Introduction

In recent years, the partisan squabbles in Washington have taken on the qualities of World War I-style trench warfare: increasingly brutal and repetitive battles that bleed both sides dry but allow neither side to gain much ground. The American public, meanwhile, knows that societal problems are festering and is waiting for someone to stand up not with rhetoric, but with real solutions. Indeed, Americans are almost desperate for someone to put aside political fighting and solve the obvious problems our country faces. In an age of unparalleled innovation and technology, Americans wonder why the United States is not tackling some of its more obvious national problems.

There is perhaps no clearer example of the problem, or opportunity, than the debate about hunger programs in America. Astonishingly, one in seven children in the United States lives below the poverty line, more than 3 million live in families that suffer from hunger, and 13 million American families are described as food insecure. Last year, the numbers got worse -- there are now 4 million more Americans living below the meager federal line than four years ago. Tens of millions of Americans are forced to use more than 40,000 soup kitchens and food pantries nationwide. The Great Society programs have helped many Americans and have significantly decreased hunger, but for many reasons they have not been able to actually end it, even among children. It is past time to do better.

Not only is hunger in America morally shameful, it has devastating day-to-day impacts upon our nation's educational achievement, economic competitiveness, and social fabric. Children who are hungry can't properly learn and grow. Parents who are hungry have increased difficulty obtaining and keeping employment, and face even greater challenges in adequately raising their children. Senior citizens who are hungry have real difficulty maintaining their health and independence, further increasing the costs to the nation for health care and long-term support for the elderly. Hunger often even has the ironic result of increasing obesity and diabetes by forcing families to obtain more filling but less nutritious food. In other words, beyond being morally wrong, the continued prevalence of hunger in America worsens many other vexing social problems.

The lack of policy progress on domestic hunger is not a result of voter apathy. Indeed, the desire of Americans to help hungry people in our country is about as close to consensus as it is on any issue. In a recent poll conducted by Republican pollster, Jim McLaughlin, more than 85 percent of Americans said that a candidate's position on reducing the hunger problem was important when deciding their vote for Congress. Despite this overwhelming public support, conservatives and progressives have remained locked in an ideological debate that has stalemated the issue and solidified the status quo.

Joel Berg is a nationally recognized expert on hunger, working closely with charitable food pantries and soup kitchens, most of which are faith-based. Tom Freedman is a consultant to leading political figures, Fortune 500 companies, foundations, and nonprofits.