Sun editorial:

Grounded in reality

Poverty must be redefined to reflect current economic conditions

Wed, Jul 16, 2008 (2:06 a.m.)

The year that man first stepped on the moon, 1969, was also when the federal definition of poverty was last revised. That definition focuses on the amount of an individual’s or household’s pretax income that is spent on food.

But much has changed since 1969. Families are now driven into bankruptcy by overwhelming medical expenses. Housing and transportation costs have soared. Far more people are struggling to survive than is reflected by the poverty rate.

The definition of poverty, frankly, has become antiquated. The House Ways and Means subcommittee on income security, to its credit, has reached that conclusion and is looking into this issue.

The congressmen would be wise to consider a new measurement devised by New York City’s Center for Economic Opportunity and advocated by the city’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg. The Washington Post reported Monday that the center’s measurement accounts for household spending on food, clothing, shelter, transportation, utilities and out-of-pocket medical expenses.

When that formula was applied to the city, its poverty rate climbed from the federally recognized 18.9 percent to 23 percent.

It is vital that the definition of poverty reflect today’s economic conditions, not those of 40 years ago. That’s because many government assistance programs rely on poverty designations to determine eligibility. Too many people, including residents of Southern Nevada, fall through the cracks and are denied assistance because they do not fit the narrow federal definition of poverty.

Budget hawks who think there are already enough government assistance programs simply are unrealistic. They ignore the fact that household finances are far more complicated today than they were in the 1960s.

Bloomberg aides told the Post that although food accounted for one-third of household spending in the 1960s, it now accounts for only one-eighth. Not surprisingly, housing and transportation costs have become more prominent.

Targeting the people who truly need government assistance cries out for a new definition of poverty that is grounded in reality, not in some bygone era.

Discussion: 2 comments so far…

By billsail

7/16/08 at 6:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Here we go again. Some unnamed writer is trying to tell us that we should raise the way we define poverty so that we can increase spending and give more of our, already too high tax money to people who are spending it on who knows what. If poor people need more money they should try working harder and/or spending less, just like everyone else is doing these days. Come on use some common sense. Standup Nevada. Don't be a sheepeople, (people acting like sheep).
By NVWrangler

7/16/08 at 8:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

The REAL problem is that BOTH Democrats AND Republicans have allowed greedy selfish selfcentered corporations ship jobs overseas for
over 40 years now. We have lost our consumer goods manufacturing base to Communist China.
While our service sector job growth has increased some 200% over the same period; the
problem is that 90% of those jobs are at the lower end of the wage scale. Now even a lot of those service sector jobs (e.g. customer service) have been outsourced to India and the
Phillipines.
The solution is to:
1) Eliminate the personal income tax, replacing
it with a national 5% sales tax on all goods
except for groceries, prescription medicines and prosthetic devices (ie. glasses, hearing aids etc.)
fuel and utilities (already taxed). NO tax
on services.

2) Those corporations that invest in this country (building factories, warehouses, hiring workers)
would get a 64% reduction in their Corporate tax rate.

3) Those corporations that have outsourced and /or continue to outsource tax them at a 64% rate.

4) DO NOT trade with any country that doesn't buy an equal amount from us.
e.g. If we spend 50 billion buying from another country, they should spend an equal amount with us (Fair and Equitable Trade)

5) Have all the common telecommunications carriers collaborate on establishing fibre-optic data transport directly to the "local-loop"
OR in other words to each household.
Then have corporations with 100 or more employees allow those workers who drive to work (by themselves) just to sit in front of a workstation, ...allow them to work from home at least three days a week. The price of gas would drop by 50% in 2 months.

6) PRIVATIZE Social Security.
give everyone their own account, FORBID the federal government from borrowing from it.
Each April 15th each account holder would make a decision on how their social security contribution would be invested.
If the account holder chooses nothing, then it would be invested in U.S. treasury bills
(T-Bills)