Poor Mitt Romney. The fact is that the candidate is a rich man (no matter what his tax bracket), but equally true is that his "not concerned about the very poor" assertions in a CNN interview have made him a political piñata on both the right and the left. That must hurt.
Romney explained to CNN's Soledad O'Brien that the reason he is not concerned about the very poor is that "there is a safety net." The inference is that the very existence of a safety net means the nation protects struggling families from the vagaries of recessions, the lack of jobs, the inadequacy of wages, and the high cost of housing -- to name a few arenas outside the control of most individuals.
Romney's belief in the safety net makes him sound more like the "everyman" who believes that all poor women with children receive welfare cash aid, everyone who needs food can readily get it (through the renamed food stamp program SNAP or the local soup kitchen), and that Medicaid takes care of all the health problems confronting the poor.
The safety net has lots of holes. For example, the nation's welfare program, TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) has these rents in its fabric that need repair:
• Workers who are deeply poor too often are not allowed to get help through TANF cash aid. In more than half the states, work income that reaches just half the poverty level automatically disqualifies the family (2008). In other words, a family of four with annual earnings of $10,600 was ineligible for a penny of TANF cash aid in more than half the states in 2008.
• Fewer poor families with children receive cash aid. Between 1996 and 2011, cash aid dropped from 68 to 27 poor families for every 100 poor families with children.
• The cash aid families receive has dropped in value. The purchase power of cash aid has dropped at least 20 percent between 1996 and 2011.
• Cash aid for families never brings families above poverty. The cash aid grant is below half of the poverty line in every state in the nation.
There are other holes. Many workers in low wage jobs cannot get unemployment insurance because the rules create a chicken-egg situation in which to get aid you need to have earned more; Medicaid is automatically denied in 17 states when working parents earn wages that get them to half the poverty level; and, among those low-income families who are eligible to receive housing assistance, fewer than one in four families actually get it.
A key in fixing holes is being able to see and find them. Significantly, it turns out that Romney appreciates that the safety net has holes. As Politico reported, after his CNN interview, the candidate explained to a plane-load of media that "he is 'sure' there are holes in the safety net and that 'finding those places is one of the things that is the responsibility of government.'"
This new statement will draw the ire of some conservatives. The Wall Street Journal opinion writers responded to the CNN interview by chiding the candidate to speak a better "lingua franca" and to draw his framing from "a half-century of creative conservative thinking on antipoverty transfer programs... [urging] one note to strike is about growing dependency on government... " To some conservative thinkers there are not holes in the safety net; rather, the notion of government programs helping people is an idea that comes out of whole cloth.
The responsibility of government is at the heart of the 2012 presidential campaign. A challenge for the candidates should be to come up with a list of holes and which they think are the "holeist." Notably, 9 in 10 voters say that a presidential candidate's views on poverty are important in determining their vote, according to a recent poll from Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity. So, the candidates should not just spar over which holes are the "holeist" but how they will proceed to fix them.
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Here's a report with US Census Bureau facts that should dispel any notions that the poor should be a priority:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor
And I am for a very strong Safety Net, but also expect all citizens to pay for it.
I came here expecting to like this post, but found instead an agenda that simply wants to hand more CASH to poor people.
IMHO that is the single biggest failure of the Great-Society/War on Poverty
Instead of implementing hard-nosed tough-love sensible programs we took an easier route of just sending out checks- which have ended up only subsidizing a permanent class of people addicted to that lifestyle.
I used to be shocked when I worked at McDonalds at all the teenage girls who were so proud & happy when they became pregnant out-of-wedlock.
The GREAT SOCIETY used to run Public Housing Projects, and they should have stayed with those
and added on-site daycare, on-site medical clinics,on-site educational sources.
But those projects became crime & drug havens since there was little-to-no security
INSTEAD, we took the EASY route, and turned to just sending out Monthly Checks, which has led to led only to the perpetuation of the problem it was supposed to correct.
The most important change we should implement now, is to simply take away those children and place them in state-run orphanages, which, while costly, and less than optimal,
WOULD BE FAR BETTER THAN WHAT HAPPENS NOW
PLUS- almost immediately those girls would stop having almost all of those babies.
There is also some common sense reasons such as ensuring social stability in the idea of giving temporary palliative help to those who fall on temporary hard times through no fault of there own.
With that thought in hand --- Anybody who is not UNABLE to work to support themselves should be expected to give back in kind service while receiving public largesse.
Could be cleaning streets, mowing public lawns, caring for the children of others in the same situation while those others look for or conduct work.
The current mentality of free lunch has become obscene and it is being fostered by far to many.
I wonder if GOP voters will be prepared for mom and dad to move in with them and expect their adult children to pay for their very expensive medical care.
What I've found about Republicans is that they somehow think they can get rid of all the safety nets, most government agencies and public services, and still have life continue exactly as it does now except they'll have more money in their pockets plus the satisfaction of sticking it to all those people they're sure are living in luxury on the government dime.
In response to this comment, there are going to be an out pouring of excuses(other commenters will call them "reasons") why people need a safety net.
Here is a solution to the debate over the safety net issue:
Set up a separate safety net programs.
Let those who believe in the "safety net" make tax-deductible contributions to it.
Let those who do not believe in the "safety net" do nothing.
The government runs the safety net program.
No tax dollars are used to fund the safety net program.
Safety net is no longer a political issue.
Censorship is evil.
I would like to apply your solution to funding the military and all the defense contractors,
Seems fair to me!
The solution would end the bickering over the so-called "safety net issue".
All that is heard from "zip zinzel" is: envy, hate and jealousy.
Censorship is evil.
More name calling and of course the usual envy, hate and jealousy.
Censorship is evil.
Can you tell me how much you expect people to do to help the poor? What is the limit you will ask for? What do you consider the border line between "expecting people to pitch in and help out" and "committing an act of theft using poverty as a rationalization".
This is a fair question. After all the sacred words say "Thou shalt not steal", "thou shalt not lie". It does not say "Thou shalt not steal or lie....unless your poor."
Come back and talk to us when you reach 65 and lets see if life has been as kind to you as you seem to expect it will be.
....you still haven't addressed my valid question. When do our "desperate expectations" cross the line to the point where we are taking advantage of others????
Are you saying you're in favor of slush funds for insurance company execs, taken straight out of Medicare funding?
It's costing the tax payers more money for services than we should be paying. I thought conservatives were all about saving money. Obviously throwing more money to the rich is more important than taxpayers cost.
"in demand" keeps changing, how are they supposed to determine what skills would be best?
The responsibility to foresee what will be "in demand" is upon the individual citizen, although there are many resources to to help (bls.gov).
For those who can't qualify for the military, there are numerous community college programs, corporate training programs, and union apprenticeships. I know a middle aged guy who went through the IBEW apprenticeship program. From day 1 as an apprentice he was earning a living wage, with full benefits. Now that he's a journeyman, he makes $100K/yr (albeit with an awesome skill set ... he wires generating plants onto the grid ... you only get one mistake with 16,000 volts). When jobs shut down (as they did a year ago), he just keeps on work on "side jobs", and he can't keep up with all the work he can get.
1) best option: take the Armed Service test board and enlist in the Navy or Air Force for a technical school. They will teach you a technical specialty, pay you, you acquire benefits (including GI Bill), and you become part of the veteran's support network
2) next best: a union or corporate apprenticeship. Again, you get paid to get trained, and get benefits.
3) after that: community colleges, with tuition aid or whatever.
The individual citizen is still responsible for their own career planning. www.bls.gov and other sources can help.
We should have a "dual education" system like Germany, that would go a long way toward making this a non-issue. Academic education for the top 30%, vocational and technical training for the remaining 70%. Low unemployment, strong middle class, high quality of life.
a) Be the job creator: BUY AMERICAN. Every dollar you spend on a "Made in USA" product creates a job for a fellow American for about 5 minutes. For each ten Americans committing to "Buy American", a full-time well paying job is created for one fellow American. Do the math. No increase to the deficit, debt, no tax increases or budget cuts.
b) Learn a craft or trade, whether through the military, a community college, or a union apprenticeship. Along with MILLIONS of other lost youths, I enlisted in the military and learned a trade that I then took to civilian life and spent a 40 year career doing. Community college vocational and technical training, and union apprenticeships, serve the same function. Who's more important in your life, your electrician and radiological technician, or someone with a BA in sociology?
As for the "safety net", the US safety net equals most OECD nations. 99 weeks unemployment equals Denmark. Welfare for the indigent is widespread. 80% of Americans have private health insurance and the remaining 20% get care on demand for free, or through Medicaid.
What is missing is a "US Citizens Identity Card" embossed with the logo, "I am an American and I am entitled to free food, housing, clothing, health care, and education for life. Oh, and a car and a vacation to Tuscany."