Knifefight Afterdance
2011-07-20 17:25:22 UTC
July 20, 2011
What does it mean to be poor in America today? For typical "poor"
households -- as defined by the government -- it means cable
television, two color television sets, and two or more cars.
As for housing, it means living in air-conditioned comfort -- in decent
accommodations with even more space than "average" Europeans have.
(Not poor Europeans, to be sure, but "average" Europeans.) Moreover,
most "poor" Americans get the medical care they need, and they eat
enough -- in fact, they eat too much.
In short, the lifestyles of most "poor" Americans are vastly at odds
with dire government statistics about poverty in America -- statistics
that invariably send liberals and media pundits into hand-wringing fits
and moralistic outrage. Now comes an antidote to this absurdity -- a
report released on Monday by the Heritage Foundation that is
appropriately titled: "Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is
Poverty in the United States Today?"
According to the Census Bureau, more than 30 million Americans (one in
seven) live in "poverty." Yet the Heritage Foundation's report
underscores that being poor in America today actually has little to do
with what most Americans regard as deprivation.
Even so, the Obama administration is nevertheless poised to expand
these absurdities -- making the definition of poverty even more
divorced from reality than it already is, according to the Heritage
Foundation's Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield. Ultimately, they
point out that the president will further sever the connection between
poverty and "deprivation" -- by reclassifying poverty as being all
about "inequality." As they explain:
Under the new measure, a family will be judged poor if its income falls
below certain specified income thresholds or standards. There is
nothing new in this, but unlike the current poverty income standards,
the new income thresholds will have a built-in escalator clause. They
will rise automatically in direct proportion to any rise in the living
standards of the average American.
The current poverty measure counts (albeit inaccurately) absolute
purchasing power (how much meat and potatoes a person can buy). The new
measure will count comparative purchasing power (how much meat and
potatoes a person can buy relative to other people). As the nation
becomes wealthier, the poverty standards will increase in proportion.
In other words, Obama will employ a statistical trick to give a new
meaning to the saying that "the poor will always be with you."
The new poverty measure will produce very odd results. For example, if
the real income of every single American were to triple magically
overnight, the new poverty measure would show no drop in poverty
because the poverty income standards would also triple. Under the
Obama system, poverty can be reduced only if the incomes of the "poor"
are rising faster than the incomes of everyone else. Another paradox
of the new poverty measure is that countries such as Bangladesh and
Albania will have lower poverty rates than the U.S.'s -- even though
the actual living conditions in those countries are extremely low --
simply because they have narrower distribution of incomes, albeit very
low incomes.
Ultimately, "[t]he new measure is a public relations Trojan Horse,
smuggling in a 'spread-the-wealth' agenda under the ruse of fighting
significant material deprivation -- a condition that is already rare in
American society," they point out.
Most troubling, they point out that "grossly exaggerating the extent
and severity of material deprivation in the U.S. will benefit neither
the poor, the economy, nor society as a whole."
Of course, the Heritage Foundation's report is hardly news to many
middle- and upper-middle-class Americans who have ever stood in line at
the grocery store -- right behind a shopper using a food-stamp card to
buy bottled water, junk food, and soft drinks -- a shopper who then
loaded up an SUV with a basket full of groceries. Recently, an article
in the Wall Street Journal seemed intended to cast sympathy on
food-stamp recipients at a Walmart. But it inadvertently did the
opposite -- suggesting some food-stamp recipients do not seem all that
needy.
If you want to see real poverty, don't go to Walmart. You should visit
one of the shantytown slums surrounding Latin America's major cities.
And while you're at it, visit a solidly middle-class neighborhood. By
American standards, those neighborhoods would be poor -- and yet they
are neat and orderly. Their residents are thrifty, hardworking, and
well-mannered -- and they're determined to give their kids a good
education. In those neighborhoods, people don't park their cars on
their front lawns and young men don't walk around with pit bulls.
There are no gangs or drug-dealing.
Liberals are loath to admit it, but poverty is not about income
"inequality." More often than not, it's about culture and values --
and that's especially the case with poverty that's handed down from one
generation to the next in the same families. That said, American is
unique in another way in respect to its "poverty."
It's the only country in the world where poor people are fat -- another
absurdity that liberals are loath to acknowledge.
What does it mean to be poor in America today? For typical "poor"
households -- as defined by the government -- it means cable
television, two color television sets, and two or more cars.
As for housing, it means living in air-conditioned comfort -- in decent
accommodations with even more space than "average" Europeans have.
(Not poor Europeans, to be sure, but "average" Europeans.) Moreover,
most "poor" Americans get the medical care they need, and they eat
enough -- in fact, they eat too much.
In short, the lifestyles of most "poor" Americans are vastly at odds
with dire government statistics about poverty in America -- statistics
that invariably send liberals and media pundits into hand-wringing fits
and moralistic outrage. Now comes an antidote to this absurdity -- a
report released on Monday by the Heritage Foundation that is
appropriately titled: "Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What is
Poverty in the United States Today?"
According to the Census Bureau, more than 30 million Americans (one in
seven) live in "poverty." Yet the Heritage Foundation's report
underscores that being poor in America today actually has little to do
with what most Americans regard as deprivation.
Even so, the Obama administration is nevertheless poised to expand
these absurdities -- making the definition of poverty even more
divorced from reality than it already is, according to the Heritage
Foundation's Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield. Ultimately, they
point out that the president will further sever the connection between
poverty and "deprivation" -- by reclassifying poverty as being all
about "inequality." As they explain:
Under the new measure, a family will be judged poor if its income falls
below certain specified income thresholds or standards. There is
nothing new in this, but unlike the current poverty income standards,
the new income thresholds will have a built-in escalator clause. They
will rise automatically in direct proportion to any rise in the living
standards of the average American.
The current poverty measure counts (albeit inaccurately) absolute
purchasing power (how much meat and potatoes a person can buy). The new
measure will count comparative purchasing power (how much meat and
potatoes a person can buy relative to other people). As the nation
becomes wealthier, the poverty standards will increase in proportion.
In other words, Obama will employ a statistical trick to give a new
meaning to the saying that "the poor will always be with you."
The new poverty measure will produce very odd results. For example, if
the real income of every single American were to triple magically
overnight, the new poverty measure would show no drop in poverty
because the poverty income standards would also triple. Under the
Obama system, poverty can be reduced only if the incomes of the "poor"
are rising faster than the incomes of everyone else. Another paradox
of the new poverty measure is that countries such as Bangladesh and
Albania will have lower poverty rates than the U.S.'s -- even though
the actual living conditions in those countries are extremely low --
simply because they have narrower distribution of incomes, albeit very
low incomes.
Ultimately, "[t]he new measure is a public relations Trojan Horse,
smuggling in a 'spread-the-wealth' agenda under the ruse of fighting
significant material deprivation -- a condition that is already rare in
American society," they point out.
Most troubling, they point out that "grossly exaggerating the extent
and severity of material deprivation in the U.S. will benefit neither
the poor, the economy, nor society as a whole."
Of course, the Heritage Foundation's report is hardly news to many
middle- and upper-middle-class Americans who have ever stood in line at
the grocery store -- right behind a shopper using a food-stamp card to
buy bottled water, junk food, and soft drinks -- a shopper who then
loaded up an SUV with a basket full of groceries. Recently, an article
in the Wall Street Journal seemed intended to cast sympathy on
food-stamp recipients at a Walmart. But it inadvertently did the
opposite -- suggesting some food-stamp recipients do not seem all that
needy.
If you want to see real poverty, don't go to Walmart. You should visit
one of the shantytown slums surrounding Latin America's major cities.
And while you're at it, visit a solidly middle-class neighborhood. By
American standards, those neighborhoods would be poor -- and yet they
are neat and orderly. Their residents are thrifty, hardworking, and
well-mannered -- and they're determined to give their kids a good
education. In those neighborhoods, people don't park their cars on
their front lawns and young men don't walk around with pit bulls.
There are no gangs or drug-dealing.
Liberals are loath to admit it, but poverty is not about income
"inequality." More often than not, it's about culture and values --
and that's especially the case with poverty that's handed down from one
generation to the next in the same families. That said, American is
unique in another way in respect to its "poverty."
It's the only country in the world where poor people are fat -- another
absurdity that liberals are loath to acknowledge.