Candidates should address poverty
Ryan Dinkgrave
Finally, after over a year of constant campaigning, suspect primaries, undemocratic caucuses, questionable party rules, and in-party division, the Democrats have chosen their presumptive nominee for the presidency. Congratulations, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. — now it is time for the actual campaign, this time against your presumptive Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, D-Ariz. It is time to cue the story lines that will be repeated over and over through November: young versus old, left versus right and “Change we can believe in” versus “A leader we can believe in.”
But more importantly, now that we have two major party presumptive nominees chosen, where do they stand on the most important issues? One of the most important issues in this race, besides the obvious topics of war and the economy, is poverty and especially poverty as it affects children. According to 2000 Census data, 16.6 percent of children under 18 live below the federal poverty guideline, which itself is such an unrealistic measure of poverty that most researchers use 200 percent of the poverty line as a basis of measurement. Using this line, a full 37.8 percent of children under the age of 18 live in poverty, a truly unacceptable statistic.
What will America look like under an Obama presidency? Under a McCain presidency? Much of this depends on the answer to another question: What will each do to address poverty in our country? The campaigns thus far have given us some indications of how they will tackle poverty and how important the issue is to them.
In April, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, told a small group of religious leaders in a church in Tennessee that, if elected, she would create a cabinet position on poverty, earning praise from her former opponent, former N.C. Sen. John Edwards. When Edwards exited the race earlier this year, he took with him the highest priority that any of the candidates had assigned to the issue of poverty in America. When Edwards endorsed Obama in Michigan, it seemed as though Obama was making Edwards’ positions on poverty part of his campaign.
Obama has often pointed to his experience as a community organizer and lawyer when asked about his approach to poverty, but now that he has secured the Democratic nomination, he needs to lay out more specific plans to tackle the issue. Much of the approach that he has outlined thus far relies on expanding Earned Income Tax Credit and workforce development efforts. He has pointed to the widely respected Harlem Children’s Zone as a model for community-based solutions to poverty and has spoken vaguely of creating “promise neighborhoods” in cities with the most concentrated areas of poverty.
Like Obama, McCain has indicated that the eradication of poverty will be a cornerstone of his campaign. Unlike Obama, however, McCain has not done much to expand on this statement with specific steps that he would take. His Web site states that he will “set aside the needs of the special interests” to fight poverty, but thus far has only mentioned these efforts briefly in his speeches. Speaking in April on the same Appalachian front porch where President Lyndon B. Johnson declared his “war on poverty” 44 years ago, McCain distanced himself from Johnson’s approach, saying “I have no doubt President Johnson was serious and had the very best of intentions � but the army that he enlisted was mostly drawn from the ranks of government bureaucracies.” Instead, McCain said he would start a “People Connect Program” that would provide tax benefits and federal loans to companies to address some aspects of poverty on the local level.
While Obama has offered greater detail about how he would address poverty in America than McCain has, neither candidate has laid the sufficiently concrete steps to really sway voters who value this issue. Meanwhile, a variety of individuals and organizations are actively working to encourage the candidates to address the issue of poverty.
Learn more by visiting the Web sites of Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity, www.spotlightonpoverty.org, and the Annie E. Casey Foundation, www.aecf.org. Encourage your candidate of choice to make the eradication of poverty a primary issue this fall. An industrialized nation with the wealth of the United States need not have almost 40 percent of its children living in poverty — such numbers are not just concerning, but simply unacceptable.
Ryan Dinkgrave is a State News columnist. Reach him at dinkgrave@msu.edu .
Published on Thursday, June 5, 2008
Comments
Juan
06/05/08 @ 10:56pm
Other than Marxist forced wealth redistribution, what else are you supposed to do with people who lack the marketable skills necessary for decent employment, who make bad choices (having bastard children they can ill afford, substance use, etc.), and who are mentally ill or challenged? The idea of tackling poverty is a nifty notion because we’d rather not see anyone in poverty, but unless you can suddenly make defective people non-defective and self-sufficient, I’m not sure how this is going to be accomplished…
bbwhine
06/06/08 @ 8:33am
Juan: Your Marxist bash aside pure capitalism taken to its final state means one guy has everything. Pure communism to its final state means no one has anything. Most societies need to find a balance between the two in order that the greatest number prosper. I assume you are pro-life given the right leaning comments you made. From what you just posted I also conclude you would require those living in poverty (defectives) to abort so they can’t spread their dependent genes? Maybe the plan is to have all rich folks adopt all the poor folks kids, that’s been working quite well I’ve noticed. Maybe you’re right though. Ignore those ignorant people and let them grub for themselves and the rest of us will stock up on ammo to fend off the revolution when they’ve had enough or our arrogant neglect. Worked well for King Louis. Let em’ eat tacos!
Mr. Pants
06/06/08 @ 9:00am
“Instead, McCain said he would start a “People Connect Program” that would … address some aspects of poverty on the local level.”
— — —
So… John McCain’s plan to fight poverty involves PCP? Brilliant.
Mark
06/06/08 @ 9:28am
Does anyone know how bad poverty is in the United States when compared to other countries?
Whenever I see impoverished areas in the United States, they are all significantly better than the average third world area I see on TV.
Tim
06/06/08 @ 9:38am
Sadly, much of what Juan says is true, but his fatalistic attitude is unnecessary. His extremist hyperbole regarding Marxism as being the only option is as silly here as it is on the Obama article. As is the norm with conservatives, he creates strawman arguments by associating liberals with positions they don’t hold.
Giving the poor money is a fruitless endeavor as they frequently are not educated on how to responsibly handle money. Growing up in an environment where there was no Dad and Mom had many kids at an early age, that is the norm and they follow in her footsteps. Similarly, I followed in the footsteps of my parents, but those footsteps led to college and a career.
I think the education system has to be where the change begins.
This is really stupid
06/06/08 @ 1:40pm
“According to 2000 Census data, 16.6 percent of children under 18 live below the federal poverty guideline, which itself is such an unrealistic measure of poverty that most researchers use 200 percent of the poverty line as a basis of measurement.”
Wow — 41 words that run off into the following question —
Who “most researchers?” Democrat? Socialist? Communist?
Which then makes this —
“ .. Using this line, a full 37.8 percent of children under the age of 18 live in poverty, a truly unacceptable statistic.”
Truly unacceptable. As data. Or anything else.
If, for a nano-second, that suspicious data assumption was accepted — that would indicate that many poor people are having children.
Why? If you’re poor — does it make sense to have children that you cannot afford?
And make them suffer? And make others suffer? Where’s the sense in that?
Having made significant donations to charity — I now refuse to encourage having children without the ability to support them. That is just selfish, stupid, cruel and unsustainable.
Obama (bin Laden)
06/06/08 @ 3:16pm
bbwhine, the rich have already adopted the kids of the poor. They pay the majority of taxes in this country, a good chunk of which goes to endless and ineffective programs designed to “eradicate” poverty. Every single program that the government sponsors to get the poor out of their position does nothing but keep them there. Those who realize it and break away from that addiction are the ones who thrive. THAT is capitalism and conservatism wrapped up into one warm blanket.
Tim
06/06/08 @ 3:24pm
This is really stupid- lots of people shouldn’t have children, including Mr. Obama aka Hussein.
Obama- Yes, liberals much prefer that all poor people fail. It’s only thanks to capitalism and conservatism that poor people are able to climb out of poverty. I’m sure you have statistics to back up that assertion.
Tom W.
06/06/08 @ 4:52pm
You guys should really take some Social Science classes and learn a thing or two about the REAL sources of, and potential Solutions to poverty.
Children born into poverty have the worst schools, unstable home environments, lack of positive role-models, no social support networks, are surrounded by drugs & gangs, etc., etc. This leads to skewed development with social & psychological issues that lead to the perpetuity of their state.
Oh and guess what? These folks are disproportionately Latino & African American (I won’t even discuss the plight of Native Americans)
How anybody can sit in their ivory tower and criticize/condemn those who are born into lives like that is beyond me. Its not an economic issue, its a moral issue.
This is really stupid
06/06/08 @ 5:16pm
How anybody can sit in their ivory tower and criticize/condemn those who are born into lives like that is beyond me. Its not an economic issue, its a moral issue.
—-
Silly me. Years of helping the poor, and I don’t know a thing. It took a genius from the ivory tower to tell me that my no-good eyes were really lying to me.
Liberal Democrat/Socialist Catholics like Gov. Tax-and-Waste enjoy getting on their high horse and lecturing others.
She will not judge me — only God will. She is wrong today, and she will always be wrong, IMO. She should stop being a Harvard lawyer and actually risk some of her own savings to help others.
Feeding an extra child is one thing. Being overwhelmed by seven starving children because the parents will not use birth control (or self-control) is quite another. Democrat/Socialist (and a few Republican) politicians pandering to such people with public monies to get elected are despicable.
It does not take a village. First, it takes parents — both of them — with strong values, personal responsibility, and discipline. Not everyone is going to be lucky like B. Hussein Obama and have successful grandparents to bail them out.
Joe W.
06/06/08 @ 9:54pm
Hey, “This is…Stupid”: exactly what have you done in your “Years of helping the poor”?
have you ever seen maury
06/06/08 @ 10:35pm
I can bet a lot that the “mothers” who go on there will be or are right now on welfare. Tell me this, do they deserve my tax dollars? You dont see me porkin every girl on the street and not being responsible. You have to be accountable for your actions, if you dont like whats happening then fix it dont blame somone else….. you stupid liberals
This is really stupid
06/07/08 @ 9:42am
Hey, “This is…Stupid”: exactly what have you done in your “Years of helping the poor”?
—-
Thousands of dollars raised — more than you. Stupid.
And what the F have you done? Other to BS’d in some idiot class? Like B. Hussein Obama?
God, there is a special kind of stupid in E.L.
Joe W.
06/07/08 @ 11:19am
Hey, “This is…” How did you raise the “Thousands of dollars…”?
Tim
06/07/08 @ 2:18pm
Just because liberals think we shouldn’t let these women and their children starve on the street doesn’t mean we think people should live in a consequence free environment.
Why do you conservatives insist on constructing strawman arguments?
This is really stupid
06/07/08 @ 3:50pm
And what the F have you done? Other to BS’d in some idiot class? Like B. Hussein Obama?
Dio
06/07/08 @ 4:28pm
Just because liberals think we shouldn’t let these women and their children starve on the street doesn’t mean we think people should live in a consequence free environment.
—-
Having wasted $5,000,000,000.00 during the Democrat “War On Poverty” — Democrats do not have a lot of credibility with the public.
Y’know — credibility? That dumb ol’ thing that has to be earned? Not just blathered about?
Mr. Pants
06/07/08 @ 7:43pm
Joe W. just won the prize for “Pettiest post replying to a State News article.” Too bad ‘the Champ’ is on summer break.
Don’t you people understand the poor? Twice a month make them come to a doctor to be kicked in the stomach so that we can get rid of all of the babies the obviously stupid and inferior (sub)humans try to have. Problem solved. And if their parents complain, give ‘em some PCP. That’s the McCain way.
Steve
06/08/08 @ 1:25am
Juan where have you been? Your posts are always enjoyable to read and right to the point.
Joe W.
06/08/08 @ 1:34pm
“Credibility is….”
Bleeding Green can be stupid
06/10/08 @ 9:30am
“Credibility is….”
—-
Fixing your problems first. Then helping others — WITHOUT gum-mint hand-outs.
Joe W.
06/10/08 @ 6:46pm
Credibility is telling the truth.
Soylent Green is East Lansing Democrat Party
06/11/08 @ 11:17am
Credibility is telling the truth.
—-
OK. MSU is a third-ranked university. Only 60% of incoming freshmen graduate within six years. Freshmen are the most profitable students.
Happy?
Soylent Green is East Lansing Democrat Party
06/11/08 @ 11:19am
Credibility is telling the truth.
——
OK — the Democrats wasted $5,000,000,000,000.00 during the “War on Poverty” that got illegitimate birth rates to 70% in some groups.
Happy?
Joe W.
06/12/08 @ 12:00pm
I’m glad you knew the comment referred to you.
Your statistics are unimportant to me. I am not a liberal.