Published: August 19, 2007 12:31 am            

The politics of poverty

Is it better to talk about reducing poverty or to actually reduce it? The current Democratic presidential candidates wax eloquent about poverty, but hearing their proposals makes me wonder if they’re more interested in solving the root problems or just politically profiting off the emotions aroused by the plight of the poor.

The basic pitch hasn’t changed since LBJ gave socialism an American face through his War on Poverty. It goes like this: America is the most prosperous nation in history and yet millions of our citizens live below the poverty line. Government should correct this inequality by granting poor citizens welfare, public housing, Medicaid, etc … Since the government can only give to one citizen what it takes from another, the middle class and rich should be taxed to pay for these programs while the poor should be exempt from federal income tax.

Although the sentiments behind the redistribution of wealth seem to be well-intentioned, the most incriminating truth about socialism is simply that it doesn’t work. Look around the world today and you’ll see that socialist societies are less free and less prosperous than capitalist countries. Compare North to South Korea, Taiwan to China or Cuba to Florida and it’s obvious that socialism is an abject failure.

Capitalism has its problems, but even the poor in America are well off by global standards. According to a recent study by the Heritage Foundation, 46 percent of those deemed poor by the U.S. Census Bureau own their own homes; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV, and 75 percent own a car. The average poor family in America has more square footage of living space than the average citizen in London, Paris, or Vienna. And far from being malnourished, the biggest health crisis facing America’s poor is obesity.

If American poverty were caused by systemic oppression and injustice ala Mozambique, then perhaps government could offer some solutions. Here in America, however, anyone can become a success. American poverty isn’t caused by a lack of opportunity; more often than not it’s caused by poor work ethic and even poorer lifestyle choices.

That same Heritage research found that parents of children below the poverty line work an average of 16 hours a week. And two-thirds of those children are raised by a single parent. Economists note that if those parents would work 40 hours a week and marry the father of their children, poverty in America would be reduced by 75 percent.

But you’ll never hear a politician say that. Democrats are too busy pandering to their base and Republicans are afraid to say anything politically incorrect even if it’s true. Neither is comfortable talking or doing anything about the root causes of poverty because it’s easier to promise more money for failing programs than to address the actual lifestyle choices that impoverish.

Each time the government rewards young women for having children out of wedlock, it further erodes the family and dooms another generation to a cycle of dependence. Each time the IRS “refunds” more money back to a citizen than he ever paid in taxes, it provides a cash incentive for working less than full time.

If politicians truly wanted to do more than just talk about poverty, they should end the policies that trap America’s poor into a barely-get-by dependence on Uncle Sam. The reason they won’t is that tough love may be good medicine, but it’s bad politics.



Craig Ziemba is a military

pilot who lives in Meridian. His second book, Give War a Chance, is available at Meridian area Bible Bookstores.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.