New York Times Food Writer Mark Bittman: People Will 'Starve to Death' Under House Budget
Puritanical New York Times food writer Mark Bittman made a rare appearance on the op-ed page Wednesday to call attention to his latest liberal project: “Why We’re Fasting.”
Bittman, food columnist for the Times Sunday magazine, has also written news stories for the paper from his perch as resident food scold. He made the front page of the Sunday Week in Review in February 2010 with his nanny-state call to treat soda like cigarette smoking. The text box captured Bittman’s puritanical flavor: “To help dam the river of sugared drinks that Americans pour into ever-fatter bodies each year, some suggest a soda tax and warning labels.” His attack on meat-eating also made the front page of The Week in Review. On Wednesday he wrote:
I stopped eating on Monday and joined around 4,000 other people in a fast to call attention to Congressional budget proposals that would make huge cuts in programs for the poor and hungry.
Bittman bizarrely claimed that proposals in a budget bill put forward by House Republicans (including cuts in the federal Women, Infants and Children program (WIC), food stamps, and international food aid) would condemn people "to starve to death."
These supposedly deficit-reducing cuts -- they’d barely make a dent -- will quite literally cause more people to starve to death, go to bed hungry or live more miserably than are doing so now. And: The bill would increase defense spending.
Bittman folded in some standard-issue sophomore-debate level liberalism larded with dubious hunger statistics:
This isn’t about skepticism, however; it’s about ironies and outrages. In 2010, corporate profits grew at their fastest rate since 1950, and we set records in the number of Americans on food stamps. The richest 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all American households combined, the effective tax rate on the nation’s richest people has fallen by about half in the last 20 years, and General Electric paid zero dollars in U.S. taxes on profits of more than $14 billion. Meanwhile, roughly 45 million Americans spend a third of their post-tax income on food -- and still run out monthly -- and one in four kids goes to bed hungry at least some of the time.
Bittman really bit off more than he could chew at the end, basically accusing fiscal conservatives of being un-Christian and inhuman:
This is a moral issue; the budget is a moral document. We can take care of the deficit and rebuild our infrastructure and strengthen our safety net by reducing military spending and eliminating corporate subsidies and tax loopholes for the rich. Or we can sink further into debt and amoral individualism by demonizing and starving the poor. Which side are you on?
....
Though [David] Beckmann is too kind to say it, he and many other religious leaders believe that true worship can’t take place without joining this struggle: “You can’t have real religion,” he told me, “unless you work for justice for hungry and poor people.”
I don’t think you can have much humanity, either.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Give me a break!
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 3:01pm.
This opus from a guy who probably can’t imagine a meal without truffles. Sheesh!
Are we starving or are we a fat knackers? Make your mind up.
Submitted by Flashman on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 2:32am.
Be fair, he just didn't get the memo.
"Obesity Rates Keep Rising, Troubling Health Officials"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/health/nutrition/04fat.html?_r=1
Hypocrites
Submitted by SnapTie on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 3:14pm.
President Obama signed the $26 billion dollar bailout package for teachers unions that will be paid for mostly by cuts in the food stamp program and the Department of Energy’s renewable energy loan guarantee program.
The House vote went mostly along party lines passing with a 247-161 margin. Two Republican’s voted for the measure three Democrats voted against the bill.
With the bills passage the big losers were renewable energy advocates which took a $1.5 billion dollar cut to help cover the costs. This on the heals of the Department of Energy’s renewable energy program taking a $2 billion dollar cut from the failed cash for clunkers program.
But the group that took the biggest hit were those people on the governments food stamp program which has grown astronomically over the past year as high unemployment continues to grip the country. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamp program had their funding reduced by $12 billion dollars to help pay to prop up the teachers unions.
There are currently 41 million Americans dependent on the federal assistance program and they lobbied hard to defeat the bill, but were unable to get enough Democrats to vote against it.
The big winners for the passage of the bill is somewhat clouded. It’s clear that the teachers unions were by far the biggest winners as were fiscally irresponsible states that didn’t make the cuts necessary to sustain their states budgets. The other big winners ‘could’ be Democrats themselves as they are bound to get a windfall of the bailout money flowing back to their elections campaigns this election season from the teachers unions.
It's a good thing...
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 3:15pm.
It's a good thing the food critic doesn't know about the increases in ethanol production His Royal Highness, King Maobama is pushing. Burning food to fuel our "addiction" to cars (in the same sense we're "addicted" to oxygen).
If
Submitted by Blorg on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 3:25pm.
If he stopped eating entirely, we wouldn't have to be exposed to his drivel.
america...
Submitted by ds7 on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 3:30pm.
america...the only country in the world where the poor people are obese...
Did you ever notice
Submitted by Ashrak on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 3:35pm.
that the supposed poorest among us are often times also the fattest?
I thought slimming down was Michelle's signature issue?
Obamas and those who support them are walking, talking contradictions.
Liars, the lot of them.
The Debunk
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 3:38pm.
1. In 2010, corporate profits grew at their fastest rate since 1950:
Because 2009 was a lousy year for corporate profits, it stands to reason that any rebound in 2010 was going to be a very good one. Cherry picking the starting point for making data comparisons is typical when dishonest researchers want to prove their point. It's done all the time when the left makes arguments for man-made global warming.
2. and we set records in the number of Americans on food stamps:
Since this is "the number" of Americans on food stamps, this statement is flawed. If the author contends that being on food stamps is bad, he should look at the percentage of people on food stamps.
3. The richest 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all American households combined:
It's not hard to believe that the top 400 wealthiest Americans have more net worth then all Americans below the 50th percentile, "combined". The author is using statistics to demonize wealth. If you look at a typical household that is getting started in life, that household will have a NEGATIVE net worth. If your net worth is $100, you probably have more net wealth then the bottom 10% of American households.
4. the effective tax rate on the nation’s richest people has fallen by about half in the last 20 years,
Effective Tax Rates of the Richest 400 Americans Since the author of this article is focusing on the richest 400 Americans, it's easy to see that by "effective tax rate", he is really referring to the capital gains tax, which has been reduced dramatically over the last 20 years by both Democrats and Republicans. But even if capital gains taxes had been left at 1990 levels, the rich would not be paying these taxes. They would just defer taking capital gains. If the United States caps capital gains taxes at 15%, (just an example), then it is unconscionable that we tax income at higher then 15%.
5. and General Electric paid zero dollars in U.S. taxes on profits of more than $14 billion.
Tax loss carry-forwards by GE Capital.
Meanwhile, roughly 45 million Americans spend a third of their post-tax income on food -- and still run out monthly -- and one in four kids goes to bed hungry at least some of the time
We have the resources to make sure that no one in this country goes hungry. The reason anyone does is one of logistics and delivery and not of want. More than half of Los Angeles County youths eligible for school breakfasts don't take advantage of the free meals, while almost half who qualify for free or low cost school lunches don't sign up for them.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Why they're fasting?
Submitted by Hologram5 on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 4:30pm.
It's most likely because they look like copies of Mike Moore with cheeseburgers hanging from the rolls in their stomachs. Fat libtard POS's.
Why didn't you just donate the food yourself?
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 4:45pm.
"I stopped eating on Monday and joined around 4,000 other people in a fast to call attention to Congressional budget proposals that would make huge cuts in programs for the poor and hungry."
Hay, hypocrite, why didn't you just donate the food to your local food shelves? That way you can actually make a difference by being, you know, personally involved in a meaningful manner. I don't think the truly hungry are impressed by you faux starvation protests, no matter how much "solidarity" you pretend to offer them with such meaningless public stunts. Impersonating them isn't going to get food into their bellies any faster, nor will it eliminate the problem in the slightest (It does make YOU feel better though, doesn't it? That IS the real issue, making yourself fell better, after all.).
Oh, and by the way, I'd be a little less vocal about using the term "moral issue" here if I were you. The real moral issue is if YOU are willing to actually, personally, help others in need by actively, individually, donating YOUR money, clothing, food, and the like to those who actually need it, and not just claim that you sympathize with them and will "protest" the government to do what YOU should be doing yourself, while hypocritically claiming that you're doing so on their behalf. All you're doing then is serving YOUR needs and not theirs because, if it's the Government's responsibility to help the needy then it doesn't have to be YOURS! YOU won't have to take any personal responsibility in the well-being of others. You don't think that they know this? You don't think that they know that you are really abdicating YOUR personal responsibility to the federal government? You don't think that they know that you're actually avoiding YOUR moral responsibilities altogether? Trust me, they know.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Amoral individualism
Submitted by dmaley1714 on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:00pm.
Wow taking care of your self is amoral. I say there is nothing more immoral than the swallowing of the individual for th collective.
Rather than....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:01pm.
Rather than getting food to the starving, the progressive liberal mind says "well, then, we'll just starve too."
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. No sense in solving a problem when you can whine about it.
Complete bs. Anybody who
Submitted by forest on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 6:32pm.
Complete bs. Anybody who wants food in this country can get it for free or cheap with minimal effort. Go to a private foodbank. Go out with the freegans. Panhandle for 10 minutes and you'll have enough for a meal a micky-d's. Or, God forbid, get a job.
People go hungry in this country for reasons other than a lack of cheap or free food - like being the young child of a drug addict.
More government money will have no effect on that kind of crap. In fact, government handouts enable it.
My mom-in-law
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 6:39pm.
gets more free food than my wife and I buy each week though different programs. She actually offers us food and we are part of that top 5% of taxpayers!
Tell First Lady to stop stuffing her face then
Submitted by Slyrr on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 6:55pm.
Mooch-elle Obama was telling America they need to eat less anyway, right? Since the looney left adores Mooch-elle so much, one would think they'd be GLAD at the prospect of starvation. Especially the libutards who want to 'reduce' the human population as a means of stopping their pet issue of 'global warming'.
Maybe if they can pull Mooch-elle away from the table and get her to stop stuffing her face with ribs long enough, she can pacify them somehow.
At Least We Won't Have to Sell Our Women to China.
Submitted by Avitar on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 7:24pm.
Mark Bittman is probably right in that it is already too late for the United States to survive Obama's policy without steps that will push some people over the brink.
The last time there was famine in the United States was 1816 as the result of crop failure from a volcano erupting. The Obama policies of turning food in to ethanol have the US so close to the edge and out of resources probably we could not meet the challenge of a major natural disaster. The transfers of industry have been so great the Chinese with their 100 million woman shortage will be buying mail order brides from the United States in the next twenty years. If we do not take steps soon women will be taking that option to get something to eat.
The average wage last year hit a level only half of what ist was before the New Deal in inflation adjusted dollars. With any more hyper inflation from "stimulus" we could lose the other half of the nineteenth century's progress quickly.
so using this "logic"
Submitted by Edhenry on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:58pm.
so using this "logic" ...
half the country must have been starving 3 years ago when federal spending was $1 T less.
Pictures??
Submitted by Utherpend on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 12:20pm.
Where are the pictures of the starving children in America?? I have yet to see video of starving children walking the streets looking for food.
I'm confused
Submitted by ckc1227 on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 6:21pm.
"This is a moral issue; the budget is a moral document."
I thought we weren't supposed to legislate morality?