Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist and chairman of a subcommittee on which I am the ranking minority member, called a hearing this week titled, “Is Poverty a Death Sentence.” My answer was a resounding “No.”
Anyone who wishes to equate poverty with death must go to the Third World or seek out socialism and tyranny. Where you find command economies, you will find death and starvation. In contrast, those who wish to see death from poverty in our country are blind to the truth. While we all hope to lessen the sting of poverty, we need to put poverty in America into context.
Advertisement
Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation has profiled the typical poor household in America. The average poor household has a car, air conditioning, two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and an Xbox. Its home is in good repair and bigger than the average (non-poor) European home. They report that in the past year they were not hungry, were able to obtain medical care as necessary, and could afford all essential needs.
An American citizen can expect to live a decade longer than the world average, and nearly twice as long as in some African countries. Infectious diseases decimate Third World countries while American citizens are often immunized or easily treated for similar conditions. Mortality due to infectious disease affects 50 percent of children in Africa but now less than 1 percent in America. While more than 750,000 people around the world die each year from malaria, the United States has zero deaths from the disease.
Research shows that poor Americans are healthier than the rich of previous generations. Only in America would we label poverty a “death sentence” for poor families when they are living twice as long as they did 100 years ago.
To the extent that poverty impacts health, much of it can be attributed to behavioral factors. Over 30 percent of those living below the poverty smoke, compared with 19 percent of the rest of the population. Obesity rates are significantly higher among the poor than the general population, an unimaginable problem for those starving in North Korea or Somalia.
One example of how cultural factors impact health among the poor is known as the “Hispanic health paradox.” According to a National Institutes of Health study, “despite higher poverty rates, less education, and worse access to health care, health outcomes of many Hispanics living in the United States today are equal to, or better than, those of non-Hispanic whites.” Researchers believe the strong family unit in Hispanic culture, not genetics, explains the paradox.
This context does not negate the fact that there are truly needy Americans. But with a national debt of $14.3 trillion and increasing structural deficits, we must be more precise in both how we talk about poverty in America and whom we decide to target with scarce federal resources. We need to ask: Are we targeting federal programs to those most in need? Are federal poverty programs accomplishing their goals? Are some programs creating unnecessary and unhealthy dependence on government?
If poverty is in any way a death sentence, it is big government that has acted as the judge and jury — conscripting poor Americans into a lifetime of dependence on a broken and ineffective federal government.
In the half-century since LBJ’s “War on Poverty” began, we have spent $16 trillion to fight poverty. We now spend over $900 billion a year on over 70 means-tested welfare programs under 13 government agencies. Yet, thanks or no thanks to the federal government, we now have more poverty as measured by government than we did in the 1970s. An all-time high of 40 million Americans depend on food stamps, and 64 million are enrolled in Medicaid. Government is the problem, not the solution.
We also need to understand that poverty is not a state of permanence. When you look at people in the bottom fifth of the economic ladder, only 5 percent are still there 16 years later. In a University of Michigan study of 50,000 families, 75 percent of the bottom fifth make their way up to the two highest quintiles. The rich are getting richer but the poor are getting richer even faster. U.S. Treasury statistics show that 86 percent of the bottom 20 percent on the economic ladder moved to a higher quintile.
We need to be proud of the American Dream and promote policies that encourage the economic growth that allows so many to rise up out of poverty. Rather than hold hearings asking whether poverty is a death sentence and proposing more and more government welfare programs, we need to better demonstrate what America has done right to alleviate poverty in historically unprecedented ways.
— Rand Paul is a U.S. senator from Kentucky and the ranking member on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee’s subcommittee on primary health and aging.
Well said, Senator. I take exception to only one statement of yours, "40 million Americans depend on food stamps".
40 million may "receive" food stamps, but I seriously doubt 40 million "depend" on them.
A color TV can be purchased on Craigslist for $20. It makes a real mockery to measure "well-being" based on the capacity of an entire family to acquire two such devices over the course of a lifetime. (For other items on the list, an XBox 360 can be acquired for $50, I have seen brand new DVD players for $30, and you can get a cheap car for less than $1000). Keep in mind that these are possessions that people have managed to acquire OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS.
I think it is rather remarkable that Senator Rand Paul is comparing the United States to Africa of all places!
Maybe that should be a slogan.
"America, still better than the Third World!" It is pathetic that the Senator is even making this comparison. And it is telling, because it shows what a low standard for this country's poor that he holds.
Of course, it should be pointed out that these low standards are merely the standards he holds for his fellow Americans, not for himself or his own family.
Life expectancy in the United States used to be higher than anywhere else in the world. Now it is lower than all of the major countries in Europe (except Russia). Even a country in South America, Chile, has a higher life expectancy than we do.
For these statistics, we can thank politicians like Rand Paul who deny the existence of problems rather than working to solve them.
Wealthy people also typically acquire their wealth over a number of years, even a lifetime. Regardless of how long it takes you to get into a given financial situation, are you any less well off once you get there? If your needs are taken care of and you have a few items that are considered (to some extent) luxuries (since they are not required for basic survival), are you still poor? You may be "poor" relative to someone who has more, but unless your goal is to have everyone be economically totally equal, there is no reason to be concerned with income inequality.
These alleged poor with houses and so forth are spoken of as though they are living next to dumpsters, fighting rats for scraps, shivering in their filthy rags. No one is against helping the truly destitute, but there are many non-poor who don't own houses or some of the other things listed. It is by choice, because there are more important things for them to spend their income on or because they aren't ready to settle down yet.
I think we expect that if someone is starving and owns an Xbox, they will sell the Xbox and buy food. Then they will sell their DVD player and buy food. And so on, until they have nothing left to sell except the house they live in and the car they use to go to the food pantry to get free food. Why should the rest of us be taxed to provide food and so forth to people who then use their resources to buy Xboxes and DVD players?
Couple resentment on the part of those who receive with guilt on the part of those who "give" (at the end of the "gov't" spear or otherwise); mix in a helthy dose of pseudo-religious moral mongering by lib-progressives and no American should be surprised that we have spent 16 trillion plus on the so called "War on Poverty"...
We live in a country where we are no longer free to be selfish; let alone a hobo or a bum...
16 trillion? That's a lie. At most 5 trillion, and, since 1967, only 700 billion of that spent on actual programs for the poor, like AFDC and welfare. The rest was for middle class entitlement programs like student loans, school lunches, job training, etc.
Money, I'd wager, spent on people like you, and therefore, truly wasted money that could have been spent on better things.
In affluent countries, "poverty" has a different meaning. Poverty is a condition, not so much of lack of money, but of discomfort. The discomfort may come from lack of motivation, education, disaster, illness/disease, etc. I'm thinking of good old Maslow's heirarchy here. Being able to acquire things that increase comfort (yes, even from Craig's list) is a demonstration of resourcefulness. Does it really matter if the item cost $200 or $20 from Craig's list? Many people think that poverty is the same as lack of money. After a lifetime of working with "the poor," I must respectfully disagree. From my experience, poverty exists when the individual lives in discomfort because of a lack of something (and it may not even be money at all!). People are no longer in poverty when they use their resources to end their discomfort.
Yeah, and imagine your discomfort when you are not able to turn on your air conditioning (which despite having in your rented unit, you are unable to afford to operate) on a hot summer day. At least you have a $20 color TV.
More serious, of course, are the other afflictions associated with poverty, primarily involving excessive stress.
Oh, and that excess weight carried by lower income Americans that Rand Paul mentioned? I would hypothesize several possible causes including (1) unhealthy food is cheap food (2) lack of access (due to lack of either time or money) to recreational opportunities (3) excessive poverty-induced stress, where the stress hormone cortisol induces the development of belly fat -- which is of course the most dangerous kind of fat in terms of heart disease and stroke.
And just a question. Since this is ONLY a matter of mere comfort: Are you saying it is acceptable that we cannot seem to maintain the same life span in America as they do in most of Europe or even Chile?
I think it is very interesting that the strategy from conservatives nowadays is to minimize the problem of poverty. In your case, by defining it away as a matter of mere comfort.
The conservative plan for America: "Don't solve problems, ignore them."
Please bear in mind that our mortality statistics include deaths by violence as well. One banger in the hood shooting another because he was dissed is not a poverty issue or, for that matter a health issue.
Poor people in my father's time, he grew up during the depression, did not shoot each other, even though they could buy firearms through the mail and have them delivered to their doors with no questions asked.
BTW, my father did not have AC until the day he died. We never had it even in sunny southern CA. He said it cost too much and we could use the money better elsewhere. We did just fine. My mother still does not have AC. I have offered but she says she does not need it and does not want the expense and trouble.
BTW, look at the cancer survival stats if want to decide where to live. American medicine wins, hands down.
I have never owned a new car, even though I could afford one - a new car is a poor investment. I have no cable, no xbox, no flat screen tv (my TV is 16 years old and it works very well), no microwave oven nor most of the other so-called necessities of life and my life is as rich and full as anyone's. I make a good living and I measure it not by my posessions. I am not poor but I am also quite frugal.
Poverty is the lack of something genuinely needed not a lack of color TV or AC. The ready availability of AC is a new thing for most people - post 1950s for America. Thousands of years and humanity managed to survive and thive.
BTW, I was listening to NPR and they said the government stats on people living in poverty showed that, on average, those in poverty have more living space than the average European. Not the average European in poverty but the average European, period. I have not checked this stat but I am sure NPR was loath to report it so it is probably accurate.
You sound like Dave Ramsey...which is a high complement!
We need to move from the next election cycle economic maximization model to a sustained growth model, one that rewards savings and staying debt free rather than encouraging spending 110% of your paycheck. Savers are getting screwed by the fed driving down interest to zero percent. We have much more junk than in the 1950's. We are spending more time on the work treadmill to afford this junk.
I believe the issue Senator Paul is addressing is not how comfortable the poorest of Americans should be, but what positive impact have the government programs and the vast sums of money spent had on those receiving the help. It's evident they have not been successful.
As far as the conservative plan for America, I actually think it's along the lines of letting people fail who choose to do so--it's a great way to learn success, and leave those in need to individuals and charities who can actually help them. In your view, government exists to take the fruits of one mans' labor and give them to another who an enlightened person believes needs them more -- that is the only way to solve problems, real or imagined.
I used a word "comfort," for lack of a better word (I hate social work jargon, which I have in plenty!). I was not being selfish or dismissive. Quite, quite the contrary. I volunteer many hours a week to help a third-world-like country within the United States. I know the stereotypes. I also know that we as a society have missed the mark when we focus on the "things" such as TV, XBox, as if these were some kind of marker for whether or not people "deserve" anything at all. I don't care how many of these things people have. They don't make people less or more poor. True poverty comes when people give up and ONLY use things as a marker for well-being (comfort). That's what we have to tackle. Throwing money into social problems has not worked. Time to try something new. Just wish I knew what it was....Like everyone else, I can identify and describe the problem, but solutions are a lot more difficult.
You say, "(1) unhealthy food is cheap food". Not necessarily. A dinner at Mickey D's is a lot more expensive than a more nourishing meal of rice, tofu, soy sauce, and watercress. However, a dinner at Mickey D's requires A LOT LESS EFFORT than that required to prepare the rice, wash the vegetables, make the tofu sauce, wash the dishes after dinner, and so on.
You say poor people's fat is due to "(2) lack of access (due to lack of either time or money) to recreational opportunities". That's right, brisk walking for a half-hour costs a *TON* of money, and cuts into reality TV by 30 minutes. Fat poor people lack the opportunity to walk, otherwise they'd be svelte like the late Nan Kempner.
You also say that poor people's fat comes from "(3) excessive poverty-induced stress, where the stress hormone cortisol induces the development of belly fat -- which is of course the most dangerous kind of fat in terms of heart disease and stroke." That's right, and engineers aren't fat because their jobs are stress-free, like those of fire fighters, soldiers, and law-enforcement officers. Stock brokers and air traffic controllers, too, tend not to be fat due to the soothing, easeful nature of their work.
How about adding a #4 to your whine list? Booze. Booze makes poor people fat. I once cashiered at a drug store in downtown Honolulu, and noticed clearly-defined spending habits of various social groups. One of the many things I noticed was that whenever cheap vodka (usually Popov brand) went on sale, 'street people' would come in and stock up--filling their wagons with two items, vodka and cigarettes. Nowt else. A lot of these people, as I recall, had pot bellies, 'beer bellies', I called them.
1) Unhealthy food is cheap, but it's also easy to prepare and tastes good. OTOH, healthy food is also cheap, but it takes time to prepare and requires some effort to make it taste good. So do the poor have unhealthy diets because they're poor, or because eating healthy takes too much effort?
2) Lack of access to recreational activities? TV and X-box aren't recreational activities? Poor people are too poor to go to the park and play basketball or football? You really need to expand your horizons here David. Recreational activities aren't limited to 2-weeks in Disney World, Carribean Cruises, or Euopean tours.
3) Poverty-induced stress? How is poverty-induced stress different from the non-poverty induced kind? You know (or maybe you don't), the kind you get from going to work everyday, dealing with the kid's school, with family illnesses, and all the other vagaries of life?
Regarding US life spans, I'm really not sure it is valid or useful to compare the average life span of the citizen of a multi-ethnic nation of 300M with the average life span of an ethnically homogenous nation of 5-10 million, but even if you do, we really don't come out that bad. Differences of 2-3% aren't really that significant. However, if you want a really good comparison, compare the life expectancy of European descended US citizens with their European counterparts and you find we, in many cases are slightly better. Do the same with Asian descended and Asians and you find the same thing. Now if you really want to see how well the US is doing, compare US citizens of African descent with their African counterparts. US citizens of African descent do much better than Africans in life span.
Healthy food is not more expensive. I am a very cost conscious grocery shopper and I rarely buy convienence and junk foods because of the cost. If you shop right and prepare your own meals, you can eat better than anyone in the history of humanity on a shoestring budget with a fraction of the effort that was required of previous generations. As a matter of fact, we are blessed with such abundance that we are the only culture of all time to obsess over low fat foods. A true poor person would be seeking more calories not less.
It is compassionate, responsible and proper for us (the governed) to care for those that cannot care for themselves. It is anything but to spend our money caring for those that can, but won't care for themselves. Enabling bad decisions and self-destructive behavior with never-ending "welfare" is not compassion, it is slavery.
