BCT Editorial – 9/5/06

This page was last updated on September 10, 2006.

Dire straits; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 5, 2006.

There have been several editorials on this topic since September 2004 and they are all basically the same editorial with the words moved around. Among these retreads are “Even worse,” “A real challenge,” “With us always,” and “Morally right.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Poverty in America is much worse than the official statistics

“Official statistics aren’t necessarily accurate when it comes to poverty in America.”

[RWC] Note: I believe you’ll find any “official statistics” that don’t support Times positions “aren’t necessarily accurate.”

The point of the editorial is to make good economic news look good. After all, a growing economy, low unemployment, and increasing real income is bad news for liberals so it must be downplayed.

“The Census Bureau reports that 37 million Americans were living below the poverty level in 2005. That’s slightly up from the year before. This comes four years into an economic recovery.

“But that doesn’t tell the whole story, mainly because the official poverty level - defined as an annual income of $19,900 for a family of four - is woefully unrealistic.

“Let’s play with some numbers.

“A family of four (working father, stay-at-home mother and two children) has an annual income of $31,200. That’s what a person making $15 an hour working 40 hours a week would earn in a year.

“The family pays $600 a month in rent on a two-bedroom apartment (utilities included). It spends $150 a week on food and $400 a month on a vehicle (payment, insurance, gasoline and maintenance). It spends $300 per family member a year on clothing. The yearly expenses in these four areas reduce the family’s net income to $10,200, or $196 a week in spending money. Not bad, right?

“However, one big-ticket item isn’t on the list - health-care coverage. The father’s employer provides such coverage, with workers paying part of the cost, a standard procedure today. The family’s weekly contribution is $80 a week. That reduces the $10,200 to $6,040, or $116 a week in spending money.

“That’s still not a lot of money. Check out what’s not on the list. There’s no money for a 401(k) plan or other type of retirement account. There’s no money for health-care co-pays and deductibles for prescription drugs and visits to doctors’ offices. There’s no money for life insurance policies for the parents or college funds for the children. There’s no money for monthly payments on a washer, dryer, refrigerator or stove. There’s no money for repairs in case any of these appliances goes on the fritz. There’s no money for haircuts, soap, detergent, shampoo and other personal hygiene products. There’s no money for telephone service or a personal computer. There’s no money for extravagances like a vacation, going to the movies, movie rentals, dining out, video games, cable TV or birthday and Christmas gifts.

“The family can extend its income by making use of federal programs like food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit. It can shop at thrift stores for clothing and seek help from food pantries. The parents can drop health-care coverage and have their children covered by the state’s Children’s Health Insurance Program.

“The family also can add to its income by having the mother go back to work. However, if her schedule, which is determined by her employer, can’t be accommodated to work around her husband’s, child-care costs could eat up a good chunk of what she made.

“Even worse, the parents, who are struggling from pay check to pay check, would be criticized in some political and religious circles for abandoning their children’s care to others so they could pursue the almighty dollar.

“While the official statistics say 37 million Americans are living in poverty, millions more who are working hard and playing by the rules are in the poor house - and millions more will be joining them in the coming years. How we address their plight will determine their future and the nation’s.”

[RWC] As I wrote in a previous critique, “the editorial completely sidesteps individual responsibility. Not one mention is made of the irresponsibility of trying to raise a family of four when your pay can’t provide for necessities. If you can’t provide appropriate financial support for a family without taxpayer handouts, you have no business building a family. It is completely unfair to your children and to all the responsible families who live within their means.”

It’s also not tough to avoid long-term poverty.

First, graduate from high school. I could be wrong, but I suspect graduating with better than a D average helps too.

Second, if you choose not to go onto higher education (apprentice program, trade school, college, et cetera), immediately take and keep a job regardless of how much it pays. It not only puts money in your pocket, it gives you needed experience when you want a better job.

Third, don’t have a baby before you are married.

Fourth, don’t get married too young. The younger you are when you marry, the more likely it is you will divorce, and long-term marriage tends to help your economic situation. Most mention of this appears to consider marriage before 20 or 21 to be too young.

Fifth, don’t have a baby before you can afford a baby without requiring government handouts. Providing for children is a lot more expensive than most young adults recognize.

Sometimes these items are combined into a list of three.

I suggest you read the following papers.

Understanding Poverty in America (Backgrounder #1713); Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.; The Heritage Foundation; January 5, 2004.

Poverty and Inequality; The Heritage Foundation; August 25, 2004.

The Data on Poverty and Health Insurance You’re Not Reading (WebMemo #556); Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.; The Heritage Foundation; August 27, 2004.