Hunger In America

Please answer each question (even two part questions) in 50 words or less and return to the researcher by October 8th

1. What role do you support the Federal Government playing in alleviating hunger?

2. Do you support access to universal breakfast for all children in public schools? Why or why not?

3. In order to provide assistance to legal immigrants who have been in the country for less than five years, would you support the expansion of food stamp eligibility to them? Why or why not?

4. In your eyes, what is the single most effective policy measure to enable food insecure individuals to become food secure? What will you do to promote this policy?

5. In both rural and urban areas, many Americans lack convenient access to food. As President, how would increase individuals' and communities' access to food?

---

Responses by John Cox

In a world as advanced as ours, it is a crime against humanity that any child should ever go hungry and I would be dedicated to the eradication of this blight. Having said that, it is clear to me that in the modern world, governments are the largest impediment to solving this problem.

The problem isn’t that we don’t produce enough food; the problem is that it is either too expensive, unavailable or incapable of being distributed. At its base, whose fault is this? It is not government’s obligation to create and distribute food – that is and should be the province of a free market.

In places where there is hunger, you will see through study that the free market isn’t operating as it should. In many African countries, for example, distribution of food is controlled by corrupt governments who know there is a lot of demand and little supply and therefore control the means of distribution, making windfall profits and/or cementing their political control.

In other places, food is either unaffordable or the people don’t have the resources to purchase it. In both instances, it is the failure of government to allow the markets to operate freely enough both to lower prices (by allowing more supply, easing regulatory burdens, lowering barriers to trade, lowering tax burdens) or the failure of government to encourage the free flow of capital and the provision of education to allow opportunity to produce the income necessary to procure food.

All of this is a preface to solving the problem and answering your questions:

1. The role of the Federal government is to provide the necessary structures that allow the free market to operate – the rule of law to enforce contracts, the transportation systems to move goods, the enforcement mechanisms that ensure free flow of capital (securities regulation, etc), the education systems that foster the ability to produce, etc. Where has government failed in the U.S.? Examples abound: education is a government monopoly that fosters inefficiency and uneven results; sugar supports raise the costs of many products; tax policy favors some industries over others, distorting supply and demand; the list goes on and on. It is a little like that game ‘whack a mole’ – government operates through the push/pull of politics and when a problem pops up, it goes after it with more government, usually creating an imbalance somewhere else.

   The solution: less government. Most imbalances are created by government and political solutions applied as band aids for a short term fix. We cannot have the Wild West; but what we should have is an overall philosophy that endorses the free market and searches for freedom wherever it can, instead of the first impulse being more government.

   A corollary is going after corruption. This doesn’t just entail people who steal from the government or private sector; this entails decisions that are made with a corrupt motive. Any time a career politician makes a decision to impose a government solution that benefits him or her, rather than a long term free market solution, that constitutes a corrupt decision. I think we could all agree that government is rife with corrupt decision-making in the sense that many are made in the name of political power as opposed to what is best for the long term health of the economy or our country.

2. I think every child should have breakfast. Do I think it needs to be provided by a government monopoly school as the only alternative? Absolutely not. Again, this sounds noble but it is treating a symptom and not the problem. While the answer to that is often, at least some children are benefited, that misses the point. If we just treat symptoms and not causes, then for a time, some children will have breakfasts but we put off the day when we really treat the cause so that all children have parents that can afford and provide breakfast. A better idea would be government vouchers for poor parents with incentives to be off this benefit after a time, again coupled with more free market enhancements that provide the supply to meet demand and hold down price inflation, the ability to earn a living in the private markets, etc.
3. We absolutely need legal immigration and more importantly, it is part of our national heritage like no other country in the world. We were built by people who came from other places in the world, seeking the same freedom we cherish. Do food stamps enhance freedom or detract from it? Again, the answer is that they treat symptoms and not the actual problem. I would rather see government dedicated to a vibrant economy that creates jobs for all Americans, especially legal immigrants who want a piece of the American Dream. Food stamps for a short period to ease transition? Absolutely, but with short time limits and limited eligibility so it is not an incentive to create a trade in stamps, which we know happens quite frequently.
4. Food security is all about adequate supply to meet demand so that the price doesn’t get out of reach of poor people. It is also about education, job creation and opportunity. If government focused itself on these two things alone, without the distraction and waste of a corrupt political system that creates imbalances and winners and losers based upon political power, we would all be better off, as would the world be better able to attack hunger. Go after the root causes, not just treat symptoms!
5. Sorry to sound like a broken record, but if history teaches us anything, it is that a truly unfettered free market is the best way to offer available, cost effective access to all products, including and especially food, as it is obviously necessary to life itself.

As romantic as it looks and seems, history has proven that human conditions cannot be equalized by government and every time it tries, it creates and winners and losers based upon political power. That is what socialism is based upon and while its ideals are noble, it has always been misused in some way or another by power hungry officials. Why does this happen? Because when the power of life or death is reposed in the hands government, it will naturally be misused more often than not for the benefit of those in power. Humans being what they are, self interested for the most part, that is the natural consequence.

We can hope and wish it were not so, that humans would act for altruistic reasons, but that is just not the nature of things. What is the answer? Harness that self interest; make it work for the benefit of all; that is what the free market limited by a government that seeks freedom first but does enforce efforts to counteract the free market. Thus, government should have the power to beat back efforts to create monopolies and inhibit the free market; government should have the power to enforce laws against fraud and theft so that people can rely on promises made; government should have the power to impartially enforce laws against improperly made products in a fair fashion that empowers the free market.