It is not surprising, given an astonishing level of underemployment, that we learn this:

The number of Americans who lived in households that lacked consistent access to adequate food soared last year, to 49 million, the highest since the government began tracking what it calls “food insecurity” 14 years ago, the Department of Agriculture reported Monday.

The increase, of 13 million Americans, was much larger than even the most pessimistic observers of hunger trends had expected and cast an alarming light on the daily hardships caused by the recession’s punishing effect on jobs and wages.

About a third of these struggling households had what the researchers called “very low food security,” meaning lack of money forced members to skip meals, cut portions or otherwise forgo food at some point in the year.

The other two-thirds typically had enough to eat, but only by eating cheaper or less varied foods, relying on government aid like food stamps, or visiting food pantries and soup kitchens.

   But, some conservatives think hungry people aren’t, well, really hungry:

“Very few of these people are hungry,” said Robert Rector, an analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “When they lose jobs, they constrain the kind of food they buy. That is regrettable, but it’s a far cry from a hunger crisis.”

   I see. When people "constrain" the kind of food they buy, I’m assuming that Mr. Rector is adopting the Ronald Reagan method of defining proper eating habits which promotes ketchup as a vegetable.

   And what remains unsaid is this question: what exactly is the number of hungry people Rector thinks is a crisis? 60 million? 100 million? Or another way of asking the question–is it OK by conservatives if the number of hungry people, many of them children, would "only" be 20 million? 10 million?