First of all, let me say that I can get conflicted on this issue of helping the poor and what constitutes someone really needing help and what is just pure laziness looking for a hand-out. In a study sure to cause new cries of "you heartless idiots!" from the Left, there is a new, clearer picture of the living standards of the poor in America. As I read this paper I was torn between two emotions: anger and concern. Anger that Americans have their emotions so completely manipulated by Government and advocates who are selling the worst poverty cases as the norm. And concern because I am afraid some will use this data to forget about the worst poverty cases. In a perfect world, assistance for the poor would all come from private charity. The link between donor and donee is closer, and less likely to be abused. But in the absence of a perfect world, the most shocking part of this entire report pertains to what President Obama did last year by changing the way poverty is measured.
If you are a regular follower of this blog you know that I am not a fan of the current president. But this little shell game may be a new low, even for Obama. By changing the definition of what "poor" is in our country, by exaggerating and providing misinformation about poverty, the real poverty issues are being swept under the rug. Amongst other things, misinformation stifles the development of well-targeted, effective programs that are working to reduce the problem. In other words, for the exchange of political power, Obama is willing to preach about helping the poor while, in effect, making the problem worse.
All of my life I have had a sense that the poor live under bridges in cardboard boxes and beg on the street corners. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that there are 30 million Americans living in poverty. But in fact, the bureau's definition of poverty differs dramatically from that held by most Americans. "In fact, other government surveys show that most of the persons whom the government defines as "in poverty" are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term." The actual living conditions of America’s poor are far different from my mental images. In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation. In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, a clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker. An astounding 2.5% of "poor" people had jacuzzis. The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. The family was able to obtain medical care when needed. By its own report, the family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs. As scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, “The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.”
.
Of course, to the families that are truly poor and/or experiencing problems in making ends meet, it make no difference that most "poor" families are relatively OK "To a family that has lost their home and is living in a homeless shelter, the fact that only 0.5 percent of families shared this experience in 2009 is no comfort. The distress and fear for the future that the family experiences are real and devastating. Public policy must deal with that distress. However, accurate information about the extent and severity of social problems is imperative for the development of effective public policy.
Obviously, as I have demonstrated in the previous paragraph, there is a vast gap between poverty as understood by the American public and poverty as currently measured by the government. Sadly, President Barack Obama plans to make this situation worse by creating a new “poverty” measure that deliberately severs all connection between “poverty” and actual deprivation. This new measure will serve as a propaganda tool in Obama’s endless quest to “spread the wealth” and will eventually displace the current poverty measure.
Under the new measure, a family will be judged poor if its income falls below certain specified income thresholds or standards. There is nothing new in this, but unlike the current poverty income standards, the new income thresholds will have a built-in escalator clause. They will rise automatically in direct proportion to any rise in the living standards of the average American.
The current poverty measure counts (albeit inaccurately) absolute purchasing power (how much meat and potatoes a person can buy). The new measure will count comparative purchasing power (how much meat and potatoes a person can buy relative to other people). As the nation becomes wealthier, the poverty standards will increase in proportion.
In other words, Obama will employ a statistical trick to give a new meaning to the saying that “the poor will always be with you.”
The new poverty measure will produce very odd results. For example, if the real income of every single American were to triple magically overnight, the new poverty measure would show no drop in poverty because the poverty income standards would also triple. Under the Obama system, poverty can be reduced only if the incomes of the “poor” are rising faster than the incomes of everyone else. Another paradox of the new poverty measure is that countries such as Bangladesh and Albania will have lower poverty rates than the U.S.—even though the actual living conditions in those countries are extremely low—simply because they have narrower distribution of incomes, albeit very low incomes.
According to Obama’s measure, economic growth has no impact on poverty. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the incomes of nearly all Americans have increased sevenfold after adjusting for inflation. However, from Obama’s perspective, this increase in real incomes had no effect on poverty because the incomes of those at the bottom of the income distribution did not rise faster than the incomes of those in the middle.
In plain English, Obama’s new poverty-measure system will measure income “inequality,” not “poverty.” But he cannot call it an inequality index because the American voter is not willing to support massive welfare increases, soaring deficits, and tax increases just to equalize incomes. However, if the goal of income leveling is camouflaged as a desperate struggle against poverty, malnutrition, hunger, and dire deprivation, then the political prospects improve. Again, as I stated before, Obama is willing to close his eyes to the real problems of poverty for the gain of political power.
The new measure is a public relations Trojan horse, smuggling in a “spread-the-wealth” agenda under the disguise of fighting significant material deprivation—a condition that is already rare in American society.
Poverty as traditionally defined by the Census Bureau has little connection with poverty as understood by the average American. The new Obama poverty measure will stretch this gap, artificially swelling the number of poor Americans and severing any link between the government’s concept of poverty and even modest deprivation. It will make grappling with the real deprivation that does exist even more difficult."
So, what is the common man to do?
First, I believe we should all be informed as to what the truth is about "poverty" and how the numbers are being manipulated by Obama in order to spread "doom and gloom" and get his "spread the wealth" policies passed. And then pass the information along.
Secondly, I think that we must do our level best to determine who is truly poor and "Give generously to the poor, not grudgingly, for the Lord your God will bless you in everything you do. There will always be some in the land who are poor."
(Large portions of information for this blog were provided by Heritage)
No comments:
Post a Comment