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.

West Virginia Ranks Second in Obesity. So What?

State media and hand wringers have jumped all over the numbers that say West Virginians are the second most obese people in the country by state. Around the nation no state reduced its obesity rate. One group called for "systemic change" in how we approach the subject.

I doubt I am overwhelmingly old just because I remember that in the not too distant past that our main problem in Appalachia was people not having enough to eat. Lyndon B. Johnson based a lot of mistaken, but well-intentioned ideas on eradicating hunger. Welfare did not eradicate hunger. America's productive economy has made food cheaper and more accessible than ever before. Advances in technology mean that fewer people have to perform as much manual labor. More people have a college education, meaning that they have less physically strenuous jobs.

Many studies link poverty to obesity. This should not be a surprise. Many healthy foods benefit from agricultural price supports. When a poor single mother has to choose between paying about a quarter for a gallon of Kool Aid versus three dollars for a gallon of juice, who can blame her for her choices. Hamburger Helper costs about five dollars with the meat included and it feeds an entire family. How much does fish and chicken breast cost? Many act as if the poor are ignorant, but in reality they make rational choices about scarce resources. Potatoes and bread are very inexpensive and most importantly very filling, yet they do tend to make people gain weight.

Outside of the poor, everyone else has choices. Many simply choose to not restrain themselves and frankly it is their God-given right. It always worries me when people start saying something ought to be done about the free choices people make. Obesity is a life choice. So is avoiding it. We need no laws, nor do we need any government programs outside of education. We certainly do not need lawsuit legislation. America needs to remember what freedom of choice means. It is a right, and also a responsibility.

So many countries in the world would love to have a dire social problem like having too much to eat and no reason to perform daily back breaking exercise.