Trying to add a payment method? You can do this on the 
Cruel math. That’s how one resident described the combination of rising living costs and stagnant wages in Lookout Eugene-Springfield’s series on food insecurity.
Our reporting detailed the seemingly impossible choice that nearly 1 in 5 Lane County residents deal with every day: put food on the table, or keep a roof over their heads.
Like much of the country, our system of feeding the most vulnerable depends on a vast network of local agencies, nonprofits and volunteers. Each does vital work, and the roll-up-your-sleeves-and-help ethos that motivates thousands of Lane County residents to volunteer their time to the effort can’t be applauded enough.
But we believe the kindness of strangers should be a supporting player in the fight against this systemic crisis, not the main weapon. Especially not as hunger rates have risen in recent years.
While we don’t have a silver bullet for solving food insecurity, we encourage policymakers at the local, state and federal level to consider some of these proposals surfaced by our conversations with stakeholders across the food production and distribution system.
Locally, we need to invest in what works. Can Lane County build on the early success of its Farm Forward program, which paid a dozen local farmers upfront to grow produce for local farmers markets and Food for Lane County? What would it take to increase to two dozen farmers next year?
Expanding these kinds of direct payment programs could especially benefit smaller Lane County communities. Places like Creswell, Oakridge and Mapleton saw food pantry usage immediately surge when federal food assistance was suspended during the recent government shutdown. So it feels like a no-brainer to support the growth of programs like Farm Forward, which promote circular food systems by propping up the supply of nutritious, locally grown food.
At the state level, lawmakers should explore creating a rainy day fund for food assistance. Oregon currently has two budget reserve funds that it can use to stabilize services if revenues decline: The Oregon Rainy Day Fund and the Education Stability Fund. We appreciate that budgets are tight — especially given the provision of President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which reduces spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, by nearly $300 billion over the next decade. We also endorse Gov. Tina Kotek’s late October declaration of a food emergency, which sent $5 million in unspent Temporary Assistance for Needy Families funds to food banks.
But with three more years of the Trump administration, the state should anticipate future emergencies as well as respond to current ones. Establishing a food security reserve fund now could help provide the next backstop if future government shutdowns threaten federal aid again.
At the federal level, we have less hope for any immediate fixes. An administration that implements sweeping SNAP cuts isn’t likely to reverse course. But one long-term goal lawmakers at all levels of government — local, state and federal — should consider is how the federal government defines poverty.
For instance, current federal data show about 15% of Lane County residents live below the poverty line. But by another measurement, nearly half of all Lane County residents struggle to cover their basic living expenses. Measurements like the United Way’s ALICE framework (Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed) better capture the impacts of the “cruel math” food insecure families try to solve for each day.
If policymakers at any level of government are willing to reassess the needs of families who don’t meet the federal poverty threshold but still struggle to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads, it could reshape how the government identifies food assistance needs. Even without a sympathetic partner at the federal level, local and state policymakers could start the work now and be ready to push for changes in a future administration.
Across our series, one theme came up over and over: the impact of housing costs on food insecurity. A failure to address our rising real estate costs and undersupply of affordable housing will keep Lane County’s most vulnerable skimping on meals to pay their rents. The list of housing prescriptions — from investments in low-income housing to deregulation in land-use planning — is a topic for another editorial.
What we’ve presented is hardly a definitive list of solutions for a problem as widespread as hunger. But starting this dialogue is a worthwhile exercise. We welcome other ideas. Clear, concrete policy proposals will be key. Whether they come from Lane County, Salem or Washington, D.C. remains to be seen.
