If we are to believe Edwards, "one in eight Americans do not have enough money for the food, shelter and clothing that they need." Supposedly, these people are "forced to live in terrible conditions."
To the casual observer, it must be appalling to think that in the world's richest country there are still citizens living in this type of destitute. But the Census Bureau this week actually reported that poverty is declining.
And a closer look at the numbers reveals that even those Americans described as poor aren't as impoverished as the media and many politicians would have us believe. According to my colleague Robert Rector, a Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy, the typical American defined as "poor" by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer and a microwave. He also has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. And in case you are wondering, Rector draws this information from various (and all available to the public) government and public expenditure reports.
Of particular interest to Hispanics is Rector's analysis on how America's poor compare to Latin America's poor. According to the United Nations Center for Human Settlements and World Bank, the typical housing space per capita in the U.S. is 721 square feet, compared to the 162 square feet for the typical Mexican or Chilean family.
Another characteristic of the impoverished is stunted growth found in malnourished children. Here too, evidence suggests that the percentage of children in America who are stunted is relatively low compared to other continents. In Africa, for instance, the percentage is a terrible 36 percent, and in Latin America it's 22 percent. Here in the United States, it's 2.6 percent.
Now, none of this information is to imply that poverty in our country is not a real problem -- as New Yorkers, we are accustomed to seeing poverty with our own eyes every day. But to correctly prescribe a remedy for poverty, a clearer and more accurate snapshot of today's poor is absolutely necessary.
What the evidence suggests is that one sure-fire way to reduce poverty is to encourage marriage. Unfortunately too many of today's children are being born out of wedlock, leaving young women caring for their kids without a father figure and the income he would bring.
Under President Bill Clinton, the federal government moved in the right direction by encouraging marriage. Lawmakers passed the 1996 Welfare Reform Act even though many liberals called the reforms "heartless." Instead, this reform has helped many Americans escape their dependence on government services.
In today's heated political climate it's easy to get lost in the rhetoric, but as always, it's worth pausing to carefully look at all the facts before pressing forward. And while it's clear that poverty is real, our elected officials would better serve us by asking tough questions about how we can really reduce poverty in America.Israel Ortega is a Senior Media Services Associate at the Heritage Foundation and has worked in Washington, D.C. and Congress for half a decade.
Government Welfare: Cell Phones for the Poor
Government-sponsored text messaging? You got it.
Welfare recipients in approximately 20 states–with more to follow– are currently eligible to receive a free cell phone with a limited number of monthly minutes. All individuals that qualify for state or federal welfare–food stamps, Medicaid, etc.–and have an income at or below 135% of the poverty level, are eligible. According to a Fox News report, the cell phone service is currently the fastest growing welfare program in the country.
In 2008, the fund that foots the bill for this program contributed $819 million to subsidize low-income telephone services. The fund is projected to grow to over $1 billion this year. That’s $1 billion of over $800 billion the United States will spend on welfare in 2010.
This particular program is covered by the federal Universal Service Fund. At first it received its money by essentially taxing telephone companies that provided long-distance service, with the money then being used to provide affordable rates for those living in less densely populated areas where phone service was more costly. However, in 1996, Congress voted to extend the use of this fund to subsidize low-income households and subsequently expanded the list of those required to pay into the fund to include: local telephone companies, wireless companies, paging services, and payphone providers. (Naturally, the cost for this fund is passed to the customer.) In 2008, the Federal Communications Commission began subsidizing cell phones for low-income households.
Besides the $1 billion price tag, which is likely to increase as more states implement the service, not to mention the concern for growing entitlement created by this program, cell phone recipients are loosely monitored. According to Heritage welfare expert Robert Rector, this means that if an individual’s income increases to where he or she is no longer eligible for the service, there is no one to make sure he or she stops receiving it.
Jose A. Fuentes, director of Government Relations for TracFone–one of the providers of the free phone service–says that the phones are not meant “for heavy usage.” Instead, they are meant “for quick phone calls, as well as a way for people to reach you in case of…emergency or for calls from a potential employer,” not meant to replace a landline. This idea indicates that not only should government subsidize phone service, but that as SafeLink, one of the providers of the cell phones, states, “cell phone ownership is a right.”
This is just another example of the ever-expanding welfare state and the increasing entitlement mentality. At the very least, policymakers should require greater monitoring of the program to prevent misuse. Furthermore, if the purpose of the cell phones is truly to give lower-income people more access to potential employers, participants should be required to account for their job search activities. A welfare program that does not require personal responsibility will only encourage dependency and diminish human dignity.
http://www.heritage.org/
Welfare recipients in approximately 20 states–with more to follow– are currently eligible to receive a free cell phone with a limited number of monthly minutes. All individuals that qualify for state or federal welfare–food stamps, Medicaid, etc.–and have an income at or below 135% of the poverty level, are eligible. According to a Fox News report, the cell phone service is currently the fastest growing welfare program in the country.
In 2008, the fund that foots the bill for this program contributed $819 million to subsidize low-income telephone services. The fund is projected to grow to over $1 billion this year. That’s $1 billion of over $800 billion the United States will spend on welfare in 2010.
This particular program is covered by the federal Universal Service Fund. At first it received its money by essentially taxing telephone companies that provided long-distance service, with the money then being used to provide affordable rates for those living in less densely populated areas where phone service was more costly. However, in 1996, Congress voted to extend the use of this fund to subsidize low-income households and subsequently expanded the list of those required to pay into the fund to include: local telephone companies, wireless companies, paging services, and payphone providers. (Naturally, the cost for this fund is passed to the customer.) In 2008, the Federal Communications Commission began subsidizing cell phones for low-income households.
Besides the $1 billion price tag, which is likely to increase as more states implement the service, not to mention the concern for growing entitlement created by this program, cell phone recipients are loosely monitored. According to Heritage welfare expert Robert Rector, this means that if an individual’s income increases to where he or she is no longer eligible for the service, there is no one to make sure he or she stops receiving it.
Jose A. Fuentes, director of Government Relations for TracFone–one of the providers of the free phone service–says that the phones are not meant “for heavy usage.” Instead, they are meant “for quick phone calls, as well as a way for people to reach you in case of…emergency or for calls from a potential employer,” not meant to replace a landline. This idea indicates that not only should government subsidize phone service, but that as SafeLink, one of the providers of the cell phones, states, “cell phone ownership is a right.”
This is just another example of the ever-expanding welfare state and the increasing entitlement mentality. At the very least, policymakers should require greater monitoring of the program to prevent misuse. Furthermore, if the purpose of the cell phones is truly to give lower-income people more access to potential employers, participants should be required to account for their job search activities. A welfare program that does not require personal responsibility will only encourage dependency and diminish human dignity.
http://www.heritage.org/
No comments:
Post a Comment