To: koan who wrote (607167 ) 4/8/2011 9:49:15 PM From: Brumar89 Respond to Caring for the Poor, or Playing With The Numbers? Arthur Brooks' book Who Really Cares? points out that religious conservatives are the MOST generous and that secular liberals are the LEAST generous when it comes to giving away their own money. (See WORLD's interview with Brooks here.) Of course, there are lots of problems with giving away other people's money, even when that money has been accumulated by the government through taxation. For one thing, it's still other people's money. Governments are stewards, not owners. Government officials have a profound responsibility to the true owners.the dangers of re-defining poverty as a relative measurement. In other words, defining the poor as those in the lowest percentile, quintile (20 percent), or third of the population. Or defining the poverty line as a percentage of the median income, as the Europeans do. Olasky says a new plan by the Obama administration, to be unveiled on Sept. 1, takes us in that direction. the problem with a "relative" measure (such as a comparison to the median) is that it has the tendency to permanently trap people in welfare dependency who might otherwise be able to care for themselves with work. This permanent welfare dependency also rob those so trapped of the dignity that work and self-sufficiency bring. More objective measures (such as those that measure the true cost of food and shelter) help policy makers focus resources on those who truly can't care for themselves. Olasky summarizes the problem with relative measures: if everyone's income doubles over the course of a decade, the number of people considered poor does not change: That will move us from "A rising tide lifts all boats" to "Your boat is still bigger than mine." Furthermore, our real public-policy goal for those now classified as poor should be not to trap more in welfare but to create more economic opportunities for them to leave poverty." thepointradio.org
