Two reports issued the same day told of two appalling realities. One report on poverty was based on an AP survey. It found that the poor are getting poorer, and more numerous than at any time in the last half century. The other report from the Tax Justice Network found that the super-rich are getting richer, and they are squirreling their money away to the tune of tens of trillions in offshore tax havens that are far outside the reaches of the U.S. and other nation's tax collectors. Wealthy Americans are amply represented among the offshore tax evaders. This money could bankroll business start-ups, business expansion, fatten federal and state tax revenues, and create thousands of new jobs. This would do much to blunt the steady march upwards of those that slip into the poverty ranks.
The devastating impact of poverty on American economic life is well known. It wastes the talents, energy, and productive potential of many in the work force. In some communities, it increases crime which overburdens the police, the courts, and prisons, and makes doing business in these areas more costly. It strains the health care, and the welfare system. This results in a bigger tax drain on the middle-class. It sharply reduces the ability of thousands of consumers to purchase goods and services. This further crimps business growth and reduces government tax revenues.
Yet, there is not a faint mention of the word poverty on the presidential campaign trail. There's a reason, in fact several reasons, for this. One is trying to define who is poor. Apart from the visibly homeless, and those rummaging around on skid row, and in some of the poorest and most recognizable urban inner city communities, one can easily be considered working, or even middle class, one day and the loss of a job, and tangible income, can quickly dump that person into the poverty ranks. This makes the poor even more diffuse, and hard to typecast. They cut across all ethnic, gender, and religious and even political party affiliation lines. There are low income persons in the South, Middle America, and the rural areas, that are conservative, and vote GOP.
The other reason is that the poor do not have an advocacy group to go to bat for them with lawmakers such as labor, civil rights, education, environmental, or abortion rights supporters have. This further increases their political invisibility. The only time the poor had loud champions was a brief moment during the 1960s when a small band of anti-poverty groups and organizers got the attention of the Johnson Administration. They shouted, cajoled, and actively lobbied LBJ for a major expansion of anti-poverty programs, funding, and initiatives to reduce poverty in the nation. But the anti-poverty crusade quickly fell victim to Johnson's Vietnam War build up, and the increased shrill attacks from conservatives that the war on poverty was a scam to reward deadbeats and loafers, and sharp budget cutbacks.
Another reason for the silence about poverty on the campaign trail is that the national economic and fiscal emphasis is on how to hack away tens of billions from spending on domestic and even the once sacred military programs. President Obama and GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney will fiercely arm wrestle over which one can best bring down the deficit, reduce spending, decrease taxes, and get rid of wasteful programs. They will also spar hard over how best to protect the interests of the middle-class. It's about votes, and a pro-middle-class, cut spending line, appeals to centrist, independents. Both Romney and Obama bank on them to be the path to or back to the White House.
The biggest reason that politicians dare not make poverty a political issue is that the existence of so many poor flies in the face of the embedded laissez faire notion that the poor aren't poor because of the hyper concentration of wealth, or worse, any failing of the system, but because of their personal failings. Surveys have borne this out. Even many among the poor are as apt as many of those in the middle-class, and the well-to-do, to self-debase themselves for their poverty. They blame it on their misfortune, bad luck, lack of education and skills, or alcohol, and drug problems. These are certainly reasons why some fall into poverty or remain chronically poor. They, however, are at best peripheral to the real cause of the poverty rise, and that's the control by a relatively handful of the bulk of the nation's income, resources and productive wealth.
The poor will continue to grow in numbers. But they are nameless, faceless, and voiceless. This insures that poverty will remain missing from the presidential campaign trail.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He is a frequent political commentator on MSNBC and a weekly co-host of the Al Sharpton Show on American Urban Radio Network. He is the author of How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge. He is an associate editor of New America Media. He is the host of the weekly Hutchinson Report on KPFK-Radio and the Pacifica Network.
Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/earlhutchinson
This election is about the middle class and their shrinking income. This is not about the poor. Pres Obama wants to give them health care, but Republicans say that is a waste of money in this era of lower budgets, and growing defecits.so no help for them. Rick Perry the Texas Governor said it quite well, we, the State of Texas are not going to add to the federal defecit to enlarge Medicaid and take care of poor people who make no moves to take of themselves. The money is needed to balance the budget, to pay for past Republican wars, and to boost the Pentagon budget instead of a cut - so President Romney can be proud of America, since we are the worlds policeman and law and order on this here Planet. Governor Perry did forget to mention that Texas has the highest state rate of uninsured residents in the United States at 26% - but other Republicans suggested that that is what makes Texas such a tough place, with only the strongest surviving. That way the weak and old migrate to other states that provide health care. They only are a drain on the state - who needs them. !
Education (the US is struggling to remain competitive, school systems in many poor areas serve as an,extended social service rather than an educational institution);
Skilled Labor (we struggle to compete in the global economy when other nations provide similar services at a lower cost),
Financial Literacy (it is difficult too break the cycle of poverty without understanding how to use debt responsibly and build assets), and
A Range of Other Social Issues (how does a single parent get ahead when day care is not affordable?).
It is more than a money issue (although, no doubt, this is a bit part of it) - it is a complex interaction of many issues (for example, how does is a hungry child in a classroom supposed to learn?). To break the cycle, we need a national policy...not just dismiss the situation as an inevitable byproduct of the existence of the uber-wealthy.
Finally, there are several organizations advocating the interests of the poor. CFED is one, which is leading the charge in implementing innovative solutions such as IDAs & other asset building programs.
Quick! Name another society in human history that could sustain this level of inequality over time.
America is in a death spiral. The wealthy have their money offshore and do not care what happens to the rest of us. The politicians are busy lining their pockets and also - don't give a damn about "we the people".
Everybody, including myself, is willing to help somebody who has been hurt by conditions beyond their control. Fact is, we have a huge professional welfare crowd in this country that knows they can always count on the government to use somebody else's hard earned money to pay their bills. That is what people are angry about. And we are sick of being called "mean" because we have brains enough to know the difference between providing temporary "help" and getting "screwed" into paying other people's bills forever.
It sounds like you disapprove of the current welfare program, Temporary Aid to Needy Families.
This may help you:
For TANF, there is a maximum of 60 months of benefits within one's lifetime.
TANF recipients are required to participate in work or education activities.
TANF accounts for just 0.7% of the federal budget and 2% of entitlement spending.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_Families
http://www.hhs.gov/about/FY2012budget/fy2012bib.pdf (See chart pg 3)
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/research_desk_tallies_how_expe.html
So, given the facts, exactly to whom are you referring as 'getting a multi-generational free ride.' and how is 0.7% an excessive percentage bankrupting the country? And who is getting government aid that isn't legitimately deserving? Seniors, the disabled?
If I work to put myself through college and work 80 hours a week to get ahead in my company and succeed, and now make $150K or even $350K a year and I pay taxes. Why should I have to pay an additional tax on what I save? I’ve already paid my taxes and if I invest or pay off my house and rent it out and then buy another one and I build up my savings to $1Million over 15 years, why should I be penalized and have to pay additional taxes on income I already paid a tax on?
The statement, “wealthy Americans are amply represented among the offshore tax evaders. This money could bankroll business start-ups, business expansion, fatten federal and state tax revenues, and create thousands of new jobs” is wrong and still does not address the fundamental problem of poverty. We need to attack the root problem and just put a band aid on it with more money.