The updates come from a revised method of measuring poverty, which is supposed to be more accurate and inclusive:
Put in place two years ago by the Obama administration, it generally is considered more reliable by social scientists because it factors in living expenses as well as the effects of government aid, such as food stamps and tax credits.Additionally, more than 40 million people would be in poverty if it wasn’t for programs such as Social Security, tax credits and food stamps. Click the image to enlarge it:
Administration officials have declined to say whether the new measure eventually could replace the official poverty formula, which is used to allocate federal dollars to states and localities and to determine eligibility for safety-net programs, such as Medicaid.
Congress would have to agree to adopt the new measure, which generally would result in a higher poverty rate from year to year and thus higher government payouts for aid programs.
The main costs that are driving families into poverty include medical expenses, work expenses and taxes. However, the #1 cause? Lack of adequate employment. Sure, the unemployment rate is relatively stable, but
it’s deceiving. A lot of people are living in poverty because they are working part-time, minimum wage jobs. They are employed, but they don’t make enough to pay their living expenses. Now that health insurance costs are increasing, it’s going to be even harder.
America’s poverty problem has been temporarily cushioned by welfare programs such as SNAP and unemployment. However, in the long run (sorry if I’m sounding like a broken record), it will only be solved by an increase in full-time jobs, which the government could promote through tax incentives and laws that encourage private lending and investment.
Simply put, continually giving aid to families without giving them the opportunity to get out of the cycle of dependency is almost as cruel as not giving them anything at all. If our country wants this cycle to end, we have to stop thinking in terms of handouts and, instead, in terms of opportunities.
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment