New Blog: stevenwhite.wordpress.com

Is Poverty "All That Bad"? Yes, Actually

In a National Review Online article, Robert Rector writes:

The Census Bureau will release it annual report on poverty in America tomorrow. The report will show, as it has in recent years that around 37 million people live in official poverty. Presidential candidate John Edwards, who hopes to lead the nation in a new crusade against poverty, will, no doubt, seek to reap much publicity from the report.

But Rector is determined not to let Edwards get away with this. Why? Because according to him, American poverty isn't actually all that bad. "[E]xamination of the living standards of the 37 million or so persons, the government defines as 'poor,' he writes, "reveals that America’s poverty 'plague' may not be as 'terrible' or 'incredible' as anti-poverty crusader Edwards contends." And why is this so? Well, Rector lists the reasons he believes merit us not really caring all that much about our poor:

• 46% of poor households own their own homes. Nevermind the fact that in many rural areas, homeownership is significantly less expensive than in cities and can be cheaper in the long run than permanent renting. But if you own even the most rundown home, you don't merit special concern.
• "The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe," which of course conveniently obscures the fact that average homes in rural areas are larger than average apartment residences in cities for pretty obvious reasons related to available space. Also the general "bigger is better" trend running through American culture in rural areas and cities alike.
• Almost 75% of poor households own a car -- which, of course, is necessary to even get around in many rural areas where public transportation is nonexistent and hospitals -- not to mention jobs -- aren't just down the street. Maybe Rector only thinks of BMWs when he thinks of cars, but I've seen some pretty remarkable pieces of work on sale for a few hundred dollars. Owning a car in itself is hardly an indicator one doesn't need significant help.
• Almost all of them own a color television -- which can be purchased for under $100 and is an essential source of information for many citizens -- both politically and in case of national disaster.
• 89% own that luxury of all luxuries -- a microwave oven. Geez, they must really not need our help if they have their own microwaves. What is this, a Dire Straits song?

This sort of argument comes up all the time in conservative circles. Whenever a right-wing commentator needs to justify his complete lack of concern with poverty, he says American poverty is actually not nearly as bad as it was in the past -- which, of course, is true in the relative sense. But to assume the fact that poverty isn't as bad as it was when Walker Evans was photographing it means it isn't all that bad at all is just absurd. And it shows how little some people mind substituting concern for ordinary people with political ideology.

Poverty: Finally Hip?

I know the following sentence makes me uncool, but I will say it anyway: David Broder's new column is pretty good. Not perfect, but notably better than usual. Broder writes, "The Democratic presidential race has developed a different and welcome dynamic -- a sharp competition among the leading candidates to become champions of urban America." On Barack Obama:

Obama, whose first job after Harvard Law School was as a community organizer in low-income South Side Chicago, spoke from experience about the "overwhelming" impact of concentrated urban poverty. "It's so difficult to escape," he said in his speech last week. "It's isolating and it's everywhere."

"If you are an African American child unlucky enough to be born into one of these neighborhoods," he said, "you are most likely to start life hungry or malnourished. You are less likely to start with a father in your household, and, if he is there, there's a 50-50 chance that he never finished high school and the same chance he doesn't have a job. Your school isn't likely to have the right books or the best teachers. You're more likely to encounter gang activities than after-school activities. And if you can't find a job because the most successful businessman in your neighborhood is a drug dealer, you're more likely to join that gang yourself. Opportunity is scarce, role models are few and there is little contact with the normalcy of life outside those streets."

Hillary Clinton:

As a senator, Hillary Clinton has helped the revival of Harlem and the recovery efforts of Lower Manhattan after Sept. 11, 2001, but she also understands the struggles of the old industrial cities of Upstate New York, where longtime manufacturers have succumbed to foreign competition or joined the exodus to overseas locations.

And John Edwards:

John Edwards has made perhaps the most serious effort of anyone to understand the pathology and psychology of poverty, drawing on both academic studies and the firsthand experiences of his own walking tours.

But then, Broder writes, "They offer similar proposals -- raising the minimum wage, expanding the earned-income tax credit, new subsidies for housing, easier access to college and job training, and a health-care system that insures every family." While this is at least partly true -- when it comes to a liberal Democrat trying to solve poverty, some things just sort of have to be included -- Obama, Edwards, and Clinton are in fact quite, quite different on some very important specifics.

Edwards really brought poverty to the forefront, followed recently by Obama (though both have cared about it prior to this campaign). Clinton, frankly, really hasn't addressed it to anywhere near the same degree (Obama's plan is here, Edwards' plan is here, and Clinton's plan doesn't exist). Their focus is quite different: Edwards understands rural communities better, and Obama understands urban communities better. And their solutions for the latter kind of poverty are also notably different: Obama wants to fix troubled communities; Edwards wants to provide families in these communities with the chance to go elsewhere with better opportunities. As the Washington Post reported a few days ago:

There are downsides to both approaches, experts say. A federal experiment called Moving to Opportunity found that families given vouchers to move out of inner-city public housing reported improved health but few gains in earnings, educational outcomes and the well-being of teenage boys. Those studying the results say many families did not move far enough, possibly because of a lack of affordable housing in better areas.

At the same time, many attempts to lift blighted areas have been unsuccessful, which is one reason Edwards has argued for a more radical approach. There are few examples of skill-development initiatives, beyond the Harlem one, that have succeeded on the scale Obama proposes. He would increase funding for the Community Development Block Grant program, but billions spent on jobs and housing through the grants over the years have failed to turn around many areas.

On the issue of rural vs. urban, Broder's column also suffers from presuming poverty to be an urban problem, and doesn't really discuss rural poverty. This kind of poverty is very different though: There's more seclusion, which leads to less access to hospitals and public libraries; child mortality rates often rival (and occasionally surpass) the third world.

That said, I'm glad a boring mainstream guy like Broder is at least writing about it without scoffing. That sounds trivial, but trivial things are often important first steps.

Jonah Goldberg's Cigars

Stop the presses! Jonah Goldberg cares about the poor! Wait, no, he just cares about cigars. On the topic of a congressional measure to skyrocket cigar taxes, Goldber writes:

I think this provides a perfect example of how liberal policies  exacerbate the  rich-poor divide...If this absurd tax goes through,  poor people  won't be able to afford cigars  while rich people will have no problem carrying this additional freight.

Yes, the impoverished cigar smoking masses, puffing away in dark rooms planning out how to screw the common man afford their groceries. Perhaps Goldberg's real honesty came at the beginning of his comment, when he acknowledged, "I admit that I am particularly sensitive to this because I've recently taken up the cigar habit."

Jonah Goldberg's cigars/poverty...eh, same thing.

Leslie Wayne's John Edwards Problem

An article in today's New York Times offers a critical assessment of John Edwards' new poverty tour, as well as his relatively low standing in the polls among low income voters. The author of the piece, of course, is Leslie Wayne, who has a history of writing major NYT pieces criticizing Edwards under the guide of objectivity. Her June 22nd hit job on Edwards' Center for Promise and Opportunity was about as shabby as campaign journalism gets.

In the NYT's Caucus blog, she considered it important to single out Edwards and remind readers that even though he "is now criticizing the low tax rate that hedge fund managers pay," he is also "the only Democratic presidential candidate to have worked for a hedge fund." Remarkably, she was even able to relate the third Pirates of the Carribean movie to Edwards' financial resources by putting in an obscure hedge-funds-related story that had something to do with sunken treasure. 

To make a comparison, Rudy Giuliani is actually wealthier than John Edwards, by a little less than $10 million. Mitt Romney? Despite the obsession with Edwards, Romney's personal wealth is a stunning four times as much. This hardly gets mentioned. But of course, neither of these candidates is talking about poverty and the reality of social class.

Update: Cross-posted at TAPPED.