Politicians don't see hunger as issue
seattlepi.nwsource.com
Sunday, August 11, 2002
By HELEN THOMAS
HEARST NEWSPAPERS
WASHINGTON -- The Alliance to End Hunger says hunger
is a "serious problem in the United States and a severe
problem in the world" and is trying to promote it as an
election issue.
Lots of luck. I can't see that happening with all the other
hot-button priorities taking precedence with the
candidates. They will talk about corporate greed,
prescription drugs, terrorism and the economy -- but not
about hunger.
The Alliance conducted a national poll to find out whether
voters viewed hunger as an important concern. The
statistics revealed a resounding "yes" to the question. But
there is no indication that any of the candidates will take
heed.
The driving forces in the Alliance are two anti-hunger
advocacy groups, Bread for the World and America's Second
Harvest. The coalition also includes church and business
groups, labor unions and civil rights activists.
An Alliance report cited a 2000 U.S. Census survey
showing that literally tens of millions of Americans were
unsure of having enough to eat. It added that surveys by
the United Nations have found that up to 6 million children
a year worldwide die of a hunger-related illness.
I know that no statistics can paint the picture of the human
suffering inflicted by hunger. Our humanitarianism and
occasionally touted "compassion" have to be questioned
when nearly $400 billion is being shelled out for the next
fiscal year for arms and the military establishment and, at
the same time, some children in poverty-stricken families
may be deprived of food.
Are our priorities sometimes skewed? Surely we are
endowed with enough wealth to make sure children do not
go hungry in this country. We are our brothers' keepers.
Some of the polls indicated that it could be a front-burner
issue if put to the test. One of the questions posed in the
Alliance's telephone sampling of 1,000 voters last month
asked which of the following candidates would you be more
likely to vote for: A candidate for Congress who says they
will make fighting hunger problems a higher priority, or a
candidate who says there is currently enough being done
to fight the hunger problem? The results were heartening.
The poll showed 69 percent would give a higher priority to a
more altruistic candidate; only 19 percent preferred a
candidate who claims enough is being done for the hungry.
Eighty-one percent of those polled said they would be more
likely to vote for a candidate for the House or Senate who
wants to increase funding to fight chronic child hunger in
America but would tie that money to tough work
requirements for parents.
A spokesman for the Alliance said there were many reasons
for hunger, including the lack of jobs that pay a decent
wage. He added it's clear that the so-called safety net is not
working as well as it should.
Sometimes people do not know they are eligible for food
stamps. When public schools shut down for the summer,
the kids who were being fed breakfast and lunch during
the rest of the year are suddenly without good nutrition.
The Alliance wants action and reform. It goes back to that
old saying: If you give a hungry man a fish, he will be
hungry tomorrow; if you teach him to fish, he will feed
himself for life.
The Alliance is now urging the Democratic National
Committee, the Republican National Committee and
individual political candidates to debate the hunger
problem. It reported "an astonishingly high number of
those polled -- 92.7 percent-- said that fighting the hunger
problem was an important issue to them."
The pollsters also noted that "as a result of Sept. 11, 68.2
percent of the voters have become more interested in
helping people in need in this country and 70.1 are more
likely to want to reduce world hunger."
Asked if people were hungry because of their own fault, 83
percent said it was because of "other reasons."
As to which political party is better fighting hunger, the two
major parties came out almost even; the Democrats had 32
percent and the Republicans scored 30 percent.
Some 60 percent of those polled said they did not believe
terrorism was rooted in poverty. Instead, they ascribed that
blight to resentment of America and religious extremism.
Two-thirds of the voters said the most important reason to
fight hunger is that it was the "moral and right thing to do."
The Alliance noted that the U.S. Department of Agriculture
reported last March that 33 million Americans, including
13 million children, live in households that experience
hunger or the risk of hunger. Furthermore, the department
said that nearly 8.5 million people, including 2.9 million
children, live in homes where they have to skip meals or
eat too little, sometimes going without food a whole day.
The Alliance concluded that the issue of hunger was
important to the voters and could be made a top political
issue. The group also said programs for poor families
should be designed to help them become more productive
and self-sufficient.
Globally, it said, the public needs to know that the aid is
going to the right people and that the money was being
used efficiently.
This issue deserves prime time attention during the
congressional election campaign this autumn. But I fear
other sexier topics will dominate. That's a pity.
Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers.
E-mail: helent@hearstdc.com. Copyright 2002 Hearst
Newspapers. |
