Well,
the Republican Party has shown the nation where they stand. After long years of
I
suppose all of us blessed with some measure of financial success have always harbored
suspicion regarding the poor. After all, we enjoy our fiscal success due solely
to our innate intelligence and wise decision making. We arrived at our exalted
status through our own hard work, overcoming every obstacle through tenacity and
grit. We never needed, or accepted, a helping hand in any form. Bereft of
family and friends, our determination brought us the life we enjoy. Those who
endure poverty do so by their own choice. Sometime in the 1980’s we started
questioning the efficacy and legitimacy of helping the poor. In the early 1990’s
we embraced the document Contract With
America as a blue-print for governmental reform. A foundational assumption
of the document was that efforts to help the poor had degraded their morality
and helping them only encouraged continued illicit behavior. This type of
thinking reinforced and strengthened remains prevalent in many circles today.
We
see the homeless or beggars and assume, without questioning, that they arrived
at their state due to inherent laziness, poor decision making, or some manner
of criminal activity. Influenced by the long reach of Puritan thought, we
ascribe material blessing to God’s approval and material want to some fashion
of divine censure. After all, in a land of plenty such as ours, any anyone can
achieve material success with only minor effort. Bring up this subject in a
break-room or foyer and we will gladly trot out stories of people living in
relative luxury, driving late-model cars, all on the largess of food-stamps (a program
that no longer exists, being replaced by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program or SNAP), long-term welfare, and the generous handouts collected in the
hot summer sun near a Walmart exit or overpass. Another popular chestnut
centers on a minority mother who subsists on welfare collected for children she
produced in a revolving door fashion. We incorrectly associate moral failure
with poverty. Good and upright people go to work, earn a living, and enjoy the
fruits of their labor in peace and quiet. There are several mistaken
assumptions that lead us to these erroneous conclusions.
Incorrect
Assumption Number One: those who receive governmental assistance do not work. We
assume that those who receive governmental assistance spend their days lounging
around, binge watching their favorite shows on sixty-plus inch LED TVs. 1 Due to a decrease in full-time work opportunities,
especially for those with minimal education, an ever growing percentage of
wage-earners must cobble together multiple part-time jobs in a desperate attempt
to make ends meet. In most places a full-time minimum-wage job will not lift a
family of four out of poverty and pay the bills. Additionally, part-time work
does not include the benefits of health insurance, a retirement plan,
advancement, or vacation. The average American wants to and is willing to work.
In recent decades many companies, especially those in the ever increasing service
sector, have shifted their work from full-time to part-time in order to reduce
the amount of money paid in wages and benefits. This long-term shift in the
working environment, aided by the demise of unions, has generated a growing
class of working poor. This group of workers, living on the margins, often find
themselves thrust unexpectedly into poverty.
Incorrect
Assumption Number Two: those receiving governmental assistance do so for long
periods of time and as part of an overall employment strategy. An unexpected problem, such as sickness or
loss of a job, often thrusts a family into poverty and homelessness. While
participation rates and times vary by program, the Census Bureau reported that
the majority of SNAP participants received benefits for between thirty-seven
and forty-eight months.2 In fact most programs employ a variety of
strategies to move participants off program and into self-sufficiency. Those of
us living in the middle and upper class enjoy a variety of ways to deal with
the unexpected problems of modern life. We purchase new or newer cars. We set
aside funds to maintain them. We enjoy jobs that pay a variety of benefits. A
close friend recently struggled through a period of sickness. They enjoyed a
good full-time job with benefits. Their benefits not only paid for a majority of
the treatment, but also ensured that they had a job once they recovered. While
this period challenged them, they were able to focus on treatment, knowing that
their job remained secure. In fact, their supervisor allowed them to ease back
into working full-time by scheduling them half-time for two weeks and then
allowing them to assume a full workload. A part time worker would not enjoy
such coverage and flexibility. A sick child or parent requiring constant care
may result in the loss of employment for the care-giver. The problem need not
be medical in nature. A mechanical failure in transportation may very well
drive a family into dire straits. Employers easily replace part-time workers.
Most job application and interview processes inquire about reliable transportation.
Transportation failure is cause for dismissal. These or any other of a number
of seemingly innocuous problems may push a family into a deficiency requiring
governmental aid. Most of those receiving such aid do so temporarily. The
situation is dealt with or the time allowed for aid runs out. Either way, they
move off the well-fare roles.
Incorrect
Assumption Number Three: those receiving aid or assistance are involved in
criminal behaviors of one kind or another. In recent years we’ve embraced means testing,
mandatory drug testing, and “work-fare” as acceptable strategies for reducing
and policing well-fare roles. In some way I suppose means testing is valid. In
a world of constrained resources we do not want to waste or fritter away monies
recklessly. But why do we assume that those who need help engage in nefarious
behaviors at a greater rate than the rest of the population? From all reputable
accounts drug testing costs far more to implement than we ever save.3
It turns out that in most places 4 We expend much
more in the way of public funds for congressmen and other governmental
officials and never ask them to provide a sample of their bodily fluids. As
someone who participated in and ran my command’s portion of the Army
drug-testing program, I often wondered at the implied message I sent to my
soldiers when I handed them a bottle and required a sample in return. I’ve also
endured the embarrassment of being watched while I produced a sample and having
to watch others do the same. In defense of the Army program, we were trying to
eradicate a drug culture that sprang up during the chaotic post-Vietnam years.
We effectively beat back that particular problem, creating an environment that
is largely drug free. In the case of the military, and certain other
professions which involve public trust, drug-testing may be a viable course of
action. But why do we make recipients of public assistance prove that they are
drug free? What gives us the right to subject them to that particular
indignity? When considered against the relative waste implementing such
programs entail, these measures seem particularly mean spirited and designed to
demean, not save. So what are we to do?
This
rather short essay cannot hope to even fully define the problem. But, it does
point out that in recent years we have adopted a rather negative and churlish
view of those in need. Any real effort to help those in need starts with an
attempt to understand their story, how they got to the point of need in the
first place. And to do that, we must see them as people; men and women who for
various reasons need help and assistance. Of course poor life decisions may
have generated this need. But more often than not, the circumstances regarding
birth and education propel people into needy circumstances. And we would all do
well to keep in mind the assistance we’ve required and enjoyed over the years. Very
few of us enjoy success entirely on our own. Many people, perhaps into the
hundreds, provided us help of one kind or another. For most of us the mere
happenstance of our birth, something we cannot influence, guarantees a good
start. Born into families which encourage and nourish, we thrive. Our families
know and understand the importance of education and ensure that we attend
school. We live in zip-codes which have decent schools; schools with adequate
funding, good programs, and that attract and retain high quality teachers. Our
neighborhoods enjoyed low crime-rates and salubrious surroundings. Our parents
pursued careers which enabled them to provide excellent health-care when we
needed it. All of these things we did nothing to obtain. And for the vast
majority of those who inhabit state supported assistance rolls, these things
remain a dream out of reach. So we should cultivate the ability to see those
requiring assistance with a more sympathetic heart, one that remembers the
truth of the old saw, “There but for the grace of God go I.”
As always, please leave a comment, and if you like, share. Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment