BCT Editorial – 6/9/05

This page was last updated on June 11, 2005.

With us always; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 9, 2005.

This editorial is pretty much a regurgitation of “A real challenge” published on March 30, 2005. Please see that editorial for most of my comments regarding this version.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Like the poor, soup kitchens and food banks will be with us always.

“And if the income and wealth gaps in the United States continue to trend as they have, their services will be needed even more than they are today.”

[RWC] Ah, the old “the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer” BS. This would be true only if wealth were finite. Socialists want us to believe that the only way to prosperity is to take someone else’s wealth. Capitalists recognize that we make wealth.

“On Monday, The Times ran a story on area soup kitchens, and a comment by Norah Miller, who volunteers at The Ladle in Ambridge and serves as a consultant for the Homelessness Task Force of Beaver, brings the plight of many families into focus: ‘A lot of people are a paycheck away from being homeless; or, even if you get that rent check, feeding your family every week might not be a given.’

“Or, as Michael Kinsley, editorial and opinion editor of The Los Angeles Times, put in a recent column, ‘The national myth imagines the ascent from poverty to the middle class as a ratchet. But sliding out of middle-class prosperity is getting easier every day. You can do it by losing your job, by having an accident or other health emergency, by squandering your savings.’”

[RWC] It’s a myth that you can rise from poverty? Regarding “sliding out of … prosperity,” when wasn’t this true? There are no guarantees in life and never have been.

“Look at a family with a yearly income of $24,960, the equivalent of a $12-an-hour-job at 40 hours a week. The family’s yearly expenses include $7,200 for a two-bedroom apartment, $4,800 to keep a car on the road (car payment, insurance maintenance, gasoline, etc.), $5,200 for food and $1,600 for shoes and clothing.”

[RWC] Isn’t it a tad irresponsible to try and raise a family when you know you can’t afford it?

“After these major living expenses are accounted for, the family has around $118.50 a week in spending money. That might seem like a lot.

“However, look at what’s not included in the list above.

“No money is being spent on personal-care items such as soap, deodorant and shampoo, for haircuts, for household cleaning supplies and for pets. No money is being put into a household rainy-day fund to ease the money crunch when the refrigerator, stove, washer or dryer conk out for good. No money is being used for medical co-pays (if the family is fortunate to have fully funded employer-based health care). No money is going toward a savings account or pension. No money is being set aside for the children’s post-high school educations. No money is being saved for a down payment on a home.

“Some people might think that $12 an hour is a decent wage, but it really isn’t. One reason people have trouble understanding this is that they don’t adjust for inflation. Let’s take this family’s $24,960 back to 1984, when the median family income was $26,433. If we did that, today’s $24,960 would have the same buying power of $13,521 in 1984.

“We’re not trying to ennoble the poor. Many are in the position they are in because of bad decisions they have made in their lives.

“But what we have to understand is that the ranks of the working poor are growing and will continue to grow, and that they often are placed in this position because of circumstances over which they had no control. This doesn’t mean they deserve a handout. They do, though, deserve a hand up.”

[RWC] As I noted above, this is a rewrite of a previous editorial.