Editor’s note: This commentary is by Paul Manganiello, MD MPH, of Norwich, a emeritus professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth.
[G]reat progress has been made so that, hopefully, extreme poverty and chronic hunger will essentially be eliminated by 2030. Faith communities have been very generous, but charity alone is not enough. Food assistance from private charities in 2013 was approximately $5 billion, while food assistance from the federal government was more than 20 times that amount, $104 billion.
Rhetorically, who is the federal government? It’s not “them,” it’s us, you and me, citizens of this country. Our leaders need to hear from us about what our nation’s priorities should be. They can pen good legislation or bad legislation. Unfortunately, deep cuts to current programs that have been shown to be effective are being proposed by the current administration. We need to use our “gift” of citizenship to shape public policy; that is really the patriotic thing to do! This is especially timely now that the July 4th fireworks, flag waving and barbecues have ended for this year.
What programs are we talking about? Domestic programs being threatened include: WIC (Women, Infants and Children supplemental nutrition program), whereby 8 million low-income women and their children receive nutritious food and nutrition education; the refundable earned income tax credit and the child tax credit; and SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). These programs have moved 5 million Americans out of poverty. The definition of poverty depends upon the income and the number of people in a household. For example, the poverty level for a household four would be $24,000/year. (It is hard to image living on $2,000/month and needing to take care of myself, a partner and two children.)
Domestic nutritional programs make up less than 3 percent of the federal budget, but are cost effective in improving the health and well-being of those in need, and reducing hunger-related illnesses.
Domestic nutritional programs make up less than 3 percent of the federal budget, but are cost effective in improving the health and well-being of those in need, and reducing hunger-related illnesses.
International programs such as poverty focused development assistance include nutritional programs for children as well as investment programs. Opponents of these programs like to cite cost, but these international programs make up less than 0.8 percent ($29 billion) of the federal budget, think of it as a fraction of a penny. Bipartisan legislation such as the Feed the Future global hunger and food security initiative and the McGovern-Dole school feeding program have since 1990 reduced chronic hunger and extreme poverty from 2 billion people to 800 million, despite the world’s increasing population. Extreme hunger and poverty have been cut in half. Stunting rates, because of poor nutrition for children under age 5, has been reduced from 40 percent to 23 percent, according to 2015 data. We should think of poverty focused development assistance as preventive medicine against radicalized terrorists, offering hope through supporting better nutrition, education and micro-enterprise projects.
So how do these assistance programs compare with military spending? In 2017, the administration is proposing $583 billion for the Defense Department, with $6 billion separately for foreign military aid, of which Israel will receive $3 billion and Egypt $1billion.
The good news in the U.S. is that although many of our fellow citizens continue to struggle to find jobs paying a livable wage, buying nutritious food and having access to decent housing is easier. For the first time since the recession in 2007, U.S. poverty and food insecurity declined in 2015, while median household income and health insurance coverage have increased. We can’t turn back.
Studies have shown that personalized letters or emails relating your personal stories, are the best ways to influence your legislators. Writing a few sentences as to why you feel strongly about this issue will get their attention. A recent survey noted that several letters to a congressional office results in their tracking that particular issue. Other effective ways to communicate your concerns include telephone calls and personal visits, but just corresponding will go a long way to getting them to consider your point of view. Call (toll free 800-826-3688, courtesy of Bread for the World) or email your congressmen. Now is the time to urge Congress to reject budget cuts that will increase hunger and poverty in the U.S. and around the world. For more information please contact www.bread.org.
