BCT Editorial – 7/23/06

This page was last updated on July 25, 2006.

Troubling trend; Editorial; Beaver County Times; July 23, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Pittsburgh isn’t so affordable, especially for the poor

“For years, Pittsburgh enjoyed the reputation of being a cheap place to live and raise a family.

“However, Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institute [sic] released a disturbing report last week that shows this isn’t the case for all Pittsburghers.”

[RWC] The correct name is Brookings Institution.

“The report revealed that many low-income people in the Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area - which includes Allegheny, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington and Westmoreland counties - are paying inflated prices for basic necessities such as food, housing and transportation.

“Overall, Pittsburgh ranked 217 out of 364 metro areas that fell under the Brookings’ study. That sounds pretty good, but the report also unearthed some troubling details.

“Low-income families around here tend to pay inflated prices for cashing checks, short-term loans, tax anticipation loans, mortgages and home insurance. In addition, they are more likely to pay for tax preparation and shop at high-priced, rent-to-own stores and small high-priced grocery stores.”

[RWC] What the editorial failed to note is “cashing checks, short-term loans, tax anticipation loans, … [and] rent-to-own stores” represent unsecured loans. In other words, “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” These loans are always expensive whether you’re rich or poor. Another example is carrying a balance on your credit card.

These are all the result of making poor financial choices and spending beyond your means. For example, instead of renting to own, just do without that new TV until you can afford to purchase it.

“One detail that stands out in the report is the number of check-cashing and alternative-loan businesses in low-income neighborhoods. These types of establishments are always a sign of bad times.”

[RWC] What a crock! While these businesses may be a sign of a low-income neighborhood, they aren’t “a sign of bad times” unless they start showing up in middle- and high-income neighborhoods.

“Poor neighborhoods in the Pittsburgh region have one of these places for every 10,825 residents, compared to one for every 218,803 residents in higher-income neighborhoods.”

[RWC] Duh! What would you expect? That’s like saying higher-income neighborhoods have more jewelry stores than low-income areas and expressing surprise.

“Brookings, which describes itself as a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the quality of U.S. public policy, among other things, said local, state and federal officials must do more to improve conditions for our most needy neighbors.”

[RWC] While the BI may indeed be “a nonprofit organization,” it’s also more accurately described as a liberal “think tank.” Read its papers and recommendations, and far more often than not you’ll find a definite tilt to the left.

“Its recommendations included cracking down on unscrupulous lenders, offering incentives for more traditional businesses to locate in poor neighborhoods and creating programs to inform and educate consumers who live in these areas.

“For most of us, Pittsburgh remains an affordable area to live and raise kids, but we need to do a much better job of improving quality of life for the less fortunate.”

[RWC] Why shouldn’t the “less fortunate” be responsible for “improving [their] quality of life?” Remember, it’s not bad luck that most of the “less fortunate” are in that position. It’s primarily the result of bad choices or personal flaws.