|
|
|
The Arkansas Dem-Gaz recently featured a column by Joyce Elliott on the progress Arkansas is making in fighting poverty. A casual reading of this column could conclude good news on what the last Arkansas legislature has done to help. (Incidentally Ms Elliott is a member of this august legislative group).
A more careful reading brings about some considerable confusion. Is she proud of more money being spent or programs that are actually beneficial? She refers to Act 1220 which requires schools to spend 85 percent of state “poverty” money within the school year distributed. It is possible I am misinterpreting this provision, but it seems to me this requires federal money must be spent and not rolled over even if not needed.
She states several new laws restructure the states development and remedial education system to improve student success in public schools and higher education. What does that mean? How can you pass laws that will insure student success?
Ms Elliott goes on to celebrate changes to the tax code to relieve some of the disproportionate burden placed on low income families which she claims will help them move out of poverty. She doesn’t explain what income tax provisions are a burden to those families which are in poverty. What income taxes are paid by those in poverty?
In reference to the Arkansas legislative task force on reducing poverty and promoting economic opportunity, Ms Elliott says there are 31 recommendations offering solutions for business owners and working families. Funny, but by reading and rereading her column I didn’t discover any comment or recommendations that would help business owners or operators. The premise, of course, it that the more government money we spend, all of us rich, poor, and middle class will be better off.
Contrast this column with the August 4th writing by Thomas Sowell, a black columnist that continually spouts nothing but common sense. Just this morning I heard on network news that now 20 percent of children in the United States live in poverty. As Sowell states, most people think of poverty as people who are ill clad, ill housed and ill nourished.
Official data by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation offers some interesting information. Three-quarters of households in poverty own a motor vehicle and 35 percent own more than one. Virtually everyone living in poverty as defined by the feds has color television, cable or satellite TV, a VCR or DVD. Ninety percent have a microwave oven. As for being ill-housed the average poor American has more living space than the general population of London, Paris and other European cities.
The image created by many liberals is that the elderly often have to choose between food and medication. That, according to Sowell, is simply nonsense with Medicare and drug assistance available to all seniors.
This makes great political theater. But the facts are the average wealth of the elderly is much greater than the average wealth of other age brackets. As I have expressed in other columns why should we as a country be subsidizing the wealthy elderly by providing virtually free health services and continual Social Security payments?
We should be confining our help to the poor, to those who are actually so, not because they are elderly. This would cost a fraction of what it costs to subsidize everybody who reaches a certain age.
Our liberal friends do not want us to means test the elderly or anyone else who has sufficient income or assets. That would reduce those that receive government funds and thus reduce those that would vote for someone like Joyce Elliott.
Public service ads continually tell us something like one in eight Arkansans and perhaps 30 percent of our children are having “issues” with hunger. As Sowell points out they want us to believe this means near starving and greatly undernourished - such is not the case. Many resources are available for assistance to all that are in need of food.
The most important point relating to poverty is that we all have responsibility to give generous assistance as individuals, churches and other organizations. Trying to do this through governments is not only costly, it is very inefficient.
To point out the absurdity of those that want to completely eliminate poverty, you will no doubt be bombarded with claims that fully 50 percent of our population is classified as being below average.
*********************
The latest public service ad indicates as many as 50 percent of us do not know where our next meal is coming from. Does this mean that half of us may be hungry or does this mean we need an information program telling us food comes from our farms and orchards?
(Jerry Jackson of Heber Springs writes his “conservative viewpoint” column each Wednesday)
The Arkansas Dem-Gaz recently featured a column by Joyce Elliott on the progress Arkansas is making in fighting poverty. A casual reading of this column could conclude good news on what the last Arkansas legislature has done to help. (Incidentally Ms Elliott is a member of this august legislative group).
A more careful reading brings about some considerable confusion. Is she proud of more money being spent or programs that are actually beneficial? She refers to Act 1220 which requires schools to spend 85 percent of state “poverty” money within the school year distributed. It is possible I am misinterpreting this provision, but it seems to me this requires federal money must be spent and not rolled over even if not needed.
She states several new laws restructure the states development and remedial education system to improve student success in public schools and higher education. What does that mean? How can you pass laws that will insure student success?
Ms Elliott goes on to celebrate changes to the tax code to relieve some of the disproportionate burden placed on low income families which she claims will help them move out of poverty. She doesn’t explain what income tax provisions are a burden to those families which are in poverty. What income taxes are paid by those in poverty?
In reference to the Arkansas legislative task force on reducing poverty and promoting economic opportunity, Ms Elliott says there are 31 recommendations offering solutions for business owners and working families. Funny, but by reading and rereading her column I didn’t discover any comment or recommendations that would help business owners or operators. The premise, of course, it that the more government money we spend, all of us rich, poor, and middle class will be better off.
Contrast this column with the August 4th writing by Thomas Sowell, a black columnist that continually spouts nothing but common sense. Just this morning I heard on network news that now 20 percent of children in the United States live in poverty. As Sowell states, most people think of poverty as people who are ill clad, ill housed and ill nourished.
Official data by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation offers some interesting information. Three-quarters of households in poverty own a motor vehicle and 35 percent own more than one. Virtually everyone living in poverty as defined by the feds has color television, cable or satellite TV, a VCR or DVD. Ninety percent have a microwave oven. As for being ill-housed the average poor American has more living space than the general population of London, Paris and other European cities.
The image created by many liberals is that the elderly often have to choose between food and medication. That, according to Sowell, is simply nonsense with Medicare and drug assistance available to all seniors.
This makes great political theater. But the facts are the average wealth of the elderly is much greater than the average wealth of other age brackets. As I have expressed in other columns why should we as a country be subsidizing the wealthy elderly by providing virtually free health services and continual Social Security payments?
We should be confining our help to the poor, to those who are actually so, not because they are elderly. This would cost a fraction of what it costs to subsidize everybody who reaches a certain age.
Our liberal friends do not want us to means test the elderly or anyone else who has sufficient income or assets. That would reduce those that receive government funds and thus reduce those that would vote for someone like Joyce Elliott.
Public service ads continually tell us something like one in eight Arkansans and perhaps 30 percent of our children are having “issues” with hunger. As Sowell points out they want us to believe this means near starving and greatly undernourished - such is not the case. Many resources are available for assistance to all that are in need of food.
The most important point relating to poverty is that we all have responsibility to give generous assistance as individuals, churches and other organizations. Trying to do this through governments is not only costly, it is very inefficient.
To point out the absurdity of those that want to completely eliminate poverty, you will no doubt be bombarded with claims that fully 50 percent of our population is classified as being below average.
*********************
The latest public service ad indicates as many as 50 percent of us do not know where our next meal is coming from. Does this mean that half of us may be hungry or does this mean we need an information program telling us food comes from our farms and orchards?
(Jerry Jackson of Heber Springs writes his “conservative viewpoint” column each Wednesday)
