It is time for a serious measure and assessment of poverty, and it’s time to create a legacy that is equal to our potential.
Sen. John Kennedy is right that our poverty metrics are flawed but he is incorrect in describing the extent of economic struggle and human suffering in this country.
Earlier this month, Senator John Kennedy argued that the Census Bureau’s measure of the federal poverty line is inaccurate and, in essence, an incompetent measure of economic need in the United States. He is not incorrect, but the larger truth is that for decades, both political parties have taken the wrong approach, and in doing so, have marginalized and exploited those in poverty rather than committed to addressing what is a solvable problem.
When it comes to poverty, virtue signaling and condescension characterize political campaigns and the comments of those in office. That makes it frustrating to watch elected officals address the issue, and it is why I believe the best approach is a community-centered one where we rely not on government or even on poverty nonprofits, but on one another. The most effective way forward is one in which our businesses, civic groups, schools, faith groups, health care companies, educational institutions, and each of us prioritize the most vulnerable in our communities. Not with sympathy but with a commitment to remove obstacles and create opportunities.
A discussion of solutions is too long for here, but perhaps talk should be replaced by actions, such as those found here.
As far as Kennedy’s piece, in it he says that America doesn’t have a poverty problem; we have a census bureau-definition problem. He is right that our metrics don’t accurately account for the size and scope of the problem; these metrics are deeply flawed. But we do in fact have a poverty problem in America.
Kennedy’s references to government waste and ineffectiveness relative to poverty, in addition to his critique of the specific federal poverty line determination, are important points to bring to the American people. Whether through our tax payments to the government or our contributions to poverty nonprofits of all sizes, there is an extreme lack of accountability for results. People in this country remain in poverty their whole lives, and pass it on, despite continued increases in government and nonprofit program budgets. Comparing what we spend to what we achieve is embarrassing, and it has been for generations.
Those who make a living because of poverty, as I did and still do, in part, need to be part of a much more effective approach. We need to stop making a living on the backs of those in poverty. That said, Kennedy’s implication that poverty is not as big of a problem because those in it receive lots of tax-free benefits misses the most important point; people are struggling unnecessarily and deeply. Poverty is not less of a problem than we believe it is just because the statistical measure is wrong. And it is not true that 1% of Americans are in poverty. In effect, he is criticizing the measure but then using it to make a point about the larger issue. And the loser in this — and in all the debates and arguments — is always people in poverty.
The most accurate definition of poverty is the inability to live for a sustained period of time without financial assistance. That definition implies locality and cost of living, which again highlight why a federal poverty line is flawed as a determinant of benefits.
And with this more accurate definition, a look at the daily lives of people in this country reveals that the number and percentage of individuals struggling economically is twice as much as what government reports tell us. That does not mean I want to see government expenditures double. I do not want that at all. But it does mean that I want to see poverty and the lives of those in it cease to be exploited for political gain or political argument. It is time for serious action by each of us in our communities.
The Bergel Institute is not a political organization, and we are committed to staying that way. The economic struggles of our neighbors require that we rise above politics. It is embarrassing how little progress we have made for how much we have spent. Our federal poverty calculations should be replaced, along with many wasteful government programs managed by individuals who have demonstrated that they are not committed to solving this problem despite being paid well to do so.
Dismantling the welfare system and replacing it with more community-centric, private sector initiatives means you and I have to be involved in the well-being of our neighbors. That should scare nobody; it should excite us because when we consider the well-being of others before ourselves, and when we have a community-centric focus, all of our lives are enhanced. And we create a legacy that is equal to our potential.
