The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
By now many Ricochet readers will have had their attention drawn both to the alarming statistics released on poverty today and to the excellent Heritage Foundation study on what constitutes “poverty” in America. On the one hand, poverty has certainly increased under President Obama. On the other hand, poverty is being so loosely defined as to become virtually meaningless. Of course, the political capital to be gained by statistics related to poverty almost always redounds to the advantage of the Left. Or so it has until now.
As the Heritage Foundation points out, though, virtually all households living in poverty have a refrigerator, a television, and a stove and oven. The vast majority have air conditioning, a microwave, a DVD player, and cable television. Almost forty percent have a personal computer; a third have more than two televisions; thirty percent have a video game system; and 22% have more than one DVD player. These figures are for 2005, by the way, the horrible Bush years.
Such statistics are confirmation of what Adam Smith said long ago. An “improved” commercial society, relying principally on the workings of the market, may distribute wealth unequally (the rich are much richer than the poor); but that is better than all being equal in squalor. And even the poorest people living in commercial society will be better off than the wealthiest and the rulers of unimproved society.
These facts lead me to the inescapable conclusion that the poor should be poorer in America. I mean that in two senses. First, as the Heritage Foundation report urges, we need to redefine poverty to be in line with what most people imagine when they hear the word: that the impoverished are suffering from want of food, housing, clothing, and other basic necessities. The line “30 million Americans are living in poverty” is nothing more than fodder for demagogic Democrats.
Yet I mean this in a second sense. We should look at these figures and be outraged at the welfare state. My household does not have a “non-portable stereo,” though 49% of the “poor” do. My home has only one television, though a third of the “poor” have more than two. I do not have a printer, though 27.9% of the “poor” do. Should we—you and I, as taxpayers—pay for the poor to live with more luxuries than we have in many cases? What incentive do the poor have to get off the dole if their food is paid for with food stamps, their health care is paid for through WIC and other programs, and their daycare is paid for through “early childhood” centers masquerading as schools? The poor should be poorer in America (i.e. have their social programs cut) so they will have an incentive to quit feeding at the public trough. What would happen then to the “poor”? What would then happen—according to Econ 101—is that the money saved from no longer “helping” the poor might actually be invested by people who understand markets in order to create more and better jobs. There would be fewer poor. Republicans can win on this issue. Reagan did.
- Comment (32)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jul '10
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
Wasn't it Andrew Jackson Who proposed a specific tax on "the poor" in order to create incentives to work?
Also, I think when talking about "the poor" it's pertinent to point out that they're obese to boot.
Dec '10
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
Oh, my! The "rails" this subject touches!! All we need know about our definition of poor can be summed up by this truism. The # 1 health issues surrounding the "poor" in our country center around a cluster of illnesses caused or aggravated by obesity. OBESITY! Our "poor" are FAT! In comparison the the rest of the world, we have no poor. I'm reminded of my eldest son's college pre-freshman "experience" session. One night they were divided into small groups. Each group represented the poor of various regions around the world. They ate the average portions of their representative region and lived in shelter that replicated typical living conditions (thatch huts, wooden shacks, etc.) Some, my son later shared, "really had it rough", sharing three small potatoes for 5 or 6 people. Others had somewhat more. When they introduced the "Appalachian" region, they were defined as "poor by choice". I can think of no better description for an overwhelming majority of our nations poor. Working with a few less fortunate folks in my church with serious money troubles, I find common threads: unmarried (typically divorced), bad habits (smoking, gambling, overeating), and limited common sense. We do all we can.
Jun '10
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
...and one or two of the poor may have the big screen TV and computer that disappeared from your home while you were on vacation in Hawaii. Just saying...
Aug '10
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
Where is Moynihan when we need him ?
A new paper called "Defining Disenfranchisement Down" would be so apt.
And on cable so the poor could get it, or in a PDF that was broadcast over what PBS could morph into, a narrowcasting benefits program with direct deposit. But then I might not know about something that might be extant.
Jan '11
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
We have to be careful. Someone who was employed for years would have bought the TV, the computer, and so on while they were employed, but if they lose their job and are out of work for several months, they're going to get hammered ... and it's not like they can give the TV back for the full price they paid.
In an economy with 9% unemployment, but where another 7% to 10% have simply stopped looking, you're talking about (perhaps) one in six who could have desperate finances but yet still have TVs and running shoes. I'm not sure that their household appliances are slam dunk indicators that they really aren't poor.
I understand and agree with the general point, but this isn't as cut-and-dried as all that. After all, contemplate the loss of jobs, then the rising cost of healthcare, gas, and the looming taxes that might be coming down the pike.
Milk is $4.29 a gallon at the local supermarket, and I have teenagers. (OK, I shop at the warehouse clubs, but it's still a lot more than it was.)
Edited on September 14, 2011 at 2:34amOct '10
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
Have seen the goal posts move over the decades on the definition of The Poor. Understanding that this does change with time and economics, one recalls a floating point number for The Working Poor. Do we see that number today ?
At last call, it was about 32 to 37 K. Fifteen years ago. The relevance there may be fuzzy.
Always seemed the Poor on various levels of assitance fared better than a lot of working folk.
The real meat of the issue is how to break the cycle of dependance and not have some Greek style events in the streets here.
Oct '10
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
Re, KC Mullville. Milk is $4.29 a gallon at the local supermarket ? Gads, never touch the stuff myself.
Probably because a kid all we had was powdered milk. Try that with bulk puffed wheat or cherrios. Give that to a kid today and get sued...Ha...
Apr '11
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
Can I coin a new term "Poverty Lock"?
Defined as when a person cannot or will not move themselves out of poverty.
The cannot: somebody who has very few if any job skills. They are not worth minimum wage to employers, so therefore they never get that crucial first job that can teach them workskills and therefore they are locked into poverty.
The will not: Their standard of living with part time cash work, extended family assistance, welfare programs etc. is pleasant enough not to want to seek regular work.
I think our system of high employment costs (wages, regulations, firing regulations etc), combined with relatively generaous benefits, has resulted in a system where increasing number of people are stuck or happy enough with a life of "poverty".
Aug '11
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
The federal definition of "poverty" excludes a wide range of "benefits", such as Medicaid, state healthcare programs, free school breakfasts and lunches, housing and energy assistance and subsidized daycare programs.
Add the actual free-market value of all those goodies to the cash and food-stamp "income" of those households and they're better off, with more disposable income, than many middle-class working families.
Oct '10
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
Aloha Johnny: Can I coin a new term "Poverty Lock"?
Defined as when a person cannot or will not move themselves out of poverty.
The cannot: somebody who has very few if any job skills. They are not worth minimum wage to employers, so therefore they never get that crucial first job that can teach them workskills and therefore they are locked into poverty.
The will not: Their standard of living with part time cash work, extended family assistance, welfare programs etc. is pleasant enough not to want to seek regular work.
I think our system of high employment costs (wages, regulations, firing regulations etc), combined with relatively generaous benefits, has resulted in a system where increasing number of people are stuck or happy enough with a life of "poverty". · Sep 13 at 5:51pm
Nice phrase and some realistic definitions... That catch phrase, if adopted would be another drum for the Left to use loudly.
Jan '11
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
Are you kidding? I have a pipeline/conveyor belt that runs directly from Battle Creek Michigan into our pantry.
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
Great commentary. I'm partial to write a column for my school newspaper regarding the statistics outlined here and Heritage's analysis. The column would surely provide fodder for those that love to call me a "neo-reaganite trickle down idiot," as one reader so kindly characterized me in an email today.
Apr '11
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
Good luck making anyone who falls in the category of "Poor" see things your way. You make a fine example of what Republicans and conservatives get wrong on such issues. You have no tact and are uncompromising confident in your analysis of the situation, and perfectly willing to let the chips fall as they may. I like that personally and would probably favor it, but the world doesn't work like that and neither did Reagan. In fact did Reagan do any welfare reform?
You have to pose your view in a positive manner. You can not declare that the poor are too rich to be poor, or that they should have even less. It doesn't sell outside of this forum. Reagan ran against people abusing the welfare system. He ran against people scamming welfare getting multiple checks, claiming extra children etc. He ran saying he will kick these bums off the rolls. You would propose to run on the basis that everyone getting food stamps is stealing, or undeserving. Give me a break. Run on making welfare work, run on making people feel richer and happy with what they have not on getting less.
Oct '10
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
Oh come on. This is the perfect wedge issue for Democrats. Republicans want to reform the welfare state, not simply to lower costs, but also give better results. The lower costs are a happy side effect.
People who get more than they deserve fall under "waste, fraud, and abuse" that everyone supports cutting. Don't forget the working poor, who do not qualify for many of these programs and thus do not deserve to "be poorer." There are many government programs that are wasteful and indefensibly, but not all poor people use them.
Oct '10
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
And we need to stop framing this in a "the poor are exogenous" way. People talk about "the poor" as if being poor is independent of government social policy. This is clearly not the case. There are all sorts of low-income "hand-up" social programs that conservatives support (school vouchers being the quintessential example). Dependency and social breakdown are what conservatives object to, and it's the government who is to blame, not "the poor."
Apr '11
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
On the point that cutting off the welfare will lead to everyone getting jobs and being richer what is the proof of that? Other than your faith in Econ 101? Is there a prosperous democracy in the world without a welfare system? Many have bigger ones then America in fact.
One of the reasons we do have an organized government is to provide welfare and the social stability it engenders. The only countries that lack welfare are failed states. In Rome they gave out free bread to keep the plebs fed and had free games to keep them happy. We have welfare! It provides people with food, and spare income to buy entertainment. The cost of things like food stamps is actually quite small when looking at the whole budget. The problem I think lies with ineffective spending by the government. That is spending that does not make peoples lives obviously better, but does make some one feel good about spending it.
Oct '10
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
KC Mulville
Are you kidding? I have a pipeline/conveyor belt that runs directly from Battle Creek Michigan into our pantry. · Sep 13 at 6:11pm
Never quite got the Puffed Wheat commercials about being shot from guns thing.
Imagine that ad today, Hmm...
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
Five years ago I never thought I would see a serious discussion about federalism in my lifetime. It is now being discussed. Two years ago I thought I was being radical and daring by urging a complete restructuring or even abandoning of the current social security system while addressing a Tea Party. That is now the central issue among the Republican candidates. The day after Obama won I told a student that the Right never organizes to show popular resistance. We are seeing things today that were really not possible or even dreamed of during the Reagan years when it was hard enough to sell the idea of tax cuts. Now is the moment to reread our Constitution and do what is right, not what we think will sell. As far as Econ 101, if you do not have time to read all of Adam Smith's Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, then pick up a copy of Henry Hazlitt's Economics in Once Lesson. It is eye-opening.
Apr '11
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
I'm saying we have to sell people on "what is right"? And you don't sell "what is right" by telling people the poor are too rich. You have to make them want it. I don't think the way you frame your case it sells. You also have to have a quick clear answer to the obvious question of how will getting rid of welfare make jobs. You can't tell people to just read a book and become more educated, that also doesn't sell.
I'm sorry to sound like a contrarian on this, since I'm sure I'm closer to you on this isssue than I am to Obama, but presentation matters. Conservatives take many things for granted and between us we accept certain things as given, but I feel most people don't so we need a good, clear, positive way to make our point. That will help us sell it to everyone else.
The Tea Party movement may be strong enough to force a showdown, but to win it it has to go beyond its rank an file and craft a message that will appeal to non-Tea Partyers.
Oct '10
Re: The Poor Should Be Poorer in America
After all the work Republicans do to boost their credibility on such issues, it doesn't help to have writers like yourself boost Democrats by spouting nonsense like "the poor are all selfish welfare abusers!" or "abolish social security!" Remember that "poor" does not mean "impoverished," and plenty of people think of themselves as "poor" who nonetheless work and do not get government handouts.
Edited on September 14, 2011 at 5:13am