What Does It Mean to Be "Poor" or "Broke?"

In the past week, this discussion has come up over and over.  Spurred on by the dueling poverty stories of Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden (in the last 15 years, not their childhood), many are taking a closer look at what people mean when they say "poor" or "broke."

In a related and strange statement, the former president's daughter blissfully confessed that she cared little for money.  Of course Chelsea Clinton makes $600,000 per year doing half the work of unpaid or low paid interns.  One does not need to care for money when the nest is permanently and opulently feathered.

Even the federal student loan people got in trouble for a tweet that seemed to minimize poverty. But what is it?

The federal government has a one size fits all measure of poverty.  It considers a family of four impoverished if it makes a little over $23,000 per year or less in every state outside of Alaska and Hawaii.  Cost of living, however, varies widely.  Earnings of $14,000 in West Virginia's most affluent area, Berkeley County, equals nearly $23,000 in Hartford, Connecticut, according to an online CNN Money cost of living adjuster.  Simply put, a dollar goes much farther in West Virginia than in Connecticut for a variety of reasons.

This shows that one cannot put a simple number on poverty, but doesn't explain what poverty actually is, or feels like.

Hillary Clinton described what many Americans occasionally experience regardless of income.  Her family's lifestyle ran their finances briefly into debt.  On one hand, they struggled with mortgages, tuition, and other financial commitments.  Fair enough, until you hear that these were multiple mortgages on multiple mansions.  They did not owe tuition to local state college, but to one of the most costly educational institutions in the world.

Paying bills when revenue dips causes stress and anxiety.  Having to sell a house to pay for bills could cause social embarrassment in their set.  The public, however, rightfully laughed at the Clintons' protestations of poverty.

The Census Bureau reported a few years ago that 30 million, or just under 10 percent, of Americans live in poverty.  They base this on income statistics instead of investigating actual conditions.  If being poor is defined as simply not making a lot of money, then the case gets rested.  Americans, however, assign a more stringent definition to the term poverty.

To most, poverty means real deprivation.  Does a family lack shelter?  Can they not pay for basic utilities? Do they not eat properly because of a lack of resources?  In most cases, the family may not be financially comfortable or secure, but they do eat consistently, they do have shelter, and they not only pay for utilities, but also vehicles (plural), cell phones,  and cable or satellite TV.

Submitted for your approval: if one regularly pays for satellite TV, alcohol, cigarettes, internet, and/or cell phones, one may not call oneself "poor."  If a family is starving and has all these things, it is not poor, but in sore need of re prioritizing.

Some institutions have a vested interest in inflating the poverty number.  More poverty means more money for the poor but also, more importantly, for bureaucrats and non profits that supposedly handle programs to help them. Examining true poverty does not help them expand their agencies, much less solve the real problems.

The more time spent on servicing the financially insecure as if they were poor, the more likely that the truly poor will escape notice.

Hillary and Chelsea Clinton's foray into the verbal forest (and we should not forget that Bill actually did know real poverty as a child) is great for poking fun.  It should, however, lead the country to discuss what poverty really is and examine the policies intended to address it.

Keeping It In Perspective

MSNBC exploded into my living room last night to announce that Election 2008 will be the most critical in our history. It then "treated" me to shots of Keith Obermann, Chris Matthews, and other screaming meemies it plans to use to cover this year's cycle. This represents one of those rare events that outhypes the Super Bowl.

Honestly the news has completely lost its credibility. When Dan Rather uses very questionable evidence to attack a president and elections are treated like ballgames, you can see that the media creates stories as much as reports them. The hype machine for this year's election started in 2006 and has resulted in frenzied coverage of every potential aspect, right down to how Chelsea Clinton responds to reporters.

Actually this election may be one of the less eventful or important in terms of the presidency compared to others in our nation's history. The election of 1800 was important because we transferred power from one party to another peacefully for the first time. In 1828 white men without property voted in many states for the first time, opening a new era in national politics complete with slogans and mudslinging. Both of Lincoln's elections addressed major national questions, in 1864 quite possibly whether the Union would win the Civil War or allow the Confederacy to live. Of course FDR's first election in 1932 brought on the New Deal and our world would look very different if the results of 1980 had been anything other than a Reagan victory.

This election so far has sputtered and puttered along. No candidate really has grabbed the imagination of their party while the presumed nominees from about this time last year have hit some obstacles. America's mayor has great leadership qualities, but what are his core beliefs and how will they affect his decisions? The former first lady right now seems to frighten some liberals almost as much as conservatives, although despite Iowa, she is a likely shoe in as the Democratic nominee. Obama will give her a scare early, as McCain did Bush in 2000. However she has been preparing this for too long.

That being said, this election does not seem to feature great national questions. Iraq is winding down towards a positive conclusion although the Middle East still has severe problems. Suddenly Democratic nominees want to debate the economy again. The Republicans have a pretty good track record there, despite the media attempts to paint it otherwise. Bush's administration has secured America from attack for almost seven years now, enabling the population at large to put the homeland security issue on the backburner. In other words, what are the great issues of this cycle? They are important, but they do not compare to the nation torn in two or crippling economic depressions.

Don't get me wrong, that does not mean that this election is not important. There are many reasons to be concerned about who will run the country for the next several years. However, overhyping anything produces mental callouses on the intended audience. How can presidential candidates seriously debate important issues when the media overhyping has caused too many to tune out? Then the media will wring its hands and wonder why so many voters ignore the elections altogether.