by Jan Liughtfoot
When a small amount of people has a disposable income, they think all others live by their standards._ So they figure if they the top 50 million Americans can afford to save, or exhaust their ample income on world trips, others of paltry take-home pay must also be squandering their wages. They have no other way to understand the lifestyles of the citizens in the USA._ It is human nature to assume others have as many resources as we do. According to official reports, when our federal government developed the “poverty level” 52 years ago, on which all subsequent assistance has been based, the only item counted was the lowest cost at which food could be obtained. And that measure, updated for inflation, continues to be used as the basis for determining a citizens’ “need” for various kinds of government-provided assistance.
The US Department of Labor has done that. They have added together all the items people must pay for to live, from rent to a driver’s license, to determine the “cost of living.” But the minimal cost of food, rather than this “cost of living” figure, is what is used to calculate the “threshold of poverty,” on which the needs of our citizens is based. Too few US officials accurately assess what it costs different individuals to live. For example, nurses and plumbers need licenses to work, and transportation, and auto repairs to get to work. It costs them more to work than factory workers. They and other workers could be at 300% of the official poverty level (based on the cost of food only), and still be in real poverty._ Nurses, teachers and even cops are often paid less than the true cost of living. And the owned-by-the-elite media safeguards the officials’ deliberate perjury by refusing to cover the real truth. As a result, around 270 million Americans, out of a population of 320 million--who are in, and suffer from “ real” poverty--remain uncounted.
The homeless can hardly afford to spend $600 a month on rent. They are lucky to get $60 a day, perhaps from panhandling or doing day labor, to get a motel room, with nothing left for food or anything else.
Gordon M. Fisher tells us in his official report in 1992, using his polite officially accepted words:
“In October 1989, the Joint Economic Committee of Congress released a staff study discussing current poverty measurement procedures and suggesting that the poverty thresholds be raised in real terms to reflect the major changes in consumption patterns and relative prices that have occurred in the United States since the mid-1950s.” (The Development of the Orshansky Poverty Thresholds and Their Subsequent History as the official U.S. Poverty Measure, by Gordon M. Fisher, May 1992).
But this failed to occur--and still has not happened.
The popular wisdom, then and now, is that we cannot solve poverty. Yet over 2,000 year ago, a wise man called Christ was asked "How much do we give those poor of cash?" _This man of wisdom, no matter what you believe he was or wasn't, simply replied what is still true (but untried) today: " You give the poor their full need!"
Instead, some confused US leaders say we should take 20% of the meager income from the elderly and the disabled to pay for the past Republican wars--despite the fact that for many people this subsidy does not pay the rent or medical co-pays.
Meanwhile other governmental leaders call for an increase in Social Security payments. But neither side has actually talked to us poor in order to figure out the amount required to cover the real cost of living.
I was a hungry child when the US poverty level was created between 1963 and 1965. It was created by one woman, a mathematician named Mollie Orshansky. Until then the government estimated there were only 40 million Americans _mired in poverty. Ms Orchansky was a research analyst in the Social Security Administration and had bosses to satisfy. Some other mid-ranked official in the Social Security said this count missed a lot of basics such as rent, repairs, medical co-pays which I recall did exist in the 1960s, utilities, taxes, clothes, and gifts for loved ones.
It was not the fault of Ms Orshansky, the person paid to create a bogus poverty level, that her numbers were low. She had many bosses to report to. They gave her the parameters her numbers had to fall in. Others in the Social Security office reportedly said the formula was flawed and would soon have to be reworked, in order to be accurate. There was no reworking. Not within five years, as people expected, nor in five decades. Logic tells us that the top US officials sought and got an undersized number reflecting a radically deficient poverty count.
If one assumes the government bosses were not incompetent, then one of the reasonable conclusions to be reached is that these results--deflating the level of lack in the US--were deliberate on the part of our government. The 1960 measurement seemed to be an intentionally bogus finding--one which neither our government nor the media wanted to correct. It is likely that they didn’t want the people of the US and the world to see that what was advertised as the richest country in the world hosted one of the the greatest rates of human financial deficiency.
It’s my belief then and now, after over 3+ decades of working for no pay with the poor and homeless, that our government--from the time of Presidents JFK and Johnson until now--has been unwilling to consider _all of life’s basics when counting the poor and their needs. If the number of poor were say 4 to 5 times the current estimation, people would be rioting in the streets, demanding fair wages and other economic moves to address their problems.
Until the true needs are exposed poverty cannot be corrected. We need to insist that accurate accounting is used to determine what it costs to survive and thrive be used to determine who is poor and needing help. Today the press owned by a dozen or so billionaires refuses to carry the words of the poor, or their unpaid advocates, who care about those in poverty. So the fact that the US poverty level is based upon the cost of food alone is deftly hidden.
Today, there are an estimated less than 5,000 Americans a year, out of 320 million Americans, whose words we see repeatedly in print. Senators, civic and religious leaders, CEO’s _are quoted each week or month. Not factory or cashier store workers. Nor are the opinions of single mothers or fathers--working for rickety/disheartening wages, and trying to cook meals using inadequate food stamp allotments--printed by the cream of the crop press. And most of the opinions printed by the media are distorting the truth, saying the poor are magically using their food stamps to buy luxury cruises.
The news does not print the reality of the programs being broken either by design or by wrongful application. In terms of housing, the reality is that--as a result of HUD federal housing funds being cut by hundreds of millions of dollars--when filling out an application for subsidized housing, you are on a three year wait list.
And in terms of cuts in food benefits, the reality is that over 200 million Americans are down to eating oatmeal, pasta, or black eyed beans (without the ham hocks) in the last half of the month, or they cannot pay a handful of their back bills. If _our government were accurately identifying those needing help with food, and providing them an adequate amount of help, we would not be seeing the current high rates of people of all ages using church food pantries and soup kitchens.
If the government accurately measured and responded to real needs, no one would be homeless. No one would be dying for lack of heat or cooling. Health would be better. There would be no expensive jails for the homeless. Everyone, whether working for a living or on disability or social security, or even receiving welfare, deserves to have their basic needs met. When you count the lack of such basics, as water, rent, furniture, communications, repairs, transportation, and taxes, there are 270 million or more who are without the essentials of life. That leaves about 50 million with disposable income, who can buy $2,000 to $9,000 trips, a big 40 foot boat, smart phones, _technical equipment etc.
If poverty were eliminated, everyone could save up to buy a high end item._ We only need to apply a simple phrase from over 2000 years ago, and pay all workers, all disabled, elderly and welfare parents the real need.
The US Department of Labor has done that. They have added together all the items people must pay for to live, from rent to a driver’s license, to determine the “cost of living.” But the minimal cost of food, rather than this “cost of living” figure, is what is used to calculate the “threshold of poverty,” on which the needs of our citizens is based. Too few US officials accurately assess what it costs different individuals to live. For example, nurses and plumbers need licenses to work, and transportation, and auto repairs to get to work. It costs them more to work than factory workers. They and other workers could be at 300% of the official poverty level (based on the cost of food only), and still be in real poverty._ Nurses, teachers and even cops are often paid less than the true cost of living. And the owned-by-the-elite media safeguards the officials’ deliberate perjury by refusing to cover the real truth. As a result, around 270 million Americans, out of a population of 320 million--who are in, and suffer from “ real” poverty--remain uncounted.
The homeless can hardly afford to spend $600 a month on rent. They are lucky to get $60 a day, perhaps from panhandling or doing day labor, to get a motel room, with nothing left for food or anything else.
Gordon M. Fisher tells us in his official report in 1992, using his polite officially accepted words:
“In October 1989, the Joint Economic Committee of Congress released a staff study discussing current poverty measurement procedures and suggesting that the poverty thresholds be raised in real terms to reflect the major changes in consumption patterns and relative prices that have occurred in the United States since the mid-1950s.” (The Development of the Orshansky Poverty Thresholds and Their Subsequent History as the official U.S. Poverty Measure, by Gordon M. Fisher, May 1992).
But this failed to occur--and still has not happened.
The popular wisdom, then and now, is that we cannot solve poverty. Yet over 2,000 year ago, a wise man called Christ was asked "How much do we give those poor of cash?" _This man of wisdom, no matter what you believe he was or wasn't, simply replied what is still true (but untried) today: " You give the poor their full need!"
Instead, some confused US leaders say we should take 20% of the meager income from the elderly and the disabled to pay for the past Republican wars--despite the fact that for many people this subsidy does not pay the rent or medical co-pays.
Meanwhile other governmental leaders call for an increase in Social Security payments. But neither side has actually talked to us poor in order to figure out the amount required to cover the real cost of living.
I was a hungry child when the US poverty level was created between 1963 and 1965. It was created by one woman, a mathematician named Mollie Orshansky. Until then the government estimated there were only 40 million Americans _mired in poverty. Ms Orchansky was a research analyst in the Social Security Administration and had bosses to satisfy. Some other mid-ranked official in the Social Security said this count missed a lot of basics such as rent, repairs, medical co-pays which I recall did exist in the 1960s, utilities, taxes, clothes, and gifts for loved ones.
It was not the fault of Ms Orshansky, the person paid to create a bogus poverty level, that her numbers were low. She had many bosses to report to. They gave her the parameters her numbers had to fall in. Others in the Social Security office reportedly said the formula was flawed and would soon have to be reworked, in order to be accurate. There was no reworking. Not within five years, as people expected, nor in five decades. Logic tells us that the top US officials sought and got an undersized number reflecting a radically deficient poverty count.
If one assumes the government bosses were not incompetent, then one of the reasonable conclusions to be reached is that these results--deflating the level of lack in the US--were deliberate on the part of our government. The 1960 measurement seemed to be an intentionally bogus finding--one which neither our government nor the media wanted to correct. It is likely that they didn’t want the people of the US and the world to see that what was advertised as the richest country in the world hosted one of the the greatest rates of human financial deficiency.
It’s my belief then and now, after over 3+ decades of working for no pay with the poor and homeless, that our government--from the time of Presidents JFK and Johnson until now--has been unwilling to consider _all of life’s basics when counting the poor and their needs. If the number of poor were say 4 to 5 times the current estimation, people would be rioting in the streets, demanding fair wages and other economic moves to address their problems.
Until the true needs are exposed poverty cannot be corrected. We need to insist that accurate accounting is used to determine what it costs to survive and thrive be used to determine who is poor and needing help. Today the press owned by a dozen or so billionaires refuses to carry the words of the poor, or their unpaid advocates, who care about those in poverty. So the fact that the US poverty level is based upon the cost of food alone is deftly hidden.
Today, there are an estimated less than 5,000 Americans a year, out of 320 million Americans, whose words we see repeatedly in print. Senators, civic and religious leaders, CEO’s _are quoted each week or month. Not factory or cashier store workers. Nor are the opinions of single mothers or fathers--working for rickety/disheartening wages, and trying to cook meals using inadequate food stamp allotments--printed by the cream of the crop press. And most of the opinions printed by the media are distorting the truth, saying the poor are magically using their food stamps to buy luxury cruises.
The news does not print the reality of the programs being broken either by design or by wrongful application. In terms of housing, the reality is that--as a result of HUD federal housing funds being cut by hundreds of millions of dollars--when filling out an application for subsidized housing, you are on a three year wait list.
And in terms of cuts in food benefits, the reality is that over 200 million Americans are down to eating oatmeal, pasta, or black eyed beans (without the ham hocks) in the last half of the month, or they cannot pay a handful of their back bills. If _our government were accurately identifying those needing help with food, and providing them an adequate amount of help, we would not be seeing the current high rates of people of all ages using church food pantries and soup kitchens.
If the government accurately measured and responded to real needs, no one would be homeless. No one would be dying for lack of heat or cooling. Health would be better. There would be no expensive jails for the homeless. Everyone, whether working for a living or on disability or social security, or even receiving welfare, deserves to have their basic needs met. When you count the lack of such basics, as water, rent, furniture, communications, repairs, transportation, and taxes, there are 270 million or more who are without the essentials of life. That leaves about 50 million with disposable income, who can buy $2,000 to $9,000 trips, a big 40 foot boat, smart phones, _technical equipment etc.
If poverty were eliminated, everyone could save up to buy a high end item._ We only need to apply a simple phrase from over 2000 years ago, and pay all workers, all disabled, elderly and welfare parents the real need.
RSS Feed
