Basic Needs

Humans are animals.  For all our vanity and pretense, we are animals to the core.  Especially in the Western tradition, we are fond of envisioning ourselves as embodied minds - the mind is the higher plane of existence, whereas the body is merely something to be sustained.  I would like to posit instead that we are thinking bodies: the body does more than house the mind, but sustains, informs, and grows the mind.  Shifting one's perspective from embodied minds to thinking bodies moves the emphasis from rationality to corporeality, from logic to sensuality.  And this brings us to food.

Even if that last distinction seems arbitrary to you, I'm sure you can admit the central importance in life of food.  Most of my everyday life is concerned with food, whether that is reminiscing about the delicious breakfast I had that morning, or (more likely) daydreaming about my next meal.  I am incredibly fortunate, and I try to keep my blessings at the forefront of my mind every day.  I have never gone a day in my life where I haven't been able to eat to my satisfaction, and there is perhaps no greater privilege I can ask for.  My certainty in sustenance has allowed me to focus my life on everything but my basic needs.  I have been able to pursue music, academics, athletics, friendships, and countless other activities that would have taken the back seat to hunger, had I not been as fortunate.  Satisfaction of hunger, the most basic primal need, always comes first.  I have been unbelievably lucky, and for that I am thankful.

For many Americans, however, this is simply not the case.  Imagine that you are a mother, unable to provide for her children and herself, who forgoes dinner so that her kids can eat.  This is the greatest sacrifice: denial of basic needs for one's self in order to serve her children.  Imagine that you are a child who worries each night whether he or she will go to bed hungry, who worries if he or she will be able to eat a lunch at school.  How important can math class seem when your stomach is growling?  When you are hungry, your biology is urging you to pursue food however possible.  The pursuit of food rarely coincides with studies of trigonometry or European history.  Poverty and hunger are the central issues that define our failed educational system.  It is incumbent upon those of us lucky enough to enjoy privilege to provide for those who cannot enjoy the same liberties.  Life is simply not the same when you body is screaming for food, when your children ask you if there will be dinner on the table that night.  It is unreasonable and immoral to hold those families to the same standards that we hold well-nourished families.  It shows a complete misunderstanding of our animal and basic nature.

Perhaps this last point needs further elaboration.  One popular archetype spread about in the right wing is that of the welfare queen.  Reagan popularized the term (without basis in reality, I might add) during his candidacy and presidency.  The idea is that there are countless women out there (almost always imagined as black or Hispanic, another issue deserving attention), who are taking advantage of the welfare system.  I've even heard arguments that low-income women are out there "just having babies" for the social security benefits.  Really?  I don't even know where to start with this argument: it is too misinformed, too xenophobic, too vain, too envious to even tackle in a systematic nature.  I'll start with the idea that people are having children for the social security benefits.  Have you ever witnessed a pregnancy?  Labor may be the greatest pain a human being can go through in their life - I don't buy the argument that many low-income women are just popping out babies left and right for a few extra bucks.  The insinuation that they are doing illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how difficult pregnancy is.  It is also a disservice to lower-income and minority women, the implication being that they don't love their children, but view them as a means for profit. 
Furthermore, it's not as though the social security benefits and welfare we provide for low-income individuals outweighs the cost of raising a child.  A child places immeasurable strain on a family, as well as great pressure on the budget.  This strain is scarcely alleviated by the pittance we allow these young mothers.  Additionally, we cannot allow a few bad apples to ruin the batch.  I'm sure there are a few women out there who do take advantage of the system in whatever way possible.  This may be true, and it does cost American taxpayers money.  But the solution is not to dissolve and destroy the whole system, because that unduly punishes the families who were doing things the right way.  Plenty of good, hardworking individuals use welfare to provide for the families in ways they otherwise would not be able to.  To rob them of this assistance in order to punish that small minority who is taking advantage of the system would be criminal.  Let me repeat this: to punish those who are suffering in order to level justice against a few cheaters is a crime against humanity.  The last point about welfare that I would like to make is that the children have no choice in the matter.  Whether my parents are good and honest people or evil and dishonest people is no choice of mine.  I was "created equal," just like everyone else.  So why should my peers live in the lap of luxury, while my parents' benefits are slashed left and right in the name of efficiency?  If I am a child, what do I care about the efficiency of the economy, or the fairness of the system?  All I know is that my stomach is screaming for sustenance and I am not receiving it.  Even if a "welfare queen" somehow popped out five kids "just for the benefits," that family deserves to receive government assistance.  The children did not choose to be born into that circumstance, they are just struggling to survive.  To deny assistance to children, based on no actions of their own, is undemocratic, unamerican, and immoral.  This should be a fundamental question that is held in mind on all public policy issues: how does this policy affect the children?  Regardless of the actions of the parents, if you believe in the values of the Declaration of Independence, you must recognize the necessity of providing for our nation's youth.

This brings me to a recent congressional vote about food stamp benefits.  In our frenzy about budget deficits and debt, we are cutting many programs that should not be cut.  A recent bid to preserve $4.5 billion in SNAP (food stamps) assistance failed the Senate by a margin of 33-66.  This shows how out of touch our Senate has become.  By a two-thirds margin, the senate decided to cut necessary funds that would put dinner on the table for many innocent and unknowing children.  In this article:Food Stamp Vote in Senate, it is noted that "the decrease would amount to about $90 a month for an affected family, representing a quarter of its food budget."  This is a quarter of a family's food budget who already qualifies for food assistance.  This is kicking a man while he is already down.  The family is struggling to make ends meet and provide for their children, and we want to remove another quarter of their food budget?  This disgusts me in the most basic way.  How can we, on the one hand, expect our children to succeed in schools, expect the parents to just "go out and get a job," when they are starving?  The reality that most congressional deals are brokered over expensive Washington dinners is a tragic and cruel irony, especially when they adopt policy that robs many Americans of basic necessities.  The national debt is not because of welfare, but because of stupidly low tax rates (the lowest they've been in 80 years except for a brief year and a half period in the Reagan years), because of higher-than-Cold War levels of defense spending, and because of a global economic depression that has taken its toll on all developed nations.  To cut welfare in the interest of national debt is clear class warfare - not the imagined variety that "job creators" scream and whine about.   The total government spending in this year is about $3.7 trillion, and this policy would save about $4.5 billion dollars.  That is a grand savings of .1%.  Are point one percent savings worth the immeasurable pain this would put on many already-struggling Americans?  Budgets are all about priorities, and to cut food for such a microscopic savings demarcates exactly where our lawmakers' priorities are.  And it is made all too painfully clear to many hungry Americans where our politicians priorities are not.  Food assistance should be made a priority.  It is really hard to care about anything else when you are starving.  I propose a society where the right to food is held alongside the other fundamental and inalienable American rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  It's pretty damn hard to pursue happiness when you are starving.