According to the latest data released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, nearly 50 million people, and almost one in four children, did not have enough to eat at some point in 2008:

In 2008, nearly 17 million children, or 22.5 percent, lived in households in which food at times was scarce — 4 million children more than the year before. And the number of youngsters who sometimes were outright hungry rose from nearly 700,000 to almost 1.1 million. Among Americans of all ages, more than 16 percent — or 49 million people — sometimes ran short of nutritious food, compared with about 12 percent the year before. The deterioration in access to food during 2008 among both children and adults far eclipses that of any other single year in the report’s history.

President Obama characterized the data as “unsettling,” and reiterated his campaign pledge to end child hunger by 2015. “These numbers are a wake-up call…for us to get very serious about food security and hunger, about nutrition and food safety in this country,” added Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

These numbers will only get worse in the short-term, as 2009′s increase in unemployment will negatively impact the food situation of even more families. This is just one more reason that any jobs package that Congress puts together should include further aid to states, so that they don’t cut back on services providing food to the hungry, or lay off even more people that will have to join lines at the soup kitchen.

But, since Obama is remaining committed to his 2015 goal, this could also be a time to look at poverty-fighting measures more widely. The Senate Agriculture Committee held a hearing today on reauthorization of U.S. Child Nutrition Programs, which is one more opportunity to combat hunger, if dollars are put in the right places. As Vilsack told the committee “this legislation is an opportunity to in one stroke confront both the challenges of obesity and hunger – with the prospect of better health and well-being in the years to come. Investing in meal quality and access to these critical programs will help support the capacity of our young people to learn and acquire the tools necessary to become the leaders of tomorrow.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reflects neither the politics nor the priorities of the business community of the United States. The Chamber is spending hundreds of millions of dollars from its corporate members against President Barack Obama’s progressive agenda of health care, clean energy, and financial reform. The “principal governing and policymaking body” of the Chamber is its 116-member board of directors, purportedly with a “membership is as diverse as the nation’s business community itself”:

The Board of Directors is the principal governing and policymaking body of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The board’s membership is as diverse as the nation’s business community itself, with more than 100 corporate and small business leaders serving from all sectors and sizes of business, and from all regions of the country.

In fact, a Wonk Room analysis has found that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce board is overwhelmingly Republican, having contributed six to one to conservative over liberal politicians.

The nation’s business community, however, is a bipartisan participant in American politics, contributing about equally to both parties over the last ten years. The Wonk Room has found that from 1999 to 2007, corporate contributions broke 53% to 47% in favor of Republicans. After the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and other Democrats massively outraised that of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and other Republicans, the split from 1999 to 2009 stands 52% to 48% in favor of Democrats:

Source: Center for American Progress Action Fund, from Federal Election Commission data compiled by the OpenSecrets project of the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Chamber — when not lying about the effects of climate or health care reform — has grossly inflated the numbers of its members. It also seems it’s misrepresenting the nature of the few members who make its misguided policy decisions. Read more