Delaware Liberal

Heritage: The Poor Have It Too Damned Good

The Heritage Foundation has a new report on poverty in America. It’s an example of compassionate conservatism at work.

The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. The typical poor American family was also able to obtain medical care when needed. By its own report, the typical family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.

Poor families certainly struggle to make ends meet, but in most cases, they are struggling to pay for air conditioning and the cable TV bill as well as to put food on the table. Their living standards are far different from the images of dire deprivation promoted by activists and the mainstream media.

Consumer items that were luxuries or significant purchases for the middle class a few decades ago have become commonplace in poor households. In part, this is caused by a normal downward trend in price following the introduction of a new product. Initially, new products tend to be expensive and available only to the affluent. Over time, prices fall sharply, and the product saturates the entire population, including poor households.

I’m surprised Heritage didn’t bring out their “lucky duckies” argument that the poor pay no federal income tax. You know, it’s generally considered a good thing if poor people have food and shelter. It means the social safety net is working. This is a good thing.

Here’s some truths:

“15 Shocking Facts About Poverty In America”

#3 The U.S. poverty rate is now the third worst among the developed nations tracked by the OECD

#4 Household participation in the food stamp program has increased 20.28% since last year

#7 One out of every six Americans is now being served by at least one government anti-poverty program

U.S. Census data on poverty

Heritage wants you to think that these statistics are lies. I wonder how Heritage reconciles the rhetoric that the wealthy “job creators” need coddling and special tax breaks with the rhetoric that the poor are coddled too much? It’s Heritage, so I guess it doesn’t have to make sense.

Exit mobile version