by Scott Baker
We have come to expect rancor when it comes to politics. The word itself seems to be synonymous with ‘divide.’ You’re either right or you’re left. You’re for it or against it. The middle ground is often lost in the shuffle. Finding an issue both sides can agree on – typically referred to as bipartisan or nonpartisan – is increasingly difficult.
Hunger has traditionally been a bipartisan concern. Unfortunately, recent actions in Washington, DC threaten to change that.
First off, some background. For decades, Congress has passed a Farm Bill that addresses both agriculture policy and basic nutrition programs like food stamps (formally known as SNAP). This forced everyone to work together, to compromise, and to come up with something that the overwhelming majority supported.
For the first time in a long time, that did not happen this year. The House of Representatives separated the two and passed independent bills: one that reauthorizes farm policy for the next five years and another that deals with nutrition programs (including significant cuts).
As a result, we’ve seen hunger relief programs alone become the focal point of those purportedly concerned with addressing government spending. The cuts have centered solely on federal nutrition programs instead of evenly spread throughout all entitlement programs traditionally contained within the Farm Bill. Instead of reigning in costs across the board, lawmakers went after one of their tried and true target – nutrition programs for the poor.
As a consequence, the issue of hunger relief has been thrust into the nasty, muddy waters of partisanship.
This is not good news for people facing food insecurity. If this issue becomes another lost in the abyss of partisanship, it will be hungry people who suffer. Why? We see it every day on a host of partisan issues. If one side is in favor, the other almost automatically has to be opposed. The result is gridlock, slow response, and ineffective solutions, if any at all.
When the sides unite to work together the results are usually useful, powerful, and direct.
Hunger should remain a bipartisan, or nonpartisan, issue. No one wants to see people go hungry. In Missouri, we have had success with both sides of the political aisle. Within the past year, Republican leaders in the legislature passed an extension of the Food Pantry Tax Credit. At the same time, Democrat Governor Jay Nixon has been second to none in his commitment to helping anti-hunger efforts. Both political parties have taken tangible action to help address Missouri’s growing hunger problem.
Splitting the Farm Bill has had another detrimental effect. It pits Ag interests against anti-hunger advocates. Farmers vs. social services. That doesn’t do anyone any good. Who says we can’t work together? In fact, it’s imperative that we do!
In Missouri, the food banks and pantries want to partner MORE with Missouri farmers, not less. We believe many of the answers to hunger in our state can be found in our state. That means we need to create strategic, mutually-beneficial relationships with Missouri producers. Any effort to pit one against the other is counter-productive and places the person facing food insecurity in the crosshairs.
We’re all in the business of feeding people.
Let’s not make hunger relief a partisan issue. There’s too much at stake. We’re talking about a foundational human need – food. We all need it to survive. It impacts our productivity at work and school. It’s an economic issue as well as a moral one.
We have seen throughout history the good Americans can achieve when we join together for a cause. If we are to end hunger in this country, it’s going to take unity, not division. Finding ways to work together is the first step. Maybe we can even re-define politics in the process.