." . PLOUGHSHARES FUND 2014, 1 Jan. 2012. Web. 29 June 2014. <http://www.ploughshares.org/what-nuclear-weapons-cost-us>.
Selwyn, Ben. "Development by the Elites, For the Elites." . CounterPunch, 7 Mar. 2014. Web. 20 June 2014. <http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/07/development-by-the-elites-for-the-elites/>.
Stahl, Jayne Lyn. "How About a War on Poverty Instead?." . CounterPunch, 26 Nov. 2009. Web. 27 June 2014. <http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/11/26/how-about-a-war-on-poverty-instead/>.
The documentary "A Place at the Table" addresses the issue of food insecurity in the United States today. The film takes the viewer all across the country, showing them a variety of settings in which many people, from different backgrounds, live with the daily fear of not having enough food.The families portrayed often find themselves jumping between public assistance programs and minimum wage jobs. Charities and good spirits often fill in the gaps, but never enough to pull them out of the vicious circle. From a small town in Colorado, to the inner city of Philadelphia, food insecurity threatens the livelihood of all kinds. With tragic irony, the film shows the true state of the hunger epidemic taking place in the richest country in the world. With too many in this country keenly aware of this crisis, one might wonder why and how did this circumstance occur? Food insecurity is not an accidental or random epidemic, food insecurity is a symptom of America’s systemic inequality, and the skewed priorities of our politicians. As ugly and dark as this assertion may seem, the solutions are hiding in plain sight.
Systemic Inequality
In order to develop a rational approach to ending hunger, one must understand it as a global issue rather than a localized one, because the same forces that are responsible for millions of global poor are the very same forces that keep so many in the U.S. living with chronic food insecurity. In a system where the total global wealth has been rising at a nearly exponential rate one might expect that global living standards would grow as well (Selwyn). It has been quite the opposite. As living standards throughout the world continue to decline, with billions born into decrepit poverty, the top one percent are accruing unprecedented and unfathomable amounts of wealth (Selwyn, 2). A poor neighborhood in an American city, can be viewed through the same lense as a poor country. The population gains access to only basic levels of education and health care (if any at all), and the only jobs available to them are low income, unskilled position with little or no opportunity for advancement. These conditions create a stagnant community,
The livelihood of millions of people become secondary to the assurance of profits for the richest of the rich. The funding, or lack there of, for programs like SNAP has a miniscule effect on food insecurity compared with the power of the global free market and the multinational corporations that run the show. Food insecurity, starvation, lack of adequate medical care, and impoverishment are all results of the globalized system which sustains itself on inequality. This dynamic did not occur by accident, the global corporate oligarchy depends on it. It requires little intelligence to realize that increasing concentration of wealth in the top one percent is directly related to the increasing number of global poor.
Those who live with food insecurity, may occasionally be portrayed as lazy. It might be suggested that they could solve their own problems by working harder. However, the majority of those who suffer from this epidemic are not lazy or stupid, but rather they are victims of an economic system which excludes them from opportunity. People in these circumstances become economically “trapped”, with no way to get out. In certain low income areas, supermarket chains will not even open stores. One could travel for miles and not even be able to buy fresh produce, only finding junk food and unhealthy snacks. The population in this country holds the responsibility of making sure that no one remains economically incarcerated in a “Food Desert” or an area where one has no opportunity for advancement.
Political Priorities
For however much they might vocalize their sympathy to the those who live with food insecurity (49 million in 2008), our politicians actions speak much louder (Stahl). Despite their uninspiring action regarding poverty and hunger, the political class has found more then enough time to ensure the funding of other programs. For instance, the department of defense will spend approximately 620 billion on nuclear weapons during the next decade (What Nuclear Weapons Cost Us). Perhaps the gratuitous campaign donations from defense contractors have affected the minds of our elected officials.
Additionally, the government finds time to subsidize certain private industries, which ,objectively speaking, should not require government assistance. Case in point, Wal-mart. The grocery store chain brought in a profit of over 115 billion in 2013 (Market Watch). And yet Wal-Mart has received nearly 1.2 billion dollars in tax breaks and subsidies. It seems quite rational to suggest that every family in this country should be well fed before a company like Wal-Mart receives one cent of public money.
The actions of the federal government clearly reflect the will of economic elites more than the populous. As the columnist for Counterpunch Newsletter Jayne Lyn Stahl writes “More than 12% of all Americans know what it means to be poor in America” … “conspicuously absent from reality T.V. shows, from box office movies, and political party platforms, they are increasingly visible at food banks, and shelters.” (Stahl). Intentionally ignored in the mainstream conversation, the problem of food insecurity remains unaddressed and continues to grow. It seems as though our politicians would rather wage wars on foreign soil than proactively help the population at home. Stahl goes on to say in the same article “when the president announced today that he intends to ‘finish the job’ in Afghanistan, it becomes clear the job he needs to finish is here, and not in the Middle East.” (Stahl)
The method through which we will end food insecurity is not complex, the victims of our social system need to be directly helped through publicly funded programs. Lets take money out of the nuclear weapons budget, lets end our country's’ war machine. Food deserts can be combated through public funded projects designed to bring healthy varieties of foods to places where supermarkets will not open. Farmers markets could be an excellent way to deliver fresh foods to areas without. Urban areas are more likely to see benefit from this approach because farmers could benefit from the amount customers in an urban environment. Rural communities that suffer from food insecurity could have a harder time using this solution.
Americans should not have to rely on charities for food. We aren't given our civil liberties through someone elses charity. We don't get our freedom our respect and souls through charity. These are fundamental rights, and in this country (where the government operates with trillions of dollars) having food should be a fundamental right. Obviously the nature of food subsidies needs revision. Industries that have the maximum benefit the general population should be subsidized. Healthy foods and centralized farms should be the ones benefiting most from government funding, not mega-corporations. I personally don't know what kind of myths surround people who require food assistance. Perhaps that they are lazy. I believe that most people would rather be doing something than nothing. But when people don't have any opportunities they might sink into depression and inaction. The question for critics of the food assistance program should not be "Are these people worthy of the assistance they receive?" but rather the question should be "Why do these people need this assistance in the first place?"
Work Cited
"Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch." . Wal-Mart Subsidy Watch, 1 Jan. 2007. Web. 29 June 2014. <http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/index.html>.
"What Nuclear Weapons Cost Us." . PLOUGHSHARES FUND 2014, 1 Jan. 2012. Web. 29 June 2014. <http://www.ploughshares.org/what-nuclear-weapons-cost-us>.
Selwyn, Ben. "Development by the Elites, For the Elites." . CounterPunch, 7 Mar. 2014. Web. 20 June 2014. <http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/07/development-by-the-elites-for-the-elites/>.
Stahl, Jayne Lyn. "How About a War on Poverty Instead?." . CounterPunch, 26 Nov. 2009. Web. 27 June 2014. <http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/11/26/how-about-a-war-on-poverty-instead/>.