CAMPOS: Millions going hungry
By Paul Campos, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published January 30, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Because I'm an upper class American I often get expensive stuff for free. For instance, last weekend my friends Melanie and Dave took me to an NBA game. We had excellent tickets with a combined face value of several hundred dollars, but we paid nothing for them because Melanie's father's girlfriend had been given the tickets by her employer (who no doubt deducted them as a business expense).
The next night I went to a bar association event at a fancy Denver hotel, where I enjoyed a very nice free meal (steak, salmon, surprisingly well-prepared potatoes au gratin, and a somewhat-too-sweet slice of chocolate cake). Walking to my car afterward, I encountered a beggar - a woman who asked me for a dollar so she could buy a hot dog.
I thought of that woman the next day, when I read Megan McArdle's claim that while "obesity is a problem for the poor in America . . . food insufficiency is not." McArdle, who writes for The Atlantic, is against giving poor people more food stamps because "there is no evidence the poor need more food."
This is such a sublimely clueless statement that I looked up McArdle's biography on the Atlantic Web site, to try to determine if she is an actual human being, or some sort of cyberspace caricature designed to drive me insane.
Here it is: "Megan McArdle was born and raised on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and yes, she does enjoy her lattes, as well as the occasional extra dry skim milk cappuccino." (You can't make this stuff up).
McArdle, a self-described "econoblogger" with an MBA from the University of Chicago, simply doesn't believe poor people are going hungry in America today. After all, she says, look how fat the poor are! (It's true that in developed economies body mass is inversely related to socioeconomic status, but people who think this proves that "food insufficiency" isn't something the poor need worry about should have their econoblogging licenses revoked).
Speaking of economics, here are some statistics: Nearly three in 10 American households live on yearly incomes of less than $25,000. And more than 40 million Americans live in households that must get by on less than $15,000 per year. Ten million American children live in "food insecure" homes, where finding the means to keep hunger at bay is a constant battle.
If McArdle bothered to glance up from her four-dollar extra-dry skim milk cappuccino, she would notice that hunger in America isn't just something experienced by the upper class women of Central Park West, who "voluntarily" starve themselves to conform to the aesthetic standards of their peculiar milieu.
Consider a divorced mother of two small children, who works full time but earns only $300 a week. Again, in America today there is nothing at all unusual about such circumstances. What can one say about the money-sheltered ignorance that fails to comprehend that such a woman will sometimes have to choose between going hungry, or fixing the car, or buying her children medicine, or paying the heat bill?
In the richest country in the history of the world, hunger is still widespread because we allow it to be. Federal anti-poverty programs, inadequate though they are, actually protect many of our fellow citizens from the threat of outright starvation.
In the end, refusing to recognize that every day millions of Americans go hungry because they can't afford enough to eat is another way of promoting the idea that we need no longer worry much about the problems of the poor.
Or, as McArdle might put it, let them drink lattes.
Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. He can be reached at paul.campos@colorado.edu.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Holiday Lights
Is your house the jolliest on the block? Submit your holiday lights display.
-
Holiday Gift Guide
Looking to get a jump-start on the holiday shopping season?
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's midweek rant on the Chiefs.
-
Broncos Video
Get the latest from Dove Valley as the Broncos prepare for Sunday's matchup.
-
Calendar wallpaper
Download this month's desktop wallpaper calendar
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Stirrin' the Soup with Matt Iseman
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
Read the Rocky's coverage of Colorado's cannibal, Alfred Packer, in 1886.
January 30, 2008
7:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
Whoa there, Nellie! YOU got free NBA tickets (and it sounds like free parking and food); YOU got a free dinner with all the trimmings; YOU are well-paid at a government institution; and we can guess there is a lot more. And YOU criticize McArdle? For what? Not being the same caliber effete snob that your are? YOU criticize her cappuccino while YOU go to free NBA games, get free banquets, and live off public funds, and who knows what else?
Campos, can YOU say hypocrite?
January 30, 2008
8:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Campos should start practicing what he preaches..... hypocrite is an appropriate description for him.
January 30, 2008
9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
JJinDC writes:
Cheers to Professor Campos. Many of us walk the line between unnecessary consumption (basketball games) and concern for those who are making do with less (the 40 million Americans getting by on less than $15,000). Two responses (at least) are important:
1-Acknowledge that problems exist (which Campos does and McArdle doesn't)
2-Do something about it!
January 30, 2008
10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Nothing like the Campos bashers completely missing the point. Campos acknowledged that he is part of the privileged class. He acknowledges he gets perks that others don't. What he's complaining about are those Marie Antoinette/Czar Romanov/Leona Helmsley/Megan McArdle types who refuse to acknowledge that some people go hungry in this country, refuse to acknowledge any economic class other than their own, and who feel that in no way are they their brother's or sister's keeper. And I say "Bravo!" to Campos. We've got a new "Robber Baron" era going on in this country that would make the Rockefellers, Fricks, and Vanderbilts of old blush with embarassment. And yes, the limousine liberals are part of the problem. Nothing like missing not only the boat, but the ocean as well.
January 30, 2008
11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
irisman writes:
One reason that a lot of poor people are fat is that they subsist mostly on carbohydrates, like potatoes and bread, that are cheaper than other foods. I'm sure that people like Mc Ardle maintain their svelte figures by dining on items like wild salmon at $10 per pound or halibut at $14. Still, Mc ardle may have a point: if the poor had any gumption at all, they would go out and inherit some money.
January 30, 2008
12:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
mrNiceGuy writes:
I agree irisman. Poor people need to get off their fat cans and ask their rick parents for the money for liposuction! If their parents won't give it to them, then they'll have to tap into their trust fund. It is so obvious!
January 30, 2008
12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brad writes:
Did Mr. Campos give that woman any money or did he say no and walk on. He did not say but I am sure he said no and walk on and did not give it an other thought. Now he fells gulity with what he gets for free. So the next time someone askes for some money from him is he going to stop and give them a dollar or two to help them out or is he going to keep on walking.
January 30, 2008
12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
harmonious writes:
so it's wednesday and people are going hungry. on monday i believe the country was increasingly populated by overweight people.. i wonder what will be the problem on friday?
January 30, 2008
12:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
harmonious writes:
Posted by peterpi on January 30, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nothing like the Campos bashers completely missing the point. Campos acknowledged that he is part of the privileged class. He acknowledges he gets perks that others don't. What he's complaining about are those Marie Antoinette/Czar Romanov/Leona Helmsley/Megan McArdle types who refuse to acknowledge that some people go hungry in this country, refuse to acknowledge any economic class other than their own, and who feel that in no way are they their brother's or sister's keeper. And I say "Bravo!" to Campos. We've got a new "Robber Baron" era going on in this country that would make the Rockefellers, Fricks, and Vanderbilts of old blush with embarassment. And yes, the limousine liberals are part of the problem. Nothing like missing not only the boat, but the ocean as well.
harmonious writes:
campos is up to his usual disingenuous self. fat people everywhere you go, billions being given away to the poor in the form of food stamps and subsidized housing, plus numerous other giveaways i'm probably not even aware of, and americans are rated as the most giving people on the planet.
his contention millions are hungry is rubbish, homeless derelicts with drug/alcohol problems may get hungry at times, everyone else in this country can count on handouts from the government.
my work frequently takes me inside subsidized or section 8 housing units and there's very rarely one without a big screen tv, video games and cell phones. i guess some people just don't have their priorities straight.
January 30, 2008
3:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Typical Campos. Take the freebies, eat the lavish meal, and then whine that others are not doing more to help the poor.
Campos should start practicing MORE and preaching LESS. Typical hypocrite.
January 30, 2008
6:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
A well known caveat of dieting is that starvation tends to do two things. You burn fat when you're hungry. But when you eventually do get your hands on some food, your body converts more of it back into fat. Because more of the food gets converted to fat, people who frequently go hungry use less of their calories to produce energy. Well fed people get a boost from their meals while interminably hungry people may become lethargic after eating. This saves energy so that more calories may be stored for lean times.
Hunger in America is a fact. Campos describes this fact accurately.
So, we have a bunch of poverty deniers who don't want to face the ugly truth. Income statistics are all you need to prove that at least 10 million working Americans are not paid enough to live on. They need food subsidies to provide some modicum of a healthy diet for themselves and their kids.
The beauty of this scenario is that many of those who refuse to face the truth about growing poverty in America are likely to be hungry themselves in a few years, especially if they insist on voting rich while living poor or middle class. That'll teach'em.
January 31, 2008
8:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
thebruisedreed writes:
PC is right:
I was one of those single mothers fighting to keep my kids fed. My husband abandoned me with 2 kids. A two year old and a 3 day old baby. We lived in our car at first.
My kids stayed healthy because I bought just enough food for them. Mostly chicken thighs and frozen vegetables cooked in a milion different ways. I worked on an assembly line to pay for it.
I was fat because about the only thing you can find to eat in dumpsters is bread and french fries. My fingernails almost dissolved and my hair fell out for lack of protein but my kids ate.
The worst days of my life were:
1. The day I had to had to drop my daughter off in daycare crying. She had had a sudden growth spurt and her shoes hurt her feet.
2. The day I had used the last of my money to buy the bottle of penicillin prescribed for my baby and accidentally dropped and broke it on the way out of the store. It was the first time in my life I begged. I begged people in front of the store for some change to buy another bottle. You do what you have to for your kids.
I made 5 dollars a month too much to qualify for food stamps.
Just because you haven't seen it - doesn't mean hunger isn't out there.
Instead of shooting the messenger, go help someone.
February 1, 2008
9:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Campos needs to travel to a few third world countries, so he can see what real poverty and starvation is.
February 1, 2008
11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
thebruisedreed writes:
Yes, lets focus our attention on the other side of the world so we can feel ok about ourselves while ignore our neighbors.
February 1, 2008
1:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sheldon writes:
I always find it facinating how these righty idiots love to attack Campos.
First of all, Campos is doing something, he is using his platform as a columnist at the RMN to draw attention to the injustice of gross inequality in our society. This is a better service than what Caroll, Rosen, and Kopel do as ideologue apologists for this injustice.
Second, I am sure that none of these Campos attackers really know what or how much Campos gives to charity. They just presume to know. They recommend that he give it to the government as extra taxes, when so much of that is going into the black hole known as the Iraq war. They also presume to know that Campos would not happily give-up more of his tax dollars for the right policies to address the right problems. Their attacks are simply baseless ad hominem.
I say thank you to Campos for his generally thoughtful columns!
February 1, 2008
2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Talman writes:
What Megan McArdle argued in her blog was, specifically, that food stamp recipients should receive their economic stimulus package rebates in cash like everyone else. She has argued in a series of blog posts that food stamp recipients can be trusted to spend their benefits on food if that's what they need and that it is economically more efficient and less humiliating to the recipients to distribute benefits in cash than in food stamps. Campos is dishonest.
February 1, 2008
10:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
harmonious writes:
they should stop food stamps and return to giving out gov't. surplus to the needy. seemed to work fine when my mom was getting it in the 50's and 60's. something tells me people would be a lot more inspired to get off of it.
February 2, 2008
5:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brad writes:
Sheldon
What has he done? He does not say any where what he would do or what he has done for anyone to help those that need help.But you don't mind attacking those that you disagree with what have you done?
February 5, 2008
8:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sheldon writes:
Brad said;
"Did Mr. Campos give that woman any money or did he say no and walk on. He did not say but I am sure he said no and walk on and did not give it an other thought......."
Brad,
So what is your point? You talk as though you were floating behind Campos' shoulder that night, watching as he passed that woman by. What are or who are you, some kind of angel? Don't presume to know something you don't.
If Campos did or does do something, he isn't obligated to mention it here. And if he did, he would be attacked for bragging about it.
Campos' point is a valid one. Here in America we cater to the wealthy and powerful, and treat people of lesser social and economic status like dirt. And the solution is not to neccessarily pass out dollars to the hungry on the street, but to have social-economic policies that prevent people from being there in the first place.
February 8, 2008
9:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
Another piece of crap gleefully printed by RMN.
Mr. Campos says:
"Speaking of economics, here are some statistics: Nearly three in 10 American households live on yearly incomes of less than $25,000. And more than 40 million Americans live in households that must get by on less than $15,000 per year. "
Yes, those certainly are statistics. How about putting them in context? How many of those households earning less than $25,000 are young single people just starting out? I certainly was at that level in my early 20's. 40 million earn less than $15,000 a year? For how long? Do they eventually rise to much higher incomes? Or perhaps they marry another person making $15,000 and now claim $30,000 a year in annual income.
"Ten million American children live in "food insecure" homes, where finding the means to keep hunger at bay is a constant battle."
A constant battle? Whom are they battling? Are they battling each other for scraps in the alleyway while snobby rich folks sneer from their restaurant window? Or, by saying battle, do you simply mean work hard?
By the way, didn't you just write another column about your HD television? Sell it and donate to Catholic Charities of Denver.