- About Hunger
- How to End Hunger
- Our Impact
- Get Involved
By Cynthia Woodside, Bread for the World Institute
In its press release, Bread for the World expressed hope that “the poverty plan released by Speaker Paul Ryan and … [his] Task Force on Poverty, Opportunity, and Upward Mobility will start a bipartisan discussion on how to end poverty and hunger.” Given their wide scope, persistence, and deep impact in the United States, hunger and poverty have received scant national attention for far too many years.
The release of the Ryan Task Force report, A Better Way: Our Vision for a Confident America, did in fact spur a flurry of responses, many taking issue both with what is in the plan and what is not. While the lack of specifics makes in-depth analysis of the plan difficult, it’s clear that Bread for the World opposes some of the recommendations and that others raise concerns. But in order to lift hunger and poverty to the top-priority level they deserve, policymakers and organizations from one end of the political spectrum to the other must be willing to engage in an honest dialogue. Such a dialogue will require all sides to make an effort to leave their poverty baggage at the door and begin to construct a shared narrative.
Why is a shared narrative necessary? An illustration comes from the work done by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)-Brookings Institution Working Group on Poverty and Opportunity, which released its Consensus Plan for Reducing Poverty and Restoring the American Dream in December 2015. While perhaps not as ideologically diverse as our national policymakers, the members of the AEI- Brookings Working Group quickly realized that they had some very different perspectives on the issues – and that before they could discuss possible solutions, they first needed to agree on the facts. Afterward, members of the group acknowledged that agreement on a shared set of facts was hard fought and hard won, but emphasized that it was also essential to developing shared recommendations.
The agreed-upon facts, in Chapter 2 of the report, offer examples of how different views can be accommodated to build a foundation for a bipartisan dialogue that will draw in the larger policy community.
In the report, the accepted facts on poverty are worded in a way that acknowledge both the right’s argument that the official poverty rate remained fairly constant during the War on Poverty, and the left’s contention that when the supplemental poverty measure is used, which calculates the effects of the programs created during the War on Poverty, the poverty rate has been reduced by close to 50 percent. Perhaps even more important, both sides agree that whatever measure is used, today’s poverty rate is too high.
Another example of bridging the ideological divide is the AEI-Brookings report’s discussion of economic problems that affect individuals and families. Some of the factors that contribute to poverty were suggested by conservatives and others by liberals, but what is important is that the group agreed that all are legitimate concerns. They include, for example, non-marital births, problems in the labor market, the challenges that single-parent families face, and the challenges workers face.
We at Bread are well aware that even if agreement is reached on the facts, it will also be necessary to find compromises on solutions. This is especially true in the current polarized political climate. But if people with different politics can shed some of that poverty baggage and truly listen to each other, dialogue and perhaps even consensus is possible.
Bread for the World is committed to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their focus on ending poverty and hunger by 2030. To achieve those goals will require new ways of thinking and new ways of working, including reaching across the aisle, across the ideological divide. Only by working together in an honest and serious way can we take the steps necessary to free the United States and the world from hunger and poverty within the next 15 years.
Cynthia Woodside is senior domestic policy analyst at Bread for the World Institute.
Given their wide scope, persistence, and deep impact in the United States, hunger and poverty have received scant national attention for far too many years.
Afghanistan would be considered likely to have high rates of hunger because at least two of the major causes of global hunger affect it—armed conflict and fragile governmental institutions.
Malnutrition is responsible for nearly half of all preventable deaths among children under 5. Every year, the world loses hundreds of thousands of young children and babies to hunger-related causes.
Bread for the World is calling on the Biden-Harris administration and Congress to build a better 1,000-Days infrastructure in the United States.
“As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, continue to live your lives in him, rooted and built up in him and established in faith.” These words from Colossians 2:6 remind us of the faith that is active in love for our neighbors.
The Bible on...
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is designed to respond to changes in need, making it well suited to respond to crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
Bread for the World and its partners are asking Congress to provide $200 million for global nutrition.
In 2017, 11.8 percent of households in the U.S.—40 million people—were food-insecure, meaning that they were unsure at some point during the year about how they would provide for their next meal.