Questioning America’s Greatness: Poverty

Thoughts from the Middle

Questioning America’s Greatness:

Poverty

By

Robert Fischer

I have always believed that America is the best country in the world.  So imagine how shocked I was to read an article that provided a brief overview of a December 15, 2017 report to the United Nations on poverty in America.  While I have never doubted that we had a portion of the population that was poor, the article not only confirmed this belief, but also indicated that it was much worse than I had imagined.  As a police officer in the 1970s, I saw poor neighborhoods and wondered why a nation so rich in so many ways was unable to solve the problems associated with poverty.  After reading the article, I decided to take a deeper look at the issue.  I still couldn’t believe that our nation might not be prosperous for the majority, as I had assumed.  I wondered what our humanitarian founding fathers would think of their great experiment in a democracy that was supposed to provide for the common good of all Americans.

Extreme Poverty in America – The UN Special Monitor’s Report – A Summary, (Alston, Philip, United Nations Report on the USA, December 15, 2017)

Philip Alston is the UN’s special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights.  He spent 10 days visiting the United States during the latter part of 2017.  During his visit he spoke to state and federal government officials, civil society organizations, and experts on American poverty.  He also talked with many homeless people and individuals living in extreme poverty.  What he saw and reported is more than sad, it is criminal.  For example, there are many people living in poverty who have lost all or most of their teeth because there is very limited dental care for the poor.  He also heard about the increasing number of deaths from opioids, possibly partially created by a broken health care system.  He saw people living next to mountains of coal ash which will likely cause illness and possibly premature death.  To quote Alston, “American exceptionalism was a constant theme in my conversations.  But instead of realizing its founders’ admirable commitments, today’s United States has proved itself to be an exception in far more problematic ways that are shockingly at odds with its immense wealth and its founding commitment to human rights.  As a result, contrasts between private wealth and public squalor abound.”  Is Alston correct?  After all, he was only here for 10 days!

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Countries

This group of 39 countries was established following World War II with a goal of avoiding the mistakes that led to World Wars I and II.  The group’s primary purpose in 1948 (originally called the Organization for European Economic Cooperation) was the oversite of the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Europe.  The group focused on the interdependence of economies.  Canada and the United States joined in 1960 and the OECD was officially created.  Japan joined in 1964, later joined by Brazil, India, the People’s Republic of China, South Africa, and Indonesia.  The 39 member countries currently account for 80% of the world’s trade and investments.

How Does America Compare to Other Developed Nations?

According to Philip Alston’s report

• The U.S. is one of the world’s wealthiest countries. It spends more on national defense than the next 7 nations combined.
• We spend twice as much per capita on healthcare than the average of OECD countries. Yet, on the average, there are fewer doctors and hospital beds in the United States, compared to the other 39 prosperous nations.
• The mortality rate for infants is the highest in the developed world.
• On the average, we have shorter and less healthy lives than citizens of other developed countries.
• On the average, we have the highest obesity rate in the developed world
• The inequality between rich and poor is higher than that of our European counterparts.
• Our nation has an estimated 12 million people living with a neglected parasitic infection.
• We rank 36^th out of 39 in access to clean water and proper sanitation
• We have the highest incarceration rate in the world. The rate is five times that of the average among OECD nations.
• Our youth poverty rate is the highest of the OECD nations. Twenty five percent of our youth are living in poverty, compared to 14% on average.
• Of the top ten wealthiest nations, we rank number 10 in wealth inequality, safety net protections, poverty and economic mobility. Of the OECD nations, we rank 35 out of 37.

Economic Policy and Poverty

While the present report from the United Nations is shocking, from an historical perspective, this isn’t the first time that the United States has seen disparity between the haves and have nots.  Even our founding fathers struggled with how to establish a system where the moneyed interests wouldn’t dominate policy.  Over the years, the influence of money has ebbed and flowed.  In recent history, it took Theodore Roosevelt to stand up to the big monopolies and bring balance to the economy.
And again, following the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt attacked the problems associated with poverty brought on by the gap between the rich and poor.  Following WW II, it appeared that nothing could stand in the way of American progress.  The working person earned a good wage and had a reasonable standard of living.  Many were living the American Dream.

But, by the 1990s the American Dream seemed to become more elusive.  It soon became a major topic in political discussions.    Working class wages seemed to stagnate, small rural communities were struggling, and the two income household became a necessity.  The blue collar jobs of major manufacturing were being replaced with growing automation.  While the corporate and stock holder incomes continued to climb, working family income was stagnating.  The corporate focus was on making money.  Good returns on investments didn’t square with increased salary and benefits for working families.

The irony was that the average American didn’t see big business as the problem.  Instead, they thought that It was big government and its entitlement programs.  Taxes were the problem.  Government was taking the hard earned dollar and giving it to the “lazy” poor and illegal immigrants. While many people blamed the government, they chose to avoid engagement – i.e., not voting.  By the mid-80s some called the non-voter the fastest growing party in America. (Burnham, 1982)

While the non-voters complained, the Republican Party focused on “open” Capitalism – free markets, and aggressive accumulation of wealth. Under Ronald Reagan, it was believed that wealth would “trickle down” to the working classes and improve their standard of living.  Thus they falsely believed the American Dream was alive.  The Democrats, also Capitalists, supported these same general economic principles. However, they also considered the Populist reaction to huge corporate profits and a growing gap between the corporate hierarchy and working persons.  The Democrats, traditionally liberal in their social thinking, chose to focus on moving the excess profits to the people. They emphasized the need to increase taxes on the wealthy for the common good of the country.

By the end of the 20^th Century, control of the political machinery was moving back toward the conservative “open” Capitalism.  The final blow came in 2010, in the Citizen’s United case, when the Supreme Court decided that corporations were in fact citizens and could contribute to political action committees (PACs).  Citizens United created a political environment where the wealthy now have undue influence over our elected officials. Tthe truth is that politics has always been influenced by money in one way or another, but not to this extent!  Our current President is a major player in the economic/political struggle in the 21^st Century.  His campaign focused on improving the economic status of the working person through increased support for “open” Capitalism.  The irony is that the working class which wanted more opportunity to build the American Dream, again bought into the “trickle down” economic argument. .  If unleashed Capitalism is the answer, they are for it.

The problem with this type of thinking is that “trickle down” economics hasn’t worked.  The current low unemployment figures and amazing growth in corporate investments does nothing to protect the working poor or the unemployed  The question might be “Who cares,” as long as the middle class is able to afford a decent standard of living.  We should all care if we believe that America was founded on the concept of the “common good.”

According to a 2016 study by Bankrate.com, 63% of Americans don’t have enough savings to cover a $500 emergency.  The Pew Charitable Trusts also reports that 1/3 of American families have no savings. Few have any type of plan for retirement.  The wonderful benefit programs for the working class have either disappeared or been dramatically modified so that the worker is paying a large portion of the costs.  Along with the changes by corporate America, the Trump administration is working to reduce government “entitlement” programs.  Food stamps, medical care, housing, education and support for those who are not working are being reduced or eliminated.  While I support the idea of workfare, I also realize that there are some who cannot work and need assistance. They should not be abandoned! According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2016 estimates, 3.1 million Americans (12.7%) live in poverty, and  eighteen million live in “deep poverty.” These are individuals who earn less than 50% of poverty level wages (Income and Poverty in the United States: 2016 Census Bureau, September 2017).

The parallels between Trump’s “Make America Great Again” and Reagan’s “America is Back” are many.  The lessons of the 1980s under Reaganomics should not be forgotten.  The American people need to consider the current climate of economic inequity, and be actively involved in change.  Part of this effort needs to be getting rid of the “not voting party.”  Our founding fathers believed in the common good for all, not a social structure that would be controlled by the wealthy for the benefit of the wealthy.