Recently I was discussing poverty statistics and guidelines with several friends. We all were using a different figure. Well, that's not surprising, so do all the government agencies. USDA, HHS, Labor, the military, DoE, Dept. of Educ.--all use a different figure, and programs are usually not figured on the base, but on calulations like 120% of poverty, or 135% of poverty, etc. The 2009 weighted average poverty threshold of $21,954 for a family of four represents the same purchasing power as the corresponding 1963 threshold of $3,128, which is when the figure was first developed by Mollie Orshansky, an economist and statistician at the Social Security Administration (SSA). Back in the 1980s, when I was researching this a bit more carefully, I calculated that I was able to feed my family of four (2 teenagers) for less than the figure the government used for the "Economy food plan" on which poverty statistics were based. That's because I contributed my own labor, and was able to drive to a supermarket to purchase food, which many poor cannot do. The highest figures I've seen have been posted at the Lutheran Food Pantry which gives a base income by number in the family for qualifying for 3 days of food donations.
Although most poor families don't actually have 2 adults and 2 children (if there were 2 adults, the family usually isn't poor), that is the figure that is used in calculating the needs.
Johnson's War on Poverty, begun in the early 1960s, ended up being a war on the poor. We employ millions of people at the state, local and federal level with the money to defeat poverty, but actually, it simply provides a nice middle class living for those who service the truly poor. Occasionally, there are families who get a boost or are tied over during a rough patch, and those are the stories you'll read about in the paper. But for the most part, the poor are penalized by these programs. If they get married, they lose a benefit. If they get a raise, they might be disqualified for an important medical benefit for a handicapped child, or education benefit, so it's better not to move ahead.
Poverty statistics are used by politicians to keep certain cities firmly in the Democratic camp, while Republicans, who have never been stingy with tax dollars, are called pikers and meanies. Until Obama, President Bush was the all-time big spender on social programs. How's that working for you, America?
HHS Poverty Guidelines Family of 4, $22,250
Low Income Levels Dept. of Ed. Family of 4, $33,075
Lifeline, telecommunications benefits for low income You're on your own figuring this one out--I couldn't
Ohio HEAP (Energy): 200% of poverty level, Family of 4, $44,100
Monday, February 14, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I'm with you Norma until you mentioned Johnson's War On Poverty and the ensuing repetion of rightwing rhetoric. With regard to healthcare reform the poor are not cut off and disencentivised from wanting to move ahead. They are put on a scale which is as fair as can be concieved I would say.
A penalty to getting married? The poor fair much better paying taxes married than they do single.
Both parties love gerrymandering with statistics don't they?
Republicans haven't been stingy with tax dollars because they heretofore have not been able to get away with it. :)
I have read that the various calculations of "poverty level" income do not, in fact, include transfer payments, i.e., food stamps, welfare payments, etc., are excluded. If true, the "poverty level" income thresholds actually represent a more comfortable lifestyle than you might otherwise believe.
That said, would I want to live at or under the "poverty level"? Of course not. But we should define exactly what it is that is under discussion.
Another thought: no matter how comfortable a life it may represent, there will always be a bottom quintile on the income scale. One can be in the bottom income quintile, and still enjoy the benefits of flat screen TVs, cell phones, automobiles, and refrigerators. "Poor" in today's America is not what it may have been, once upon a time.
Finally, Peter Robinson at "Uncommon Knowledge" over at NRO is hosting Bill Voegeli this week and the first two episodes are very, very good. Mr. Voegeli wrote the book, "Never Enough," about the American welfare state. The title refers to his assertion that, if you ask a liberal/progressive to name a figure, a limit, a final point at which the country will have satisfied all who are needy, there is no answer. It is, and will be, "never enough." Oh, and he talks a bit about the "War on Poverty."
Go to: http://tv/nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/
PS: I wish the comment window were larger in size....
Colo, you're right about most transfer payments. But even if someone is employed they can qualify for many programs; even so, all together that would rarely bring a family over $30,000, but for some people, that's just fine. Income is not wealth. For many people with children, an annual salary at $25,000 and co-pay insurance doesn't look so great if with housing, health, food assistance after school and summer food programs, a parent can be getting $30,000, but they are condemning themselves to staying poor by taking the government aid. In 1983 I was told it would require a minimum wage of $10.50/hr to meet all the gov't programs then available--don't know what that would be today, but definitely more than even Democrats would be willing to stake a career on.
Post a Comment