by hilzoy
From the Washington Post:
"Fueled by rising unemployment and food prices, the number of Americans on food stamps is poised to exceed 30 million for the first time this month, surpassing the historic high set in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina.The figures will put the spotlight on hunger when Congress begins deliberations on a new economic stimulus package, said legislators and anti-hunger advocates, predicting that any stimulus bill will include a boost in food stamp benefits. Advocates are also optimistic that President-elect Barack Obama, who made campaign promises to end childhood hunger and whose mother once briefly received food stamps, will make the issue a priority next year.
"We soon will have the most food stamps recipients in the history of our country," said Jim Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Center, a D.C.-based anti-hunger policy organization. "If the economic forecasts come true, we're likely to see the most hunger that we've seen since the 1981 recession and maybe since the 1960s, when these programs were established." (...)
To qualify for the food stamp program, whose name was officially changed last month to the Simplified Nutrition Assistance Program, recipients must have an income below 130 percent of the federal poverty level, or less than $27,564 for a family of four. The benefits, which average $109.93 a month per person, are based on a plan set by the government to represent a low-cost but nutritionally adequate diet. Participants apply locally to receive an electronic card that is used like an ATM card to buy food at most grocery stores and some farmers markets. The maximum benefit for a household of four is $588 a month."
This might be a good time to point out that charities of all kinds, including food banks, typically get hammered during recessions, since people have less money to give. And, of course, during recessions, they are needed more than ever.
And, as Andrew Sabl pointed out a few days ago, charity isn't just good for your soul and good for other people, it's good for the economy:
"Macroeconomics does funny things to morality. In a recession, saving your pennies harms the economy. Many these days quote Keynes' "paradox of thrift," and rightly so. Each of us, by virtuously delaying gratification, harms the economy as a whole. We'd all do better if we collectively acted worse. (As Keynes once wrote, ineffectively, "the patient does not need rest. He needs exercise.")So, to promote short-term growth, greedy consumption is good. Sort of. Though universal self-denial is bad, universal charity would, as far as I know, be macroeconomically terrific. If you can spare money for a plasma TV, giving the price of a TV to a food bank instead would create just as much consumption--more, actually, since the government kicks in a subsidy through the tax system."
You can find the American Institute of Philanthropy's top-rated charities for dealing with hunger here, and Charity Navigator's here.
I know I've said this before, but: as we head into tough times, I think we're going to need all the generosity and social solidarity we can manage.
But don't be surprised should the tone-deafness of the disarrayed GOP lead to a recycle of the welfare queen meme including attacks on food stamps as "disincentives" and renewed calls for privatizing* services.
*lat privare = plunder, rob, take away (by force)
Posted by: Hartmut | November 26, 2008 at 05:02 AM
And if you can’t spare any money, try to give of your time. Your local food bank most likely always needs volunteers. It’s a great way to involve yourself in your community and contribute directly.
Posted by: OCSteve | November 26, 2008 at 05:50 AM
"*privare = plunder, rob, take away (by force)"
So we not only have pirates, but privateers as well . . .
-----
This is why arguments that we should rely much more strictly on individual charity than government services fall flat, imo - just when it's needed most, it's often least available. But no less valuable for that - what hilzoy and OCSteve said: if you can spare it, give, whether money, canned goods, time, labor . .
Posted by: Dan S. | November 26, 2008 at 07:39 AM
Might I suggest donating to your local food bank - money, food, or time. They are already overwhelmed and it is only going to get worse going forward. In many areas of the country demand has already outstrip available supplies.
Posted by: DrDick | November 26, 2008 at 09:56 AM
The next couple of years are probably going to be hard times. Very, very hard times for some folks.
People will lose their jobs, some will lose their homes. Some will have to leave their communities because they can't find work, or can't afford to live there anymore.
Families will break up. Other anti-social behavior -- alcoholism, drug abuse, spousal and child abuse -- will increase.
There are going to be a lot of frustrated, angry, disappointed people with nothing useful to do with their days.
That's what hard times are.
There's a lot that government can do, and I hope that government *does* do everything it can.
But a lot of getting through stuff like this is a matter of everybody pitching in, to the best of their ability.
It doesn't have to be a lot. Seriously, every little bit helps.
Go through your closets and give away the clothes you never wear.
Go through your pantry and find all the non-perishable stuff you bought a year ago and forgot about. Give it away.
A lot of missions run second-hand stores, both as a way to raise money and as a way to make useful stuff available, cheap, to folks the need it. Clean out the attic or the garage and give away anything useful that you are just never going to use again.
None of this costs a dime. It will all put food on somebody's table, or heating oil in their tank, or give them a place to crash if they need that.
If you have the cash to contribute, contribute that, too. But if you don't there are plenty of ways to help.
Believe me, there are folks who will be *extremely* grateful for anything you can do.
We're all going to have to help out. It's the only way we'll get through it in one piece.
Thanks -
Posted by: russell | November 26, 2008 at 10:50 AM
And must grocery stores have donation bins right there so you can just buy and donate the food then and there.
Posted by: Fledermaus | November 26, 2008 at 12:51 PM
All due respect to the former Senate staffer, but he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Expensive, certainly. Slow? Lacking in maneuverability? The guy has no idea what he's talking about.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | November 26, 2008 at 01:18 PM
Ah, crap. Wrong thread. Sorry.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | November 26, 2008 at 01:25 PM
Hi, Slart:
I'm sure you have the engineering right.
But, maybe it's not the wrong thread.
There are folks who could eat an F-22 right about now, given the economy.
Posted by: John Thullen | November 26, 2008 at 11:02 PM
There are folks who could eat an F-22 right about now, given the economy.
We're working on perfecting the "stealth city" technology. That's where you are looking right at where a major US metropolis should be (at least that's what the maps say), but you can't see it - there doesn't appear to be anything there.
The preliminary tests in New Orleans of this experimental technology passed the proof-of-concept stage, so now we're working on a full scale prototype in Detroit. If the latter works out well, expect this technology to deployed on a regional scale next. With luck we can make the entire Upper Midwest simply disappear.
Imagine how astonished the world will be.
Posted by: ThatLeftTurnInABQ | November 27, 2008 at 12:19 AM
There's a lot that government can do, and I hope that government *does* do everything it can.
But a lot of getting through stuff like this is a matter of everybody pitching in, to the best of their ability.
There's a lot that a 'socialist' government could do. If you look at the UK, for example, food banks are a marginal phenomenon, because there is state support for everyone. People may not eat well, but they rarely starve. There are gaps in the safety net, but there is still a safety net.
The American people, however, have collectively decided that it is better that people go hungry (and in some cases die) than that 'undeserving' people get help.
So while charity in itself is a good thing, the problem is that it reinforces the American tendency to want to choose who is deserving of help and to say that the rest can go freeze. Charity by the few becomes a excuse for the state to opt out of a welfare system.
Posted by: magistra | November 27, 2008 at 04:45 AM
TltiABQ, someone's reinventing the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somebody_Else%27s_Problem>SEP field generator?
Posted by: Hartmut | November 27, 2008 at 05:33 AM
That was inspired, ThatLeftTurn. ;)
Posted by: John Thullen | November 27, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Yes, TLT, some sorry Thanksgiving Day reality there, presented with your inventive turn.
George Bush destroyed two major American cities -- first New Orleans and now Detroit -- in eight years, quite a feat. In many ways, the war on terror has been the war within.
Posted by: bedtimeforbonzo | November 27, 2008 at 02:45 PM