New York Post vs. the economically disadvantaged

Maureen Lane

New York Post vs. the economically disadvantaged

Governor Spitzer's rule change to allow more poor families to qualify for food stamps is a lifesaver for poor families working their way out of poverty who still need support to survive on their meager income.

Yesterday's, New York Post editorial carelessly gave voice to the misinformation that underpins social welfare policy.

The Post writes, "Between the existing food stamp program, local food banks, faith-based pantries and the public-schools' three-meals-and-a-snack feeding programs, nobody of sound mind goes hungry in New York."

As Hunger Action of New York State notes, "Over two million New Yorkers rely on Emergency Food Programs (EFPs), or soup kitchens and food pantries, each year. More than one million people in New York City rely on EFPs each year." The churches, non-profits and community groups who run so many are strained to meet the need. Yet while demand for emergency food is increasing, the Food Stamp Program is sorely underutilized. Only 53% of eligible people participate in the program in NYS. Over 75% of the families using Emergency Food Programs are below 130% of poverty and meet the criteria for food stamps.

Over 80% of families receiving food stamps are families with children. My experience working with people receiving public assistance shows that $224 in food stamps for a family of three does not meet their critical nutritional needs. Education and work take energy - energy that food provides. The Governor's plan to make applying for the food stamps people already qualify for simpler is central to moving people out of poverty. Poor people have a lot to do - taking care of children, working, going to school or getting training and being forced to jump through a lot of bureaucratic hoops to keep your benefits detracts from your ability to do what it takes to move your life forward.

The city, state and federal government has a stake in helping families get healthy and a role in expanding funds for food stamps -- even if The New York Post does not.

Posted at 7:17 AM, Jun 07, 2007 in Welfare | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

Comments

It's (almost) shocking that the New York Post would be so irresponsible as to propagate such nonsense about hunger in New York City. I would be surprised if only 1 million New Yorkers rely on soup kitchens and food pantries; according to the Robin Hood Foundation (http://www.robinhood.org/), 480,000 New Yorkers utilize EFPs each week. But despite the large number of people served by such organizations, many still go hungry. Almost 500,000 families in New York City (out of 1.8 million) survive on less than $25,000 a year. Many of these people have limited language skills (as 1/3 of poor New Yorkers are immigrants) or functionally illiterate (as are over 2 million people in New York State)and may not know how to access EFPs and similar resources.

Likewise, the Post added the telling words "of sound mind." Many of those in poverty or who are homeless are not, in fact, "of sound mind," and suffer from PTSD, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, alcoholism, and other major mental illnesses. Expanding access to food stamps will especially help out this group and their families.

The Post article and ones like it simply mimic language of the Reagan era's welfare fight, and serves only to justify the withholding of necessities from families that are struggling.

Posted by: Elizabeth Hartline Green | June 7, 2007 12:14 PM

The Post's criticism of is both factually inaccurate and ideologically confused.

The Governor did not eliminate finger-printing for all food stamps applicants. He did so only for families in which one person is working at least 30 hours per week or two people are each working at least 20 hours per week. Given that finger-printing costs the State far more than it saves in fraud-detection, advocates wish the Governor had eliminated it for all applicants, thus it is particularly absurd to criticize the very moderate position he took by eliminating it just for working families.

The Post also continues to be ideologically confused regarding food stamps. One hand, they want more people to move from welfare to work, but, on the other hand, they ignore the reality that food stamps benefits are one of the most important tools to help families successfully make that transition. Governor Spitzer should be hailed for rewarding work.

Joel Berg
Executive Director
New York City Coalition Against Hunger

Bugged by the Post? Concerned about hunger in NYC?

Joel Berg's group, The New York Coalition Against Hunger, has just released a study of the costs of hunger in New York City. That study, reprinted by the Gotham Gazette, is worth reviewing by clicking here.

Here are the first two shocking paragraphs:

New York City pays an estimated $2.65 billion per year due to health care spending, reduced productivity, and other spending caused by the fact that 1.3 million city residents are forced to live in households that cannot afford enough food, according to new data released today by advocates to mark National Hunger Awareness Day. The cost to each city resident is $335 per year.

"According to a national study released today by Dr. Larry Brown of the Harvard University School of Public Health funded by the Sodexho Foundation, it costs the nation $90 billion a year to let 35 million people live in households that are unable to afford enough to eat. This is the first-ever study to calculate the cost of hunger and food insecurity not only for the victims but for the entire nation. The New York State portion of this bill comes to $5.37 billion a year, equaling a yearly cost of $278 per state resident."

Wow Daniel! That's a great study. Thanks for sharing it. I think that studies showing the cost of not dealing with problems in a preventative fashion are a great idea. It can be hard to break down the numbers so its great that they did it!