A Mythology of the Underemployed

            Throughout the Great Recession, we’ve seen a troubling number of people unemployed and simply unable to find work. Equally destructive for our economy are those who have work but are still unable to support themselves. We call these the underemployed, an exploding portion of the population whose incomes do not cover all expenses. Nearly 20% of U.S. citizens officially fall in this category, including many families with young children who are unable to put food on the table, find adequate housing, receive appropriate medical care, or cover child care expenses. Problems like these often leave us searching for someone to blame.

            Adding to the problems of underemployment, the first people we usually blame are the underemployed themselves. Our economic mythology tells us that the underemployed are lazy, unintelligent, or made bad decisions that got them in this mess. If only they got another job or got a real education, then they would be able to feed their children. We can blame all we want, but all around us people are hurting. Even if it’s true that the underemployed exhibit all the negative stereotypes we have of them, don’t they deserve to have their basic necessities met?

            On the contrary, the underemployed are often hard-working Americans who drive our economy. They are the people working two or three minimum wage jobs to make the lives of the well-off easier. They include people who own their own businesses, have a college degree, or work harder and more unpleasant jobs than most can imagine. If they are “lucky,” they often work 60 hour weeks between jobs for little over $20,000 a year at minimum wage. With rising food, gasoline, and health care prices, even 10 or 12 hour days are not adding up.

            Because the government can’t fix the prices of basic commodities, the solution to the problem is to fix what we can control: wages. Even presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has been open to the idea of raising the minimum wage, and said it needs to be assessed every two years. (Recently he has abandoned this idea, and even suggested that it be lowered.) It’s time both parties take a serious look at Romney’s deserted proposal. Raising the minimum wage not only improves work satisfaction and quality of life, it also gives citizens the money they need to spend on necessities. This money comes back to businesses and advances the overall economic situation.

            After the benefits of a minimum wage increase, the policy effectively becomes cost-neutral for the economy. Putting money back into the hands of consumers is like the conservative-backed tax breaks and the liberal-supported social programs. Raising the minimum wage is a win-win for citizens and businesses alike, but most of all for the moral qualities of justice and fairness that we supposedly embrace. Opponents say we can’t raise the minimum wage in a down economy, but a down economy is actually the perfect situation to rejuvenate American citizens and put people back into well-paying jobs. If we are serious about getting American back to work and thriving again, then we should start with the small step of a higher minimum wage.

How I Became A Bank Regulation Supporter

            I received some “exciting” news today about my checking account at Wells Fargo, but first a little history… After every financial reform, predatory banks scramble to charge money from their customers in new unethical, but still legal ways. For example, we recently saw Bank of America attempt to charge customers to use their debit cards, and only squashed the program after too many customers threatened to close their accounts. Most of these changes come on the backs of poor customers who can barely afford to keep a bank account open, and most are hidden in every way possible.

            Now to my case study. I recently received a brochure stuffed in the back of my account statement alerting me to changes in how I’m charged for my checking account. Previously, I was able to avoid a $15 monthly fee by transferring $75 from my checking account to my savings account every month. Because I am fortunate enough to be employed in this economy, I was able to stave off the bank’s theft for a while longer.

            That may no longer be the case. My Wells Fargo account now must maintain a minimum of $7,500 to avoid the fee, meaning they can skim nearly $200 dollars from my account every year, in addition to the privilege of lending my money, if the minimum is not met. To the hands of the people who tanked our economy and led us into the Great Recession, this money is not easy to part with. And nothing encourages Americans to utilize smart banking habits (such as saving for emergencies) like monthly fees. Sounds like a sure-fire way to ensure our economy stays in the dumps.

            These banking practices are blatantly unfair and clearly discriminatory, predatory, to poor Americans working paycheck to paycheck or to earn a college degree. In order to protect their largest customers (who, heaven forbid, might have to pay like the rest of us), financial institutions are willing to steal from the poor and give to the rich. But no worries, you can get $2 off your monthly fee if you have enough discretionary funds to pay for a computer and internet services. I honestly don’t know how they could target the working class any more, although I’m sure any new banking regulations would allow us to find out.

Even if our economy normally functions better without regulation, we must demand that big banking corporations play by the rules and treat customers fairly. We can’t allow banks to “tax” the poor for the same services that others receive for free. Banks have driven our economy off a cliff with their predatory habits, and they want to make sure that poor Americans stay that way. This is not the free market that drives a healthy economy. Fortunately, one positive thing about big banks is that their call centers are eagerly awaiting your calls, some even 24-7. It’s time we hold banks accountable to the same standards as the rest of American businesses.

Opposition to Anti-Piracy Legislation Good For Country, Politicians

            Today, major websites like Wikipedia and Reddit, as well as several Facebook and Twitter profiles, are “going black” in opposition to two online anti-piracy bills working their way through the House and Senate. Since the background to this blog is always black, consider that our opposition to any legislation that stifles free speech and innovation. No Politics As Usual has previously come out in opposition to the SOPA and PROTECT IP Acts (See: Bieber Fever Gone Right), but today we implore politicians to reconsider their support for this legislation, as many have already done.

            The major backers of the anti-piracy bills are big Hollywood companies seeking a larger profit. Though there are many similarly large corporations opposed to the bills, the opposition also includes many young people, Republicans and Democrats. Supporters of the legislation, on the other hand, have no real grassroots groups working in their favor. And though Hollywood contributes vast sums of money to politicians, the backlash by those opposed to the bills could be larger than most politicians would expect, especially given the technical nature of the bills. As politics in our country faces a crossroads at a defining moment, it is in the best interest of politicians to oppose this legislation.

            Young people in particular are not wedded to either political party. They came out in large numbers for the Obama campaign in 2008, but that support has waned along with the economy. Though jobs and economics are still the key issues to winning the support of this generation, one cannot write off the effect anti-piracy bills would have on the single most important invention in young voters’ lifetime: the internet. If both political parties are concerned for their long-term coalition of voters, they must begin to take seriously the concerns of the young generation. SOPA and PROTECT IP will be important issues in 2012 and in election cycles to come.

            Furthermore, modern political campaigns have hinged on social media and other online tactics. For evidence, look no further than the success of the Obama campaign in activating and mobilizing young people in 2008, or to Rick Santorum’s noted “Google problem.” Running opposed to these online businesses certainly puts politicians in hot water. If our representatives are to continue campaigning on the promises of freedom and liberty, then they best not hinge legislation on the government’s ability to infringe on these rights in the online sector.

            As mentioned in previous articles, opposing these anti-piracy bills does not mean that persons should be encouraged or allowed to violate copyright laws already on the books. Music and entertainment companies have been prosecuting violators for years with great success, and this should be allowed to continue. However, as Congress descends into its lowest ratings in history, now is not the time to increase government presence on the internet. There is too much room for error, and the chilling effects on free speech violate the very principles on which our country and the internet were founded. Opposing government censorship of the internet is good for our nation, and is a wise political strategy for those looking to the future. Please show your support of free speech and tell our representatives to do what is good for their campaign and good for the U.S. and oppose SOPA and the PROTECT IP Acts.

GOP Power Rankings: Week 43 “The Iowa Edition”

            What a thriller! In what might be one of the last competitive contests in the GOP nomination process, Mitt Romney squeaked out a victory in Iowa by a mere 8 votes. While it’s still higher than Rick Perry can count, the vote margin was the smallest in Iowa caucus history. It was a gripping night with Romney and Rick Santorum trading the lead, usually by numbers in the single digits. In an otherwise relatively fixed nomination process (though certainly not uneventful), the Iowa caucuses should go down as one of the highlights of the 2012 election.

            As with previous weeks, we break down where the candidates stand in the fight for the nomination, ranking each on their intangibles, momentum, and potential. After a huge night in the Hawkeye State, we also include lessons learned in Iowa and strategies for candidates moving forward. Here are your GOP power rankings, with weekly highs and lows reported after each candidate:

1.      Mitt Romney (1/2)

-Romney has run an impeccable campaign, and the swift announcement of John McCain’s endorsement perfectly demonstrates it. He made enough of a push in Iowa to come out on top, which sets him on solid footing with a 1-2 punch (with an expected victory in New Hampshire). Should he succeed in capturing both early states, he would be the first GOP candidate in modern history to do so. He may be challenged in South Carolina, but he is the only candidate with the resources and potential to take the rest of the states. Santorum almost upset him in Iowa, but he is not the kryptonite to the Romney campaign (more on that later). Romney won in urban counties in Iowa, which solidifies his candidacy as the most electable against Barack Obama. He’ll need to improve in the rural districts Santorum won, but he didn’t bomb out either. At this point of the nomination race, Romney sounds entirely presidential, and will make a solid general election foe for President Obama. It is almost certain (now more than ever) that he will be the nominee.

2.      Ron Paul (2/5)

-While Ron Paul didn’t win the Iowa caucuses after weeks of speculation that he would, he didn’t need to to continue his presidential bid. Nobody expects him to be the nominee in November, but he has enough money and dedicated supporters to stay in the race as a foil to Romney and the Republican establishment. He’ll likely pick up a solid percentage of voters in each of the remaining states, all with no prospects of sitting in the Oval Office next year. His ideas are a benefit to the Republican Party as long as they can prevent him from mounting a 3^rd party bid, and he’ll make Romney a better candidate by debating and engaging him on the campaign trail in coming weeks.

3.      Rick Santorum (3/7)

-You have to hand it to Rick Santorum. He stuck it out when most others would give up, and it paid off for him in the end. For months I have been calling Santorum the Mike Huckabee of 2012. In many ways the two candidates are similar: strong, little-known social conservatives who make a splash in Iowa and continue to take deep red states, who despite their passion and emotion eventually do not get the nomination. While Santorum seems to be on this path against Mitt Romney, he exhibits some un-Huckabee traits that may limit his staying power. He is a relatively likeable guy, but not the endearing Mike Huckabee of four years ago. Though he has strong convictions and wants to make them known, he is also more likely than Mike to hang up the towel when he knows it’s time to coalesce around Mitt. He’s not an evangelical Christian, and he’s facing an opponent who has been the frontrunner all the way through, unlike McCain in 2008. In the end, Rick Santorum deserves an incredible amount of credit for his accomplishments in Iowa. He’ll have a tough time launching from there, but he can be a happy man knowing that he was finally able to have his moment in the spotlight.

4.      Newt Gingrich (1/9)

-In the coming weeks you can expect to see more of the angry Newt, and perhaps for good reason. He’s falling fast after a barrage of attack ads, and his positive nice-guy campaign doesn’t seem to be holding up. Though he could still make a play for South Carolina, most pundits are writing him off as the lowly attack dog for Rick Santorum. Newt’s still running strong outside of Iowa, where the attacks have not been as severe, but he is an unattractive candidate when he goes on the offensive. It just hasn’t been his year, but he holds out hope that Santorum’s rise will echo his own blip as the flavor of the week.

5.      Jon Huntsman (5/9)

-As the GOP turns to New Hampshire, Huntsman hopes he can pull off what Santorum did in Iowa. Though he has made some grounds, he’s not as charismatic as Santorum and it’ll be very tough to beat Mitt Romney. Even if Huntsman can pull off a New Hampshire miracle, it’ll be an uphill battle just to continue his bid for the nomination. At this point, he may simply be looking to shore up support after a routinely disappointing attempt to capture the GOP nomination.

6.      Rick Perry (2/8)

-Perry took a beating in Iowa after spending the most money (over $300/vote) and coming in 5^th place. He was rightfully introspective after the caucus, and though he has indicated he may proceed to South Carolina, it’ll only be time before he suspends his bid for the nomination. Perry’s last hopes are now pinned on the state he announced his candidacy in, but even without Bachmann in the race, he will further split the Santorum and Gingrich attempt to unseat an early Romney victory. The question now turns to what he will do after quitting the race. Will he endorse Rick Santorum or stay quiet and complacently support Romney’s eventual nomination? Will he be able to recover his image and run again in Texas? Regardless of his choice, Perry’s candidacy will go down as one of the worst (if not the worst) presidential campaigns in modern political history. For all the hype before his candidacy, he made an incredible number of stumbles and was exposed as a politician driven by ambition and his media consultants. Perry salvaged a little dignity after beating Michele Bachmann in Iowa, but has little to gain after beating her in a game of chicken for who will drop out first.

U.   Michele Bachmann (2/7)

-Bachmann suspended her campaign bid early Wednesday morning after a campaign implosion in Iowa. Like Perry, Bachmann needs to decide what she will do after conceding the nomination. Will she be able to run again after abandoning her district for national office? Unlike Perry, at least Bachmann has the charisma to work as a FOX News contributor, though she may need to improve her image as a factually-challenged politician. If both Bachmann and Perry decided to throw their support behind Santorum, he may have slightly more staying power, but anything else is a concession to the Mitt Romney machine that looks poised to face Barack Obama come November.

Bieber Fever Gone Right

            It’s not too often that I turn to Justin Bieber for political wisety, but the teenage pop star’s criticism of a recent internet censorship bill should turn into one of his greatest hits. Bieber came out against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), saying it would put him at risk of jail time because he made his name singing covers of copyrighted music. Surely people shouldn’t be stealing intellectual property, but the SOPA bill goes way too far in violating freedom of expression. And the last thing we need is the government shutting down websites and policing the World Wide Web.

            The U.S. regularly criticizes countries like China for their practices of internet censorship. Yet SOPA (and the Senate version, the “Protect IP Act”) gives the government unprecedented tools to do just that. The government is suddenly in position to shut down any website it deems illegal, with penalties that include jail time for website creators. Even legitimate websites can fall under the government’s axe, stifling free speech and internet innovation. If we choose to allow government bureaucrats to police our internet, we give up our fundamental right to freedom of expression under searches and seizures that could easily have (vastly) overreaching effects.

            Fears over internet censorship would also have “chilling” consequences for small businesses and individuals who are the “next big thing” on the internet. Who knows if Facebook, Google, or Twitter could start in an age of internet censorship? The legal fees of fighting government red tape could be cost prohibitive, making internet convenience, entertainment, and accessibility a thing of the past. This is not to say that those who steal intellectual property shouldn’t be prosecuted, but companies have always had (and will always have) the ability to handle this on their own. The music companies have been doing it for years.

            Congress has proven to us time and time again how they are unable to effectively fix major problems.  Then why should we trust them to run surveillance on our internet, shut down sites it doesn’t like, and put people in jail for their online habits? I have no doubt that mistakes will be made, people will get hurt, and it will leave the problem of internet piracy in an equally bad (or worse) state than it already is. We need to say no to government censorship of the internet. Perhaps Congress should start taking advice from 17 year old Bieber; it’d be much better than the 4 year olds they are relying on right now.

Jingle Bells, Congress Smells

Jingle bells, Congress smells, like robbers and crooks and hags,

Nothings done, but they’ll still run, their ratings are an egg. Hey!

Jingle bells, our anger swells, we want them out of here,

No surprise, they’re full of lies, and Boehner sheds a tear!

Dashing cross the Hill, lobbyist in tow, making a worthless bill, we need to say no!

Where is all the change, we desperately need?

It’s not strange, it’s all the same, with Congress’s greed. Oh!

Jingle bells, put ‘em in cells, for stealing from all us,

Like the Grinch, they won’t flinch, they’ll throw us under the bus. Oh!

Congress stinks, pass the drinks, it’s got us all quite blue,

Our poor U.S., it’s quite a mess, it’s time for something new!

Take Down the Tolls!

            I’m just going to come out and say it: I hate toll booths. They are a pain, a waste of time, and a waste of money. Now on this blog I try to avoid trivial subjects, but if you look close enough, toll booths epitomize what’s wrong with America: they are inefficient, it’s a terrible way to pay for infrastructure, and they are a regressive tax hurting America’s workers. It’s time to enter the 21^st century and take down the tolls.

            Toll booths are terribly ineffective. We spend money to upkeep the booths, pay attendants, and track them with police and cameras, all so we can collect America’s spare change. Why do we need to pay so much to take more money? This ends up to be a double taxation on the American people. Toll booths are so inefficient that we are outsourcing them to Chinese companies so we don’t have to deal with them. On top of all this, it’s a waste of time and money for companies and individuals who just want to do their jobs.

            All these inefficiencies make toll booths a disastrous way to pay for our infrastructure. Our roads and bridges are crumbling underneath us, but if you’ve ever driven on roads in toll booth states, you might come to find that the roads are no better or worse than any other state. Instead, toll booths are just a half-hearted way of giving up. We need to make a commitment to fixing the problem, but unfortunately we can’t fill our potholes with the nickels and dimes we collect in our tolls.

            Finally, toll booths hurt poor and working Americans more than any other group of people. In case you haven’t noticed, there are no toll booths in the sky for private jet owners. Rather, the poorest among us pay the same dollar amount (a much higher percent of their income) as billionaires, just to get to work or their kids’ schools. The toll trolls are skimming the paychecks of those who can least afford it, and when they’ve surrounded our main roads there’s just no way around them.

            I have to admit, I also hate toll booths because they are just a pain. I hate switching lanes, finding change, waiting in line, and stopping on a highway to deposit my 40 cents. I hate paying to get in and out of small towns to fill my gas tank. For what it’s worth, take my taxes some other way. We’re already taxed on gas consumption, our income, sales tax, and just about every other way possible. Just let the people use the roads! They’re a public good for a reason.

P.S. When I’m gone, don’t you dare name a tollway in my memory!

Do Unto Others

            Political majorities are getting shorter and harsher these days. Long gone are the days where one party would routinely control a branch of government. Now we cycle through parties like we change our laundry: throw one party in power and next cycle hang them out to dry. Just can’t seem to get what we want. But not only is control over Congress or the Presidency getting shorter, it’s getting more ruthless. What used to be an unusual practice, the filibuster is now a regular obstacle. Aside from that, parties are quick to use agenda control, judicial blocks, and backroom reconciliation deals to enact an agenda. In the end, this may be why we can’t get the change we need.

            Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently warned Republican leader Mitch McConnell that the increased use of the filibuster will come back to harm Republicans. Now, almost every piece of legislation that is even remotely controversial has to pass a supermajority of Congress. This means filling positions for judges, passing international treaties, and even the very reform that will save our country. The threat of the filibuster isn’t going anywhere though, especially after the widespread use by Democrats during the Bush Administration.

            With every majority change comes two parties willing to do anything to stop the political gain of the other.  The underhanded tactics never go away; they are just incorporated by the next party. In the end, we get two parties who are so intensely focused on damaging the other that they forget how to lead. Rather than racing to fix our country’s problems, our politicians are racing to adopt the newest and nastiest “super-PACs” and campaign ads. They are looking for any way to make the other party a “do-nothing” Congress or a “do-nothing” President, and in the end we get both.

            We’ve got some serious problems here, and one of the biggest is two parties who are playing politics with our present and our future. We can only expect our politicians to continue on this path, unless somebody is willing to put the American people above politics and do what is right for our country. Vicious tactics come back to haunt you, but doing something right for a change would be a real refreshing change for our nation. Perhaps breaking the downward spiral is exactly the new tactic the people are hungry for.

GOP Power Rankings: Week 40

            Hard to believe it, but it’s been almost a full year since the first GOP candidate announced he was running for president. Now with Iowa only three weeks away, one candidate has finally displaced Mitt Romney as the front-runner. Donald Trump is planning to host an unconventional debate, Herman Cain was forced out after an entirely unconventional campaign, and in general it’s shaping up to be an unconventional election. What does that mean for the seven remaining candidates? We break down once more the intangibles, the strategy, and momentum of each candidate in the race for the finish, with high and low rankings reported after each candidate:

1. Newt Gingrich (1/9) – Finally somebody was able to rise from the depths to replace Mitt Romney at the top of the list (and from the depths indeed: Gingrich was 9^th out of 10 candidates a few weeks ago). With some hesitation because of the late-bloom and lower campaign organization, Newt has risen to the top of the polls in both support and perceived electability. What differentiates him from other boomlet candidates is the layout of the early states. He could make a serious play in Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida, and even in New Hampshire if the next couple weeks go well. However, he needs to win at least three of these states if he intends to defeat Mitt Romney in the race to the nomination. With early states come resources for a national campaign, but he needs to display more discipline as a candidate. He had a relatively good debate performance, but his late seize on the top spot is precarious and dependent on how well he is embraced by the Republican establishment. Could he be the John McCain of 2012?
2. Mitt Romney (1/2) – Romney is in a tough spot. In many ways, he does not need to be concerned about Gingrich’s rise: there are many other candidates gunning for the Gingrich base, Mitt still has the best campaign apparatus, and other candidates have come and gone before. But for the reasons outlined above, he needs to get off his defensive strategy and be more aggressive in his campaigning. In particular, he needs to make a play in Iowa, if nothing else but to stop Newt Gingrich from winning it. Along with a push in Florida, he immediately returns to the front-runner status if he is able to survive the early states. He has been effective in defending his views on Romneycare, and has begun to show a little more personal side (ex. by opening up about his religion). However, a true frontrunner can only take so much criticism, and debate phrases like his now-infamous $10,000 bet are going to bite you on the campaign trail every time.
3. Rick Santorum (3/7) – Santorum is making a strong final effort in Iowa, and could surprise people after the votes are cast. Just as Gingrich may become the McCain of 2012, Santorum has the potential to be the Huckabee. He is one of the last major candidates without a boost in the polls, and it may be his turn in perfect time. He has visited all 99 counties in Iowa, and has returned to his strong debate performances of earlier in the cycle. Would a win in Iowa catapult him to further victories? He would need a lot more money and infrastructure elsewhere if he were to capture the nomination, as well as a poor showing by Newt in Iowa if he wants to win any early states. If he falls short and decides to make an endorsement, he would be a very strong pickup for any candidate.
4. Ron Paul (2/5) – Ron Paul will fight with Bachmann and Santorum in Iowa for the title of the true “consistent conservative.” Though his libertarian views are off-putting for some in other states, he too could surprise people in Iowa. Beyond the Hawkeye state he may be a tough sell, but his strong debate performances (which energize the Ron Paul crowd) make him a formidable opponent as voting begins.
5. Michele Bachmann (2/5) – Bachmann is looking less and less impressive in Iowa, but the campaign she built early on could save her from a less-than-ideal showing. She has returned to her fiery debate and stump speech style, which can only serve her well with the Iowa base. In the next couple weeks she needs to spend as much time in Iowa as possible, energizing her supporters to turn out. In recent weeks she has finally been able to remain passionate and yet appear as a credible candidate, which can only serve her well in the race and in her future endeavors.
6. Rick Perry (2/8) – A (relatively) strong debate performance may have saved Rick Perry’s candidacy. On the trails, however, the gaffes keep piling up. In state politics, you can rely almost entirely on advisors and media consultants, but the presidential race is an entirely different ball game. Money spent on television ads won’t compensate for ill-equipped candidates, and it seems he is struggling to hold onto his base support (much less attract new voters). Rick Perry should now be concerned for his future in politics, even as a popular Texas governor. The next few weeks are make or break.
7. Jon Huntsman (6/9) – Huntsman is focusing all his attention on New Hampshire, but it doesn’t appear he’ll catch on in time. Despite reports he is rising, he is being overshadowed by other candidates, and was the only one not to participate in the ABC Iowa debate. His inconsistent imaging messages have harmed his candidacy, and a stronger than average finish in New Hampshire may be necessary should he wish to continue a career in electoral politics. However, by skipping out on the debates, he increases his chances of working in a Republican administration by one of his competitors by eliminating the possibility he may need to criticize one or another. At this point, this may be his best bet.

Redefining Poverty

            Who are the poor? It’s a question that captivates, puzzles, and sometimes frustrates politicians, charity workers, and frequently myself. Who are the poor? Are they the people lined up outside the food shelves across the country, or are they the people we work with, spend time with, or send our kids to school with? Or are they one in the same? As the holiday season approaches, these are questions it’s time we reconsider. Oftentimes before we identify the who, we need to grapple with the question of what is poverty. If we want to make any meaningful change in our world, it’s a concept desperately needing a new definition.

            For many politicians and policy-makers, the usual definition of poverty is just how low someone has to go before we are legally obligated to care about them. In the United States, the current federal poverty line means “the poor” are those who make $22,350 a year for a family of four, and not a penny more. Furthermore, the poor are lazy, a drag on our national economy, and a political liability. They are a number in line at the welfare office, a number based on their income, and a number in the 15% of the country that is poor. Their programs, like food assistance, minimum health coverage, and unemployment are numbers waiting to be cut at any time.

            In the real world the poor are not just numbers. They are individual stories of courage and struggle, of persons making just enough to get out of federal poverty but not enough to survive, of sacrifices and risks, of families who can’t afford much more than Ramen noodles for supper or the health care costs that come with it… When we face the facts, it’s impossible to deny that numbers alone do not capture what it means to be poor. Many are one paycheck, one accident, one illness away from poverty. Even more are living in poverty without the assistance afforded to the defined poor.

Based on what we know about poverty, this is an ominous definition for our future. Without a break, many who live in poverty are stuck in a downward spiral of scarcity and injustice. Education, retirement, and other investments are all too often luxury items. Even nutritious food and preventative healthcare are out of reach for our poor. Home ownership is replaced by renting or homelessness, a minimum-wage job means providers must work two or three to make ends meet, leaving children at home to fend for themselves. The injustice of being stuck in downward mobility leads many to crime, drugs, or alcohol. If we want any chance to fix our future, we need to do something about our current poverty definition and (lack of) solutions.

            Our first step is to stop depriving our poor and vulnerable of the basic necessities for life. A job, an address for the application, nutrition to continue working: these are fundamentals that we must provide one way or another. Many others become poor simply because of how they were born: born to parents unable to provide for them, or born with a disability, mental illness, or catastrophic disease. We need to improve our health care system, our education system, and our financial system. We need to crack down on predatory lenders, renters, and employers. But first of all, we need to admit our problem and realize that the poor are more than just numbers. If we are going to claim to be a country where anybody can make it with hard work, we need to make sure this is a reality. But even the poor deserve a break every now and then. Poverty in our country is more than a numbers crisis and more than a political crisis: it is a great moral crisis. And without a fundamental change in the way we treat our poorest citizens, we can’t expect to fix any of the other great problems of our day.