Poor in the U.S.A

In college, I worked part-time as a waiter and a sales-associate. I never earned more than a few thousand dollars. I was poor. But my situation was temporary. I was loaded with the potential for income, but I chose to temporarily defer maximizing my earnings potential in order to obtain an education and, therefore, increase earnings in the long-term. Thanks to a combination of work, the support of loved ones, and student loans I didn’t starve, graduated, and began reaping the benefits of labor. Now, I’m not poor anymore.

Contrast my story with that of a child of parents addicted to methamphetamine. When social workers finally rescued the girl, she was eating the raw meat of a deer carcass left on the dining room table. Unimaginable suffering.  Thank God that agents of the state intervened and that a network of support existed to care for the short and long-term needs of that child.

These examples illustrate a critical point in any conversation about poverty in America today. There are two kinds: short-term and long-term. Generally speaking, it is the difference between someone whose temporary life circumstances have resulted in insufficiently adequate income to meet basic needs versus someone whose inability to provide for themselves is, essentially, permanently fixed. Public policy is devised to recognize this distinction and adapt accordingly. The crux of the argument is how government services can best help move poor individuals from positions of temporary poverty to self-sustenance.

Unfortunately, constructive debate over poverty policy is often overshadowed by a canard. Proponents of a vast welfare state lament that the rich are getting richer while the poor are becoming poorer. It’s “Robin Hood in Reverse” in the words of Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders. (Nevermind that Robin Hood’s primary foe was a corrupt government bureaucrat, the Sheriff of Notingham, and his cronies.) Therefore, expansive government and high taxes are necessary to “balance the playing field.”

Thinking of wealth as a “fixed pie” to be allocated one way or another is wrong. In point of fact, wealth is dynamic. And, thanks to capitalism, free trade, and the rule of law, the world is wealthier than our ancestors could ever have imagined. Americans have manifest the keys to wealth creation more than most, and we have reaped the benefits. Our standard of well-being is so high that even the very poor have access to education, health care, housing, and transportation, not to mention indoor plumbing and television.

Being poor in America is by no means an ideal life. However, as a society we do a reasonable job of ensuring that the poor are not suffering inhumanely. Can we do better? Undoubtedly. But, what this conversation ought to focus on is whether America is still a place where someone in poverty can rise out of it. Are we an opportunity society that rewards merit and hard work? Are individuals held accountable for their poor choices and rewarded for their good ones? Does the safety net incentivize entrepreneurship, education, and work or merely make possible a life of torpor?

What about those areas government simply can’t touch? Can government replace the role of parents, grandparents, siblings, and cousins? Can a nameless, faceless bureacrat be a lifelong source of discipline, love, and instruction? How do our public policies reflect the necessity of intact families, churches, and other social organizations to positively influence the lives of the poor? Are we vigilant to discern whether programs intended to help the poor are not hindering the presence and potency of more effective means of intervention?

What about the role of the church? Do we believe that poverty is first and foremost a spiritual issue? Do we take seriously the biblical command to care for the poor, the widow, the prisoner, and the orphan? Or, do we subcontract our charitable witness to the government?

Arthur Brooks  has writtten a new book, The Road to Freedom, that answers these important questions (and many others). I commend it to you as a starting point.