Members of Congress Take "Food Stamp Challenge"
Four Members of Congress are taking the "food stamp challenge," and living this week only on the $21 worth of groceries which are rationed to people living on food stamps. Congressmen Tim Ryan (D-OH) and Jim McGovern (D-MA) have also set up blogs documenting the experience. Congressman McGovern explains the reason for the challenge:
I am taking this Food Stamp Challenge as a way of saying that as Americans, we need to do more to eliminate hunger and poverty in this country. One in nine U.S. households, nearly 36 million Americans, does not consistently have enough food to feed themselves or their families according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. There is no excuse for this.In the wealthiest country on earth, it is not about finding the resources. It is about mustering the political will.
Established in 1939, the food stamp program helps families in need buy food so that they do not have to make difficult choices, such as choosing between paying a utility bill, addressing health care needs or buying food. It truly is the safety net for America's hungry.
Despite what some critics like to say, the food stamp program is not a government handout, but it is a true safety net program that provides access to food for people who cannot afford to choose between rent, medicine, child care and transportation. Gone are the days of the inefficient program ravaged by fraud, waste and abuse. In fact, National Journal recently named the food stamp program as one of the government's top successes. And the GAO has repeatedly reported on the successes of this important program.
Mr. Speaker, let me take a moment to share with you who benefits from the food stamp program. According to USDA, over 26 million people benefited from the food stamp program last year, including 452,000 individuals from my State of Massachusetts. Over 80 percent of food stamp benefits go to families with children. One in five food stamp households has an elderly family member, and one in four has a disabled member. Increasingly, working families must rely on food stamps to supplement their wages in low-paying jobs.
Some may question the motives of elected officials taking this 1-week challenge. These critics, Mr. Speaker, are missing the point. It's time for a much greater public debate to take place around this issue. It is time to end hunger in America, and we can do so starting by focusing on the food stamp program.
Written By:Hans Bader On May 21, 2007 12:00 PM Written By:Mike Combs On May 21, 2007 1:43 PM
Hans, your thriftiness is remarkable, and I'm sure everyone could learn from it.
But $21/week in today's dollars would be about $15.60/week in 1994 dollars, due to inflation.
The issue isn't whether or not people can survive on $15.60 or $21/week, but if this is how we should treat people:
"Over 80 percent of food stamp benefits go to families with children. One in five food stamp households has an elderly family member, and one in four has a disabled member."
An inflation calculator, for the next time your grandfather tells you about how they saved to buy a home on far less money that you did:
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
I did spend less than $15.60 on food most weeks when I was a law clerk back in 1994-95.
Admittedly, the judge I worked for helped me out a bit by giving me his stash of low-sodium V8s for free, which I sometimes ate with my 20-cent cans of tuna.
By the way, the food stamp users at the grocery stores near me don't seem to be terribly careful about money.
Food stamp users in the stores I patronize seldom use coupons, as you would expect from somone who is very short on cash. (You can get coupons not only in daily newspapers like the Washington Post, which costs money, but also in the Hispanic newspapers, which are free, and sometimes in the Friday D.C. Examiner, which is free).
The few that do don't seem to use coupons in ways that maximize their value (like shopping on triple-coupon days).
Nor do they use rain checks to minimize costs.
Moreover, most food stamp users seem to be fatter than I am. While I buy cheap, healthy, quick-to-prepare potatoes and sweet potatoes for baking in the microwave, they buy more expensive, fattier processed foods, that take more time and energy to cook.
Note that half of all households that have a cash income below the poverty line own their own home, and for those that do, typically, their home has three bedrooms.
(People who live in low-living cost rural areas can be below the federal poverty line, even if they live well, because their living costs are even lower than their income, and the means-tested government welfare benefits that they receive are typically not included in income when calculating whether they are below the poverty line, especially if the welfare benefit is not in cash).
By contrast, I live in a very expensive region with high housing costs (I work in Washington, D.C.).
My home has only two bedrooms, which I share with my wife and daughter (and until recently, my mother-in-law).
Yet I am considered "privileged" since my family's cash income (while lower than most of my neighbors) is above the national average.
In 1994-95, as a judicial law clerk, I spent less than $21 a week on groceries.
I subsisted heavily on baked potatoes, milk, and 6-ounce cans of tuna (I bought 500 such tuna cans while they were on sale for 20 cents each, and filled the back of my car with them).
My health was not adversely affected, but I did inadvertently lose some weight during that year. (The judge's wife jokingly said that her cat Damon ate better than I did).
Partly as a result of years of such thrift, I now own my own home, despite living on a non-profit salary and supporting a wife and child, and despite all the bills that resulted from attending an expensive law school.
I'm still thriftier about food spending than some of the food stamp users at the nearby Grand Mart.