The Poor Are Not Poor

I admit that I am tired of poverty stories.

I am also tired of obesity stories – especially the absurd notion that obesity is a symptom of poverty. I’ve been to the poorest country on earth (Niger), and I can tell you there is no obesity.

So when a listener forwarded me this Heritage Foundation report, it rang true. Heritage says that what America defines as poverty is defined as “middle class” almost anywhere else.

For example, did you know that a person defined as poor in America…

…had air conditioning and a car. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. In the kitchen, it had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker. The family was able to obtain medical care when needed. Their home was not overcrowded and was in good repair. By its own report, the family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.

Heritage points out that the census bureau’s definition of poverty fails to take into account the comforts provided by the many social programs designed to address poverty, and that if you were to define “poor” as suffering actual hunger and actual deprivation, only 1 in 500 households would qualify.

This report is designed to point out the the shameless exaggeration liberals are willing to use to protect their favorite programs — which, of course, is Heritage’s role.

But I try to evaluate issues based on results, so let’s think about this:
What is Heritage really saying when it points out that the poor are not poor in any real sense? It’s saying that those anti-poverty programs WORKED!

I thought they’d been a failure, since poverty never seemed to drop. But now we know (thanks to the Heritage Foundation) that the poverty stats bear no resemblance to any reasonable definition of “poor”.
Not having video games, an air conditioner, or an HDTV myself, I agree with Heritage that it’s silly to define families who DO have these things as “poor.”

But Heritage deliberately ignores the conclusion suggested by its own argument: asserting that a truly poor American is hard to find is just another way of saying that social programs have indeed licked poverty.
That would explain why despite the worst recession since 1929, the streets are quiet. (Except in Belltown, of course.)

Personally I think social stability is worth the price. And remember too that all those luxuries in the homes of the poor keep the Wal-Mart busy.
Heritage, of course, will argue that it’s time to gut these programs, because we can’t afford them – and they may be right. But if we take that route, and bring back real poverty, please give the rest of us enough lead time to move ourselves into a securely gated community.