I had a revelation as I stared at the over-sized appetizer tray, pasta bowl and decadent cheesecake I had at a local restaurant this weekend.
One thought crossed my mind as my eyes quickly became bigger than my stomach: I can’t possibly eat all of this!
What is surprising is in American culture, we eat like that regularly and there are families with multiple children in this country who will never feel the nauseating bloat of overeating.
Why? Because they’re starving.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture released a report Aug. 4, 2001 naming Oregon the “hungriest state in the nation.” The report found that the parents of one in four children in Oregon have so much financial trouble that they struggle to put food on the table. In half of those households, at least one person, usually an adult, goes hungry. Oregon’s hunger rate is 5.9 percent where the average in the other 49 states is 3.3 percent, according to the report. Still, even the 3.3 percent is too many hungry people in a country that thrives on excess and lavish lifestyles.
Most people would say, “Why don’t they get a good job to feed their family?” The report, “Hunger in Oregon” showed that working does not always guarantee enough money to buy food. Twelve percent of the working families in Oregon continually struggle to put food on the table.
There are many reasons hunger still exists in this country. Since 1997, the minimum wage has remained stagnant at $5.15 an hour. Once again in 2003 Congress failed to take action on a proposal to raise the minimum wage by $1.50 over three years.
An estimated 3 percent of the work force would be affected by an increase in the minimum wage, which even for a full-time, full-year worker produces an income below the poverty line.
Still there are groups representing some employers who are opposed to an increase, arguing that raising wages would force them to reduce the number of workers they hire.
So I guess the question now is: how much should the government help starving people in its own country? Will raising the minimum wage really help hunger cease in the country where bigger is better?
Looking even further, people argue that Americans are great humanitarians, giving more than $321 billion in foreign aid since World War II to third world countries. American farmers usually back giving food away to other countries because the programs help eliminate politically embarrassing food surpluses caused by agricultural subsidies.
These food surpluses could be feeding Americans, but are maintained to keep the demand high and prices up for food. Economic reasons, of course.
But what some have found is giving humanitarian assistance to third world countries sometimes increases hunger abroad by depressing prices for local farmers, resulting in less domestic production. The countries become more dependent on the United States for help, perpetuating the cycle and allowing humanitarian aid to remain a political tool.
I know politics is complicated and things will never be perfect in this country. But when did allowing people to starve to death become less important than some political reason? Politicians are still human, so why does this problem still exist in this country?
The United States is the wealthiest nation in the world, helps out other countries in need, but still has an embarrassing rate of homelessness and hunger.
I understand that humans can’t turn their backs to other humans being tortured by an evil dictator. But, not to sound like too much of an isolationist, since when did the rest of the world become the responsibility of the United States?
Ultimately, there are two questions that I would really like to have answers for: How can a country that can’t even feed its own people rebuild and run another? And in a country that thrives on excess, why can’t people learn the childhood lessons of sharing and give a little to each other; maybe even enough to prevent starvation in the wealthiest, most powerful and influential country in the world.