25 Years of Leadership to End Hunger
 Playing
Defense
During the first 15 years of its history, the
Coalition (as Hunger Action was then called) often played offense.
It pushed the Commonwealth to take advantage of federal child
food programs, held bureaucrats’ feet to the fire when the programs
failed to perform, and lobbied successfully for state-funded initiatives
such as the State Food Purchase Program, the Farmers’ Market Nutrition
Program, the School Breakfast incentive and state funding for
WIC outreach. Its allies included members of both major political
parties.
The ‘90s required the Coalition to play a lot
more defense in an effort to preserve the infrastructure it had
helped to build during the previous 15 years.
The switch was prompted by changes in the national
Republican Party. Its conservative and more militant wing gained
control of the Party after the 1992 loss of then-President George
Bush to Bill Clinton. Led by an angry Georgia congressman named
Newt Gingrich, the conservatives put together a “Contract with
America” that included turning all federal child nutrition programs
over to the states. Voters seemed to like it. In the 1994 elections
Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives for
the first time in 40 years and Gingrich was elected Speaker of
the House.
To counter the ill
winds blowing out of Washington, the Coalition’s staff took its
message to the public. In a Christmas press conference at the
Downtown Daily Bread Soup Kitchen in Harrisburg, executive director
Kathleen Daugherty said the Contract with America was really an
attempt to cut funding and then leave states holding the empty
bag. “It threatens to undo this nation’s history of compassionate
response to its own hungry people.”
In 1995, as national debate over the Contract
with America raged, the Coalition went on the road to host public
hearings on child hunger in Corry, Pittsburgh, Wilkes-Barre and
Philadelphia. Part of a broad campaign on child hunger called
So Kids Can Eat, the hearings collected testimony
from witnesses who experienced the risk of hunger. County commissioners
and members of the General Assembly comprised the hearing panels.
Local media reported the findings to the public.
In 1996 House Republicans targeted the Food Stamp
Program, calling for it to be turned over to the states under
a block grant scheme. Again the Coalition responded. “We opposed
it with all our might,” said Daugherty, “not because we doubted
the ability of our Commonwealth to run the Program, but because
the underlying agenda was a cut in funding. At-risk families
would have had fewer nutrition resources had Gingrich and his
allies succeeded.” They didn’t, thanks to the opposition of moderate
Republican senators, including Richard Lugar from Indiana and
Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania.
But the continuing need to play defense took
its toll. “We had invested nearly 20 years promoting an array
of successful nutrition programs,” said Janet Ney of the Community
Action Committee of the Lehigh Valley and then President of the
Board of Directors. “Despite their record of success, these programs
came under relentless attack from politicians seeking narrow partisan
advantage. We concluded that we needed a more action-oriented
emphasis that would get us back to playing offense.”
A new name – the Pennsylvania Hunger Action Center
– emerged from the Board’s self-evaluation. It also adopted a
new mission statement: “Eliminate the causes of hunger in order
to ensure food security for every Pennsylvanian.” The name change
was effective January 1, 1997. And in the six years since, Hunger
Action has played more offense. The expansion of the Farmers’
Market Nutrition Program to include seniors and the success in
making the Food Stamp Program more accessible to working families
are but two examples. But given the politics of the moment, Hunger
Action also continues to play a lot of defense. Taking a page
out of the reactionary days of 1995-96, the House of Representatives
recently adopted a budget plan that would cut $18 billion from
federal nutrition programs over the next 10 years. Until we again
achieve a national consensus in support of ending hunger and achieving
economic justice, playing defense will be part of the game.
Part Six: What's
next for Hunger Action?
Back to Top
|
