|
|
||
| Poverty in American Should we re-look Social Programs? by Executive Vice-President Michael Hassel As the 2004 presidential election draws near, poverty in America will become a key point in debate. Social programs for the impoverished are also among the top issues that young people look for in a potential president�s overall package. Yet, all this talk from politicians should prompt most Americans to exam poverty and social programs in the richest country the world has ever known. To understand the true extent of poverty in this nation one must confront the good, the bad, and the ugly about the topic. The good news is poverty, especially among children, can rather easily be reduced. According to the Heritage Foundation if each family would raise the amount of work to 40 hours a week for the whole year, then nearly 75% of all impoverished children would be lifted out of the poverty level. The bad news is that two-thirds of impoverished children reside in signal parent homes, and if the mothers of children would marry the father three-quarters of these children would be lifted out of poverty. The ugly information was recently uncovered in the US Department of Commerce and the Department of Urban Housing and Development�s American Housing Survey. When asked, most Americans would classify �poverty� as being hungry, not being able to meet basic needs, or being homeless. If these definitions were carried over by the Census Bureau, there would be a lot less poverty in America. In fact most people classified as impoverished own their homes, with an average worth of over 80,000 dollars. On top of this most homes owned by the poor are not crowded, only 5.7% are considered �crowded� with more then one person per room. Further more, only one half of one percent of persons below the poverty level have reported going hungry at least one time throughout the year. 72% of all poor in America own a vehicle of some sort, of that 30% have two or more vehicles. Almost 100% own a color television, a forth of those own a big screen TV or entertainment center. 62% have a subscription to either cable or satellite TV, and to further entertainment 78% own at least one DVD or VHS player. And one can not forgot an advanced stereo system, which 62% own. Plus 26% own the great invention America thought it could live without, a cell phone. Just a sort time ago cable TV was thought to be a luxury that most Americans went without, now a super majority of the impoverished own a subscription? Today, the average expenditures of the poor equal the expenditures of the average America in 1970, after being adjusted for inflation. On top of all this 70% of the poor reported that they were able to meet all essential needs for last year, except the new 50 Cent album, a definite essential need. By the government�s own reports the typical poor American has a color TV, a car, owns his own home which is not overcrowd. His children have plenty to eat, and he has enough funds to meet his essential needs for the last year. Currently the government spends over 400 billion dollars on welfare each year. Which, adjusted for inflation, is greater then the entire Gross National Product of the US in the beginning of the 20th Century. This translates into the average American paying almost 6,000 dollars in taxes for people to have cable TV, and a cell phone. Jimmy Carter once said �the welfare system is anti-work, anti-family, inequitable in its treatment of the poor and wasteful of the taxpayers� dollars.� President Carter was right, and it is now clear that some type of welfare reform is again necessary. Yet, the mere proposition of this is likely to ignite fiery debate. It will draw attacks from liberals who will say, just as they did before the 96-Welfare Reform, that Conservatives will be throwing mothers and children out on the street, and thousands of America�s 35 million poor will slowly starve to death. Yet, experience has again proven them wrong. In fact, after the 96 Reform hunger among children decreased from around 10% to 6.5% and down to the current rate of 5.7%. Although regulation of spending of welfare money is unlikely, perhaps the government should lower the national poverty level from �comfortable� to�well� �poor.� Like what you see? There is more from Executive Vice-president Michael Hassel here. |
