Poor Politics Edwards’s poverty “plague” examined.

The Census Bureau will release it annual report on poverty in America tomorrow. The report will show, as it has in recent years that around 37 million people live in official poverty. Presidential candidate John Edwards, who hopes to lead the nation in a new crusade against poverty, will, no doubt, seek to reap much publicity from the report.

In the past, Edwards has claimed that poverty in America is a “plague” which forces 37 million Americans to live in “terrible” circumstances. According to Edwards, an amazing “one in eight” Americans lack “enough money for the food, shelter, and clothing they need,” caught in a daily “struggle with incredible poverty.”

However, examination of the living standards of the 37 million or so persons, the government defines as “poor,” reveals that America’s poverty “plague” may not be as “terrible” or “incredible” as anti-poverty crusader Edwards contends.

If being “poor” means (as Edwards claims it does) a lack of nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, then very few of America’s 37 million official “poor” people can be regarded as actually poor. Some material hardship does exist in the United States, but, in reality, it is quite restricted in scope and severity.

The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from a variety of government reports:

46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America’s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100-percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But, even this condition is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have “enough” food to eat, while only two percent say they “often” do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR, or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all of the nation’s poor: There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. A third of “poor” households have both cell and land-line telephones. A third also telephone answering machines. At the other extreme, approximately one-tenth of families in poverty have no phone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.

Much official poverty that does exist in the United States can be reduced, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don’t work much, and their fathers are absent from the home.

In both good and bad economic environments, the typical American poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year — the equivalent of 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year — the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year — nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.

As noted above, father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.5 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three quarters of the nation’s impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

Yet, although work and marriage are reliable ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, the nation’s remaining poverty could be reduced.

Another important factor boosting poverty in the U.S. is our broken immigration system which imports hundreds of thousands of additional poor people each year from abroad through both legal and illegal immigration channels. One quarter of all poor persons in the U.S. are now first generation immigrants or the minor children of those immigrants. Roughly one in ten of the persons counted among the poor by Census is either an illegal immigrant or the minor child of an illegal. Immigrants tend to be poor because they have very low education levels. A quarter of legal immigrants and fifty to sixty percent of illegals are high-school dropouts. By contrast, only nine percent of non-immigrant Americans lack a high school degree.

As long as the present steady flow of poverty-prone persons from foreign countries continues, efforts to reduce the total number of poor in the U.S. will be far more difficult. A sound anti-poverty strategy must not only seek to increase work and marriage among native born Americans, it must also end illegal immigration, and dramatically increase the skill level of future legal immigrants.

and screw elderly widows so that $25% of them are trying to get by on $500/mo.

I'm a great granny - and I have been trying for years to get an answer to: "Who in DC reconfigured the social security charts to cut/gut benefits for women of my era?"Just one lousy month before I was eligible for social sec., the estimated monthly benefit amount for me dropped by almost $300.

I had no choice in "retiring" - doctor's orders "or you will be dead in 6 months." (Following, among other medical problems and a heart attack, leaving me with CHF)

It used to be that SS benefits were calibrated on the last 10 years of ones working history. Now it's figured/averaged on your working history from age 15.

Very clever. That cuts benefit amounts significantly, but for women of my era, who traditionally were stay-at-home mothers, back in the age where families lived better on one income than they can now on two, it cuts deep.

And it is definitely anti-family. It punishes not only my generation of women, but parents today who make the decision that they want to raise their own children by having a parent in the home.

How? Those years of zero income for the stay-at-home parent are added in as zeroes, which brings the average per year income down dramatically. Ergo, the parents who put their children first are penalized come retirement.

I think that the least Washington could do is 'credit' the child rearing years by not adding them in the 'zero' years. It wouldn't help much but would be a bit less anti-family. Some countries, Denmark for example, give tax CREDITS to families to encourage them to have one parent in the home during early childhood years.

Do you remember ever hearing that SS benefits were cut? Betcha you never did. the recalibrating was a very innovative and underhanded maneuver to cut benefits without it being on the books or in the open as being a reduction in benefits.

And if any of you can get a straight answer to this, I'd love to hear it. (This political recalibration was put into effect in 1998)

I had to 'retire' but if I also wanted to eat and stay in my home, I had to make additional money. Fortunately, I still had/have a small income from my newspaper column, now running into it's 20th anniversary. As writing is as easy as breathing to me, this is no problem.

In addition, I have been able, as an artist, to pick up a bit more here and there.

But then comes the other rib from Big Daddy, IRS.

This puts me in the "self-employed" category...with the IRS slapping me with double SS taxes at 15.7% = not to mention a mountain of separate forms come tax time. I am able to take off a little for 'business expenses' - but any 'income' over that is subject to the double tax. With the pittance total income I have - below the poverty level, believe me - I can't afford to earn more than a small amount a year or I wouldn't be able to pay the tax. And here's the kicker: When you pay SS security taxes, it gets credited to be added into and later calibrated for an increase, though small, in later SS monthly benefits in coming years, right?

Huh! NOT unless the amount you have to pay in self-emp double SS taxes in any given year is MORE than the top amount you paid in any given year during your entire working life. Otherwise, they just take the money and you can forgeddabout it.

My question to them has been, and will always remain unanswered: "If you are not going to credit the money to the SS account of the person paying it, then why do you feel you have the right to collect it?"

However, all the above aside: I grew up on a little farm deep in the north woods of Maine, with my grandparents, just coming up out of the Great Depression. They knew how to stretch a penny. They knew the difference between a "want and a need." We didn't go to town just to see what there was on sale. We only bought what was needed. As Gramma said: "It ain't a bargain if you don't need it."

I have since lived all over this great country and ended up back t'home, now in my own little house in the woods. I do not have, nor do I want, a dishwasher or air-conditioning. As I write this, it is a very hot day, as Labor Day is wont to be here, and I have the windows open, a ceiling fan going in the living room and an old, sturdy GE fan (that belonged to my Aunt back in the 50's) blowing on me in my office. And my breakfast dishes are waiting in the sink - takes no more time to hand wash and air dry than to rinse, stack and unload a machine...and I get to gaze out the window over the sink to watch the birds and squirrels vie over the sunflower seeds.

I drive a 16 year old car that shows signs of giving up the ghost - but I will worry about that when the day arrives...since I can't do anything about it today. "Sufficient unto the day..," are the worries thereof. I am contemplating, however, getting a donkey. They are pretty maintenance free, relative to horses, and don't need expensive grain. I could ride him to the village store and he could 'gas up' nibbling by the roadside. ;o)

This past year, my income had a dramatic rise, comparatively, due to an unforeseen happenstance. My yearly income has increased by over a third, but is still far less than 20 thousand. I still have a mortgage and prop taxes and can't afford to make more income by self-emp as I couldn't take the double SS tax hit.

But I have learned how to do just fine by "living within my needs" and not worrying about my 'wants' - It can be done.

So you agree with me, but say my comments are irrelevant???
Where the heck did you learn reading comprehension?

Many low-income retirees are drawing back more than they paid because they are living longer. However, if you think that the rich get back more than they ever paid in then you are ill informed. The more you make the more you pay - plain and simple. If the government steals someone’s money they should get a bit of it back. I paid nearly $200 in OASDI in my last paycheck (paid every two weeks). Think I’ll ever get it back?

Then again maybe you are one of those envious types who think the rich should be screwed over because they have more? I care little for Phil Donahue, but his SSN taxes were more than most people earn. So what if he has more money. He paid in like everyone else (although substantially more) he should be able to get his entitlement.

Also, those democrat retirees you scoff at in FL are getting flattened by increased property taxes due to over-appraisal of their homes. How would you like your property taxes to jump 400% while the tax accessor claims they are cutting taxes? Simple math would tell anyone that cutting the percentage by 1/2% is useless when the value goes up 400%.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.