🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:57:21 -0500, Scott Hedrick <dinehnm@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>There are some truly destitute people, and not all of them got that way on
>their own. Nevertheless, even the poor in this country have it better than
>the poor have had it at any time in history. Mostly what we hear is carping
>about what they don't have, instead of gratitude for what they do have. If
>enough people whine long enough about what they don't have, somehow it
>magically turns into a right.

You don't understand - other people have more!

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200401300926.asp


Rich Lowry
NRO Editor


January 30, 2004, 9:26 a.m.
Poor Props
Two America talk. 

It's the 1930s again. At least if you listen to the Democratic presidential
candidates. John Edwards's rhetoric about "two Americas" - one rich, one
struggling - has caught on. John Kerry now talks of "the economy of
privilege." As Edwards puts it, invoking the 35 million poor Americans, "You
and I together have a moral responsibility to lift these families out of
poverty."

Edwards and the other Democrats deserve credit for focusing attention on the
least fortunate, who are often forgotten in the rush of both parties to
shovel government benefits at middle-class voters, especially if they happen
to be elderly. Unless Democrats offer serious solutions to poverty, however,
the poor only serve as props for their moral vanity.

Indeed, Democrats on the stump implicitly argue that if only more former
Enron executives would be thrown in jail, the downtrodden would magically be
lifted into affluence. This is preening nonsense. We know what causes
poverty. It has nothing to do with corporations, and little to do even with
other, more-relevant economic factors, such as wage rates.

Poverty in America is primarily a cultural phenomenon, driven by a shattered
work ethic and sexual irresponsibility. Child poverty would be nearly
obliterated if every household had one adult working full time and married
parents. Unfortunately, only President Bush has a program that works to make
these social conditions a reality, and it is resisted by the party of
Edwards.

According to the Heritage Foundation's welfare expert, Robert Rector, the
typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work
annually, or about 16 hours a week. This number holds in good economic times
and bad, because it is a factor of attitudes toward work rather than the
availability of jobs. If the amount of work in these households were
equivalent to one adult working 40 hours a week, roughly 75 percent of poor
children would be lifted out of poverty.

The problem is not, as liberals argue, low wages. If you are only working 16
hours a week, you will pretty much be poor unless you're a TV anchor.
Raising the minimum wage isn't going to help someone working so few hours.
It is the amount of work that matters. If a single mother works full time at
the minimum wage - factoring in such income supplements as the Earned Income
Tax Credit and food stamps - she will not be poor.

The other cause of child poverty is single parenthood. If single mothers
married the fathers of their children, according to Rector, three-quarters
of poor children would be lifted out of poverty. Again, economic factors are
secondary. The average father of a child born out of wedlock is making
$17,000 a year. He would be a good candidate for marriage, if the culture of
marriage weren't so damaged. The key variable in whether an at-risk mother
will marry the father of her child is not his wages, but the couple's
attitude toward marriage and their relationship skills.

So, a common-sense anti-poverty program has two prongs - restore the work
ethic and encourage marriage. Work has been so devalued because people have
been taught to rely on government support instead. The 1996 welfare reform
tapped the brakes on this dynamic, but more remains to be done. Roughly half
of adult welfare recipients are still not working, and work requirements
don't exist for important government supports such as public housing. Bush
wants to strengthen work requirements, but Democrats are balking.

As for marriage, the entire welfare system acts as a subsidy for single
parenthood. With his proposal for marriage education and increased funding
for abstinence programs, Bush wants to put a little government pressure on
the other side of the scale.

You can argue with the particulars of this program, but if you're not
talking abut how to increase work and marriage among the poor, well then,
you're not serious about addressing poverty. You're just some guy with
pretty hair saying pretty words because you like the way they sound.



-- 
Nearly every electrical engineer believes deep in his heart that he
is better at writing computer software than any computer programmer,
and can show as proof the fact that he has written a number of small
applications, each of which was done quickly, easily, and exactly met
his needs.