Hunger in America
At last a voice is heard in support of the food-stamp program. I refer to Nancy Amidei’s article (Editorial Pages, Oct. 2), “In Hunger, Charity Begins at Home.” That further cuts in the food-stamp program could be proposed by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) at a time when more children are going to bed hungry in this country than at any time in the last 10 to 15 years reflects a level of denial that borders on the pathological.
As a school psychologist in a lower socioeconomic community, I see the results of this kind of denial on a daily basis. Whereas we used to collect canned goods to give to needy families at Christmas and Thanksgiving, many of our schools are collecting food for distribution to families in distress all year.
I have seen a single mother, struggling with two low-paying jobs to support her children rather than return to an abusive father, break down when there was not enough to stretch through to the end of the month.
I have seen children come to school, work until about 10 a.m. and then ask to go to the nurse because of a stomachache, only to find they have not eaten anything of substance since yesterday’s school lunch.
There is hunger in America. There is hunger in Los Angeles. There is hunger in every community in this area. And food stamps feed people. It’s as simple as that.
We may continue to deny these simple facts. We may continue to elect people like Helms and Rep. Bill Emerson (R-Mo.). And we may continue to ignore the epidemic of hunger in the richest nation in the world.
The scenario is well described by the Harvard University’s Physician Task Force on Hunger in America: “Hunger is an example of much that can go wrong in Washington. Problems get looked at in terms of Washington, in terms of politics . . . and not in terms of people. Some political leaders deny the obvious fact that hunger exists because it does not fit their ideological framework. More sensitive leaders recognize that there is hunger but avoid intellectual honesty about its seriousness . . . Political ‘reality’ and the niceties of consensus politics permit otherwise decent leaders to discuss limited responses to a growing crisis even as the crisis worsens.”
My hope is that this scenario is abandoned, as people like Nancy Amidei have the courage to set forth an unpopular public position, as we as individuals have the courage to endorse it, and as we notify our elected representatives of our views.
JEANNE SURBER
Altadena