Institute Notes: A Dialogue on Overcoming Hunger and Poverty

Senate Farm Bill Misses the Mark

For those who have been closely following the farm bill fight, it’s old news that another milestone has been reached in efforts to reauthorize the farm bill. For those who, in this holiday season, have more important things to think about than the arcane parliamentary proceedings of the Senate, what you need to know is that despite a majority of support for several reform-oriented amendments, the Senate passed bill is the equivalent of a big lump of coal to fill your Christmas Stockings. The process was a fairly rocky one – Ken Cook over at the Mulch Blog has a good post on the tricky politics behind the process and outcome. In the end, despite the well coordinated efforts of groups like Bread for the World, Oxfam, The Environmental Working group, Environmental Defense, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and scores of others, reform efforts were thwarted.

Information Enough

The following passage sounds like something David Beckmann might have said recently:

There is no point in attempting to blueprint or detail the mechanisms and institutions of a war on poverty in the United States. There is information enough for action. All that is lacking is political will.

However, this passage appears in a book published in 1962, The Other America, written by the late activist Michael Harrington. I mentioned this book in an earlier blog post, but it was just in passing then. This remarkable book deserves more attention. I only recently read The Other America, and then another book by Harrington, The New American Poverty, published twenty years later. Why read books dealing with poverty written decades ago? Precisely to see whether I would (or how often) stumble across passages like the one above. I don’t think anybody should be disheartened that David and Harrington sound so much alike forty-five years apart. It is recognition of the timelessness of the solution. As much as any issue involving government, overcoming poverty funnels down to one thing: political will.

Food Aid Disappointment

Among the many disappointments in a disappointing Senate farm bill is the absence of any significant reform in this country’s international food aid program. Despite overwhelming evidence of the inefficiencies and inequities in the current system, and despite valiant efforts by individuals and groups, the vested interests appear to have once again prevailed. 

The most significant reform, proposed by the Administration and supported by Bread and a number of both faith-based and secular NGOs, would have authorized the use of up to 25 percent of the food aid budget ($300 million per year) for procurement of food in and around the country where it was needed, thus reducing the cost, cutting response time and encouraging local producers and markets to supply the needs. (Instead, current law mandates that all food aid be procured in the US and shipped on US-flag vessels. According to a recent GAO study, overhead, including shipping costs, now accounts for over 60 percent of food aid budget.) This proposal was reduced in the Senate agriculture committee to a four-year “pilot program,” with total funding of $100 million. But when it came to the Senate floor, even this pilot was stripped out and transferred to the foreign assistance act, with funding to come from the already over-taxed international disaster assistance account. 

To be sure, providing explicit direction to undertake such a study could be regarded as a baby step forward – if the appropriators come up with the money. However, the basic outcome -- effectively denying food aid implementers the option of using food aid resources to procure food locally when lives are at stake simply to preserve the existing procurement and shipping entitlements -- is simply unconscionable.

Zero-Sum Thinking

Just a very quick post to bring attention to this terrific op-ed by Martin Wolf in today's FT about the fact that we do not live in a zero-sum world anymore. He argues that how we deal with global challenges like climate change and the looming energy crisis may undermine this unless we put in place the incentives to continue to innovate and grow (sustainably, of course!) and the governance structures that make sure that the benefits are shared equitably.

Not quite Bali-humbug!

The international community took a very small step for humankind (and the planet, I should add) in Bali over the weekend but at least it was in the right direction! The UN conference on climate change was extended by one day as last minute negotiations seemed to be leading to a breakthrough. When the conference closed on Saturday, the much heralded breakthrough was really only a breakthrough because expectations had been so low.

The United States did not, as had been expected, break with consensus but instead, for the first time since the Bush Administration has been in office, went along with the international community to agree to a "roadmap" for negotiating emissions targets and determining the financing mechanisms needed to help developing countries reduce their emissions and adapt to climate change, by 2009--to give countries enough time to ratify the post-Kyoto agreement before the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. As disappointed as I am that no specifics were agreed to--largely because of the United States, Canada and Japan-- I have to admit that the Bush Administration has come a long way on climate change in a relatively short period of time. There are some good articles (here and here) about what was agreed to in Bali and interesting editorials that give both the glass half full and half empty sides of the story.

A Radical's Conservative

The National Press Club played host to a colloquium yesterday on low-wage work. “Facilitating and Rewarding Work” was sponsored by the Hamilton Project of the Brookings Institution. Several scholars on the project were invited to share new strategy papers, and there was a discussion afterwards about a wide-ranging set of subtopics related to the general topic of improving work opportunities for people in or at risk of falling into poverty.

All and all, it might have been another dull event about incremental policy reform if not for Jack Kemp being on one of the panels. Kemp is the former head of the department of Housing and Urban Development in the first Bush administration, as well as a former republican congressman from Buffalo and a vice presidential candidate on Bob Dole’s ’96 republican ticket. Kemp is considered one of the godfathers of the supply side economic policies of the Reagan Administration. Not many people I know think supply side economics did much good for the poor, but in defense of Jack Kemp, his vision seems to be much broader than the way Reagan implemented supply side economics. Given what I have heard him say, it seems unfair to define him so narrowly. I’ve heard him argue passionately that we can do as much for the poor through the tax code as already has been done for the rich. He shared some bold ideas on this topic at the Press Club.

HELP!!

• Foreign assistance is critical to U.S. national interests.
• Our foreign assistance system is broken, a reality that is ignored at our peril.
• The American people, and those in the developing world, deserve better.

These assertions, leading off the Executive Summary, frame the subsequent report of the HELP Commission (“Helping to Enhance the Livelihood of People Around the Globe”), set up by Congress, at the initiative of Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia, to undertake a thorough review of the U.S. government’s foreign aid program and offer make recommendations regarding the future direction of the program. The Commission’s mandate, composition and recommendations – most of which mirror long-time Bread for the World views – combine to make this a highly significant and welcome contribution to the ongoing discussions regarding foreign aid effectiveness and reform. Bread for the World and other NGOs (InterAction, Oxfam) have responded positively, even enthusiastically. (See Bread’s press release.) 

MCA innovation in jeopardy

Last Friday's New York Times front page story had the ominous title "U.S. Agency's Slow Pace Endangers Foreign Aid". But the article went on to present a nuanced analysis about the delicate balance between the short term concerns of Congress as it puts together a budget for the Federal Government and for foreign aid programs in FY 2008 and the long-term commitment to developing countries through the Millennium Challenge Corporation's country programs.

One of the reforms embodied in the MCC was the ability to provide developing countries with a reliable stream of funding for development projects. This was long overdue recognition that development takes time and the way that U.S. aid programs have traditionally been funded, relying on annual appropriations from Congress, did not allow developing countries to put into place multi-year programs--the kind that are needed for the challenges that face the poorest communities.

As appropriators in Congress are moving to finalize the appropriations bills that will fund the federal government next year, they are searching for places to find savings. Unfortunately they are eyeing the

A New Trade Deal for Africa?

The EU-Africa Summit was held in Lisbon this weekend. Everything from climate change to peace and conflict issues were discussed. But what garnered a good deal of attention was the issue of trade. The EU is currently negotiating a trade deal with African, called Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) that will replace the existing preferential trade system extended to countries in Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific (CAP).

Many African governments did not embrace the proposal with open arms. A Press Release from Oxfam highlights this point and argues that pushing African countries to sign a new trade deal is not fair. Clearly, African governments will need time to review the current proposal and decide whether it makes good economic sense to sign before the deadline at the end of this month.

Holding the Hungry Hostage

The New York Times published an editorial this morning about hunger and the farm bill. Hunger could well get worse in the United States because funding for critical nutrition programs won’t be available due to gridlock on the farm bill. The politics are complicated but among the sticking points is how to dole out obscene amounts of subsidies for rich farmers. The Times asks the obvious question: “why feeding the hungry must include a trough for multibillion-dollar agribusiness.” I’ve often wondered this myself.

The relationship between anti-hunger interests and farm interests has always been a marriage of convenience. This is how it works, basically: Rural legislators from farm districts have a deal with urban legislators. You support programs to help our farmers and we’ll support nutrition programs to feed the hungry in your cities. Together we're stronger than if we try to stand alone. That is how it has been for decades.

The relationship may have made sense at one time. Now it makes sense for only one side. For those farm-state legislators, it has become much more difficult to hoodwink the public into supporting programs that mostly deliver benefits to very wealthy farmers. They desperately need the support of their urban counterparts. The thing I don’t understand is why urban legislators expect so little in return for their support, like why isn't the Food Stamp Program better funded or why don't food distribution programs for poor seniors reach more of them?

The Times says if we really wanted to reform the farm bill, the thing to do would be pull nutrition programs out of the bill altogether. It’s an interesting suggestion, but I doubt it will happen any time soon. I am convinced anti-hunger programs in the fam bill could exist elsewhere in the federal budget. Most of the child nutrition programs already do. Ironically, I think it would be the farm-state legislators that struggled to hold onto the anti-hunger programs if there was a move to pull them out of the farm bill. Their greatest fear of all is changing the status quo. As this farm bill shows, they have no qualms about holding the hungry hostage.