Thought (and hopefully action)-provoking stuff from Michael Gerson's op-ed in today's Washington Post, "A Week of Hunger". With clarity and punch, he argues for the expansion of food stamps as a moral imperative and "the most direct way to reduce hunger in America."

His approach is so uncomplicated it should be obvious and so direct it seems revolutionary. There is a 10 million person gap between those who receive food stamps and those who need them, he says, and because of computer records, "we also know that most benefits are used up by the third week of the month, leaving many families to scramble for other sources of food."

Making both a fiscal and moral case for expansion:

Hunger exacts a social cost. Hungry adults miss more work and consume more health care. Hungry children tend to be sicker, absent from school more often and more prone to getting into more trouble. Larry Brown of the Harvard School of Public Health calculates that the total price tag of hunger to American society is about $90 billion a year. In contrast, Brown estimates it would only cost about $10 billion to $12 billion a year to "virtually end hunger in our nation."

And this raises a moral issue. We have in place an automated food stamp program that is generally efficient and effective. We know it could be expanded with little increase in overhead. And we know with precision when its benefit runs out each month. So how is it then possible to justify funding three weeks of food instead of four? What additional dependence, what added moral hazard could a full month of eating possibly create?

It's heartening to see someone in Gerson's position---a member of the mainstream media and a conservative, no less---advocating for an issue usually championed by progressives. In doing so, he manages to break stereotypes and show the bridges being built around this moral issue. This is the straightforward, cooperative dialogue we need to foster common good politics.