"New Poverty" and Class Warfare

[Cull.D.Sack]

March 8, 2010 4:00 A.M.

Obama’s New ‘Poverty’ Measurement

Setting a new national goal: class warfare.

This week, the Obama administration announced it will create a new poverty-measurement system that will eventually displace the current poverty measure. This new measure, which has little or nothing to do with actual poverty, will serve as the propaganda tool in Obama’s endless quest to “spread the wealth.”

Under the new measure, a family will be judged “poor” if its income falls below a certain specified income threshold. Nothing new there, but, unlike the current poverty standards, the new income thresholds will have a built-in escalator clause: They will rise automatically in direct proportion to any rise in the living standards of the average American.

The current poverty measure counts absolute purchasing power — how much steak and potatoes you can buy. The new measure will count comparative purchasing power — how much steak and potatoes you can buy relative to other people. As the nation becomes wealthier, the poverty standards will increase in proportion. In other words, Obama will employ a statistical trick to ensure that “the poor will always be with you,” no matter how much better off they get in absolute terms.

The Left has promoted this idea of an ever-rising poverty measure for a long time. It was floated at the beginning of the War on Poverty and flatly rejected by Pres. Lyndon Johnson. Not so President Obama, who consistently seeks to expand the far-left horizons of U.S. politics.

The weird new poverty measure will produce very odd results. For example, if the real income of every single American were to magically triple over night, the new poverty measure would show there had been no drop in “poverty,” because the poverty income threshold would also triple. Under the Obama system, poverty can be reduced only if the incomes of the “poor” are rising faster than the incomes of everyone else.

Another paradox of the new poverty measure is that countries such as Bangladesh and Albania will have lower poverty rates than the United States, even though the actual living conditions in those countries are extremely bad. Haiti would probably have a very low poverty rate when measured by the Obama system because the earthquake reduced much of the population to a uniform penniless squalor.

According to Obama’s measure, economic growth per se has no impact on poverty. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the incomes of nearly all Americans have increased sevenfold, after adjusting for inflation. However, from Obama’s perspective, this increase in real incomes had no impact on poverty, because the wages of those at the bottom of the income distribution did not rise faster than the incomes of those in the middle.

What has the Obama measure to do with actual poverty? Not much. For most Americans, the word “poverty” suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 40 million per­sons classified as poor under the government’s current poverty definition fit that description. Most of America’s poor live in material conditions that would have been judged comfortable, or even well-off, two generations ago.

The government’s own data show that the typical American defined as poor (according to the traditional, pre-Obama poverty measure) has two color televisions, cable or satellite service, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He also has a car, air conditioning, a refrig­erator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had suf­ficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is far from the stark images conveyed by the mainstream media and liberal politicians.

Clearly, “poverty” as currently defined by the government has little connection with “poverty” as the average American understands it. The new Obama poverty measure will stretch this semantic gap, artificially swelling the number of “poor” Americans, and severing any link between the government’s concept of poverty and even modest deprivation.

In honest English, the new system will measure income inequality, not poverty. Why not just call it an “inequality” index? Answer: because the American voter is unwilling to support massive welfare increases, soaring deficits, and tax increases to equalize incomes. However, if the goal of income leveling is camouflaged as a desperate struggle against poverty, hunger, and dire deprivation, then the political prospects improve. The new measure is a public-relations Trojan horse, smuggling in a “spread the wealth” agenda under the ruse of fighting real material privation — a condition that is rare in our society.

True, the new Obama measure will not, at present, alter benefits or expand eligibility for welfare programs. But the new measure does establish a new philosophy of poverty. For the first time, the government is planning to define poverty as a problem that can never be solved by the American dream: a general rise of incomes of all Americans across society over time. By definition, poverty can now be solved only by the dream of the Left: massive taxes on the upper and middle classes and redistribution to the less affluent. In effect, the Obama poverty measure sets a new national goal of class warfare and income redistribution.

Of course, massive “wealth spreading” is already under way. This year, government will spend some $900 billion on means-tested aid for the poor and low-income persons, around $9,000 for each American in the low-income third of the population. According to the Left, that’s not nearly enough. The new poverty measure will use deception to promote a much larger welfare state. Taxpayers, beware.

— Robert Rector is a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

[raycyrx]

Not a bit surprising. Yet Obama supporters will continue to deny that he is (or they are) a socialist.

[Cull.D.Sack]

If you want to measure prosperity by possessions and leasure, then you might consider me poor and my next door neighbors on public assistance well-to-do. The neighbors are a household of two adults and 3 pre-high school kids. They have
-three cars (all are newer than my car)
-an amazing entertainment system (we have 19" tube TV)
-cable TV (we get our signal over the air via a digital conversion box)
-two out of state vacations in the last 6 months (vacations??)

However I
-am married ("not yet")
-own (and read) hundreds of books (read?? books??)
-get to enjoy Hodge's posts (Who the hell is Hodge?)

So, all-in-all who is poorer?

[hodge]

The current measure is based on food costs ONLY. There is no one who believes the measure is adequate or appropriate.

The traditional formula to measure poverty only accounted money as assets, the new one will include assistance programs like food stamps and unemployment insurance. In addition, the new standard also factors in more expenditures wheres the previous only used food spending.

The new measure will not replace the official poverty rate but will be published alongside the traditional figure next year as a "supplement" for federal agencies and state governments, according to the directive announced Tuesday by the Commerce Department and White House.

Demographers say the main impact of the change will be to highlight higher numbers of Americans in poverty than previously known, particularly among Americans 65 and over. Because it will be considered a supplemental measure, however, it will not change how billions of federal dollars for the poor are distributed for health, housing, nutrition and child-care benefits.

"The new supplemental poverty measure will provide an alternative lens to understand poverty and measure the effects of anti-poverty policies," said Rebecca Blank, the Commerce Department's undersecretary of economic affairs, a frequent critic of the traditional measure.

That traditional measure, created in 1955, does not factor in rising medical care, transportation, child care or geographical variations in living costs. Nor does it consider non-cash government assistance such as food stamps when calculating income, which has surged higher in recent months due to the federal stimulus program.

Rector is a right-wing ideologue. He is short on facts though (notice how vague is is). But, hey, it's from Hertitage and freep. Gotta be true.

P.S. SMJ your claim is pretty dumb. (Do you deny you are a right-winger?)

[Cull.D.Sack]

Hodge is right. Food costs is not the only criterion. A man has got to have his 46 inch big screen too.

[bob_rx2000]

Hodge is right. Food costs is not the only criterion. A man has got to have his 46 inch big screen too.

Not to mention $150 sneakers and so forth...

[raycyrx]

The current measure is based on food costs ONLY. There is no one who believes the measure is adequate or appropriate.

I'd certainly agree that the current measure is not appropriate when the typical American defined as poor has a standard of living that is better than much of the rest of the planet's middle and upper class:

The government’s own data show that the typical American defined as poor (according to the traditional, pre-Obama poverty measure) has two color televisions, cable or satellite service, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He also has a car, air conditioning, a refrig­erator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had suf­ficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is far from the stark images conveyed by the mainstream media and liberal politicians.

Rector is a right-wing ideologue. He is short on facts though (notice how vague is is). But, hey, it's from Hertitage and freep. Gotta be true.

When one can't discuss the message, just attack the messenger.

If you have evidence that the article is inaccurate, I'm sure we'd all like to see it.

[st michael jr]

The current measure is based on food costs ONLY. There is no one who believes the measure is adequate or appropriate.

The traditional formula to measure poverty only accounted money as assets, the new one will include assistance programs like food stamps and unemployment insurance. In addition, the new standard also factors in more expenditures wheres the previous only used food spending.

The new measure will not replace the official poverty rate but will be published alongside the traditional figure next year as a "supplement" for federal agencies and state governments, according to the directive announced Tuesday by the Commerce Department and White House.

Demographers say the main impact of the change will be to highlight higher numbers of Americans in poverty than previously known, particularly among Americans 65 and over. Because it will be considered a supplemental measure, however, it will not change how billions of federal dollars for the poor are distributed for health, housing, nutrition and child-care benefits.

"The new supplemental poverty measure will provide an alternative lens to understand poverty and measure the effects of anti-poverty policies," said Rebecca Blank, the Commerce Department's undersecretary of economic affairs, a frequent critic of the traditional measure.

That traditional measure, created in 1955, does not factor in rising medical care, transportation, child care or geographical variations in living costs. Nor does it consider non-cash government assistance such as food stamps when calculating income, which has surged higher in recent months due to the federal stimulus program.

Rector is a right-wing ideologue. He is short on facts though (notice how vague is is). But, hey, it's from Hertitage and freep. Gotta be true.

P.S. SMJ your claim is pretty dumb. (Do you deny you are a right-winger?)

Uhhhh, hodge, what claim are you talking about? I haven't posted on this topic until in reply to your comment.

[backstagedee]

Uhhhh, hodge, what claim are you talking about? I haven't posted on this topic until in reply to your comment.

That's funny stuff.

hodge: "Irrelevant, just because you haven't spoken up doesn't mean you weren't going to, thus proves you are a winger"

[hodge]

P.S. SMJ your claim is pretty dumb. (Do you deny you are a right-winger?)

Uhhhh, hodge, what claim are you talking about? I haven't posted on this topic until in reply to your comment.[/quote]

You have my apologies -- that should have been rayc.