Six Years Later

Today marks the sixth anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks that entailed the murder of about 3,000 people. Additionally, the Bush administration used 9/11 to trick America into waging a needless war on Iraq, which resulted in more American deaths than 9/11 itself, as well as the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

Indeed, 41% of Americans still believe that Iraq was directly involved with 9/11, thanks to the deceitfulness of the Bush administration. Common sense tells us that those duped 41% of Americans probably make up the vast majority of Americans who support the current occupation of Iraq–which I believe only increases anti-Americanism and thus increases the threat of anti-American terrorism. In other words, the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists than it is destroying, especially since the U.S. government still allies itself with the country where most of the terrorists came from: Saudi Arabia.

The so-called “war in Iraq” has cost the U.S. about $450 billion so far, and has created more problems for the United States than it has solved. Most estimates say the total cost will exceed $1 trillion, and may even exceed $2 trillion. Imagine what else the United States could have done with that all that money.

Imagine if the United States had used a large portion of that money to end world hunger and poverty. I bet that would have reduced the threat of terrorism, namely in that one of the major ways wealthy terrorist-leaders like Osama Bin Laden recruit new people; they feed people, and use their apparent “good-will” to recruit poor angry kids into terrorism.

Of course, the United States government appears to have no intention to change its course, as my ideas are nothing new. I posted similar points on last years anniversary. I hope next year I can report something different, but I doubt it. I believe the United States government will continue to spend more money on needless oil wars than it does on world hunger and poverty.

In addition to the 3,000 people who died in the horrible 9/11 attacks, 18,000 children die every day from world hunger, just like last year. I say FOOD NOT BOMBS!

Low-Cost Housing in Better Neighborhoods

Gentrification plays a major role in poverty. Basically, gentrification refers to removing poor people from their homes usually by purchasing the building and replacing low-cost apartments with high-priced luxury apartments with tough application procedures. This most often happens in cities, where demand exists for both high-priced and low-priced apartments, in that cities tend to have wealthy businessmen as well as a poor underclass.

In regards to gentrification and poverty, many caring people promote the production of low-cost efficiency homes in areas with lots of poverty. I see that as misguided.

If we want to build low-cost housing and apartments for poor people, I suggest building it out of inner-city. These poor neighborhoods and cities have tons of violence, drugs, and other unhealthy environmental factors that contribute to poverty. Additionally, the public schools in poor areas offer the worst educations. Let’s build the low-cost housing in more suburban areas and help otherwise poor people get jobs around it. Then these people can live in neighborhoods with less violence and drugs, and more quality schools and jobs.

Children who grow up out of the poor ghettos of inner-cities have more opportunities and a greatly reduced risk of future poverty.

This will work most effectively if the low-cost housing focuses on peaceful adults with a willingness to work and children who will perform well in schools.

What do you think of this idea? You can talk about it and share your own ideas at our Hunger and Poverty Forums. It’s completely free!

Immigration and Poverty

On Wednesday, Robert J. Samuelson wrote an article about poverty in which he blamed stagnant and rising poverty rates on immigration. Since then, I have noticed many blog posts and letters to the editor about Samuelson’s article.

Samuelson’s observation notes a common overlooked factor in poverty. Simply put, statistics show that the United States poverty rate has declined slightly overall in the last two decades, if we do not count the poor immigrants who moved to the United States. These poor immigrants add to the poverty rate.

Of course, Samuelson honestly notes that poverty for natives has risen since 2000, meaning that both the poverty rate for whites and the poverty rate for blacks has risen since 2000. I assume this happened as a result of Bush taking office, as it similarly happened during the Reagan and Bush Sr. eras.

Regardless, as Samuelson’s points show, we have to remember that stagnant poverty rates in the United States do not necessary indicate a complete lack of progress, and rising poverty rates do not necessarily mean regress. For example, quite plausibly, many poor immigrants would live in even poorer conditions if they had not come to the United States, which they presumably did to get better opportunities and employment.

In ideal circumstances, all people in the United States including immigrants would receive high-quality educations, and every working person in the United States including immigrants would get paid enough to not live in poverty. Regardless of immigration, the United States (and the whole world) has two huge problems that allow poverty: Firstly, not everyone can afford education, and many people only get a poor-quality education. Secondly, many working people still live in poverty due to low pay, which many people refer to as the lack of a living wage. Those two problems contribute to each other, in that low-paying jobs mean people do not have enough money to afford quality education, and lack of quality education means people cannot get high-paying jobs.

As a result of those problems, even native poor people often cannot escape poverty. Thus, poor immigrants add to the number of poor people.

To fight poverty, we need to solve those two general domestic problems, so that all people in the United States have a viable route out of poverty. Additionally, we need to work towards global solutions for poverty so that poor people do not continue to flow into the United States. Opening up trade and economic investments into countries like Mexico will help create local opportunities for poor people from those countries.

International Literacy Day

In recognition of International Literacy Day, I will post today about literacy. Anthony Westbury recently wrote about illiteracy in both the United States and the world. I include an excerpt:

“If You Can Read This, Thank a Teacher,” was the message on a popular bumper sticker a few years back.

There are an awful lot of people, both in this country and abroad, who aren’t able to read such simple messages — 860 million of them to be exact, two-thirds of them women.

On Friday, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) celebrates International Literacy Day. UNESCO sponsors reading celebrations and appoints a jury to award international literacy prizes. These include awards for the encouragement of mother tongue languages in developing countries, prizes aimed at developing literacy for rural adults and out-of-school youth, especially women and girls.

So, what’s this got to do with you in rich, well-educated America?

Well, poor reading skills aren’t limited to the Third World. A shockingly high percentage of Americans either cannot read at all or function at a low level of literacy. In technical terms, this second group is described as functionally illiterate. Their numbers include both United States-born natives and immigrants, but around 20 percent of the population is functionally illiterate.

Common sense tells us of the connection of illiteracy to poverty. To escape poverty, poor people need an entire quality education that includes job skills and job training. Both education and job skills require literacy.

While we have to also address adult illiteracy, we can recognize that providing universal quality education to children would have eliminate the problem all-together.

We have to find a way to provide quality education to all children, and I doubt the government can do that due to its bureaucratic immobility and funding problems–taxpayers will always give government school system’s budget problems. I suggest using privately-funded student loans and private schools to provide quality education.

National Fund for Workforce Solutions

A recent Boston Globe editorial talked about organizations helping enable homeless, low-skilled, and low-income people to take care of themselves mainly through education and better employment. I include an excerpt:

There’s an emerging cure for dead-end jobs and unemployment. Instead of letting people languish in homelessness or despair, the National Fund for Workforce Solutions is making it clear that low-income and  low-skilled workers can succeed with help from a committed team – employers, government, foundations, unions, colleges, and nonprofit organizations. The fund, a new, $50 million initiative, is announcing 10 new grants in 10 cities and states at the National Press Club in Washington today. And it is holding up programs in and around Boston as innovative models.

I recommend reading the entire article, because it recites some individual stories of a few people who uplifted themselves with the help of local non-profits, which focus on education and job training. I hope to see this approach replicated throughout the country.

I think the above methods contrast to some common misguided approaches. Often times, people think of fighting hunger and homelessness through plain charity such as soup kitchens. That only fights the symptoms of poverty, but does nothing to fight poverty itself. To actually stop poverty, we have to help people find permanent solutions through education, job training, and then employment. Additionally, poor people need to break any habits or other obstacles holding them down such as addiction or unemployment. A soup kitchen only provides a single meal that will fend off hunger for a day, but education and employment help poor people actually eliminate their poverty.

Earned-Income Tax Credit

A recent Washington Post editorial addressed Michael Bloomberg and the earned-income tax credit. I include an excerpt:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg says he is not running for president. Yet that didn’t stop him from coming to Washington last week to promote an expansion of the earned-income tax credit as the next phase in the war on poverty. The EITC has been around since 1975 and is widely considered the single most important and effective policy for reducing poverty. According to a 2006 report from the Brookings Institution, “In 2003, the EITC lifted 4.4 million people in low-income, working families out of poverty, more than one-half of them children.” Mr. Bloomberg is right to focus on its expansion.

In a speech at the National Press Club, Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire former Democrat, former Republican and now independent who many believe is mulling a White House bid, noted that welfare reform and the EITC “incentivized work among women with young children.” But, he said, “fathers are missing from our strategy to drive down the poverty rate.” He proposed to triple the size of the maximum credit received, to $1,236 per year, and to eliminate the marriage penalty now at work. He would raise the maximum income for EITC eligibility from $12,100 to $18,040 and lower the qualifying age from 25 to 21, to make stable employment more attractive to young men. And he would make the EITC expansion off-limits to fathers who are behind on child-support obligations.

As far as government policies go, the earned-income tax credit has a lot of potential. I support almost anything that reduces taxes for the working class.

Most of all, I agree with Bloomberg’s point about fathers. Missing fathers contribute to poverty, especially that amongst children and single mothers.  Incentives such as the EITC can help get more fathers to take care of their children. Unfortunately, no government program will get rid of all deadbeat dads. Plus, some children become fatherless other ways, such as when their fathers die or go to jail.

Let’s not let children suffer in poverty because of their fathers’ absence.

We can fully put a stop to this by changing the way society works so that children do not require a father to grow up in proper conditions. In other words, we can make sure children do not need financial support from their parents. We can do this by making sure all children have direct access to food, clothes, shelter, healthcare and education. I suggest doing this by making sure all children can get student loans for boarding schools which would not only provide education but also would provide food, clothes, shelter, and healthcare.

If all children can have their needs met without the financial support of their parents or deadbeat father, and if the children get a quality education, then they will not fall into the poverty trap. As adults, with their quality education, they will have the ability to get a job that pays them enough to fully support themselves, which includes paying off the student loans.

I agree with penalizing deadbeat dads. I agree with offering incentives for parents to take care of their children. However, if we want to end poverty for all children, we have to help children directly, because the world will always have deadbeat parents no matter how many incentives and penalties we impose.