Let Them Eat Jelly Beans—Summer School Lunches Going Uneaten

With most states slashing K-12 education budgets to close their deficits, many have asked why the feds don’t step in to help. However, the feds have always kicked in a little toward state education programs, and continue to do so—the National School Lunch Program being one of the more well-known examples.

Yet even some of this federal funding is being wasted as a result of state and local program cuts. According to a recent report by the California Food Policy Advocates, there has been a sharp decline in participation of federally funded summer meal programs due to the loss of summer school programs in California. In July, 2011, participation in the program was down 6% from 2010, and 30% lower than in July 2008, according to the Bay Citizen.

Each summer, the achievement gap grows, with affluent children having access to intellectually enriching activities like travel, camp, sports, and specialized classes that lower income children cannot afford. The health gap also grows, as lower income children lose access to school lunches, especially when summer school ends. This problem has gotten substantially worse in recent years, with the cancellation of many public summer school programs. Consequently, only 16% of the children who ate free or reduced lunch during the school year received free summer meals last July.

America Eats Its Young (And Some Of Its Old)

One out of every 13 California seniors aged 50 or older is at risk of hunger, according to a recent report the AARP Foundation (American Association of Retired Persons) reviewed in the Bay Citizen. However, according to the Columbus Dispatch, a similar number (7.5%) of seniors is at risk of hunger nationally. There has been a 79% increase in elder hunger over the past decade, with the greatest increase occurring between 2007 and 2009.

The seniors who are most at risk, not surprisingly, are the poor, blacks and Latinos, and those with few family connections. According to the Dispatch, only 2% of white seniors faced constant hunger, while 7% of black seniors did.

As disturbing as these numbers are, it is important to place them into the proper context. According to the USDA, 85.5% of American households were food secure throughout the entire year in 2010, meaning that they had access to sufficient food for all members of the household to live healthy and productive lives. This means that 14.5% of American households were not food secure, nearly double the rate for seniors, suggesting that as poor and hungry as our seniors are, the young are even worse off. According to the report, children were insecure at some times during 2010 in 9.8% of households, which was down slightly from 10.6% in 2009.

However, even these data do not reveal the full extent of the problem. Considering that many families have several children, the 9.8% of households with hungry children probably had several hungry children, or a rate of childhood hunger far higher than 9.8%. Indeed, according to the Feeding America website, 20% of the children in 40 states lived in food insecure households (32.3% in Washington, D.C. and 29.2% in Oregon) in 2009. Others report that as many as 1 in 4 American children go to bed hungry on a regular basis.

Of course it is deplorable that anyone is going hungry in what most Americans consider the richest and greatest country in the world. It is even worse that we allow our most vulnerable to starve. Yet, even with the increase in elder poverty and hunger, older Americans on average are still getting wealthier on the backs of younger Americans. Census and Pew Foundation reports indicate that while the incomes and wealth of younger Americans have stagnated or declined over the past few decades, those for baby boomers and the elderly have been increasing (see “Kid Janitors Don’t Solve Poverty,” by Mike Males). This has occurred through legislation, changes to the tax structure, cuts to social programs and general wage declines, particularly for those just entering the workforce.

This has resulted not only in a net decline in wealth and income for young adults, but hunger and privation for their children, since they are the one who are having children. However, the cuts that have allowed older Americans to increase their wealth have also affected low income seniors and they are hurting, as well (just not to the same extent as children and young adults).

We Want Jobs? Not If We Can’t Feed Ourselves!

Cooks Lining Up For Soup (from Flickr, gamillos)

Liberal politicians and union leaders seem to think that if they could just create more jobs, the economy would suddenly recover and everyone would be happy. Of course those who are unemployed, particularly the long-term unemployed, are desperate for some financial security and relief, and jobs seem like the simplest way to appease them.

While the absence of work is a terrible burden on families, the presence of work is not necessarily their salvation, and shouldn’t be their primary goal. Workers need material security, safer and better working conditions, better living standards, more leisure time and sufficient wealth to enjoy it.

Most jobs do not provide these things. In fact, many jobs do not even provide material security.

According to a recent report in Labor Notes, 28% of cooks live in food-insecure homes. In other words, more than a quarter of the people who prepare our food in restaurants, fast food chains and cafeterias do not earn enough to feed themselves and their families. Campus food workers, for example, had a median wage of only $17,176 in 2010, while many farmworkers are earning the exact same wages they made ten years ago.

There have been organizing drives among food workers at numerous college campuses over the past decade, most notably among employees of Sodexo (See here and here). These efforts still have a long way to go. At Pomona College, for example, 90% of kitchen staffers signed a petition for union recognition in 2010, but the college ignored it. Employees there were being fired for taking sick days and many are still earning less than $12 per hour, even after working there for 20 years.

What is most compelling about the statistic that 28% of all cooks go hungry on a regular basis is that it clearly reveals that food is not a human right, but a commodity that is produced by members of the 99% for the profit of the 1%.

In a sane society, a cook would not only be able to eat on the job and take food home from work for his or her family, but would be paid well enough to eat healthy, organic, locally produced food every day, go out to nice restaurants occasionally, and take time off to relax with family and friends. But they cannot do this because the food belongs to the bosses. The equipment to prepare the food belongs to the bosses. The buildings were the food is produced belong to the bosses. The right to hire and fire and set wages and working hours all belong to the bosses. And if they challenge any of this they will be unemployed quicker than they can say Sodexo.

This is not to say that workers should roll over and accept these conditions. A strong trade union can help to improve wages and decrease food insecurity for workers. However, trade unions cannot end workers’ dependency and subservience to their bosses, nor do they wish to. Their entire existence is predicated on the subservient relationship between workers and bosses. They act as the intermediary or advocate for the workers in an attempt to mitigate this relationship and make it as painless as possible for their members. They accept the premise that the boss is entitled to own and control every aspect of the workplace and become wealthy by paying their members less than the value of the goods and services they produce.

While the pain can be mitigated, workers will never truly be free, nor will they ever earn the true value of their labor, as long as the workplace remains in the control of bosses. Workers will continue to be forced to accept compromises, including declining wages and increasing work, just so they have any income at all. They will always face the dilemma of accepting abuses and degradations or risk being fired. Even when they earn enough to eat every day, they can rarely (if ever) eat as well as the 1%.

Thus, it is insufficient to demand jobs or even better jobs. We must also fight for a world without bosses and wage slavery, in which everyone has material security and access to the good things in life, leisure time, and the opportunity to contribute to society under their own volition and not under the boot of the 1%.

Starving in the Land of Plenty

Recent data from the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) shows that 25% of California households with children are experiencing food hardship (from New America Media).

Latinos and rural residents were most affected. In agricultural Fresno County, for example, 68.6% of public school students were receiving free or reduced lunches, which means their families were suffering from material (and likely food) insecurity. The county is also 59% Latino. In Los Angeles County, which is over 63% Latino, 65.6% of students were receiving free or reduced lunches.

California also has four of the nation’s 20 metropolitan areas with the worst food hardship.  Fresno was fifth in the nation, with 32.6% of its residents facing food insecurity. The Riverside-San Bernadino-Ontario area ranked eighth (30.4%), the Bakersfield area ranked 11th (29.5%) and the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana area ranked 18th (28.3%).

Starving In Front of Gratuitous Wealth

With over 15 million people, at a rate of 28.3% the LA area alone has over 4,300,000 residents suffering food insecurity. This statistic is particularly stark when juxtaposed with the phenomenal wealth found in Los Angeles. Here is a list of just its billionaires (all 34 of them), from the Forbes list of 400 wealthiest people on the planet:

19. Kirk Kerkorian, $10 billion

25. Sumner Redstone, $8.4 billion

38. Donald Bren, $5.7 billion

39. Eli Broad, $5.5 billion

45. David Geffen, $4.5 billion

52. Barbara Davis, and Family, $4 billion

52. David Murdock, $4 billion

70. Bradley Wayne Hughes, $3.2 billion

78. Haim Saban, $2.8 billion

83. Stephen Spielberg, $2.7 billion

89. Jerold Perenchio, $2.6 billion

112. Ronald Burkle, $2.3 billion

116. Patrick Soon-Shiong, $2.2 billion

125. Alfred Mann, $2.1 billion

125. Steven Udvar-Hazy, $2.1 billion

133. Michael Milken, $2 billion

153. David Hearst, $1.9 billion

153. George Hearst, $1.9 billion

181. Franklin Booth, $1.7 billion

181. Louis Gonda, $1.7 billion

181. Anthony Pritzker, $1.7 billion

181. Tom Gores, $1.7 billion

198. Ming Hsieh, $1.6 billion

235. John Anderson, $1.4 billion

235. Charles Munger, $1.4 billion

258. Gary Michelson, $1.3 billion

283. Alan Casden, $1.2 billion

283. Robert Day, $1.2 billion

283. Roy Disney, $1.2 billion

283. Leslie Gonda, $1.2 billion

283. Alec Gores, $1.2 billion

283. George Joseph, $1.2 billion

320. Edward Roski, $1.1 billion

346. William Hilton, $1 billion

Insult to Injury
As terrible as it is to have so many hungry children, the problem is exacerbated by the draconian eligibility requirements for CalFresh, the California version of the federal food program. Many are no doubt discouraged from participating because of the finger-imaging requirement, particularly those concerned about being deported.

The New America Media article also suggested that the new federal Super Committee that is set to propose solutions to the federal deficit will slash federal food programs. Considering that state governments have been gutting programs for children, seniors and the poor in order to close their deficits, this fear is not at all unrealistic. In fact, it could be argued that the Super Committee’s mandate is precisely to impose austerity on the most vulnerable and politically least powerful members of society so that the wealthiest can continue to enjoy their privilege and luxury.

Health and Education Implications
Under- and malnourished mothers are much more likely to have babies born prematurely, with low birth weights or with significant health problems. Children who are not receiving adequate nutrition can suffer from iron deficiency anemia and are at risk for a host of developmental and cognitive impairments. Any of these can have a large impact on school-readiness and academic achievement.

However, it is not just hunger and lack of calories that places children at risk. Families that cannot afford to eat nutritious foods will often compensate with food that is cheaper but less nutritious, particularly junk foods, increasing the risks for obesity and diabetes. Such diets tend to be rich in sweets, particularly sugary drinks, and increase the risk of cavities and dental problems. This, too, can hinder academic achievement as students without insurance may be missing class and have trouble concentrating due to pain.

Kids May Not Know Democracy, But They Know A Bum Deal When They See It

(Expanded version of the Letter to the Editor that I submitted to the San Francisco Chronicle this week):

In the Sunday Insight, (San Francisco Chronicle, 6/12/11), California State Supreme Court Justice Ming W. Chin expressed alarm that 75% of U.S. students lack a basic understanding of democracy. While disturbing, this is not surprising considering that reality is quite different from the idealized system we are taught in school. For example, the one person-one vote rule is violated each election, when the wealthy are able to disproportionately influence the outcome. The fairness of our legal system is called into question by the fact that affluent defendants can afford better attorneys and are more likely to be acquitted. The separation of powers is routinely undermined when Congress defers its power to declare war to the President, as they have for every war since WWII. Even when civics is well-taught, the take-home message is muddled by propaganda like “America is the freest country in the world,” repeated ad nauseam, leading many to believe we have complete and unfettered personal freedom, a delusion that can cause confusion, frustration and hostility when the Legislature or Court limits personal freedom. And why should children believe their textbooks when they themselves are denied the right to vote, yet are subject to laws created by adults?

One might also question why one should care that children lack a “basic understanding of democracy,” or, for that matter, what a basic understanding of democracy means? Being able to recite the responsibilities of the three branches of government may help students pass an exam, but will it make them better people? Will it help poor children earn a living or grow into affluent adults? Or is it really all about getting everyone to agree that we really do live in the world’s greatest country so that we all remain docile and accepting of our lot in life?

Contrary to the propaganda, democracy does not mean freedom or equality or justice. Rather, it means rule by the people, rule that can and does include injustice, inequality, imprisonment and slavery. Furthermore, while “rule by the people” implies that everyone gets to participate, even this is inaccurate, as juveniles, foreigners, prisoners and even some “rehabilitated” convicts are denied the right to vote. Ironically, while “the people” love Democracy and their right to vote, they have great disdain for politicians and elections, complaining about the greed, dishonesty and sleaze, and the fact that their elected officials do whatever they like once in office, often contradicting their own campaign promises.

Part of the problem lies in the paradoxical definition of Democracy. “Rule by the People” implies that the people have power, a very appealing concept, especially when contrasted with autocratic forms of government. Yet, the existence of a ruler (the people) implies there must also be a subject (the people, again?) As Ruthless Criticism points out, “rule” loses its meaning when the subject and ruler are one and the same.

Fortunately for the English language, everyday experience shows us that despite the vote, the “people” are not really the rulers. Rather, we elect representatives who, in effect, rule over us.  The structure of the state, the political and economic system, the existence of inequality and fact that we must be governed are never up for vote or even debate. The “peoples’ rule” is thus reduced to yearly ritual of voting for those who will make the real decisions and wield the power. Most importantly for the rulers, this yearly ritual also serves to reaffirm the people’s consent to be ruled, thus justifying their claims to have a mandate from the people to impose their profit motivated agenda.

What about Judge Chin’s concern that we’re raising a bunch of barbarians who do not appreciate the independence of the judiciary? For the poor who make up the vast majority of the nation’s death rows, the judiciary’s independence was irrelevant—it was their inability to afford good legal counsel that was the problem. Yet prejudice (if not dependency) does occur, too. Consider Judge Sabo, who presided over Mumia Abu-Jamal’s capital case, who said he wanted to “fry the nigger.”

Regardless of judges’ independence and objectivity, the judicial system is designed to protect private property and the power and privilege of the capitalist class, not for the betterment of the rabble. Thus, even independent judges would uphold everyone’s right to sleep under a bridge (if such a law actually existed), but they would never deny Larry Ellison’s right to own multimillion dollar homes up and down California, or entrepreneurs’ right to develop a decommissioned army base rather than leaving it as housing for the homeless.

They also enforce the stipulations of a contract, even if that contract is inherently unfair. (A deal is a deal, after all). Working people, for example, have no choice but to enter into contracts with their employers in order to secure employment and earn wages necessary for their survival, thus placing them in a weaker position during contract negotiations. (A hungry person will accept a lot in order to fill their belly). While unions increase workers’ power in these negotiations, the labor contract always favor the interests of the employers, who simply refuse to sign if the profits are not considered high enough (even at the risk of closing shop and moving out of town).

Judge Chin may be correct that American children (and adults) lack a basic understanding of the American political system and Democracy, but I do not see this as a crisis. In fact, it might actually be a positive sign that they have not completely bought the fantasy that the U.S. political system is the epitome of perfection and that they find it troubling that so much want, misery and oppression could occur under it.

California’s 9% Jump in Starving Students

Over 3.4 million students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch in California last year, a 9% jump from two years ago. This amounts to nearly 60% of the entire student population in California. To be eligible, a student's family income must fall below 185% of the federal poverty level, or $40,793 for a family of four. Of the students who received free or reduced lunch, nearly 84% had family incomes below $29,000.

Hardest hit were agriculture communities in the Central Valley (74.8% in Tulare, 75.7% in Merced and 72.5% in Madera) and Imperial County (72.6%).

As appalling as these numbers are, only 70% of eligible students participated in the lunch program, while only 30% participated in the breakfast program. The low participation in the breakfast program may be partly due to ignorance of the program. However, a more prevalent problem is the difficulty of getting to school early enough to utilize this program, particularly for poor children who rely on public transit.  Also, some families choose not to participate in either program out of pride.