Poverty data released today tells a cold truth about a rich nation that could do better. The U.S. is now home to 46.2 million poor people according to the latest Census Bureau report on income, poverty and health. That's about one in seven or 15.1 percent and the largest number in the 52 years for which poverty estimates have been published.
The big numbers muscle out an important back story: without government programs, poverty levels would be even worse. In part, this tale has not made it to center stage because it's easier to talk about how many people are living in poverty but far more difficult to draw attention to how much worse it would be without interventions. Another reason is that there are political forces dedicated to dismissing the role of government so that they can shrink it and "drown it in the bathtub." Even if that means, for example, that more people will fall into poverty.
To count as poor in 2010, annual pre-tax income for a family of four must be below $22,314, which translates into $107.00 per person per week. The Census data reveal that in 2010:
As much as poverty has grown, it would have been worse without government playing a role. More than 4.5 million people stayed out of poverty during the Great Recession thanks to seven provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, according to a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report, which used an improved poverty measure to assess the impact. In New York City, the Center for Economic Opportunity found that government programs and policies reduced poverty by 3 percentage points between 2008 and 2009. An analysis in three states by the Urban Institute found that child poverty was cut in half due to safety net programs.
The Census report provides a peek at government programs' anti poverty effects. For example, if tax credits were counted, the value of the federal earned income tax credit would reduce the number of children classified as poor by 3 million. In 2010 poverty was also reduced by:
While the success of government safety net programs should be celebrated and protected, they are necessary but not sufficient. Government investment in decent jobs is an important piece of making the invisible hand of the market work well for low-wage workers, particularly now, in the aftermath of the Great Recession and with a sticky 9 percent unemployment rate.
The nation needs jobs and the poor need jobs with livable wages. Three decades of wage stagnation have chipped away at the middle class and are now hitting low wage workers hardest. Notably, median earnings for male workers with a high school diploma fell by over one-third between 1969 and 2009.
The Administration's American Jobs Act offers valuable strategies. In addition to proposals that provide incentives to hire the long-term unemployed and use unemployment insurance to expand work-share programs that avoid layoffs, the jobs package establishes a Pathways Back to Work Fund aimed at investing in low-income youth and adults. Pathways includes funds for a proven wage subsidy program, jobs for youth, and work-based training initiatives.
These and other worthy notions face more than the usual political challenges. Instead of leaders dueling over how best to provide opportunity and protect vulnerable families, some political forces promote policies that would reduce the incomes of already low-income families. One notion being floated is that low-wage earners, including the 7 percent of workers who live below poverty, should pay more taxes. More than one conservative presidential hopeful is calling for a hike in these workers' federal income tax. Charges that such actions are unsound, even immoral, are inevitable. But another conservative notion, that most of the poor are "allegedly" poor and not "truly" poor, will likely be used by these political figures to deflect the charge of immorality. After all, if most of the poor are only "allegedly" poor, where's the harm? Politicians cloaked in the belief that most of the poor exist only "allegedly" risk behaving indifferently to those who get by on little income. That's a moral hazard the nation can ill afford.
The public, it turns out, wants more government attention to poverty reduction. One recent poll found that 56 percent believe that the government does not give poor people enough attention. Another poll found that 64 percent want more federal government involvement in reducing poverty.
It's time to hand it to the government. Its programs can make a visible difference.
Joseph A. Palermo: A President Standing in Quicksand
Rev. Chuck Currie: Pass The American Jobs Acts For A Stronger, More Moral America
US Poverty Rate, 1 in 6, at Highest Level in Years
California incomes plummet, poverty rises
A policy that is intented to reducing unemployment would have to include a drastic cut in working hours and a substantial increase in minimum hourly pay would be the minimal requirement to bring more people back into the work force where they can positively contribute to society.
A policy of development of renewable energy technologies and systems, and also of maximizing energy efficiency would also go a long way in reducing unemployment and poverty.
When a family can afford, or is afforded a place to live; the ability to purchase food and clothing; given access to a useful education; provided access to health care; and a means of transportation, are they impoverished?
If a family receives housing assistance, food stamps and Medicaid, haven’t they been lifted out of poverty?
The answer is no....in order to qualify for these programs your income has to be so low that you cannot survive otherwise. You are still living in poverty.
Hardly. It is a short-term band-aid that does not address the core problem: globalization. Our declining high standard of living was based on an economic dominance that is dissolving before our very eyes. Our government serves corporate earnings rather than societal earnings, and the term "economic growth" no longer applies to Main Street.
We need radical changes in the tax code and in trade policy to increase domestic manufacturing and get a bigger piece of the global economy. The status quo is stagnation, and standing still means ever-increasing poverty.
The problem is people, all demanding jobs, housing, cheap food and fuel, social security etc. there just isn’t enough to go around any more, only no one will believe it. The world can’t go on making-selling-buying stuff in some kind of infinite spiral. It just won’t work. A century of oil fueled plenty provided the illusion of growth, but it also allowed 6 billion people to be here who otherwise wouldn’t be. It could be sustained only as long as cheap oil kept flowing, don’t be fooled by economists who say that growth comes from enterprise and hard work. Growth comes only from energy input that makes work possible, our entire infrastructure was created by cheap energy, now there’s none left. This is why growth has stopped because primary energy is becoming too expensive to drive our machinery and produce our food. That’s why our economic system is slowing down and millions in Africa are starving to death. We can still afford to buy food, they can’t, there are exceptions, a few countries are still freewheeling on the prosperity of the oil era, but that will only last a few years as energy depletion alters the future for all of us. http://www.yourmedievalfuture.com/
Nonsense..there are more proven oil reserves in the U.S. and it's offshore areas than the whole of the Middle East. But this administration has banned accessing it. There has been no new refineries built in 40 years. Our government policies are responsible for the shortage of reasonably affordable fuels, not it's own natural supply limitations.
Our problem with cheap energy is political. Green energy is proving to be a loser both in efficiency and cost.
its called reality I'm afraid
Poverty in a nation is like a very contagious disease . If it is not cured at the bottom quickly it will start to make the wealthier ill also . And the longer it lingers the more will be added to the list .
And in an America where watching ill people suffer and die due to lack of money for health care is a national past time pleasure , the prudent thing to do is , while you have it , find another place to live where the insane are not in charge .
Is this why we want to tax them even more?
I think a good cost-benefit analysis of big government is important. This is a start for the benefits. But I am sure there are a lot of costs that create poverty as well.
I am skeptical the federal government does a good job at reducing poverty. They are fine at reducing poverty for people who will vote for them, like seniors. But now that there has been so much time where funds have been distributed shift from younger people to older people, that I am not surprised poverty has risen. It will continue to rise for many more years to come. Now President Obama wants to EXTEND the payroll tax cuts will make money for young people even smaller. But it will make people who can vote happy!
QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION:
a) If poor people were rewarded and encouraged to limit the size of their families, as do most non-poor people, would it help reduce poverty?
b) If not why not?
c) Do those whose livlihood depends on the perpetuation of poverty, really want to see the end of poverty, or are they just "blowing smoke".
I have family & friends who are poor yet they bring new people into this world assuming everything will be OK, if they think about it at all. Most poors reproduce mindlessly. Little do they know that few people in the USA care about they or their children's well-being.
I do know that if someone is poor or lower-to-middle middle class and they produce offspring in today's economy that that family (or lack thereof) may very well have a ticket to long term poverty.
Something to consider:
1. Cuba sells condums three for a cent. (Found that on Huff Post)
2. One month of birth control pills costs $20-$70 retail. Pharmacies' purchase price $2-$5.
You think the U.S. Government could end up saving money by buying up all the birth control pills, and giving them to all adult women who requested them?
Your references please. No offense, but I would like to have a look at the "raw data".
lazy
immoral
making bad choices
ignorant
standing around for handouts
they will not be moved. There is a virulent strain going around the country these days, which far surpasses simply a resentment of 'freeloaders'. Mix the view that people somehow deserve poverty because they have no moral fiber with the Horatio Alger type belief that success is entirely due to one's own smarts and effort.
("I worked harder and smarter, and made myself a success. They are too lazy to do that. So they are not my burden.")
While the neo-conservatives congratulate themselves on being such fine fellows, they can watch others slip into poverty with equanimity. They have rationalized lack of empathy, sense of human kinship, and charity, and have somehow transformed those losses into a smug sense of 'personal responsibility'.
If 56% "believe that the government does not give poor people enough attention," if 64% "want more federal government involvement in reducing poverty," how do Republicans win elections? Our votes would seem to contradict what we say we want.
We want more effort at reducing poverty. What we can afford is a defense budget which is the largest in the world and more than the next 15 nations combined
We want a solid social security system to make sure the elderly aren't destitute and starving. What we can afford is two useless wars that cost hundreds of billions of dollars and kill and maim our servicemen.
We want a solid jobs program to rebuild our infrastructure and get people back to work. What we can afford is corporate welfare and 17% tax rates for billionaires.
The truth is - we are still a wealthy nation. The wealth has just been concentrated in all the wrong areas to benefit the powerful few. If we put a stop to the transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top we can afford to do quite a few great things for the people of our nation.
Curious that you should decry his absence on the one hand and then ban him from traditional places on the other.
All Americans should be required to pay taxes, so your "contributions" are quite meager.
We demand reparations!
You would rather people continue to drain society by keeping them poor?