{"id":6423,"date":"2013-12-04T08:46:54","date_gmt":"2013-12-04T13:46:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/?p=6423"},"modified":"2013-12-04T09:39:59","modified_gmt":"2013-12-04T14:39:59","slug":"1983-feeding-everybody-food-stamp-article","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/2013\/12\/04\/1983-feeding-everybody-food-stamp-article\/","title":{"rendered":"My 1983 “Feeding Everybody” \/ Food Stamp Failure article"},"content":{"rendered":"

Yesterday’s Washington Times’\u00a0“Obama’s Obesity Epidemic<\/a>”\u00a0article is spurring\u00a0some controversy.\u00a0\u00a0Rush Limbaugh quoted the piece and the liberal website Media Matters\u00a0attacked <\/a>his\u00a0statements.\u00a0 Media Matters also asserted that\u00a0“Bovard mislead his readers about obesity studies to craft a false narrative that food stamp use is linked to childhood obesity.” But there is far more evidence of that link that was included in the Times piece. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I mentioned in that article that the evidence of food stamps as a nutritional failure goes way back.\u00a0 Here’s a long piece I did on that topic in 1983.\u00a0 And here’s a link to a blog entry\u00a0<\/a> earlier this month on the controversy that article sparked – including a denunciation by the Washington Post. <\/p>\n

If the following sprawling text is exasperating, here is a link to a PDF version of the printed pages<\/a> of the 1983 article. <\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Policy Review\u00a0 Fall 1983<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

FEEDING EVERYBODY: \u00a0How Federal Food Programs Grew and Grew<\/p>\n

BYLINE: James\u00a0 Bovard;\u00a0 JAMES\u00a0 BOVARD\u00a0 is an investigative journalist.<\/p>\n

LENGTH: 9410 words<\/p>\n

It was 1967.\u00a0 In the previous five years, the number of people receiving food<\/p>\n

stamps or surplus commodities had declined by 38 percent, the number of poor had<\/p>\n

declined by almost 30 percent, the economy was booming, and incomes were rising<\/p>\n

2 or 3 percent per year.\u00a0 But the Great Society was floundering: Liberals took a<\/p>\n

beating in the 1966 congressional races, urban riots were eroding middle-class<\/p>\n

guilt, and Vietnam was beginning to overshadow domestic events.\u00a0 The War on<\/p>\n

Poverty, begun with such fanfare in 1964, was petering out, and the liberal<\/p>\n

agenda appeared out of gas.<\/p>\n

And then hunger was discovered.<\/p>\n

This is the story of how a handful of isolated incidents became justification<\/p>\n

for vastly increasing dependency in America; how a trivial number of examples<\/p>\n

stampeded Congress into a sweeping expansion of the welfare state; how<\/p>\n

congressmen repeatedly exaggerated the extent of hunger in order to justify<\/p>\n

trying to feed everybody; and how government, even though it increased spending<\/p>\n

twentyfold, still could not achieve its original goals.\u00a0 This is also the story<\/p>\n

of government at loggerheads, as one program spends $18 billion a year to<\/p>\n

subsidize diets while other programs and regulations do everything possible to<\/p>\n

raise food prices, in effect preventing the poor from getting adequate nutrition<\/p>\n

as cheaply as possible.<\/p>\n

Congress first vastly overestimated the amount of poverty-related hunger,<\/p>\n

then set food assistance eligibility levels far above the poverty line, and then<\/p>\n

insisted that anyone eligible for food aid would go hungry unless government fed<\/p>\n

them.\u00a0 From the late 1960s to 1980, Congress continually expanded eligibility,<\/p>\n

redoubled benefits, and ordered campaign after campaign to recruit people for<\/p>\n

the dole.\u00a0 Yet the federal government today knows almost as little about the<\/p>\n

extent and causes of malnutrition as it did in 1967.<\/p>\n

The history of food assistance programs since the late 1960s marks an<\/p>\n

important change in the American welfare state, from self-sufficiency as an<\/p>\n

honor and a right to government exhortations that people accept handouts and<\/p>\n

relinquish their pride.\u00a0 The expansion of food assistance is as much a<\/p>\n

revolution of principle as of policy.<\/p>\n

No one knows the total number of people government is feeding today.\u00a0 Federal<\/p>\n

food programs have roughly 70 million enrollees — more than quadruple the 1960<\/p>\n

enrollment of 16 million.\u00a0 Families can simultaneously participate in seven food<\/p>\n

programs, and many get more from the government than self-supporting families<\/p>\n

spend on their food.<\/p>\n

Now that the federal government has entered the “feed everybody” business, as<\/p>\n

one group after another has become eligible to eat at everyone else’s expense,<\/p>\n

government takes responsibility for feeding people under 20 and over 60<\/p>\n

regardless of their or their family’s income.\u00a0 The cutoff income for federal<\/p>\n

food assistance for a family of four ($18,315) is now close to the median annual<\/p>\n

income for a full-time, year-round worker ($16,955 in 1981).\u00a0 Forty-five percent<\/p>\n

of pregnant women and infants in America are eligible for food handouts.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Bad Precedent<\/strong><\/p>\n

From 1939 to 1943 the U.S. Department of Agriculture distributed food stamps<\/p>\n

to 13 million people, largely to help dispose of agricultural surpluses.\u00a0 The<\/p>\n

original food stamp program was chock-full of fraud and abuse; the USDA<\/p>\n

estimated that 25 percent of all coupons were abused, and the program was<\/p>\n

discontinued.<\/p>\n

For some years afterward, the poor somehow managed to feed themselves.\u00a0 A<\/p>\n

1955 USDA dietary survey found that only 25 percent of America’s roughly 43<\/p>\n

million poor had bad diets — diets containing less than two thirds of the<\/p>\n

recommended daily allowance for essential nutrients.\u00a0 Seventy-five percent of<\/p>\n

the poor provided themselves with adequate diets even though only a third were<\/p>\n

on public assistance. n1<\/p>\n

n1 USDA, Household Food Consumption Survey, 1955.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, in 1958 sixteen bills were introduced in Congress to bring back<\/p>\n

food stamps.\u00a0 At 1958 House Agriculture Committee hearings, during the worst<\/p>\n

recession since World War II, Representative Victor Anfuso (D.-New York),<\/p>\n

apparently going for the headlines, declared, “. . . ten million people in the<\/p>\n

United States . . . have inadequate incomes to buy the food they need . . .” n2<\/p>\n

Representative George McGovern urged a food stamp program to provide benefits to<\/p>\n

7 million or 8 million poor folk.\u00a0 There was no feeling among the committee or<\/p>\n

witnesses that tens of millions of Americans needed free or subsidized food.<\/p>\n

And it was not surprising that some of the poor were having trouble buying food,<\/p>\n

since the USDA was spending more than $2 billion a year to drive up food prices<\/p>\n

through price supports, acreage allotments, cropland set-asides, and the Food<\/p>\n

for Peace program to dump surplus commodities overseas.<\/p>\n

n2 House Committee on Agriculture, Food Stamp Program, 1958, p. 1.<\/p>\n

In 1961 President Kennedy’s first executive order initiated pilot food stamp<\/p>\n

programs in West Virginia and other states.\u00a0 Kennedy also doubled the number of<\/p>\n

surplus commodities that government distributed to the poor; enrollment in this<\/p>\n

program jumped to 6.4 million.<\/p>\n

Kennedy’s pilot food stamp program was tightly run, included nutritional<\/p>\n

education, and required participants to buy stamps at an average of 60 percent<\/p>\n

of face value, depending on family income.\u00a0 When counties converted from surplus<\/p>\n

commodity distribution to food stamps, many families dropped out because they<\/p>\n

were afraid the USDA would check their incomes too closely, or because the<\/p>\n

program was no longer worth their while.\u00a0 In St. Louis, for example, a person<\/p>\n

simply had to declare himself needy to be eligible for free commodities. n3 A<\/p>\n

1967 General Accounting Office report found that between 30 and 40 percent of<\/p>\n

participants in the commodity distribution program had incomes exceeding<\/p>\n

program-eligibility limits. n4 Also, many families did not want to tie up their<\/p>\n

money in food stamps even though the stamps paid on the average a 66 percent<\/p>\n

bonus over cash costs; that is, for $6 one could receive $10 worth of stamps.<\/p>\n

n3 House Committee on Agriculture, Amend the Food Stamp Act of 1964, 1968, p.<\/p>\n

28.<\/p>\n

n4 GAO, Review of Distribution of Government-Donated Food Commodities in<\/p>\n

Selected Counties in Pennsylvania, 1967, p. 1.<\/p>\n

There was a widespread consensus that the limited federal food assistance<\/p>\n

programs had alleviated what little severe hunger existed.\u00a0 Michael Harrington,<\/p>\n

the self-proclaimed socialist whose book The Other America did more than<\/p>\n

anything else to make poverty a public issue again, wrote in 1962, “To be sure,<\/p>\n

the Other America is not impoverished in the same sense as those poor nations<\/p>\n

where millions cling to hunger as a defense against starvation.\u00a0 This country<\/p>\n

has escaped such extremes.” Harrington’s book openly sought to inflame public<\/p>\n

opinion, but even he would not contend that America’s poor were hungry.<\/p>\n

From 1963 to 1966 the New York Times did not run a single article on hunger<\/p>\n

in America.\u00a0 President Johnson sought to raise his sagging political fortunes in<\/p>\n

1966 by declaring a war on hunger, but he was concerned solely with foreign<\/p>\n

hunger, and his campaign appeared to be largely intended both to justify dumping<\/p>\n

our agricultural surpluses on the world market and to distract attention from<\/p>\n

Vietnam.\u00a0 In a March 1967 Look magazine article, Senator George McGovern<\/p>\n

declared, “We are losing the race against hunger,” but the article dealt with<\/p>\n

world hunger and did not even mention hunger in America.<\/p>\n

Then, in April 1967, Senator Robert Kennedy and the Senate Subcommittee on<\/p>\n

Employment, Manpower, and Poverty held hearings on the War on Poverty in<\/p>\n

Mississippi.\u00a0 At the time, 20 percent of Mississippians were already receiving<\/p>\n

surplus commodities or food stamps.\u00a0 Kennedy found examples of acute poverty and<\/p>\n

malnutrition.\u00a0 The Field Foundation, a nonprofit organization concerned with<\/p>\n

poverty and race relations, quickly sent a team of physicians to examine 600<\/p>\n

children in the Mississippi Delta, and they found sufficient suffering to<\/p>\n

justify a wholesale expansion in government aid.<\/p>\n

Now it happens that in 1967 there probably were many hungry people in the<\/p>\n

Mississippi Delta — largely because of the federal government.\u00a0 Most blacks<\/p>\n

there worked on cotton plantations.\u00a0 Wages were low, but so was the cost of<\/p>\n

living.\u00a0 But in 1966 agricultural labor fell under the benevolent protection of<\/p>\n

the minimum wage, which made it more attractive for many planters to harvest<\/p>\n

their crops mechanically.\u00a0 The USDA estimated that the expansion of the minimum<\/p>\n

wage left 40,000 to 60,000 people in the Delta with little or no cash income.<\/p>\n

n5 To ice the cake, the USDA sharply increased cotton set-aside payments, thus<\/p>\n

idling once-busy fields.\u00a0 Field Foundation physicians found many families with<\/p>\n

zero income who could not afford to pay $2 per person to get $12 worth of food<\/p>\n

stamps.\u00a0 Congress first wrecked the local labor economy and then was shocked<\/p>\n

that men without jobs had trouble feeding their families.<\/p>\n

n5 Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Hunger and Malnutrition in<\/p>\n

America, 1967, p. 131.<\/p>\n

The hunger issue was heating up, but it needed more credibility to play in<\/p>\n

Peoria.\u00a0 The Citizens Crusade against Poverty sponsored the Citizens Board of<\/p>\n

Inquiry into Hunger and Malnutrition in the United States.\u00a0 The chairman of the<\/p>\n

crusade was Walter Reuther, head of the United Auto Workers.\u00a0 The board rounded<\/p>\n

up a handful of doctors, held hearings in Alabama, Texas, South Carolina, and<\/p>\n

Kentucky, and issued a report in April 1968 entitled Hunger U.S.A. The report<\/p>\n

was largely anecdotal, including a picture of a scrawny dog with the caption,<\/p>\n

“Where you see a starving dog such as this one, you’ll find hungry people.” The<\/p>\n

report concluded with a shot-in-the-dark estimate that there were “10 million or<\/p>\n

more” Americans who could not afford adequate diets.\u00a0 The report offered few<\/p>\n

facts or statistics to back up its estimate.\u00a0 It listed 256 “hunger counties” in<\/p>\n

the United States, chosen solely on the basis of statistical data on infant<\/p>\n

mortality rates and the number of poor on the dole and food assistance<\/p>\n

programs.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A Way of Life<\/p>\n

The Citizens Board report was the basis of a CBS documentary in May 1968,<\/p>\n

which found a few people who said they were going hungry because government<\/p>\n

would not feed them and concluded by denouncing our callous society.\u00a0 Dr.<\/p>\n

Raymond Wheeler of the Citizens Board announced, “Slow starvation has become<\/p>\n

part of the Southern way of life.” Together, the board report and the CBS<\/p>\n

documentary made hunger a national issue.<\/p>\n

More than any other single document, the board report was responsible for the<\/p>\n

food assistance explosion.\u00a0 It is surprising that the report was so respected.<\/p>\n

It used infant mortality figures from 1951 to 1960 even though statistics for<\/p>\n

1965 were available.\u00a0 It contrasted the number of poor in 1960 with the number<\/p>\n

getting food assistance in 1967 even though the number of poor had declined by<\/p>\n

12 million in the interim. n6 In 1968 House hearings Dr. Leslie Dunbar,<\/p>\n

cochairman of the board, said that only about half of the “hunger counties” had<\/p>\n

food assistance programs; in fact 194 of 256 did.\u00a0 Under questioning, board<\/p>\n

physicians admitted that their estimates were hypothetical and defended numerous<\/p>\n

inaccuracies and mistakes by saying that the report was a rush job and that the<\/p>\n

important thing was for Congress to act immediately.\u00a0 Much of the suffering<\/p>\n

the board attributed to malnutrition due to hunger was actually due to<\/p>\n

parasites.<\/p>\n

n6 Census Bureau figures.<\/p>\n

Nationwide, many localities were amazed to find themselves designated hunger<\/p>\n

counties.\u00a0 The Milwaukee Journal on May 25, 1968, after investigating reports<\/p>\n

that Sawyer County, Wisconsin, was a hunger county, concluded, “In talks with a<\/p>\n

variety of residents, no one could be found who believes this to be true.” The<\/p>\n

chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Robert Poage, wrote to health<\/p>\n

officers in each of the 256 so-called hunger counties, and almost all responded<\/p>\n

by reporting little or no known hunger or malnutrition due to poverty.\u00a0 Even<\/p>\n

under the guidance of Secretary Orville Freeman, a New Deal liberal, the USDA in<\/p>\n

1967 contended that only 6.7 million of the poor — not 10 million, as estimated<\/p>\n

by the Citizens Board — had bad diets or would have had bad diets in the<\/p>\n

absence of food programs.<\/p>\n

The board’s reasoning was epitomized by a statement by Dr. Dunbar.\u00a0 After<\/p>\n

observing that only 18 percent of the nation’s 30 million poor were getting<\/p>\n

federal food handouts, Dr. Dunbar concluded, “We cannot assume that any of the<\/p>\n

remaining poor — those on neither program [food stamps or commodity<\/p>\n

distribution] — are getting food.” n7 This little gem of logic became the<\/p>\n

guiding light for food assistance for the next decade.<\/p>\n

n7 House Education and Labor Committee, Malnutrition and Federal Food Service<\/p>\n

Programs, 1968, p. 1132.<\/p>\n

But what was the dietary status of the poor in the mid-sixties?\u00a0 In February<\/p>\n

1968 the USDA released results of its 1965 dietary survey, showing that 64<\/p>\n

percent of the poor had good or adequate diets.\u00a0 The number of poor with bad<\/p>\n

diets increased from 25 percent in 1955 to 36 percent in 1965 despite sharp<\/p>\n

increases in public assistance enrollments.\u00a0 The two nutrients in which the poor<\/p>\n

were the most deficient were vitamin C, supplied by fresh fruits and vegetables,<\/p>\n

and calcium, supplied by milk.\u00a0 The New York Times reported on March 27, 1968,<\/p>\n

that the “downturn in nutritional value was attributable largely to a national<\/p>\n

turning away from milk and milk products, fruits and vegetables.”<\/p>\n

And why should that have occurred?\u00a0 USDA marketing orders kept the price of<\/p>\n

fruits and vegetables high, and price supports helped inflate the cost of milk.<\/p>\n

In fact, the same year that the dietary survey showed that 36 percent of the<\/p>\n

poor had calcium deficiencies, the USDA effectively ended the sale of<\/p>\n

reconstituted milk.\u00a0 Dairies had previously mixed milk powder, butterfat, and<\/p>\n

water to produce a drink that tasted like milk but cost 20 percent less because<\/p>\n

of savings in transport costs.\u00a0 But the USDA decreed that reconstituted milk<\/p>\n

could not be sold for less than the price of whole fluid milk, a regulation<\/p>\n

intended solely to protect dairy farmers’ income and help reelect Wisconsin<\/p>\n

congressmen.<\/p>\n

So, instead of modifying policies that artificially increased the price of<\/p>\n

nutritious foods, the government accelerated its across-the-board feeding<\/p>\n

approach.\u00a0 On May 6, 1969, President Richard Nixon declared, “That hunger and<\/p>\n

malnutrition should persist in a land such as ours is embarrassing and<\/p>\n

intolerable . . .\u00a0 The moment is at hand to put an end to hunger in America<\/p>\n

itself for all time.” The programs that had remained manageable under the<\/p>\n

Johnson administration — food stamps, school lunch subsidies, and others —<\/p>\n

went into orbit during the Nixon years.\u00a0 President Nixon sponsored a White House<\/p>\n

conference on food and nutrition, which urged the president to declare a<\/p>\n

national emergency and give food stamps to anyone who said he needed them.\u00a0 In<\/p>\n

1970 and 1971 food stamp eligibility was expanded; in 1973 legislation was<\/p>\n

passed mandating that every jurisdiction in the United States offer food stamps<\/p>\n

by June 1974.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Swallowing Pride<\/p>\n

Even though food stamp enrollment quadrupled between 1968 and 1971, Congress<\/p>\n

mandated an outreach program for states to recruit people for food stamps.\u00a0 A<\/p>\n

USDA magazine reported that food stamp workers could often overcome people’s<\/p>\n

pride by saying, “This is for your children’ . . . the problem is not with<\/p>\n

welfare recipients but with low-income workers: It is this group which recoils<\/p>\n

when anything even remotely resembling welfare is suggested.” By early 1972 the<\/p>\n

magazine could announce, “With careful explanations . . . coupled with intensive<\/p>\n

outreach efforts, resistance from the ‘too prouds’ is bending.\u00a0 More and more<\/p>\n

are coming to the conclusion that taking needed assistance does not mean<\/p>\n

sacrificing dignity.” n8 But according to USDA surveys, most of the poor did not<\/p>\n

need federal aid to have an adequate diet.<\/p>\n

n8 USDA, Food and Nutrition, February 1972.<\/p>\n

In March 1972 President Nixon announced Project FIND to locate and recruit 3<\/p>\n

million elderly poor for food assistance.\u00a0 Despite mass mailing of information<\/p>\n

to almost 30 million retirees, and despite home visits and telephone campaigns<\/p>\n

by 36,000 Red Cross volunteers, only 190,000 elderly signed up.\u00a0 The GAO found<\/p>\n

that in most counties surveyed, recruiting efforts enticed fewer than 3 percent<\/p>\n

of the elderly poor onto the food dole. n9 Apparently, many felt that despite<\/p>\n

having been labeled poor by some bureaucrat, they could feel themselves.<\/p>\n

n9 GAO, Effectiveness of Project FIND, 1974, p. 12.<\/p>\n

In 1973 the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Hunger Needs, chaired by<\/p>\n

George McGovern, released Hunger 1973, a report intended as “a profile of the<\/p>\n

half-full, half-empty plate which the federal food programs represent to the<\/p>\n

nation’s poor . . . after reaching the halfway mark . . .” The report observed,<\/p>\n

“Whether the real poverty count is 25, 26, or even 30 million persons, the fact<\/p>\n

that only 15 million of the poor participate in any food assistance program . .<\/p>\n

. indicates that the hunger gap is far from closed either for the country or the<\/p>\n

individuals concerned.” The New Republic editorialized, “. . . almost half (48%)<\/p>\n

of the poor still do not receive adequate food . . . 12.7 million people who<\/p>\n

ought to be getting either food stamps or commodities have not been.” n10 The<\/p>\n

Senate Select Committee published a list of “failure to feed” counties in which<\/p>\n

fewer than a third of the poor were on food doles.\u00a0 This sufficed for evidence<\/p>\n

of the committee’s claims of widespread hunger.<\/p>\n

n10 New Republic, May 26, 1973.\u00a0 The magazine editorialized on October 31,<\/p>\n

1971, that “at least 11 million are going hungry” because eligible poor were not<\/p>\n

on the food dole.<\/p>\n

In five years the definition of hunger changed from insufficient food to low<\/p>\n

income and no federal food handout.\u00a0 Even though the USDA reported that almost<\/p>\n

two thirds of the poor did not have bad diets, congressmen insisted that any<\/p>\n

poor person not being fed by the government must be hungry and malnourished.<\/p>\n

A radical change occurred in the concept of the poor.\u00a0 No longer people who<\/p>\n

occasionally needed a helping hand, they became a social class by definition<\/p>\n

incapable of feeding itself.\u00a0 The fixation on food program enrollments is even<\/p>\n

more surprising, considering that many of the poor not enrolled were receiving<\/p>\n

some other kind of public assistance intended to help cover food costs, such as<\/p>\n

Aid to Families with Dependent Children.<\/p>\n

In 1974 the Senate Select Committee held a conference to rescue the hunger<\/p>\n

issue from oblivion.\u00a0 Conference participants agreed that despite a fourfold<\/p>\n

increase in federal food aid since 1968, “we have moved backwards in our<\/p>\n

struggle to end hunger, poverty, and malnutrition.” The New York Times gave the<\/p>\n

conference a front-page headline: “U.S. Needy Found Poorer, Hungrier than Four<\/p>\n

Years Ago.” n11 Even though food stamp enrollment had zoomed from 3 million to<\/p>\n

16 million and the number of poor was roughly the same, things had somehow<\/p>\n

worsened.\u00a0 As usual, the evidence was anecdotal, with no nationwide survey to<\/p>\n

back up claims.<\/p>\n

n11 New York Times, June 20, 1974, p. 1.<\/p>\n

In 1974 the Food Research and Action Center, a federally funded lobby,<\/p>\n

successfully sued USDA to require the agency to increase its food stamp outreach<\/p>\n

efforts.\u00a0 The USDA suggested sending food stamp workers to unemployment<\/p>\n

offices to distribute leaflets, and in Pennsylvania food stamp aides went to<\/p>\n

supermarkets to hustle shoppers.\u00a0 By 1976 twelve states had conducted<\/p>\n

door-to-door recruiting campaigns, and seventeen had conducted telephone<\/p>\n

campaigns.\u00a0 Door-to-door food stamp advertising became a favorite project for<\/p>\n

Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) workers.<\/p>\n

In Wisconsin 2,000 copies of the Food Stamp Nursery Rhyme Coloring Book were<\/p>\n

distributed.\u00a0 In Kentucky a traveling puppet show told folks how and why to sign<\/p>\n

up for benefits.\u00a0 The USDA enlisted Dustin Hoffman, Joyce Brothers, Count Basie,<\/p>\n

and other notables to do promotional radio spots for food stamps and the<\/p>\n

national school lunch program.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Grilled Steaks<\/p>\n

A typical 1975 USDA brochure announced, “You are in good company.\u00a0 Millions<\/p>\n

of Americans use food stamps.” A leaflet distributed in Maryland and paid for by<\/p>\n

the federal government showed a gaunt face on the cover with the question, “Die<\/p>\n

you know some people would rather STARVE than seek HELP . . .” On the inside,<\/p>\n

the brochure said, “PRIDE NEVER FILLS EMPTY STOMACHS . . .\u00a0 Are you one of<\/p>\n

thousands of Maryland residents who . . . have too much pride to consider<\/p>\n

applying for help?\u00a0 Then you need to know more about the Food Stamp program.<\/p>\n

Food Stamps should NOT be confused with CHARITY!\u00a0 In fact, food stamps are<\/p>\n

designed to help you help yourself.”<\/p>\n

The Community Services Administration funded scores of local and national<\/p>\n

food stamp advocate organizations to increase enrollment in food programs.\u00a0 The<\/p>\n

Office of Economic Opportunity called in 1971 for community action agencies to<\/p>\n

“prick the public conscience” over the need for more food handouts, declaring,<\/p>\n

“. . . food stamps are not used as often as they ought to be, particularly by<\/p>\n

the intermediate income families among the poor.” n12 Total funding for food<\/p>\n

advocacy organizations probably exceeded $100 million in the 1970s.<\/p>\n

n12 Office of Economic Opportunity, The Food Stamp Program and How It Works,<\/p>\n

1971, pp. 18, 41.<\/p>\n

In 1975, when food stamp enrollment neared 20 million, public outcries over<\/p>\n

food stamp recipients who drove Cadillacs and grilled steaks broke the political<\/p>\n

sound barrier.\u00a0 A full-page ad in Parade magazine offered a booklet telling how<\/p>\n

people earning $16,000 a year could qualify for food stamps.\u00a0 The General<\/p>\n

Accounting Office reported in 1975 that 18 percent of all food stamp benefits<\/p>\n

were fraudulent or excessive. n13 The Joint Economic Committee estimated that up<\/p>\n

to 73 million Americans were eligible, and a USDA assistant secretary said that<\/p>\n

under current rules, participation could rise to 110 million.\u00a0 The Ford<\/p>\n

administration tried to reduce benefits sharply for half the recipients, but<\/p>\n

Congress resisted.<\/p>\n

n13 GAO, Observations on the Food Stamp Program, 1975, p. iii.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ridiculous Stigmas<\/strong><\/p>\n

In 1977 the purchase requirement for food stamps was abolished, and the<\/p>\n

program became a straight handout.\u00a0 Congressional supporters did this explicitly<\/p>\n

to increase enrollment by 3 million; the Congressional Budget Office estimated<\/p>\n

that the change would add up to $2.7 billion a year to food stamp costs.\u00a0 In<\/p>\n

1977 the head of USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service declared,<\/p>\n

I’m aware that there is a welfare stigma for people who use food stamps, but<\/p>\n

it’s ridiculous . . .\u00a0 It is, in fact, far more desirable that people meet their<\/p>\n

nutrition needs with food stamps than that they drive their cars over federally<\/p>\n

financed roads. n14<\/p>\n

In 1979 USDA Assistant Secretary Carol Tucker Foreman complained, “There are<\/p>\n

areas of the country and particular age groups in which participation levels are<\/p>\n

outrageously low.” n15 The USDA continued trying to round up and enlist anyone<\/p>\n

who chanced to fall under eligibility guidelines.\u00a0 Also in 1979, Congress<\/p>\n

expanded enrollment by broadening eligibility and allowing additional<\/p>\n

deductions for medical and shelter expenses.<\/p>\n

n14 USDA, Food and Nutrition, August 1977, p. 3.<\/p>\n

n15 USDA, Food and Nutrition, April 1979, p. 4.<\/p>\n

Between 1977-78 and 1979-80, the poor suffered another significant reduction<\/p>\n

in their calcium intakes — by an average of nearly a cup of milk per week.<\/p>\n

Calcium was already the most widely deficient untrient among the poor in 1977,<\/p>\n

but that did not deter Congress from increasing the dairy support price from 75<\/p>\n

to 80 percent of parity in 1977, nor did it deter President Carter from further<\/p>\n

increasing the support price on the eve of the 1980 election.\u00a0 Almost 40 percent<\/p>\n

of the poor do not get sufficient calcium in their diets.<\/p>\n

Under pressure from the Reagan administration, Congress in 1981 and 1982<\/p>\n

sought to reduce food stamp expenditures, tighten eligibility, and cut fraud.<\/p>\n

But the food stamp program will cost $1.6 billion more in fiscal year 1983 than<\/p>\n

in fiscal year 1981.\u00a0 Enrollment has surged from 20.6 million to 22 million, and<\/p>\n

the average monthly benefit has increased from $39.49 to $42.67.\u00a0 Food<\/p>\n

assistance spending has increased 34 percent since 1980 despite President<\/p>\n

Reagan’s promises to cut back welfare spending.<\/p>\n

We now have thirteen food assistance programs, including ten for children.<\/p>\n

Among them:<\/p>\n

* The Summer Feeding Program, begun in 1967, now feeds 3 million youngsters<\/p>\n

each summer.\u00a0 There are no income eligibility limits for this program: As long<\/p>\n

as a child lives in or visits a low-income neighborhood with a feeding site, he<\/p>\n

can have a free lunch.\u00a0 In 1977 the GAO reported that since centers were<\/p>\n

reimbursed by the meal, some were serving the same children five times a day.<\/p>\n

Nationwide, fraud and abuse were rampant: Contracttors were collecting for<\/p>\n

nonexistent meals, adults were eating meals designated for children, and<\/p>\n

kickbacks were enriching the sponsoring organizations. n16<\/p>\n

* The Child Care Food Program, begun in 1968, subsidizes food in day-care and<\/p>\n

other child-care centers.\u00a0 In 1978 Congress removed all income eligibility<\/p>\n

standards, and the program’s cost quadrupled in the following four years.\u00a0 The<\/p>\n

GAO recently estimated that more than 70 percent of participants now come from<\/p>\n

families with incomes above 185 percent of the poverty line.\u00a0 The GAO also found<\/p>\n

that meals served at 62 percent of participant centers failed to meet USDA<\/p>\n

nutritional standards, and 20 percent of centers had unhealthy conditions,<\/p>\n

including vermin. n17<\/p>\n

* The Supplemental Feeding Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)<\/p>\n

provides food coupons for specific dairy, cereal, and infant formula items for<\/p>\n

pregnant mothers and children under 5 who are judged to be at “nutritional<\/p>\n

risk.” The GAO reports that according to one survey of physicians, only 29<\/p>\n

percent of WIC participants showed noticeable nutritional improvement from WIC<\/p>\n

foods, and 53 percent showed either no deficiency or no benefit. n18 The third<\/p>\n

most prevalent nutritional deficiency justifying free WIC food is obesity.<\/p>\n

Roughly 80 percent of WIC participants are already on food stamps. n19 The<\/p>\n

Commodity Supplemental Food Program serves the same clientele as WIC but<\/p>\n

provides food instead of coupons; in Washington, D.C., only about half the<\/p>\n

enrollees bother to pick up the free food. n20<\/p>\n

* The Congregate Feeding for the Elderly, begun in 1966, provides free meals<\/p>\n

five times a week for citizens over 60, regardless of income, and for their<\/p>\n

mates, regardless of age.\u00a0 Along with Meals on Wheels, it fed 3 million elderly<\/p>\n

in 1982.<\/p>\n

* The School Breakfast Program serves breakfast to an average of 3 million<\/p>\n

children each school day.\u00a0 Congress thought that low-income families could not<\/p>\n

afford to feed their youngsters breakfast, even though 84 percent of<\/p>\n

participants come from families already eligible for food stamps.\u00a0 The federal<\/p>\n

government also pays 14 cents per breakfast for middle-class students who eat<\/p>\n

at school.<\/p>\n

* The National School Lunch Program serves 23 million children a day — 9.9<\/p>\n

million for free, 7 million at reduced prices, and 6 million who “pay” but still<\/p>\n

eat federally subsidized lunches.\u00a0 The federal subsidy per “paid” lunch amounted<\/p>\n

to $65 per middle-class child (from a family earning 185 percent of the poverty<\/p>\n

level) in fiscal 1981; the Reagan administration has since reduced the subsidy.<\/p>\n

George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, and other liberals pushed hard in the early<\/p>\n

1970s for a universal free lunch program, and in 1977 Congress authorized<\/p>\n

special subsidies to schools that provided free lunches for all children,<\/p>\n

regardless of income.<\/p>\n

n16 GAO, The Summer Feeding Program — How to Feed the Children and Stop<\/p>\n

Program Abuses, 1977, p. i.<\/p>\n

n17 GAO, Child Care Food Program: Better Management Will Yield Better<\/p>\n

Nutrition and Fiscal Integrity, 1979, p. ii.<\/p>\n

n18 GAO, Special Supplemental Program for Women, Infants, and Children — How<\/p>\n

Can It Work Better? 1979, p. 38.<\/p>\n

n19 USDA estimates that 975,000 food stamp households also receive WIC; the<\/p>\n

average WIC household has two members; thus, roughly 1.95 million of the 2.4<\/p>\n

million WIC recipients also receive food stamps.<\/p>\n

n20 Washington Post, July 12, 1982, p. B1.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Hunger Hoax<\/strong><\/p>\n

For fifteen years politicians have insisted that the main purpose of food<\/p>\n

programs is to fight hunger, and for fifteen years the programs’ main effect has<\/p>\n

been to raise the incomes of tens of millions without appreciably affecting<\/p>\n

their nutrition.\u00a0 Liberals and the media have perpetrated a hunger hoax to<\/p>\n

justify sharply increasing the income of the welfare class.<\/p>\n

Two thirds of the 8 million new food stamp recipients between 1968 and 1972<\/p>\n

were public assistance recipients who were automatically added to the rolls,<\/p>\n

thanks to vigorous federal and local recruiting.\u00a0 Until 1977 public assistance<\/p>\n

recipients were automatically entitled to food stamps, regardless of their<\/p>\n

income.\u00a0 Food stamps were extended to public assistance recipients even though<\/p>\n

public assistance was already supposed to be covering or helping cover food<\/p>\n

costs.\u00a0 Charles Hobbs, Governor Reagan’s welfare director, estimated, “In 1976<\/p>\n

the welfare family of four received, on average, cash and in-kind benefits<\/p>\n

totalling $14,960 — an amount slightly higher than the median family income in<\/p>\n

that year.” n21<\/p>\n

n21 Harper’s, February 1980, pp. 22, 24.<\/p>\n

Food stamps are also generally available to the unemployed, whether they quit<\/p>\n

work or were discharged.\u00a0 This is because the program calculates eligibility<\/p>\n

solely on present income: If a person quits a $50,000-a-year job and has few<\/p>\n

assets, he is eligible to receive food stamps the following month.\u00a0 The GAO<\/p>\n

estimated that 70 percent of food stamp errors stemmed from recipients’<\/p>\n

misreporting their incomes, and the USDA inspector general’s office found that<\/p>\n

30 percent of the recipients of free and reduced-price lunches were ineligible.<\/p>\n

A 1983 GAO report found that food stamp fraud and abuse averaged a billion<\/p>\n

dollars a year.\u00a0 The report noted, “Officials in the states GAO visited said<\/p>\n

they had not tried to identify more overissuance cases because there have been<\/p>\n

no requirements and few financial incentives.” n22 In 1980 and 1981, when<\/p>\n

roughly $2 billion in stamps was overissued through error and fraud, state<\/p>\n

governments managed to recover only $20 million — just 1 percent of the loss.<\/p>\n

n23 In Los Angeles and New York City, people who finagled excess benefits<\/p>\n

received a single letter telling them to pay money back; there was no followup.<\/p>\n

In Washington, D.C., where 15 percent of the population received food stamps<\/p>\n

and, according to the GAO, abuse was widespread, not a single person was<\/p>\n

prosecuted for fraud between 1978 and 1980.\u00a0 The GAO also reported that the<\/p>\n

federally funded Food Research and Action Committee “advised food stamp<\/p>\n

recipients that they did not have to make restitution for receiving too many<\/p>\n

benefits.” n24 (FRAC received $150,000 from the federally funded Legal Services<\/p>\n

Corporation in 1982 and has been given $50,000 so far this year, money it is<\/p>\n

using to help people sue the USDA and bring class-action suits to block proposed<\/p>\n

cutbacks in nutrition spending.) In testimony before the Joint Economic<\/p>\n

Committee in May 1983, Office of Management and Budget Director David Stockman<\/p>\n

said, “In 1981, fully 42 percent of all dollars expended on low-income benefits<\/p>\n

went to households which, when that aid was included, had incomes above 150<\/p>\n

percent of the poverty level.”<\/p>\n

n22 GAO, Need for Greater Efforts to Recover Costs of Food Stamps Obtained<\/p>\n

through Error or Fraud, 1983, p. ii.<\/p>\n

n23 Ibid., p. 29.<\/p>\n

n24 Ibid., p. i.<\/p>\n

Until 1981, strikers were allowed to get food stamps immediately after going<\/p>\n

on strike.\u00a0 In some places, such as the Illinois coal fields, special food<\/p>\n

stamp offices were set up to handle the rush after a major walkout.\u00a0 Students<\/p>\n

easily qualified for food stamps until 1980; a GAO study in 1975 found that 13<\/p>\n

percent of the students at one university were on the dole. n25<\/p>\n

n25 GAO, Student Participation in the Food Stamp Program at Six Selected<\/p>\n

Universities, 1976, p. i.<\/p>\n

Many farmers complain that because of food stamps it is difficult to find<\/p>\n

people willing to help harvest crops.\u00a0 The San Juan Journal editorialized on<\/p>\n

August 22, 1975, that the food stamp program “is cultivating, encouraging, and<\/p>\n

abetting a generation of loafers in Puerto Rico.” (Almost 60 percent of the<\/p>\n

island’s residents were receiving food stamps.) Treasury Secretary William Simon<\/p>\n

in congressional testimony cited the views of the director of the Puerto Rico<\/p>\n

Manufacturers Association and the president of the Association of General<\/p>\n

Contractors, “who say some industries are in danger of shutting down operations<\/p>\n

because they cannot find workers.\u00a0 This is occurring in spite of the fact that<\/p>\n

unemployment on the island is 20 percent.” n26 One 1975 study found that<\/p>\n

“recipients of food stamps with some wage income choose to work fewer hours when<\/p>\n

food stamps are available.\u00a0 The decrease in income from work is roughly equal to<\/p>\n

the subsidy so that the two cancel out and there is no net gain in income.” n27<\/p>\n

n26 Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, Food Stamps:<\/p>\n

Statement of William Simon, 1975, p. 21.<\/p>\n

n27 Food Stamps and Nutrition, by Kenneth Clarkson (American Enterprise<\/p>\n

Institute, 1975), p. 4.<\/p>\n

The farcical work registration requirements are another example of how income<\/p>\n

redistribution masquerades as food stamps.\u00a0 The GAO reported in 1978 that of 620<\/p>\n

able-bodied adult food stamp recipients required to register for work, only<\/p>\n

three actually got jobs. n28 Until 1981 the only penalty for refusing to work<\/p>\n

was suspension of benefits for thirty days.\u00a0 Thus someone could refuse a job and<\/p>\n

still get benefits every other month; his or her family was entitled to receive<\/p>\n

benefits even though the head of the household refused work.\u00a0 The USDA is known<\/p>\n

for being rough on its workers; the GAO noted, “Merely showing up at the<\/p>\n

worksite constituted compliance with the workfare obligation.” n29 Federally<\/p>\n

funded legal service programs often sue local governments to stop food stamp<\/p>\n

work programs.<\/p>\n

n28 GAO, Food Stamp Work Requirements — Ineffective Paperwork or Effective<\/p>\n

Tool? 1978, p. i.<\/p>\n

n29 GAO, Insights Gained in Workfare Demonstration Project, 1981, p. 4.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Where Does the Money Go?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Federal food programs largely replace food that people would have bought for<\/p>\n

themselves.\u00a0 A Congressional Budget Office study found that a dollar’s worth of<\/p>\n

food stamps increased a family’s food expenditure by only 57 cents; the other 43<\/p>\n

cents simply replaced money the person would have spent on food anyway. n30 A<\/p>\n

recent study of Supplemental Security Income recipients whose food stamp<\/p>\n

allotments were cashed out found that each additional dollar of food stamp<\/p>\n

payments increased food purchases by only 14 cents. n31<\/p>\n

n30 Congressional Budget Office, Food Stamps — Income or Food<\/p>\n

Supplementation? 1977, p. xiv.<\/p>\n

n31 USDA, Food Stamp SS1\/Elderly Cashout Demonstration Evaluation, Vol. 1,<\/p>\n

1982, p. vii.<\/p>\n

Despite a thirtyfold increase in federal spending for food assistance for the<\/p>\n

poor since 1955, there has been little or no major improvement in lower-income<\/p>\n

diets.\u00a0 As the table below shows, the average poor person in 1955 was already<\/p>\n

getting adequate nutrition.\u00a0 The poor’s intake of essential nutrients in 1955<\/p>\n

already exceeded the National Academy of Science’s recommended daily allowance<\/p>\n

for 1980.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Average Intake in<\/p>\n

Lower-Income Diets<\/p>\n

1980 RDA\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1955\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1979-80<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

vitamin A\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 5,000 I.U. 8,120 I.U. 8,391 I.U.<\/p>\n

thiamin\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1.4 mg.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1.58 mg.\u00a0\u00a0 2.07 mg.<\/p>\n

riboflavin\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1.6 mg.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 2.21 mg.\u00a0\u00a0 2.62 mg.<\/p>\n

ascorbic acid\u00a0 60 mg.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 94 mg.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 137 mg.<\/p>\n

calcium\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 800 mg.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1.11 g.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1.05 g.<\/p>\n

protein\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 56 g.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 100 g.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 101.9 g.<\/p>\n

niacin\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 16 mg.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 17.1 mg.\u00a0\u00a0 —<\/p>\n

calories\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 2,700\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 3,180\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 2,897<\/p>\n

The 1980 RDA is for males aged 23 to 50.\u00a0 The 1979-80 survey included other<\/p>\n

nutrients not surveyed in 1955. n32<\/p>\n

n32 USDA, Dietary Levels of Households in the U.S., Report No. 6, Table No.<\/p>\n

3, 1957; USDA, Food Consumption and Dietary Levels of Low-Income Households,<\/p>\n

November 1979-March 1980, unpublished research results from the Human<\/p>\n

Policy Review 1983 Fall<\/p>\n

Nutrition Information Service, USDA.\u00a0 In 1955 there were significant differences<\/p>\n

between $2,000-$2,999 and under-$2,000 income groups in protein (93 g.), vitamin<\/p>\n

A value (7,000 I.U.), and ascorbic acid (81 mg.).\u00a0 But the poorer group was not<\/p>\n

hungrier, as they consumed more calories than did the $2,000-$2,999 group (3,210<\/p>\n

vs. 3,180).<\/p>\n

The Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Science notes, “As<\/p>\n

there is no way of predicting whose needs are high and whose needs are low, RDA<\/p>\n

(except for energy) are estimated to exceed the requirements of most<\/p>\n

individuals, and thereby insure that the needs of nearly all are met.” n33 And<\/p>\n

the USDA 1977-78 survey of low-income household diets concluded, “Food used both<\/p>\n

by households participating in the food stamp program and by those not<\/p>\n

participating was sufficient, on the average, to provide the 1974 RDA for food<\/p>\n

energy and the 11 nutrients studied.” n34<\/p>\n

n33 National Academy of Science, Food and Nutrition Board, 1974 Recommended<\/p>\n

Daily Allowance, 1974, p. 3.<\/p>\n

n34 USDA, Food Consumption and Dietary Levels of Low-Income Households,<\/p>\n

Report No. 8, 1981, p. 2.<\/p>\n

The 1979-80 study showed a sharp drop in the number of low-income households<\/p>\n

(both users and nonusers of food stamps) meeting the RDA for all nutrients and<\/p>\n

food energy — from 42 percent in 1977-78 to 39 percent in 1979-80. n35 This<\/p>\n

occurred despite a 3.6 million rise in food stamp enrollment, a 6.4 percent<\/p>\n

increase in the real value of the average food stamp benefits, and a 60 percent<\/p>\n

increase in federal monthly expenditures on food stamps (from $404 million to<\/p>\n

$642 million).<\/p>\n

n35 USDA, Food and Nutrient Intakes of Individuals in 1 Day, Low-Income<\/p>\n

Households, November 1979-March 1980, Table 3.01, 1982.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Nutritionally Adequate<\/p>\n

Further evidence of the irrelevance of food stamps to lower-income nutrition<\/p>\n

comes from a 1982 USDA study on food stamps and lower-income elderly:<\/p>\n

After using regressional analysis to control for the effects of other<\/p>\n

variables, there were no statistically significant differences between program<\/p>\n

participants and eligible nonparticipants in the intakes of the nine nutrients<\/p>\n

studied. n36<\/p>\n

n36 USDA, Food Stamp SSI\/Elderly Cashout Demonstration Evaluation, Vol. 1,<\/p>\n

1982, p. vii.<\/p>\n

The 1979-80 survey of lower-income household diets revealed that the average<\/p>\n

low-income person eligible for but not using food stamps achieved the RDA for<\/p>\n

nine of thirteen nutrients; the average food stamp user met the RDA only for<\/p>\n

eight.\u00a0 Of those nutrients in which both groups were deficient, there was a<\/p>\n

significant difference between users and nonusers on only one — vitamin B[6]<\/p>\n

(food stamp users consumed 79 percent of the RDA, and nonusers 72 percent;<\/p>\n

nutritionists say that any diet with 70 percent of the RDA is adequate though<\/p>\n

not ideal).\u00a0 Nonusers had higher average intakes than food stamp users for three<\/p>\n

nutrients for which one or both groups fell short of the RDA (calcium, iron, and<\/p>\n

magnesium). n37<\/p>\n

n37 USDA, Food Nutrient Intakes of Individuals in 1 Day, Low-Income<\/p>\n

Households, November 1979-March 1980, 1982.<\/p>\n

If federal food assistance was intended to fight hunger, then it was an<\/p>\n

abject failure, since the poor consume fewer calories now than in 1955.\u00a0 The<\/p>\n

decline in calorie consumption among the poor stems largely from decreased fat<\/p>\n

intake and is mainly a result of personal choice.\u00a0 If hunger was widespread<\/p>\n

among the poor today, they would buy more calorie-dense, fatty foods, and<\/p>\n

fewer fruits and vegetables.\u00a0 Scattered cases of individual hunger may exist,<\/p>\n

but it makes no sense to make 40 million people eligible for food stamps because<\/p>\n

of half a dozen families shown on the evening news.<\/p>\n

If food stamps were necessary for the majority of the poor to feed<\/p>\n

themselves, then the poor who do not use food stamps would not eat as well as<\/p>\n

those who do.\u00a0 In fact, a 1967 USDA study showed little difference in the<\/p>\n

nutritional status of food stamp users and nonusers of similar income and<\/p>\n

background.\u00a0 A 1972 USDA Consumer Expenditure Diary Survey reported that food<\/p>\n

stamp households “spent approximately four times as much for nonalcoholic<\/p>\n

beverages (excluding fresh whole milk) than did non-food stamp households” —<\/p>\n

largely for soft drinks.\u00a0 Kenneth Clarkson observed in his 1975 book, Food<\/p>\n

Stamps and Nutrition, that food stamp recipients frequently buy more sweets and<\/p>\n

convenience or packaged foods instead of fresh fruits and vegetables and dairy<\/p>\n

products.\u00a0 The 1977-78 USDA survey of low-income household diets found that food<\/p>\n

stamp participants consumed more luncheon meats, sausages, soft drinks, cereals,<\/p>\n

and fruit punches than nonparticipants; low-income nonusers are more eggs,<\/p>\n

tomatoes, dark-green vegetables, and grain mixtures. n38<\/p>\n

n38 Ibid.<\/p>\n

The National School Lunch Program receives $3 billion a year in federal money<\/p>\n

to provide one third of the recommended daily allowance for schoolchildren.\u00a0 But<\/p>\n

the GAO has repeatedly pointed out that the government’s lunches do not even<\/p>\n

meet the government’s standards.\u00a0 In 1977 the GAO noted, “The absence of any<\/p>\n

indication that the program is having a benefit upon the health of either needy<\/p>\n

or nonneedy children raises questions about the nutritional value of the lunch.”<\/p>\n

n39 In 1978 the GAO reported that lab tests found that a random sample of school<\/p>\n

lunches “were significantly short in as many as 8 of the 13 nutrients tested. .<\/p>\n

.\u00a0 Separate tests in New York showed that at least 40% of the lunches did not<\/p>\n

meet USDA requirements as to quantities served.” n40 In a 1981 followup, the GAO<\/p>\n

concluded, “. . . all types of lunches fell short of providing the recommended<\/p>\n

levels of as many as 7 of the 14 nutrients tested, some to a serious extent.”<\/p>\n

n41<\/p>\n

n39 GAO, The National School Lunch Program — Is It Working? 1977, p. iii.<\/p>\n

n40 GAO, How Good Are School Lunches? 1978, p. i.<\/p>\n

n41 GAO, Efforts to Improve the School Lunch Program — Are They Paying Off?<\/p>\n

1981, p. i.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ineffective<\/strong><\/p>\n

Nor has the school breakfast program proved its salt.\u00a0 The American Journal<\/p>\n

of Public Health reported in 1978 that only two studies of the school breakfast<\/p>\n

program had reported beneficial effects; five others had found no difference.<\/p>\n

n42<\/p>\n

n42 American Journal of Public Health, May 1978, p. 481.<\/p>\n

The GAO’s conclusion on WIC was that “reliable assessments of its overall<\/p>\n

results and benefits have not been made.” n43 Dr. George Graham of Johns Hopkins<\/p>\n

University told the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee in<\/p>\n

1982 that “. . . most of the apparent benefits of the WIC program are the result<\/p>\n

of its usefulness in increasing utilization of prenatal and pediatric health<\/p>\n

services by some groups who habitually do not make regular use of them.” n44<\/p>\n

Since families of four with incomes up to $18,318 are eligible, most<\/p>\n

participants either get food stamps already or can afford to feed themselves.<\/p>\n

And more than 81 percent of recipients share WIC food with the family, thus<\/p>\n

minimizing nutritional effect on the pregnant woman and young child.<\/p>\n

n43 GAO, Special Supplemental Program for Women, Infants, and Children — How<\/p>\n

Can It Work Better? 1979, p. ii.<\/p>\n

n44 Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Reauthorization<\/p>\n

of the Food Stamp Program, 1982, p. 238.<\/p>\n

While government is doling out free food worth billions, federal efforts at<\/p>\n

nutritional education have been a singular failure.\u00a0 The USDA spent millions of<\/p>\n

dollars a year on nutrition education between 1955 and 1965, when American diets<\/p>\n

sharply deteriorated.\u00a0 The GAO reported that conflicting federal regulations on<\/p>\n

food labeling contribute to consumer confusion on healthy eating habits and that<\/p>\n

“federal efforts to inform the public [about nutrition] are sometimes unduly<\/p>\n

complex, duplicative, and contradictory.” n45 Instead of teaching people how to<\/p>\n

get their money’s worth out of their food dollars, government tries to rain<\/p>\n

perpetual subsidies upon them with the vague hope that they will eat better.<\/p>\n

n45 GAO, Informing the Public about Food – A Strategy Is Needed for Improving<\/p>\n

Communication, 1982, p. 6.<\/p>\n

A recent New York Times editorial, entitled “Poorer, Hungrier,” cited a list<\/p>\n

of statistics on infant mortality, short-statured 4-year-olds, and declining<\/p>\n

school lunch enrollment.\u00a0 The editorial naturally concluded, “Given what’s<\/p>\n

happening to the hungry in America, this administration has cause only for<\/p>\n

shame.” n46<\/p>\n

n46 New York Times, April 10, 1983, p. E20.<\/p>\n

For a decade and a half, food politics has been dictated by fear of shame —<\/p>\n

by the dread that somewhere somehow, some journalist will find a child with a<\/p>\n

bloated stomach and provoke another national uproar.\u00a0 Liberals still have close<\/p>\n

to no understanding of how programs actually work.\u00a0 The Times castigated<\/p>\n

President Reagan for wanting to trim the Child Care Food Program by over 25<\/p>\n

percent.\u00a0 Yet over 70 percent of the benefits go to families with incomes above<\/p>\n

185 percent of the poverty line.\u00a0 The Times says of WIC, “Nine million needy<\/p>\n

women and children are eligible for the program” — as always, eligibility in<\/p>\n

itself is taken as proof of need.\u00a0 Yet families of four with annual incomes of<\/p>\n

$18,315 are eligible; that figure is roughly equal to the national median for<\/p>\n

full-time, year-round workers.<\/p>\n

The news media are repeating the same errors that they made ten and fifteen<\/p>\n

years ago.\u00a0 There is still a rush to portray all lower-income people as being in<\/p>\n

dire need and incapable of feeding themselves.\u00a0 Even though food stamp<\/p>\n

enrollment has increased by 2 million since President Reagan took office,<\/p>\n

popular accounts portray budget cuts as threatening millions with starvation.<\/p>\n

Food policy has been shaped by waves of hysteria, by rarely verified accounts<\/p>\n

of elderly people who eat dog food, and by politicians competing to appear<\/p>\n

generous.\u00a0 Politicians have another motive besides: By raising eligibility<\/p>\n

levels, they have helped dispose of government’s embarrassing agricultural<\/p>\n

surpluses.\u00a0 Politicians have long acted as though government can feed people<\/p>\n

better than people can feed themselves.\u00a0 Programs like school lunches continued<\/p>\n

growing despite repeated proof that government meals fail to provide good<\/p>\n

nutrition at least as often as — and for the nonpoor, more often than —<\/p>\n

private meals.<\/p>\n

The Congressional Budget Office, which is staffed largely by liberal<\/p>\n

Democrats, conceded in 1980:<\/p>\n

Despite some limited cases of severe malnutrition found by the Senate<\/p>\n

Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower, and Poverty in the Mississippi Delta in<\/p>\n

1967, statements that severe malnutrition exists on a national scale have never<\/p>\n

been documented, even during the early years of the “War on Poverty” programs.<\/p>\n

n47<\/p>\n

“Ten million” was the rallying cry of the late sixties; but since almost<\/p>\n

twice as many poor people had good or adequate diets as had bad diets in 1965,<\/p>\n

it is likely that at least half of the 10 million poor with bad diets ate badly<\/p>\n

because of habit rather than sheer need.\u00a0 And of those, several million were<\/p>\n

probably already receiving food stamps and surplus commodities.\u00a0 Thus,<\/p>\n

although in 1968 there may have been 2 million or 3 million people with poor<\/p>\n

diets who were not receiving federal food assistance, Congress responded by<\/p>\n

increasing food stamp enrollment by 20 million and increasing nutrition spending<\/p>\n

twentyfold.\u00a0 Yet malnutrition still exists, and it will exist as long as eating<\/p>\n

is a matter of individual choice.\u00a0 In diet, as in everything else, some people<\/p>\n

will always make bad decisions.\u00a0 We cannot end malnutrition without ending<\/p>\n

people’s control over their own diets.<\/p>\n

n47 Congressional Budget Office, Feeding the Children — Federal Nutrition<\/p>\n

Policies in the 1980s, 1980, p. 15.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Charades<\/strong><\/p>\n

Pulitzer-prize-winning journalist Nick Kotz wrote in 1969 that “hunger<\/p>\n

provided a meaningful new metaphor for the issue of poverty in affluent America<\/p>\n

. . .” n48 Liberals realized in the late 1960s that handouts had lost their<\/p>\n

appeal to the majority; a new cover was needed for increasing redistribution.<\/p>\n

Thus the myth of mass hunger was born — largely as a tactical move to evade the<\/p>\n

backlash against the Great Society.\u00a0 Probably many of the people clamoring for<\/p>\n

massive increases in the late 1960s sincerely believed that more free food was<\/p>\n

really needed.\u00a0 But many others — especially some of the leaders — were<\/p>\n

probably aware of the charade.<\/p>\n

n48 Nick Kotz, Let Them Eat Promises, 1969, p. 147.<\/p>\n

Proof that redistribution alone was the main motivation is that the programs<\/p>\n

continued expanding long after they had reached the levels that proponents<\/p>\n

originally said would end hunger in America.\u00a0 Office of Economic Opportunity<\/p>\n

Director Sargent Shriver said in 1967, when the federal government spent roughly<\/p>\n

$700 million on food assistance, that another billion dollars would be<\/p>\n

sufficient to end the problem.\u00a0 Another billion dollars was appropriated, and<\/p>\n

then another, and still another — and yet the more money spent, the hungrier<\/p>\n

the poor supposedly became.\u00a0 Eventually, only government provision of a full<\/p>\n

diet for all citizens with low incomes was seen as satisfactory.<\/p>\n

The issue of mass hunger has emotionalized and muddled American politics for<\/p>\n

the past sixteen years.\u00a0 It is easy to understand why politicians and much of<\/p>\n

the media cling to the myth: If it were widely recognized that most of the poor<\/p>\n

are not severely deprived and not tottering on the edge of starvation and not<\/p>\n

utterly helpless, the rationale for a vast array of welfare programs would<\/p>\n

disappear.\u00a0 Politicians made a mockery of the definition of need and denigrated<\/p>\n

the poor in order to expand the pork barrel.\u00a0 We now have a hodgepodge of<\/p>\n

ineffective food programs because congressmen believe they can win votes by<\/p>\n

supporting subsidies for people who can feed themselves.<\/p>\n

If government is resolved to take care of everyone, it would make far more<\/p>\n

sense to fight malnutrition than hunger.\u00a0 Hunger can usually be rectified by<\/p>\n

individual effort, but malnutrition is more often the result of ignorance or<\/p>\n

sheer poverty.\u00a0 The Congressional Budget Office noted in 1980 that “specific<\/p>\n

nutrients could be added to children’s diets through targeted fortification<\/p>\n

schemes.\u00a0 Vitamin fortification could provide for 100% of a child’s RDA for less<\/p>\n

than $3 a year in ingredient costs.” n49 In 1975 Stanley Lebergott wrote in<\/p>\n

Wealth and Want, “Fifty dollars worth of milk plus vitamin pills annually would<\/p>\n

bring every poor family up to the U.S. nutrition average.” n50 Indeed, passing<\/p>\n

out vitamin pills to the poor would be far cheaper and more effective<\/p>\n

nutritionally than current programs and would not destroy anyone’s incentive to<\/p>\n

provide for himself.<\/p>\n

n49 CBO, Feeding the Children, pp. xx — xxiii.<\/p>\n

n50 Stanley Lebergott, Wealth and Want, p. 82.<\/p>\n

Charles Schultze, President Carter’s chief economic adviser, estimated in<\/p>\n

1971 that federal agricultural policies add 15 percent to the retail cost of<\/p>\n

food.\u00a0 Journalist Nick Kotz observed in his 1969 book, Let Them Eat Promises,<\/p>\n

that the Food and Drug Administration and the USDA prohibit domestic marketing<\/p>\n

of many superenriched food products being marketed by American corporations in<\/p>\n

Third World countries.\u00a0 The FDA prohibits manufacturers from adding nutrients to<\/p>\n

candy and soft drinks — or to any other food that in its opinion lacks<\/p>\n

“nutritional logic” to justify the enrichment. n51<\/p>\n

n51 Code of Federal Regulations, @ 104.20.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Debilitating Dependence<\/p>\n

The working and elderly poor who are too proud to go on the dole are caught<\/p>\n

in a crossfire as social workers beg them to abandon their independence while<\/p>\n

politicians destroy the purchasing power of their food dollar.\u00a0 It is farcical<\/p>\n

to hear politicians sobbing over the poor’s plight while they try to raise food<\/p>\n

prices by hook or by crook or by PIK.\u00a0 George McGovern, the leading advocate for<\/p>\n

increased food assistance during the 1970s, pushed high price supports for<\/p>\n

almost all commodities.\u00a0 Though he was generous to the poor who surrendered<\/p>\n

their independence and went on the dole, he showed no sympathy for low-income<\/p>\n

families who tried to feed themselves.<\/p>\n

There are probably still a handful of hungry people in the United States<\/p>\n

despite the federal government’s efforts to foist food on them.\u00a0 But the answer<\/p>\n

is not to increase food assistance — if that would abolish hunger, then hunger<\/p>\n

would have become extinct long ago.\u00a0 Many of the stories in the press about<\/p>\n

hungry kids deal with families who get food stamps or other food aid but fail to<\/p>\n

budget properly.\u00a0 When individual irresponsibility or imprudence is the cause of<\/p>\n

hunger, it makes more sense to provide soup kitchens rather than a month’s worth<\/p>\n

of food stamps.\u00a0 National policy should not turn on the most sensational<\/p>\n

examples the evening news team can find.<\/p>\n

The great myth underlying the growth of food assistance is that nutrition is<\/p>\n

largely dependent on income.\u00a0 But in 1955 — when half the poor lived in rural,<\/p>\n

non-metropolitan areas — the Household Food Consumption Survey found, “In farm<\/p>\n

diets, most nutrients other than ascorbic acid were little affected by income.”<\/p>\n

n52 The CBO concluded in 1977, “It still remains unclear if increased food<\/p>\n

purchases . . . means improved nutritional status.” n53 The great majority of<\/p>\n

bad diets, now as in 1955, are due to ignorance and bad habit, not low income.<\/p>\n

n52 USDA, Dietary Levels of Households in the U.S., 1957, p. 2.<\/p>\n

n53 Quoted in Food Stamps and Commodity Distribution Amendments of 1981,<\/p>\n

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, p. 180.<\/p>\n

The astounding thing about the growth of food aid is that for almost every<\/p>\n

targeted group, a federal program already existed to help the poor feed<\/p>\n

themselves.\u00a0 Most of the surge in the food stamp program in the late sixties<\/p>\n

and early seventies came from automatically enrolling the recipients of public<\/p>\n

assistance — a program that was supposedly helping the poor buy food.<\/p>\n

Throughout the 1970s, Congress strove to increase food stamp enrollment among<\/p>\n

the elderly, whose increased Social Security benefits were supposedly justified<\/p>\n

by their need for a decent standard of living.\u00a0 (And in 1974, Supplemental<\/p>\n

Security Income payments were added to give a decent income to any elderly who<\/p>\n

missed the Social Security bonanza.) Food stamp advocates insist that food<\/p>\n

stamps are vital for the unemployed — for whom unemployment compensation<\/p>\n

benefits were created in 1935, specifically to prevent them from going hungry.<\/p>\n

Either food stamps are unnecessary for the vast majority of recipients, or every<\/p>\n

other major federal assistance program is a failure.<\/p>\n

The other food assistance programs — from WIC to school lunches to school<\/p>\n

breakfast to child care — feed people who either are already eligible for food<\/p>\n

stamps or do not need a handout to feed themselves.\u00a0 We can be humanitarian<\/p>\n

without paying for eight meals a day for poor people.\u00a0 If Congress cannot summon<\/p>\n

the courage to tighten the food stamp program, it should at least end duplicate<\/p>\n

benefits and abolish food handouts for anyone above the poverty line.\u00a0 Taxpayers<\/p>\n

should not be coerced to feed those who can feed themselves.<\/p>\n

Hunger has become an issue to conjure with — a political magic wand to<\/p>\n

mesmerize the public’s critical faculties.\u00a0 Despite a thirtyfold increase in<\/p>\n

food aid for the poor since 1955, there has been little or no improvement in<\/p>\n

their diets.\u00a0 Food programs have wasted billions, lured millions onto the dole,<\/p>\n

and perpetrated the myth that a low income is automatically debilitating.<\/p>\n

Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views<\/p>\n

of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any<\/p>\n

bill before Congress.<\/p>\n

GRAPHIC: Picture, In the thirties, when crop failurs, the Depression, and<\/p>\n

strikes created hunger, the government distributed surplus commodities.\u00a0 The<\/p>\n

hungry stood in line to be fed.\u00a0 But in the seventies, the government had to<\/p>\n

proselytize, sending recruiters out to sign up any poor person, hungry or not,<\/p>\n

for food stamps.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Yesterday’s Washington Times’\u00a0“Obama’s Obesity Epidemic”\u00a0article is spurring\u00a0some controversy.\u00a0\u00a0Rush Limbaugh quoted the piece and the liberal website Media Matters\u00a0attacked his\u00a0statements.\u00a0 Media Matters also asserted that\u00a0“Bovard mislead his readers about obesity studies to craft a false narrative that food stamp use is linked to childhood obesity.” But there is far more evidence of that link that was […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[329,213,322,325,88],"class_list":["post-6423","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","tag-farm-subsidies","tag-farm-subsidy","tag-food-stamps","tag-food-stamps-2","tag-reagan"],"yoast_head":"\nMy 1983 "Feeding Everybody" \/ Food Stamp Failure article - James Bovard<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/2013\/12\/04\/1983-feeding-everybody-food-stamp-article\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"My 1983 "Feeding Everybody" \/ Food Stamp Failure article - James Bovard\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Yesterday’s Washington Times’\u00a0“Obama’s Obesity Epidemic”\u00a0article is spurring\u00a0some controversy.\u00a0\u00a0Rush Limbaugh quoted the piece and the liberal website Media Matters\u00a0attacked his\u00a0statements.\u00a0 Media Matters also asserted that\u00a0“Bovard mislead his readers about obesity studies to craft a false narrative that food stamp use is linked to childhood obesity.” But there is far more evidence of that link that was […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/2013\/12\/04\/1983-feeding-everybody-food-stamp-article\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"James Bovard\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/jim.bovard\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2013-12-04T13:46:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2013-12-04T14:39:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jim\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@jimbovard\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Jim\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"44 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jimbovard.com\\\/blog\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/04\\\/1983-feeding-everybody-food-stamp-article\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jimbovard.com\\\/blog\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/04\\\/1983-feeding-everybody-food-stamp-article\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Jim\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jimbovard.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/79550830ad81c14be529a2c37469974f\"},\"headline\":\"My 1983 “Feeding Everybody” \\\/ Food Stamp Failure article\",\"datePublished\":\"2013-12-04T13:46:54+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2013-12-04T14:39:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jimbovard.com\\\/blog\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/04\\\/1983-feeding-everybody-food-stamp-article\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":8864,\"commentCount\":0,\"keywords\":[\"farm subsidies\",\"farm subsidy\",\"Food Stamps\",\"food stamps\",\"reagan\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/jimbovard.com\\\/blog\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/04\\\/1983-feeding-everybody-food-stamp-article\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jimbovard.com\\\/blog\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/04\\\/1983-feeding-everybody-food-stamp-article\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jimbovard.com\\\/blog\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/04\\\/1983-feeding-everybody-food-stamp-article\\\/\",\"name\":\"My 1983 \\\"Feeding Everybody\\\" \\\/ Food Stamp Failure article - James Bovard\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jimbovard.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2013-12-04T13:46:54+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2013-12-04T14:39:59+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jimbovard.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/79550830ad81c14be529a2c37469974f\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jimbovard.com\\\/blog\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/04\\\/1983-feeding-everybody-food-stamp-article\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/jimbovard.com\\\/blog\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/04\\\/1983-feeding-everybody-food-stamp-article\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jimbovard.com\\\/blog\\\/2013\\\/12\\\/04\\\/1983-feeding-everybody-food-stamp-article\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jimbovard.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"My 1983 “Feeding Everybody” \\\/ Food Stamp Failure article\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jimbovard.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jimbovard.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"James Bovard\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jimbovard.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jimbovard.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/79550830ad81c14be529a2c37469974f\",\"name\":\"Jim\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/d95466cfd0934e38803c5035629df727ae4ec1f3f96c6883c05b5c52e2044505?s=96&d=mm&r=r\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/d95466cfd0934e38803c5035629df727ae4ec1f3f96c6883c05b5c52e2044505?s=96&d=mm&r=r\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/d95466cfd0934e38803c5035629df727ae4ec1f3f96c6883c05b5c52e2044505?s=96&d=mm&r=r\",\"caption\":\"Jim\"},\"description\":\"Bovard's homepage is at http:\\\/\\\/www.jimbovard.com He can be contacted at jim@jimbovard.com James Bovard is the author of ten books. The Wall Street Journal called Bovard \\\"the roving inspector general of the modern state\\\" and Washington Post columnist George Will called him a \\\"one-man truth squad.\\\" His 1994 book, Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty, received the Free Press Association\u2019s Mencken Award as Book of the Year. His Terrorism & Tyranny won the Lysander Spooner \\\"Best Book on Liberty in 2003\\\" award. He received the Thomas Szasz Award for Civil Liberties work, awarded by the Center for Independent Thought and the Freedom Fund Award from the Firearms Civil Rights Defense Fund of the National Rifle Association. Bovard\u2019s writings have been publicly denounced by FBI director Louis Freeh, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Postmaster General, and the chiefs of the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as well as by many congressmen and other malcontents.\",\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/www.jimbovard.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/jim.bovard\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/jimbovard\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/jimbovard.com\\\/blog\\\/author\\\/admin\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"My 1983 \"Feeding Everybody\" \/ Food Stamp Failure article - James Bovard","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/2013\/12\/04\/1983-feeding-everybody-food-stamp-article\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"My 1983 \"Feeding Everybody\" \/ Food Stamp Failure article - James Bovard","og_description":"Yesterday’s Washington Times’\u00a0“Obama’s Obesity Epidemic”\u00a0article is spurring\u00a0some controversy.\u00a0\u00a0Rush Limbaugh quoted the piece and the liberal website Media Matters\u00a0attacked his\u00a0statements.\u00a0 Media Matters also asserted that\u00a0“Bovard mislead his readers about obesity studies to craft a false narrative that food stamp use is linked to childhood obesity.” But there is far more evidence of that link that was […]","og_url":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/2013\/12\/04\/1983-feeding-everybody-food-stamp-article\/","og_site_name":"James Bovard","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/jim.bovard","article_published_time":"2013-12-04T13:46:54+00:00","article_modified_time":"2013-12-04T14:39:59+00:00","author":"Jim","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@jimbovard","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Jim","Est. reading time":"44 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/2013\/12\/04\/1983-feeding-everybody-food-stamp-article\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/2013\/12\/04\/1983-feeding-everybody-food-stamp-article\/"},"author":{"name":"Jim","@id":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/79550830ad81c14be529a2c37469974f"},"headline":"My 1983 “Feeding Everybody” \/ Food Stamp Failure article","datePublished":"2013-12-04T13:46:54+00:00","dateModified":"2013-12-04T14:39:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/2013\/12\/04\/1983-feeding-everybody-food-stamp-article\/"},"wordCount":8864,"commentCount":0,"keywords":["farm subsidies","farm subsidy","Food Stamps","food stamps","reagan"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/2013\/12\/04\/1983-feeding-everybody-food-stamp-article\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/2013\/12\/04\/1983-feeding-everybody-food-stamp-article\/","url":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/2013\/12\/04\/1983-feeding-everybody-food-stamp-article\/","name":"My 1983 \"Feeding Everybody\" \/ Food Stamp Failure article - James Bovard","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2013-12-04T13:46:54+00:00","dateModified":"2013-12-04T14:39:59+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/79550830ad81c14be529a2c37469974f"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/2013\/12\/04\/1983-feeding-everybody-food-stamp-article\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/2013\/12\/04\/1983-feeding-everybody-food-stamp-article\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/2013\/12\/04\/1983-feeding-everybody-food-stamp-article\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"My 1983 “Feeding Everybody” \/ Food Stamp Failure article"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/","name":"James Bovard","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/79550830ad81c14be529a2c37469974f","name":"Jim","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d95466cfd0934e38803c5035629df727ae4ec1f3f96c6883c05b5c52e2044505?s=96&d=mm&r=r","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d95466cfd0934e38803c5035629df727ae4ec1f3f96c6883c05b5c52e2044505?s=96&d=mm&r=r","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d95466cfd0934e38803c5035629df727ae4ec1f3f96c6883c05b5c52e2044505?s=96&d=mm&r=r","caption":"Jim"},"description":"Bovard's homepage is at http:\/\/www.jimbovard.com He can be contacted at jim@jimbovard.com James Bovard is the author of ten books. The Wall Street Journal called Bovard \"the roving inspector general of the modern state\" and Washington Post columnist George Will called him a \"one-man truth squad.\" His 1994 book, Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty, received the Free Press Association\u2019s Mencken Award as Book of the Year. His Terrorism & Tyranny won the Lysander Spooner \"Best Book on Liberty in 2003\" award. He received the Thomas Szasz Award for Civil Liberties work, awarded by the Center for Independent Thought and the Freedom Fund Award from the Firearms Civil Rights Defense Fund of the National Rifle Association. Bovard\u2019s writings have been publicly denounced by FBI director Louis Freeh, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Postmaster General, and the chiefs of the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as well as by many congressmen and other malcontents.","sameAs":["http:\/\/www.jimbovard.com","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/jim.bovard","https:\/\/x.com\/jimbovard"],"url":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6423","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6423"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6423\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6429,"href":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6423\/revisions\/6429"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6423"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6423"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jimbovard.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6423"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}