The Poverty Trap

by Ruth A. Sheets

Poverty is the lack of sufficient resources necessary to meet basic needs for oneself and one’s family.  Estimates of the number of people living in poverty in America vary, but they run from ten to twenty-five percent depending on the definition used.

Americans are very uncomfortable talking about poverty.  The topic was hardly mentioned during the 2012 campaign.  If such a large portion of the population is in a particular group, it would be expected that the subject would come up often as the votes of this group would be courted.

The votes of the poor are not courted as the votes of members of a particular religious group, ethnicity, race, or social group are courted.  The reason, poor folks are not expected to vote.  And, if they do, their vote is assumed.  The white poor are Republican and the minority poor are Democratic.

Lately, bills have been introduced in state legislatures to even further limit sufferage of people in poverty through voter I.D. laws.  This is just one of many ways of keeping poor people from complaining about their situation. 

Republicans and some others would have us believe that people are poor because they want to be.  They are too lazy.  They don’t work hard enough.  They don’t know how to take care of what they have.  They don’t manage money well.  You know all the lines. 

Most people don’t realize that poverty is a trap.  Once caught in it, a person or family can rarely get out without significant help.  Then, if they do get some help, they are called “takers” in a tone of voice that communicates very effectively the esteem in which they are held. 

People in poverty see the material goods everyone is expected to have, so they work impossible hours at spirit-breaking jobs to acquire those things for themselves and their kids.  They are told that education is “the way out,” but their schools are places that no one with money would want to enter on a bet.

Because people living from paycheck to paycheck cannot accumulate much money at a time, they fall victim to appallingly unregulated predators like Rent-a-center,” check cashing companies, sub-prime lenders, and housing rental agencies.  These companies charge extraordinary fees which keep those who are already desparate, in permanent debt, in substandard housing, if they have a home at all. 

Some Americans like to claim that the United States is the best at everything.  Well, I don’t know if we are the best at poverty, but we are pretty good at it.

Turn the Poor over to the Churches and Charities?

Line at a food bank

by Ruth A. Sheets

Back in the 1930’s during the Great Depression, my grandparents depended on several churches for their survival.  I say several because the amount any one church could give to a family was so small that my out-of-work grandfather could not feed his family on it.

With the advent of the food stamps and general welfare programs of the Federal and State Governments, poor people no longer had to go from church to church to seek help through their hard times.  They did not always have to beg at the church door.  They no longer had to sit through worship services that did not necessarily meet their needs in order to receive the pittance churches could afford to hand out.  Some of the stigma was removed from being poor.

Unfortunately, the removal of the stigma rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.  Being poor should be at least a little humiliating so people won’t want to remain in that condition.  The “haves” liked being able to reach down and give a little in order to receive the gratitude of the have-nots. 

It doesn’t matter that in order to receive welfare of any kind, individuals must be nearly in abject poverty.  Married couples have a hard time getting such help because it is assumed that if a man is in the household, he is working and earning enough to support his family or he’s a moocher. 

Many Republicans and Libertarians have chosen ending or severely (even more severely) limiting welfare and food stamps as one of their causes, saying that our nation can’t afford it anymore.  This is at a time when large companies are making record profits but bearly hiring.  This is at a time when many, if not most of the jobs companies are creating are mimimum wage jobs, which as anyone who has ever earned minimum wage knows, is not enough to live on.

I recently heard a report on NPR which included an interview with a truck driver for a food bank.  He told the interviewer and all of America that he thinks helping the poor is the job of the churches and charities and not the Government. 

I know that food banks, thrift stores, and other charitable organizations do a great good in our society.  They can sometimes take the edge off the pain of poverty.  What they cannot do is offer dignity to those who need their services.  They cannot provide a shared experience of conducting one’s life as one chooses:  going to the supermarket, buying new clothing for the kids, using things that are not other people’s discards.  They cannot provide these services on the scale needed in America at this time.

It is ironic that the folks who have the most, resent the commonwealth for trying to level the field for those who have not been as lucky.  I wonder how many of the lucky do their best to avoid paying taxes, but also give as little as they can to the charities that serve the poorest among us.  If they do give anything, it has to make a big splash in the media, “wonderful me giving to those less fortunate than I.”   

It is fascinating that those who earn the least pay the largest percentage of their income for charities, but it is the wealthiest who are celebrated for their largess.

Even if there are a few moochers  around, I’d rather take the chance to provide my fellow citizens with welfare, if needed, and food stamps, if needed, than know they have to go from church to charity to receive enough to survive, as my mother’s family did 75 years ago.

Hand Out, Hand In

by Ruth A. Sheets

It seems that again, it is in fashion to malign people who receive unemployment.  I guess conservatives did not get enough traction when they went after people on food stamps and seniors on Medicare.  Folks like Rush Limbaugh accuse those who receive unemployment of collecting instead of working, being a drain on society.  His rant went on and on about these freeloaders who could be out there working if only they tried a LITTLE harder.

It seems that Rush and his cronies consider unemployment a handout to the lazy.  According to him, this handout should be cut off.  America would be stronger and our deficit would be lowered.

I find it interesting that people who have jobs, even jobs that are of nominal value like Rush’s have no qualms berating those who no longer have the jobs they counted on for a living.  They claim that recipients of unemployment are sucking America dry.  Are they really?

I recently read that Mitt Romney got a tax break of $77,000 for his horse.  Why does Romney need such a tax break?  Because it’s there?  Why isn’t Rush bent out of shape over that and other equally ridiculous government assistance? 

My brother-in-law has a theory that I really like.  He says it’s probably because in the case of unemployment, money is being given directly to a person, who has to have their hand out.  In Romney’s case, he just gets to keep his money.  His hand stays in his pocket along with the money.  The former is overt while the latter is more covert and not as public.

So, as long as people are getting tax breaks, even for things as frivolous as horses, they are not a drain on society, but if a check is cut to enable a person/family to survive, society is being tapped.

Does anyone else recognize the hyhpocrisy here?  The addiction of the wealthy to their money requires them to make the “have nots” feel like losers and inferior people.  Rush’s rants are designed to make the non-thinkers among us believe that wealth is just around the corner for them and that the unemployed are keeping them from their dream of riches.  This is nonsense of course.

The sad part is that Rush’s audience is being used by the wealthy who care nothing about their lack of  jobs or the unemployment among their neighbors.  Give the downtrodden another group of Americans to hate.  It takes the pressure off the wealthy and their enablers.

Define Pro-Life

by muon

You'd think, regardless how far apart the factions of this country are on the abortion issue, there's one thing we all ought to be able to agree on. No matter when you believe life starts, or for that matter, when you believe life ends, we all ought to agree that in between the start and end, human beings are alive. Anyone out there have an issue with that? Speak up.

Today I heard a priest--one I like and respect--say that we needed to protect life "from the moment of conception until the moment of..." Knowing this priest, I expected him to say "...until the moment of death." He didn't. He said "...until the moment of birth." I was dumbfounded. What about the rest of life?

To me, anyone calling themselves pro-life ought to commit to an across-the-board definition. Otherwise, you're only anti-abortion. What about the moment after birth, when that new baby may need extraordinary measures to keep him alive? If the family has no health care insurance, will that baby, "protected" until the moment of birth end up dying because he had to be born at home with no medical personnel in attendance?

What about as that baby grows up? Will he have decent nutrition? Or will he develop malnutrition issues or childhood obesity, because his neighborhood is a junk food mecca and a fresh food desert? Will he fail to get an adequate education because his public school was taken over by a for-profit company? Will he be stuck in a cycle of poverty the rest of his "life?" Will he be seduced into illegal activities as the only way to survive, because he can't get a job without an education? Will he end up being "protected" in the prison system? Will he take possibly the one honorable option open to him, and join the military, possibly to die in a war that supports only the interests of multinational corporations? Will he survive that and return home instead physically or mentally disabled, perhaps with a shorter life expectancy and a burden to society? Assuming of course, that legislators leave the social programs in place that would allow him to "live" at all.  Will he have food and fuel and clothing and healthcare, and Social Security in his later years, to allow him to stay alive?

In my opinion, you've got no business going around puffing out your chest, claiming you're pro-life, unless you commit to it whole hog. If you want to define pro-life as anti-abortion, fine, but you'd better include anti-war, anti-death penalty, anti-poverty, anti-sickness, anti-ignorance, and anti-everything else that doesn't give each baby born a chance at a long, productive life. If you can commit to all these things, then I'm okay with your preaching to me about it from the pulpit. I may not agree with all your politics, but I'll feel you have a real respect for human life. Otherwise, don't tell me who to vote for. Come to think of it, don't tell me who to vote for either way.

This is why, this week, I'm supporting the Nuns On The Bus. They're a group of American Catholic sisters who are traveling from Des Moines to Washington, DC, trying to educate people about the plight of the poor in America. These days, we aren't talking about the poor as a tiny percentage of the population--half of the population earns less than $35,000 annually. The poverty level right now includes nearly a quarter of all Americans. The Nuns are bringing attention to Republican policies, and particularly the Paul Ryan budget, which would eliminate so many social programs that at least give poorer Americans a chance to survive past those "protected" months before birth.

The Nuns were told by the Catholic hierarchy to quit wasting all their time on the poor and instead, hop aboard the anti-abortion bandwagon. The sisters refused. They understand the meaning of pro-life.

Go sisters!

TESTING – TO WHAT END?

by Ruth A. Sheets

PSSA (Pennsylvania State System of Assessment) testing in the areas of Reading and Math begins Monday, March 12^th.  This is the big stakes testing that every PUBLIC SCHOOL student in the state grades 3-8 & 11 must submit themselves to.  I can’t help wondering “to what purpose?”

The testing takes place in March for Reading and Math and April for Writing and Science.  The scores take months to come back.  By that time, summer is upon us and results are set aside until September.  By then, students have moved, children have changed schools, and teachers have retired, transferred, or moved to a different grade.  Thus, the data is only marginally helpful.

All public school students take the tests.   Over time, the primary purpose seems to have become making comparisons between and among schools.  The wealthiest districts are set against the poorest and of course always come out gleaming in the glory of their high scores.  The poor kids, oh well, their teachers just suck.  That’s why they don’t get at least “Proficient” scores. 

The readers who see the scores in the newspapers don’t think “Wow, I guess having a lot of money and good resources in the schools does make a difference.  Why don’t we see that all of our schools have the same advantages.  Wouldn’t that create the most amazing work force in the world!”  The reader actually thinks, “Something has to be done about those awful schools.  They should fire those teachers.  Their union gets them so much money and look how badly their kids do!”

The threat hangs over every disadvantaged school. You’re going to close if you don’t improve.  What happens then?  Where do those kids go?  Will one of the wealthy districts absorb them?

Not likely, but even if they do, what will happen to those children?  They will be at the bottom of every class, no matter what their actual abilities.  They will be seen as second-class citizens at best.  No one will think this is a problem since “at least this situation is better than the school they used to go to.”

What about trying something different?  What about making the playing field a bit more fair?  Instead of doing the annual score comparisons, use the tests to see where the whole state can come together to support our most needy children.  Instead of pumping money into charter schools, (often run by private companies) give struggling schools the best leaders as principals.  Give resources to repair schools, playgrounds, and parking lots so that students will have a school to be proud of.  Provide counselors and psychologists as well as other support staff to help kids deal with the personal issues that get in the way of their learning.

Use the latest research to figure out how to improve student health.  Have nurses in every school to address basic health needs.  Provide all schools with music and art as an integral part of student education, not just something you do when you can get around to it.

In short, if the PSSA is not going to help to improve learning and school life, stop requiring it.  Use the millions of dollars it takes to administer it to do some good for our children.  Oh well, I know that won’t happen!  Too many people benefit from the tests, none of those people our children.  And, there’s that “accountability” thing.  But only teachers and sometimes, principals are held accountable. 

The poor children and their families are too busy just surviving to commit the time and energy to fighting the injustice.  That leaves the battle against injustice to the rest of us.  I don’t think we have the will.  Too bad!  We do like to think we’re caring and fair.  Surprise!  

The Wealth Factor

by Ruth A. Sheets

The “New York Times” columnist David Brooks’ piece published on January 20, 2012 is entitled “Wealth Issue.”  In it he contends that “money didn’t make Mitt Romney.”  He asks if Romney’s character was formed by his wealth.  He answers the question with a no and says that thinking money has spoiled or in any way corrupted him is “preposterous.”

Mr. Brooks then proceeds to say that Mitt Romney has been an exceedingly hard worker “all his life.”  He earned two degrees at Harvard and built a business.  The implication is that if a wealthy person works hard and earns degrees at a prestigious university that his wealth didn’t shape his character in any meaningful way.

Readers are informed that families have a story and that one’s character is actually shaped by the family’s story.  Romney’s story is a series of advancements and setbacks over time by his grandfather and great grandfather, often dramatic changes of fortune, but always with the good fortune winning out.

I find Romney’s story fascinating and I suspect that one can’t help but be influenced by losing everything, then getting it all back again several times as Mr. Romney’s forebearers did, .  However, I suspect that the “money” factor is at least as important in Mitt Romney’s life.  Even Romney’s great grandfather came from money.

I work in one of the poorest communities in Pennsylvania.   I teach “Mentally Gifted” students.  I know that I have students at least as bright as Mr. Romney with as much potential as he had, but my students will not be earning any degrees at Harvard.  The chance that they will get the opportunity to build a business is quite small.  My terrific students didn’t go to the prominent school that leads directly to Harvard because they would never be able to afford either institution.  Their families will not have the funds to help them get set up in business and to help cover their expenses while the going is a bit rough.

My students will have to be concerned about being hired and fired and as most of them are African-American or Hispanic, or a combination of the two, they will not be judged by the content of their character but by the preconceptions of those who might hire them or back their enterprises.

Their family stories are as intriguing and inspiring as Mr. Romney’s yet theirs will not even be recognized because wealth and its acquisition are not part of any of them, and in our society, wealth is what counts.  Wealth determines who is worthy of our homage.  It leads to power and more wealth. 

To be poor means that you have not worked hard enough or taken advantage of the crumbs that have slipped from the table of the wealthy.  Poverty is your fault and if you weren’t so lazy, you’d be rich too.  Anyone who is not a “have” is a “soon to have” if they have the right stuff. ”

Does wealth automatically corrupt those who have it?  Possibly not, but it does mean that the wealthy have the cards stacked in the favor.  They receive its advantages from birth, probably even before birth. 

I can’t help but wonder if Mitt Romney’s arrogance, disconnectedness, expedience would have served him as well had his family been poor or even, middle class. 

Everyone who has succeeded likes to think they did it all by themselves, but that’s not how it works.  Wealth allows its beneficiaries  to start off near the top of the heap, and unless they are really foolish or have other problems, they will not sink below that point. 

The wealthy have every incentive to work hard and strive because they know that even the smallest effort will provide security and yield a level of power that most people, no matter how motivated, will never attain.  Those who are in poverty can only hope that their family story will inspire succeeding generations who, with a lot of luck and support, may be able to rise.

Hooverville, 2011

I've been following the Occupy movement from Week 1, long before the media even knew they were there and began actively ignoring them. We've now even got an Occupy group in my hometown, though there's no one to protest against here. Corporations pulled jobs out of our area long ago. Main Street never recovered. Our local industries right now seem to be food banks and homeless shelters.

I was struck by a question posed on PBS News Hour's Facebook page today, with a link to an article about Occupy Portland :

"In your opinion, should Occupy protesters be allowed to

stay camped out in public spaces?"

 

The photos with my blog today aren't protesters' tents. They're American tent cities filled with those who've lost their homes. Shanty towns like these are springing up all over the country.

Amazing that the tents of a few Occupy protesters should be so offensive, while the tents and living conditions of our poor are so easy to ignore.

Please consider letting PBS and your government representatives know that protesters camping out is far preferable to seeing our next generation raised in tent cities.

muon

At-Risk Youth

Today's blog is an amazing essay written by a 13 year-old.  Because she's a minor, we've left off her last name and location. 

AT-RISK YOUTH

Last year, I was asked to go to a meeting for “At-Risk Youth.”  They invited us because we were youth council members and they wanted our input on how to help the kids who were acting up, failing and about to drop out of school. During the meeting everyone talked about the “At-Risk” youth and ways to help them do better.  But nobody ever really said what an “At-Risk” youth was.  I think they invited us to the meeting because they thought that we were not “At-Risk” since we were not failing or acting out in school.  I decided to write about at-risk youth.

After doing some research I found that there are a number of things that make a young person “At-Risk”.  One study showed that kids who come from poor communities, underperforming schools and broken homes are more “At-Risk” than others.  It also showed that Black and Hispanic kids are more “At-Risk” then White and Asian kids, males were more “At-Risk” then females and poor kids are more “At-Risk” than rich kids.  So, I guess being an “At-Risk” youth means that if you live in bad family and community conditions there’s a greater chance that you will participate in negativebehaviors.

While thinking about that definition, I realized that I too am an “At-Risk” youth. Even though I come from a two parent home, with two incomes, have two sisters, a nice little house pet, and enjoy learning, because of the school that I go to, my race, and the zip code where my parents happened to buy our home, I’m classified as “At-Risk”.

However, I  personally think that all youth are “At-Risk”,  in one way or another. Whether by poverty,  race, community, school, an unstable home, violence, drugs, bullying, or anything else. A reason why I think that all youth are at risk is because youth are so dependent on everyone else. They are dependent on their parents to provide a stable, loving home for them. They are dependent on the community to provide a safe environment and they are dependent on the schools to educate them so that they can succeed.   

As a young person, I know that kids can sometimes do bad stuff, but if you ask me, the reason we have so many “At-Risk” youth is not only because of the kids but because of the conditions that have been created for them to live in. 

Submitted by Shanae, age 13 

THE EASY CAUSE

 Thursday morning, I was listening to a report on NPR about the flocking of Republican candidates to the “Right to Life” convention in Florida.  It seems that they are falling over themselves to prove that they are the most anti-abortion candidate ever.  They are even signing pledges that if elected, they will only appoint “right to life” people to positions of power in their administration. 

As I listened to the report, it came to me as it so often does that abortion is the easy cause.  All you have to do to have credentials in their group is be willing to show photos magnified a hundred times of aborted fetuses and work to cut funding for any organization that tries to help women who cannot or should not be pregnant.  Usually the spokeswomen have a bunch of kids and claim to be super religious. The men aren’t too big on women’s rights in general.

If these people are so “right to life,” where is the signed pledge that they will find funding for struggling women and children?  Where did they sign that they will do whatever necessary to be sure that even the poorest children will have an education equal to that of at least middle class kids?  Where is their signature on the promise to get businesses into poor communities that will provide jobs for the young people and prices that residents can afford?  Where are the ads and quality films that promote giving children for adoption?  I don’t see the pen on the line promising health care for all children or decent housing for their families.

What I do see is a stampede toward a cause that has all kinds of emotional ties but few real risks.  Their efforts make a small core of people think that being anti-abortion says something important about their candidate’s character.  It is not even necessary to analyze what that is.  With one hand the candidates sign a ridiculous, probably un-American pledge while they raise the other to cut spending for the programs that would support and protect the children.  It seems the group’s name should be “Right to Birth” with a subtext that states, "Every breath you take after birth is at your own risk."

Peace,

Ruth