"Hunger is not a problem. It is an obscenity," The Borgen Project
Shouldn't Everyone Get Enough to Eat?
The recent budget deliberations in the Massachusetts State Senate, like those in the House, show a clear understanding of the urgent need to address food insecurity. Their decision to add significant earmarks for local food banks, pantries, and programs is a crucial recognition of the growing number of people in need.
This recognition is vital as the gap between the affluent and the struggling continues to widen. A November 2024 report from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation highlights the stark reality: in 2023, 13% of Americans (43 million people) lived in poverty, with 34% of those (15 million) in "deep poverty." Another 15% (49 million) teetered just above the poverty line, often sustained only by programs like SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly food stamps). This includes millions of children, seniors, and individuals with disabilities. In a nation that produces enough food to feed its population several times over, no one should go to bed hungry.
Yet, at the federal level, Congress, in a highly partisan vote, has enacted a House budget that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates would cut SNAP benefits by 30%.
These proposed cuts include:
Increased Work Mandates: Could reduce SNAP participation for over three million people monthly over the next decade.
Unprecedented State Cost-Sharing: For the first time, states are being mandated to absorb federal food stamp program costs. This comes at a time when states are already grappling with uncertain budgets due to other federal cuts.
Reduced Benefits: Provisions in the bill could lead to a reduction of up to $100 in monthly benefits for those still eligible.
Program Exodus: The CBO estimates up to 1.3 million people could lose access to SNAP entirely, as some states may cut benefits or withdraw from the program due to unaffordable funding requirements. This is unconscionable.
Plus, if they gave this any thought, they would realize that poor people don’t hiold on to SNAP benefits. They spend these; at supermarkets, local farmers markets and on farm stands. all of this benefits America’s farmers
Beyond direct program cuts, other federal policies exacerbate food insecurity:
Tariffs: Tariffs on essential goods like feed and chemicals, particularly from Canada, will significantly increase costs for U.S. farms, especially in the Midwest. This translates directly to higher food prices for consumers. Tariffs on imported foods will further inflate costs, pushing more people into poverty due to inflationary pressures and further hurt the American farmer!.
The crisis extends globally. The U.S. has backed Israel's necessary efforts against Hamas, but the ongoing crackdown in Gaza is causing a dramatic food shortage, threatening widespread starvation if the situation persists. While 190,000 tons of food sits on the docks, about 100 truck a day are getting through. Estimates are that 500 trucks minimum are needed to prevent widespread starvation. Where is the US voice in demanding that people are fed.
Furthermore, deep budget cuts and funding freezes in USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development) programs are having catastrophic consequences for global food security and U.S. interests.
USAID Cuts: A Global Humanitarian Crisis
These severe cutbacks threaten increased starvation worldwide and undermine U.S. security and global standing:
Immediate Humanitarian Crisis: As a primary funder of emergency food aid, USAID cuts mean less life-saving food for millions in conflict zones and disaster areas, leading to reduced rations, increased starvation, and hundreds of thousands of additional child deaths annually. This also disrupts established aid delivery chains and risks the loss of decades of built-up expertise.
Blinding Famine Prevention: USAID is crucial to global famine early warning systems. Funding cuts cripple data collection and analysis, leading to less accurate forecasts and delayed, deadlier responses. This makes it harder to pre-position aid and hold accountable those who use starvation as a weapon.
Long-Term Global Instability: Cuts undermine vital development programs that build resilient food systems, including agricultural training and infrastructure. This exacerbates poverty, fuels social unrest and conflict, and strains international relations, diminishing U.S. soft power.
Significant reductions in USAID's food security programs are not merely an economic issue; they are a humanitarian catastrophe with far-reaching consequences for human lives, global stability, and U.S. foreign policy. Again, food is rotting in warehouses since the programs were eliminateed or frozen. We have the food to help people, and to help our American farmers who produce and sell the food necessary to feed starving people.
In short, both domestically and worldwide, this administration is failing the poorest people by making it harder to feed themselves and their families. That is wrong, it is abysmal and is far beneath the leadership that this country has always taken to help the poorest of us and to find ways to make lives better. We are all diminished by the actions of our leadership.