Politicizing Poverty

Why Our Poverty Measure Misleads, by Robert Samuelson
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/05/31/why_our_poverty_measure_misleads_98490.html

This is shocking, I realize, but it turns out that Barack Obama is politicizing poverty. The goal is income redistribution. What better way to do this than to define a percentage of the population as ALWAYS in poverty, no matter how wealthy they are?

Let me quote from Robert Samuelson's article, as he and Robert Rector (in the second quote) say it better than I can:

"The present concept [of poverty] is an absolute one: The poverty threshold reflects the amount estimated to meet basic needs. By contrast, the supplemental measure embraces a relative notion of poverty: People are automatically poor if they're a given distance from the top, even if their incomes are increasing."

"The new indicator is a 'propaganda device' to promote income redistribution by showing that poverty is stubborn or increasing, says the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector."

"Government statistics should strive for political neutrality. This one fails."

Jealousy is an ugly thing, and it is even uglier when those in power use it to drive their socialist agenda.

Note also one implication of the article. It seems like immigration is an issue that continually crops up whenever we talk about policies that impact our welfare state, whether directly or indirectly:

"But the apparent lack of progress is misleading for two reasons. First, it ignores immigration, which has increased reported poverty. Many immigrants are poor and low-skilled. From 1989 to 2007, about three-quarters of the increase in the poverty population occurred among Hispanics -- mostly immigrants, their children and grandchildren. The poverty rate for blacks fell during this period, though it was still much too high (24.5 percent in 2007). Poverty 'experts' don't dwell on immigration, because it implies that more restrictive policies might reduce U.S. poverty."

Lax immigration law enforcement contributes to keeping the poverty rate high, which in turn fuels the calls for more income redistribution. It's enough to make you wonder if the left wants more illegal immigration.

As always when this topic comes up, I need to point out that I am not anti-immigration. I happen to believe that if we did not have such benefits then all immigrants would come for the right reasons (to work and make a better life, which I have no issue with) and we would not need the immigration laws that we presently have (more on this in a future post). Government welfare is driving out private charity, and that is not a good trend.