When will we weep?

/6 Comments/in /by

In the course of history, moments come and go when leaders rise up and they lead. Such moments happen every day in families, churches, and communities across the country. Most times most of us never learn their names, but the world is a better place because they spoke, they set the course for action, and they counted and paid the costs of leadership. On the national stage of history such leaders have not only shaped the course of American life. Their passion, their words, and their actions have shaped America.

Consider this: In January 1964 President Lyndon B. Johnson declared unconditional “War on Poverty” in the United States. Nine years later, after a steady stream of “Great Society” anti-poverty legislation the poverty rate for African-Americans had dropped from 55.1 percent in 1959 (the only figures available from before Johnson’s declaration) to 30.3 percent in 1974. With the necessary resources deployed Black poverty dropped by 25 percentage points in ten years. Ten years—that’s all it took.

Then the recession of the late 1970s hit and the forefingers of middle class Americans turned and wagged in the direction of the poor—particularly the black poor. “They are the reason for our woes,” they reasoned. Dems and Republicans both repented of the just policies and turned their backs on the poor. “We must support the middle class,” became the mantra of mindless political theater and it’s been the mantra ever since.

The poverty rates for both blacks and whites rose sharply and peaked in 1983 when President Ronald Reagan drained funds from Johnson’s Great Society programs. At their pre-2009 zenith black and white poverty rates reached 35 percent and 10.8 percent, respectively in ‘83. On the flip side, both rates fell the sharpest since Johnson’s declaration under President Bill Clinton when he poured funding back into Great Society programs like food stamps, Medicaid, Head Start, and children’s health. Whites basked in the sunshine of a 7.4 percent poverty rate, while Blacks felt the faint glimmer of the light of day with 22.4 percent of its population managing to live below the poverty line. The numbers ticked up again under George W. and have begun to fall again under Obama. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, 25.4 percent of blacks and 11.1 percent of whites are living below poverty today.

Now, here is my question for both parties; especially my own. The question of race and state enforced racism has been solved in America. It took more than 300 years, but leaders led Americans to look full in the face of the horrors of its own practices and face itself. When will the horrors of poverty be seen for what they are in America? When will anyone in either party stand up and say 25.4 percent or one quarter of any community having to decide whether they will eat or pay the rent—having to go without running water or heat in the winter—having to suck the marrow from chicken bones for a week between the last food stamp and the next measly round—when will anyone stand and declare “No more! Poverty is unacceptable!”?

When Democrats and Republicans entered the mid-summer 2011 deficit reduction battle our legislators’ priorities surfaced. Over the past year Republicans have issued budget plans that call for deep cuts in programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—formerly known as the Food Stamp Program). All of these programs were instrumental in keeping the U.S. poverty rate down during the nation’s greatest recession since the Great Depression, yet Democrats were willing to barter. According to a report issued by the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: “The Democratic plan contains $73 billion more in Medicare and Medicaid cuts ($475 billion) than Bowles-Simpson ($402 billion), and the same or a greater amount of cuts in this area than the Gang of Six plan.” Despite the long-standing impression that Democrats always protect the poor, the report goes on to explain the Democratic plan to cut the deficit actually had a higher ratio of discretionary cuts to revenue increases—6:1—than  the bi-partisan Bowles-Simpson or Gang of Six plans, both of which had cuts to revenue ratios of about 2:1.

Now let’s talk taxes. If we’re really serious about cutting America’s deficit, there’s no way to do it without increasing revenues. In 2001 and 2003 President George W. Bush instituted temporary tax cuts to benefit the richest Americans. Those cuts were set to expire on January 1, 2012. They have been extended. By the year 2021 the Bush era tax cuts will account for nearly half of America’s deficit. If America wants to balance the budget, we the people have a choice to make about our moral priorities. Will we cut SNAP benefits and take food out of the hands of vulnerable mothers and children? Or will we let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire? This is not hyperbole. This is our choice.

Nehemiah heard that Jerusalem’s wall had been decimated. He heard of the great poverty of his people and he wept. He prayed. He fasted and he owned his culpability in the suffering of his people. His fault was that he had done nothing. He had lived in prosperity serving the king’s court while the king’s subjects—his own people—were in shambles.

I want to know when American politicians of this age will weep over poverty in America. When will they face God’s truth about the degrading effects of poverty on human souls? When will they own their culpability and when will a Democrat or a Republican count the cost of leadership as Lincoln and Humphrey and Johnson did and, this time, lead America out of poverty’s perverting clutch. It’s not like we don’t know how. We do. We’ve done it before. We’ve just lost the will and I fear we may have lost the metal—the stuff leaders are made of.

 

Lisa Sharon Harper is the director of mobilizing at Sojourners and co-author of Left, Right and Christ: Evangelical Faith in Politics. She is also author of Evangelical Does Not Equal Republican…or Democat.

A version of this article originally appeared as part of a feature in RELEVANT magazine. Visit RELEVANTMagazine.com to subscribe.

Clear Mandate, Complex Solutions

/0 Comments/in /by

Poverty is a complex problem with many deep-rooted causes. Although the biblical mandate to care for the poor is quite clear, the search for solutions will lead well-meaning Christians to different conclusions. In the following essay, I will consider some biblical principles that offer us guidance and suggest a few examples of public and private remedies that may help address the problem of poverty in the United States.

The Biblical Mandate to Serve the Poor

Scriptures describe God’s active concern for defending the fatherless and widows, hearing the cries of the poor, rescuing them, and giving them refuge. From Genesis through Revelation, the Bible includes more than 2,000 verses that talk about the poor and needy.

The Bible describes several reasons for poverty and shows this is not a simple issue. In some verses in Proverbs and some of Jesus’ parables, the Bible says laziness can lead to poverty. Other passages place blame on the wealthy who get rich by exploiting the poor. The travails of the Israelites reveal how God sometimes allows poverty as judgment for sin. Yet many other biblical references reveal systemic and institutional causes of poverty.

Reflected in the history of the Israelites, the wisdom books, the words of the prophets, and the New Testament, the Bible clearly condemns oppression. It is evil to exploit the poor and deprive them of justice; many biblical passages call attention to structural sins and political actions that deliberately prey upon the poor (see, e.g. Amos 5:11-12). It is not just sinful to exploit the poor; the Bible also makes it clear that God commands us to care for them and meet their needs. Passages throughout the Old and New Testaments remind us to care for the most vulnerable in society as part of our love for God and neighbor.

Reducing Poverty: Some Public and Private Remedies

As biblical passages remind us and experience confirms, the causes of poverty are complex, and simple solutions are likely elusive. I don’t claim to have a simple formula for reducing poverty, but I will highlight a few principles to consider.

  • ·         Support and maintain public assistance programs with the goal of helping the poorest Americans without creating a culture of dependency.

As the scope of American government has expanded, so have programs to care for the poor and needy. Workers and their employers contribute to Social Security and unemployment insurance, which in turn provides benefits to retirees, the disabled, and the unemployed. Other assistance programs supplement the income of the poorest Americans by helping them purchase food and by providing low-cost housing or rent subsidies. Medicare and Medicaid provide health insurance to the elderly and many of the poor. These and other related government programs clearly work to reduce poverty and help meet basic human needs. According to one analysis, the combined effects of safety net programs in 2009 provided assistance that lifted an estimated 38 million Americans out of poverty.

Government assistance programs (like all government programs) have strengths and weaknesses, and all would benefit from some refinement. On balance, however, I believe that our existing safety net includes a good mix of programs designed to help the most vulnerable members of society.

  • ·         Encourage Work and Pathways to Permanent and Stable Employment

Many factors contribute to poverty, but one factor in particular provides a direct way to increase household income: jobs. As people find and retain jobs, they are better able to provide for themselves and their families, becoming more likely to move out of poverty.

Job training programs, especially holistic programs like many run by faith-based organizations, help people develop the skill sets and confidence necessary to seek, find, and retain full-time employment.

We should encourage the development and retention of government programs that provide incentives helpful to the working poor. Programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit provide a financial incentive to low and moderate income wage earners, offering a refundable tax credit that offsets some of the burden of payroll taxes and encourages work. Other programs that offer transportation assistance, subsidized childcare, and similar services that defray some of the costs associated with employment are also good public investments.

We also need policies that encourage job creation. Most (but not all) economists think tax rates have an independent effect on economic growth and job creation. Although such direct cause-and-effect relationships are difficult, if not impossible, to measure, many studies provide evidence that lowering businesses’ tax and regulatory burden helps create jobs.

  • ·         Encourage the Participation of Religious and Community Groups that Serve the Poor

Private charities undoubtedly play a significant role in meeting the needs of the poor. Churches, non-profits and other groups in every community feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, train people for employment, teach English, and provide other tangible assistance that meets human needs. Such programs operate at the neighborhood level and can help foster relationships that bridge racial, socio-economic, and religious barriers.

In addition to independent and congregation-based programs, large faith-based networks provide social services to tens of millions of Americans each year with combined funding from private and government sources. The Salvation Army serves about 33 million people each year, providing help such as emergency food and shelter, substance abuse treatment, and disaster relief. Catholic Charities, a network of social service agencies, spends over $2.5 billion each year to assist about 9 million people. Lutheran Services in America helps about 6 million people annually, providing a range of services including health care, housing, mental health, and emergency and disaster relief.

Charitable work is essential, but it is rarely enough to deal with the underlying problems of poverty. Meeting immediate needs is necessary, but it will never be sufficient to combat the structural and institutional problems that contribute to domestic poverty.

Concluding Thoughts

The examples described above are just a few snapshots of ways to combat poverty. Poverty is a multifaceted problem with no simple solutions, so political debates over how to reduce poverty will always be complex and often contentious. As followers of Christ, we must make sure that our differences over the best means to address poverty do not turn into unfair accusations that others do not share our concern for the poor.

Poverty in the United States

/0 Comments/in /by

The United States is blessed with many God-given advantages that have contributed to the prosperity of our nation. This includes the simple vastness of our territory, our wealth of natural resources, the fertility of large parts of our land, and our access to West, East, and South by great bodies of water.  

 We have also had long-term cultural strengths enabling us to make the most of these natural advantages. These strengths have included well-functioning governments generally successful at facilitating free enterprise under the rule of law, a hardworking populace, a long history of innovation and creativity, and a citizenry well-educated in the skills necessary to succeed in the US economy.

 Several key developments over the last 50 years have weakened our nation economically, contributed to growing income inequality, and entrenched a multigenerational underclass. Some of these developments have arisen externally, others internally.

 The globalization of the world economy has incentivized corporations to shift jobs overseas in ways most conducive to the corporate bottom line but not to US self-interest. The burden of these job losses has fallen most heavily on that portion of the population least able to compete for jobs based on higher-level intellectual skills that are most dependent on advanced education.  

 Meanwhile, at precisely the time that “book learning” has become indispensable, our K-12 education system has staggered backward in its competitiveness with that of other nations. Despite billions of dollars and hours invested in education each year, our nation is not adequately educating our population, especially the least-advantaged fifth or fourth of it. There is something quite wrong but no one seems to know how to fix it.

 As well, structural changes in the American family have robbed millions of children of the structure and stability once provided by the two-parent family. Fewer than half of American children will be raised by married parents. This dramatic rise in the numbers of children being raised by single parents, especially single mothers, has led to documented disadvantages for those children.

 The economic meltdown of 2008 has staggered the US economy for almost four full years, depressing economic growth and job gains. One result is that the economic struggles of our lower classes seem to be trickling upward to the middle class, so that even a quality college education has become no guarantee of any kind of professional opportunity. I have seen an entire four-year generation of college students stare uphill at a mountain of student debt with no significant job opportunities in sight.

 In general, government policies over the last thirty years have flattened tax rates, so that the wealthy and successful pay relatively less in taxes at precisely the time when their advantages are swelling in comparison with those below them on the income ladder. A spirit of selfishness seems to be sweeping the land. For a generation we have done little to address seriously the entrenched poverty of the lowest-fifth; now it seems we will just as blithely allow the next fifth to lose their grip on the rungs of the economic ladder and sink into poverty.

 Every sector of society has a responsibility to address both long-term structural poverty as well as the more short-term spreading of that poverty upwards to the middle class, especially in this next generation. Churches, in particular, need to get busy teaching young people sexual responsibility and the significance and permanence of marriage. Businesses need to think beyond the bottom line and find ways to keep good jobs in the United States. And legislators need to create a tax structure in which everyone contributes to the commonwealth while those most blessed contribute the most.

 The most disturbing trend is the one that will be hardest to address. We seem an especially selfish and inward-looking people. If “I’ve got mine,” I care little about whether you’ve got…much of anything. And I will use my financial and political power to be sure that the current structures of power continue to be tilted in my advantage. This selfishness is hurting us badly right now. Christians must lead the way to a more just society.

Economic Justice as Moral Duty

/0 Comments/in /by

Let me begin with my main claim: the fact that poverty continues to be found within America is an offence against the Gospel.  The existence of pervasive poverty—46 million people, according to the Census Bureau—in a country as wealthy as the United States is not something that is merely sad or unfortunate or unpleasant, but more than all these, it is something immoral: it violates norms, founded in Scripture, concerning how human beings living in stable societies should care for each other.

This is also an indictment of the Christian church.  Despite what the worriers among us might suggest, the role that the church plays in American society is still a significant one.  But with a few important exceptions, the church speaks far less prophetically on behalf of the poor than it should, preferring instead to concentrate its efforts on poverty relief.  While relief efforts are certainly vital to the church’s mission, far too often the church is silent when it should be speaking, or even worse, actively taking sides against the very people whose well-being should be its primary concern.  To put it plainly, those who are not poor have a duty not only to care for those who are poor, but also to speak for their cause, to advocate for change wherever they have influence, and in other ways to advocate—and vote—for economic justice for all.  This is a duty placed upon all persons, but for Christians it is especially clear. 

What responsibilities are contained in this duty?  Must the wealthy give and give until we reach a situation of equality?  To what extent should we consider the notion of desert (what each person deserves)? Does this duty fall on all people in the same way?  To what extent does office matter: are our duties different in our roles as church member, as family member, and as citizen?

These are important questions, and we need to consider them—but they are secondary.  Indeed, we would be making important progress in this conversation if we could agree that this duty even exists.  But let me consider one of these secondary, controversial questions: what is the role of government with regard to this moral duty to care for the poor?

I am wary of the view that suggests that government is the institution most responsible for carrying out this duty.  One reason is that it becomes too easy for other offices and persons to downplay their own responsibilities.  But another reason is simply that often governments aren’t very good at carrying it out.  Government programs are blunt instruments, and evidence suggests that other actors in civil society can be much more effective at providing material and non-material assistance to those in need.  Of course, even if we conclude that government as government may not be the most important agents for the delivery of services, that does not relieve the moral duty of other institutions or individuals.  And it may be up to government to remind these other actors of their responsibilities in this regard.

What about other dimensions to the government’s task with regard to poverty?  I see three sets of responsibilities stemming from the state’s basic justice task: establishing parameters, coordinating responsibilities, and providing resources.

First, I suggest that a central task of government, founded in justice, is to ensure that the prevailing social arrangements are not exploitative of those who are worst off.  Some of the causes of poverty are structural, and often it will take government action to deal with structural injustice.  Legal protections for workers, a minimum wage, and tax policies such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, or the progressive tax system more generally, are examples of ways that governments can establish justice in the basic legal parameters of the political community.

Second, I see distributive justice, like other forms of justice, to be properly restorative in nature—that is, it seeks to restore people to community.  This requires more than what we as a society are currently doing, particularly through our welfare system.  Here, the state’s role as coordinator of responsibilities comes to the fore.  The duty to care for the poor falls on all parts of civil society, but on the state falls the special challenge of finding ways to persuade schools, churches, charities, banks and other actors to take up their own responsibilities, particularly in the areas where governments acting alone cannot succeed.

Third, only governments have the power to tax, and so governments must often take the lead in providing financial resources for the fight against poverty.  Some of these are straightforward policy matters: increasing deductions for charitable donations or ending discrimination against faith-based service providers.  But the state may also need to use its taxing power to raise the funds that can be brought against poverty—or it may need to reallocate resources from other programs and initiatives so that our duty to the poor can be carried out. 

On all these points, there is more to be said.  Let me respond here to only one objection: namely, that a good way for governments to exercise their responsibility for the poor is to ensure and establish continuing economic growth.  Economic growth, it seems to me, can indeed be considered part of the governmental responsibility to keep order, and as such, is supported by a general norm of justice.  However, I would insist that the immediate task of government to provide justice for the poor must take priority over the pursuit of economic growth.  If the price of continued economic growth is the impoverishment of millions of our neighbors, then our duty seems clear.  Ultimately, I would seek to challenge the opposition itself.  It may be that it is precisely by seeing justice done for the poor that we find our way to sustained economic growth.   Similarly, we may discover that economic growth, even if necessary, will not solve the problem of poverty on its own.  Genuine economic progress requires economic justice along with economic success. 

Poor in the U.S.A

/0 Comments/in /by

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.

 

Two Half Answers to Poverty

/6 Comments/in /by

Last fall the U.S. Census Bureau reported that the number of our fellow Americans living in poverty had increased for the fourth consecutive year.  It found that 15 percent, or 46 million persons, are living in poverty, up some two and half million persons in one year.  Forty-six million is not a mere number.  It represents great human suffering and destroyed dreams.  It means 46 million persons facing a daily struggle merely to survive. 

This is no small matter.  All men and women are God’s image bearers and are intended by him to live productive, contributing lives free of debilitating circumstances.  The Bible contains thousands of references to the poor and our responsibility not to ignore them, but to offer them our help.  In Matthew 25 Christ teaches that we will be judged by our response to those who are naked, hungry and sick.  An active concern for the poor is not optional for the Christian.

But this leaves unanswered questions.  What concrete actions should this active concern lead us to take?  What public policy positions ought it lead us to support?  And how ought this active concern affect one’s vote this fall? 

A start to answering these questions is to recognize that poverty rates and a stable, healthy economy are closely related.  The four years of increasing poverty I just noted coincides with the fallout from the 2008 financial crisis and resulting recession.  During the years of a relatively strong economy from 1993 to 2006 the poverty rate fell from 30 percent to 21 percent.  Thus the many issues being debated this year concerning deficits, taxes, spending, and economic stimulus and what will help and what will damage the economy carry with them large implications for poverty in the United States.  This is not the time or place to comment on what economic policies are likely to lead a healthier overall economy.  What is clear is that we ought not to judge these debates simply in terms of our own economic situation, but in terms of the poor and the impact that a stronger economy will have in reducing poverty and a weaker economy will have in increasing poverty.

Even with a strong economy, however, many are still left stuck in poverty.  What public policies will help—or hurt—them?  Often it seems that most Republican leaders and conservatives more generally look largely to private actions and such civil society institutions as churches, faith-based anti-poverty programs, and other community-based programs.  They seem rarely to meet a government-initiated and government-run anti-poverty program they like.  And often it seems that most Democratic leaders and liberals more generally believe that government-initiated and government-run programs aimed at directly helping the poor are all that are needed.  If Republicans never meet a government-run anti-poverty program they like, Democrats never meet a government-run anti-poverty program they do not like!

I would suggest that both are wrong.  Or better, both are right, in the sense that both government initiatives and actions arising from individuals and civil society institutions are needed.  It’s not a matter or either-or, but of both-and.   Each side in this debate has half the answer.  The Democrats are right when they say government is needed to stimulate the creation of needed programs, to target areas of greatest need, and—with its taxation and funding powers that far exceed that of civil society organizations, whether faith-based or not—to help fund anti-poverty efforts. 

But Republicans are right when they say individual effort and efforts by civil society organizations are needed.  To understand why, we need to understand why poverty persists as economic cycles come and go.  One basic fact is that much of this persistent poverty can be traced to the breakdown of the family.  A simple, but telling statistic is in 2010 of families composed of a married couple only 6 percent were poor; of families headed by a single woman 32 percent were poor.  High divorce rates and high rates of out-of-wedlock births are a leading cause of poverty in the United States.  If one completes high school, does not have a child out-of-wedlock, and marries and stays married, one is very unlikely to be poor. 

This does not mean that we can blame the poor themselves for their situation and walk away with a clear conscience.  Easy divorce laws, entertainment and advertising industries that glorify sex, racism and sexism, and a church that has often failed to live up to its responsibilities have all contributed to the problem.  In addition, the Bible calls us to offer help to the poor, whatever the cause of their poverty.  But this does mean that the challenge we as a society face in light of persistent poverty needs to involve training in basic life skills and changes in attitudes and behavior.  This is where churches and faith-based and other community-based organizations have advantages the government does not have.  Yet government, with its financial resources, has an advantage churches and community organizations do not have. 

If we can pair the financial resources of government (on the local, state, and federal levels) with the human touch and transformative values of churches and other local organizations we would have a powerful means to reduce poverty. 

In this election year, Republicans seem to fear any program that involves government spending for the poor and the taxes needed to support that spending.  I was unable to find on Mitt Romney’s campaign website any reference to civil society organizations as a means to overcome poverty—or any mention of poverty at all outside of touting Romney’s ideas for economic recovery.  President Obama to his credit has a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Partnerships and his campaign website touts it and other efforts to work with civil society institutions.  And the Democrats’ traditional willingness to support programs of help for the poor means that there is likely to be anti-poverty funds available under their leadership.  But one must wonder if under them faith-based and other community organizations will receive only token amounts with the vast majority of funds going to traditional government-run programs.  One must also ask whether the freedom of faith-based organizations to be what God has called them to be will be protected under a second Obama administration.

Neither the website of President Obama nor the website of Mitt Romney specifically discusses poverty and the steps they believe need to be taken to address it.  This does not bode well for the 46 million Americans living in poverty.  They are not likely to loom large in this year’s presidential election.  This is a case where the voice of Christians may need to become the voice of the poor.

TOPIC # 6: POVERTY IN THE USA

/0 Comments/in /by

Please consider the following potential leading questions.

 

#1: What are the root causes of poverty in the United States?

 

#2: Whatever you believe are the cause(s) of poverty in the United States, what roles do you envision for the following “actors” in addressing the cause(s): government (national, state, or local); individual initiative, faith-based organizations, charities, and other mediating institutions of civil society; the workings of a “strong, growing, free enterprise economy?”

 

#3: Do you perceive a growing gap between the rich and the poor in the United States? If so, do you view that as problematic? Why? And, if you see that as a problem, how can it best be addressed?

 

#4: What social programs, if any, are most conducive to minimizing poverty in the United States (e.g., welfare cash payments, job training, housing programs, health services)? 



 

#5: What “tax policies” are most conducive to minimizing poverty in the United States?

 

#6: In your opinion are the positions taken by one of the political parties or presidential candidates this year particularly helpful or particularly unhelpful in addressing the issue of poverty in the United States?”