Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!lll-crg!topaz!harvard!matthews
From: matthews@harvard.UUCP (Jim Matthews)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: The Reason For Hunger
Message-ID: <725@harvard.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Feb-86 17:47:16 EST
Article-I.D.: harvard.725
Posted: Tue Feb 18 17:47:16 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Feb-86 09:03:04 EST
References: <358@ihnet.UUCP> <28200625@inmet.UUCP> <363@ihnet.UUCP> <344@gargoyle.UUCP>
Reply-To: matthews@harvard.UUCP (Jim matthews)
Organization: Aiken Comp Lab, Harvard
Lines: 17
Xref: lsuc net.politics:3335 net.politics.theory:965


	For all the studies that conclude there are hungry people in the 
United States, none give convincing recommendations for new policies.  The
study cited by Carnes claims that 15 million below-poverty-level citizens
are hungry, but *all* of them are eligible for food stamps (by definition)
and food stamps are, in theory, enough to sustain a healthy diet.  Furthermore,
anyone earning up to 130% of the poverty level can receive food stamps --
despite the fact that (by the definition of the poverty level) they should
be able to feed themselves already.  Spending on food stamps has been
*increased* every year of the Reagan administration -- and yet the problem of
hunger is consistently blamed on federal policies.  Is there a problem with
our definitions of poverty, or the size of food stamp allotments, or could
it be that a government policy that makes it *possible* for every citizen to
get proper nutrition will not necessarily yield that result?

Jim Matthews
matthews@harvard