Reinform.org

Poverty: A Religious/Moral Issue
illustration, "New Orleans/Poverty" by Tim Nyberg

"We are called to play the good Samaritan on life's roadside. But one day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

As Hurricane Katrina has dramatically exposed the urban poverty in southern cities, it is important to remember that poverty is a national problem, and a growing one:
37 million - total number of people living in poverty in the U.S.
13 million - number of children living in poverty
1.1 million - number of people who fell below the poverty threshold between 2003 and 2004
4 - number of consecutive years in which the poverty rate has risen in America
Source: The U.S. Census Bureau
Related fact: Of America's 20 million dogs, 73% are overweight. This in a world where 500 million human beings are suffering from malnutrition.

Lord, when did we see you hungry?

I was hungry and you were flying around the moon.
I was hungry and you told me to wait.
I was hungry and you formed a committee.
I was hungry and you talked about other things.

I was hungry and you told me:
“There is no reason.”
I was hungry
And you had bills to pay for weapons.
I was hungry and you told me:
“Now machines do that kind of work.”
I was hungry and you said:
“Law and order come first.”
I was hungry and you said:
“There are always poor people.”
I was hungry and you said:
“My ancestors were hungry too.”
I was hungry and you said:
“After age fifty, no one will hire you.”
I was hungry and you said:
“God helps those in need.”
I was hungry and you said:
“Sorry, stop by again tomorrow.”
- An anonymous prayer from France. Translated by Mary-Theresa McCarthy

"Men pray to the Almighty to relieve poverty. But poverty comes not from God’s laws—it is blasphemy of the worst kind to say that. Poverty comes from man’s injustice to his fellow man." - Leo Tolstoy

Christ said, “Go and give all you have to the poor and become the servant of all men,” for if you do that, you’ll become a thousand times richer because your happiness won’t be made just of good food, rich clothes, satisfied vanity, and appeased envy. Instead it will be built on love, love multiplied by love without end. And then you will gain not just riches…but the whole world!

Today we amass material things without ever satisfying our greed, and then we madly squander all we have amassed. But a day will come when there will be no orphans, no beggars; everyone will be as one of my own family, everyone will be my brother and sister, and that is when I will have gained everything and everyone!

Today even some of the richest and mightiest people care nothing about how long they have been given to live because they can no longer think up ways to spend their hours. But one day our hours will be multiplied a thousandfold, for we will not want to lose one single moment of our lives, as we will live every one of them in the gaiety of our hearts.

And then our wisdom will come not out of books but from living in the presence of God, and the earth will glow brighter than the sun, and there will be no sadness, no sighs will be heard. The whole world will be paradise. - Source: Fyodor Dostoevsky, "The Adolescent"

"The penalty of affluence is that it cuts one off from the common lot, common experience, and common fellowship. In a sense it outlaws one automatically from one’s birthright of membership in the great human family." - Arnold Toynbee

According to the most recent government figures, 37 million Americans are living below the official poverty threshold, which is $19,971 a year for a family of four. That’s one out of every eight Americans, and many of them are children.

More than 90 million Americans, close to a third of the entire population, are struggling to make ends meet on incomes that are less than twice the official poverty line. In my book, they’re poor.

We don’t see poor people on television or in the advertising that surrounds us like a second atmosphere. We don’t pay much attention to the millions of men and women who are changing bedpans, or flipping burgers for the minimum wage, or vacuuming the halls of office buildings at all hours of the night. But they’re there, working hard and getting very little in return.

The number of poor people in America has increased by five million over the past six years, and the gap between rich and poor has grown to historic proportions. The richest one percent of Americans got nearly 20 percent of the nation’s income in 2005, while the poorest 20 percent could collectively garner only a measly 3.4 percent.

A new report from a highly respected task force on poverty put together by the Center for American Progress tells us, “It does not have to be this way.” The task force has made several policy recommendations, and said that if all were adopted poverty in the U.S. could be cut in half over the next decade.

The tremendous number of people in poverty is an enormous drag on the U.S. economy. And one of the biggest problems is the simple fact that so many jobs pay so little that even fulltime, year-round employment is not enough to raise a family out of poverty. One-fifth of the working men in America and 29 percent of working women are in such jobs.

Peter Edelman, a Georgetown law professor who was a co-chairman of the task force, said, “An astonishing number of people are working as hard as they possibly can but are still in poverty or have incomes that are not much above the poverty line.”

So the starting point for lifting people out of poverty should be to see that men and women who are working are adequately compensated for their labor. The task force recommended that the federal minimum wage, now $5.15 an hour, be raised to half the average hourly wage in the U.S., which would bring it to $8.40.

The earned-income tax credit, which has proved very successful in supplementing the earnings of low-wage working families, should be expanded to cover more workers, the task force said. It also recommended expanded coverage of the federal child care tax credit, which is currently $1,000 per child for up to three children.

A crucial component to raising workers out of poverty would be an all-out effort to ensure that workers are allowed to form unions and bargain collectively. As the task force noted, “Among workers in similar jobs, unionized workers have higher pay, higher rates of health coverage, and better benefits than do nonunionized workers.”

In a recent interview about poverty, former Senator John Edwards told me: “Organizing is so important. We have 50 million service economy jobs and we’ll probably have 10 or 15 million more over the next decade. If those jobs are union jobs, they’ll be middle-class families. If not, they’re more likely to live in poverty. It’s that strong.”

The task force made several other recommendations, including proposals to ease access to higher education for poor youngsters, to help former prisoners find employment, to develop a more equitable unemployment compensation system, and to establish housing policies that would make it easier for poor people to move from neighborhoods of concentrated poverty to areas with better employment opportunities and higher-quality public services.

Mr. Edelman, an adviser on social policy in the Clinton administration, stressed that there is no one answer to the problem of poverty, and that in addition to public policy initiatives, it’s important to address the “things people have to do within their own communities to take responsibility for themselves and for each other.”

But he added, “It is unacceptable for this country, which is so wealthy, to have this many people who are left out.”
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

The High Cost of Being Poor
By Barbara Ehrenreich, AlterNet
Posted on July 21, 2006

There are people, concentrated in the Hamptons and Beverly Hills, who still confuse poverty with the simple life. No cable TV, no altercations with the maid, no summer home maintenance issues - just the basics like family, sunsets and walks in the park. What they don't know is that it's expensive to be poor.

In fact, you, the reader of middling income, could probably not afford it. A new study from the Brookings Institute documents the "ghetto tax," or higher cost of living in low-income urban neighborhoods. It comes at you from every direction, from food prices to auto insurance. A few examples from this study, by Matt Fellowes, that covered 12 American cities:

• Poor people are less likely to have bank accounts, which can be expensive for those with low balances, and so they tend to cash their pay checks at check-cashing businesses, which in the cities surveyed, charged $5 to $50 for a $500 check.

• Nationwide, low-income car buyers, defined as people earning less than $30,000 a year, pay two percentage points more for a car loan than more affluent buyers.

• Low-income drivers pay more for car insurance. In New York, Baltimore and Hartford, they pay an average $400 more a year to insure the exact same car and driver risk than wealthier drivers.

• Poorer people pay an average of one percentage point more in mortgage interest.

• They are more likely to buy their furniture and appliances through pricey rent-to-own businesses. In Wisconsin, the study reports, a $200 rent-to-own TV set can cost $700 with the interest included.

• They are less likely to have access to large supermarkets and hence to rely on the far more expensive, and lower quality offerings, of small grocery and convenience stores.

I didn't live in any ghettoes when I worked on Nickle and Dimed --a trailer park, yes, but no ghetto -- and on my average wage of $7 an hour, or about $14,400 a year, I wasn't in the market for furniture, a house or a car. But the high cost of poverty was brought home to me within a few days of my entry into the low-wage life, when, slipping into social-worker mode, I chastised a co-worker for living in a motel room when it would be so much cheaper to rent an apartment. Her response: Where would she get the first month's rent and security deposit it takes to pin down an apartment? The lack of that amount of capital -- probably well over $1,000 -- condemned her to paying $40 a night at the Day's Inn.

Then there was the problem of sustenance. I had gone into the project imagining myself preparing vast quantities of cheap, nutritious soups and stews, which I would freeze and heat for dinner each day. But surprise: I didn't have the proverbial pot to pee in, not to mention spices or Tupperware. A scouting trip to K-Mart established that it would take about a $40 capital investment to get my kitchenette up to speed for the low-wage way of life.

The food situation got only more challenging when I, too, found myself living in a motel. Lacking a fridge and microwave, all my food had to come from the nearest convenience store (hardboiled eggs and banana for breakfast) or, for the big meal of the day, Wendy's or KFC. I have no nutritional complaints; after all, there is a veggie, or flecks of one, in Wendy's broccoli and cheese baked potato. The problem was financial. A double cheeseburger and fries is lot more expensive than that hypothetical homemade lentil stew.

There are other tolls along the road well-traveled by the working poor. If your credit is lousy, which it is likely to be, you'll pay a higher deposit for a phone. If you don't have health insurance, you may end taking that feverish child to an emergency room, and please don't think of ER's as socialized medicine for the poor. The average cost of a visit is over $1,000, which is over ten times more than what a clinic pediatrician would charge. Or you neglect that hypertension, diabetes or mystery lump until you end up with a $100,000 problem on your hands.

So let's have a little less talk about how the poor should learn to manage their money, and a little more attention to all the ways that money is being systematically siphoned off. Yes, certain kinds of advice would be helpful: skip the pay-day loans and rent-to-pay furniture, for example. But we need laws in more states to stop predatory practices like $50 charges for check cashing. Also, think what some microcredit could do to move families from motels and shelters to apartments. And did I mention a living wage?

If you're rich, you might want to stay that way. It's a whole lot cheaper than being poor.

Barbara Ehrenreich is the author of 13 books, most recently "Bait and Switch: The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream." This piece first appeared on her blog.

© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/39273/

Poverty USA: The State of Poverty in America

For the fourth consecutive year, the poverty rate and the number of Americans living in poverty both rose from the prior years. Since 2000, the number of poor Americans has grown by more than 6 million. The official poverty rate in 2004 (the most current year for which figures are available) was 12.7 percent, up from 12.5 percent in 2003. Total Americans below the official poverty thresholds numbered 37 million, a figure 1.1 million higher than the 35.9 million in poverty in 2003. (U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004)

On average, more than one out of every three Americans - 37 percent of all people in the United States - are officially classified as living in poverty at least 2 months out of the year. (U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004)

The number of Americans living in severe poverty - with incomes below half of the poverty line - remained the same at 15.6 million. (U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004)

Since 1999, the number of poor Americans suffering from "food insecurity" and hunger has increased by 3.9 million - 2.8 million adults and more than one million children. In 2002, 34.9 million people lived in households experiencing food insecurity - that is, not enough food for basic nourishment - compared to 33.6 million in 2001 and 31 million in 1999. (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Household Food Security in the United States, 2002, October 2003.)

The American Midwest and South saw the greatest numbers of people entering poverty in 2004; the number in the Midwest rose from 6.9 million to 7.5 million, while the South rose from 14 to 14.5 million people. Yet the two regions stand at the opposite ends of the percentage of people living in poverty for all regions in America. In the Midwest and Northeast, 11.6 percent of all people live in poverty, compared to 12.6 percent for the West, and 14.1 for the South – the highest of all. (U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004)

Nine out of ten Americans believe the federal government has a responsibility to alleviate poverty. A strong majority believes that government should do more, not less, to help people move from welfare to work by providing skills needed to be self-sufficient. (Lake, Snell, Perry & Associates, January 2002.)

Poverty USA: The Faces of American Poverty

Children in America have higher poverty rates than adults, and people 65 and over have higher chronic poverty rates and lower exit rates than children or adults. (U.S. Census Bureau, Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Poverty 1996-1999, July 2003.)

The rate and number of children in America living in poverty remained the same in 2004 at 17.8 percent and 13 million children. What’s more, children represented 35.2 percent of all the people in poverty – compared with 25.2 percent of the total population.

Children under the age of six have been particularly vulnerable to poverty. In 2004, the poverty rate for related children under six living in families remained the same at 19.8 percent, or 4.7 million children. Yet, of children under six living in families with only a female householder – with no father present – more than one out of two, or 52.6 percent, were in poverty, more than five times the rate of their counterparts in married-couple families. (U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004)

For Americans 18 to 64 years old, both the number in poverty and the poverty rate rose from 2003 to 2004 - from 19.4 million to 20.5 million, and from 10.8 percent to 11.3 percent, respectively. The number of elderly in poverty decreased to 9.8 percent in 2004 down from 10.2 percent in 2003, while the number in poverty remained unchanged at 3.5 million. (U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004)

The number and rate of Non-hispanic white Americans living in poverty rose the greatest among all groups, to 8.6 percent and 16.9 million, up from 8.2 percent and 15.9 million. Among Hispanics, the poverty rate remained unchanged at 21.9 percent in 2004 -- yet one out of every five Hispanics in America – 9.1 million people -- still live in poverty. And for African Americans, the poverty rate remained unchanged in 2004 at 24.7 percent. Still, nearly one out of every four African Americans lives in poverty, which is 8.8 million people. Asian Americans decreased from 11.8% in 2003 to 9.8% in 2004. (U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, Current Population Reports, August 2004)

In 2004, 7.9 million American families - 10.2 percent of all families - were in poverty, up from 7.6 million (10 percent) in 2003.(U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004)

Poverty USA: The Working Poor

More than two-thirds of all poor families with children included one or more individuals who worked in 2003. What’s more, family members in working-poor families with children typically worked combined totals of 46 weeks per year.

The U.S. Census Bureau defines poor families as those with cash incomes of less than $15,067 a year for a family of three – or $19,307 for a family of four.

Since 2000 – the last year before unemployment began to rise – the number of people in poverty has risen by 5.4 million, median income has fallen by $1,535 after adjustment for inflation, and the number of people with no health insurance has increased by 5.2 million.

In 2004, the number of people living in extreme poverty, that is, with incomes below half the poverty line, remained the same at 15.6 million people. The number of Americans living in extreme poverty reached the highest level on record, since data first became available in 1975.
The average amount by which poor people’s incomes fell below the poverty line was greater in 2004 than any other year since recordkeeping began in 1975. The average amount by which the poor fell below the poverty line was $7,775 per family in 2004.

A single parent of two young children working full-time in a minimum wage job for a year would make $10,712 before taxes - a wage $4,355 below the poverty threshold set by the federal government. (U.S. Department of Labor; U.S. Census Bureau.)

About 40 percent of poor single-parent, working mothers who paid for child care paid at least half of their income for child care; an additional 25 percent of these families paid between 40 and 50 percent of their incomes for child care. (Child Trends, 2001.)

While the Census figures reveal a significant number of Americans living in poverty, many experts feel that the measures used by the federal government drastically underestimate the real scale of poverty in America - primarily because the official poverty thresholds are considered "too low." Many experts believe a more realistic poverty threshold for a family of four would be in the area of $30,000 a year - and that a more accurate estimate of the poverty rate in America would be 30% of the total population. (Economic Policy Institute, 2001.)

Opportunities for those trying to work their way out of poverty are dwindling; by September 2003, 2.1 million American jobless workers - nearly a quarter of the total unemployed population - had been out of work for half a year or more - the highest level in 20 years. (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, October 2003.)

from http://www.usccb.org - The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Poverty USA: The State of Poverty in America
Did You Know?
The U.S. has the highest rate of poverty among industrialized nations.
-"The Social Health of Nations"
For the second consecutive year, the poverty rate and the number of Americans living in poverty both rose from the prior years. Since 2000, the number of poor Americans has grown by 3 million. The official poverty rate in 2002 (the most current year for which figures are available) was 12.1 percent, up from 11.7 percent in 2001. Total Americans below the official poverty thresholds numbered 34.6 million, a figure 1.7 million higher than the 32.9 million in poverty in 2001. (U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty in the United States: 2002, Current Population Reports, September 2003.)

On average, one out of every three Americans - 34.2 percent of all people in the United States - are officially classified as living in poverty at least 2 months out of the year. (U.S. Census Bureau, Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Poverty 1996-1999, July 2003.)

The number of Americans living in severe poverty - with incomes below half of the poverty line - increased by 600,000 in 2002, to 14.1 million. (U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty in the United States: 2002, Current Population Reports, September 2003.)

Since 1999, the number of poor Americans suffering from "food insecurity" and hunger has increased by 3.9 million - 2.8 million adults and more than one million children. In 2002, 34.9 million people lived in households experiencing food insecurity - that is, not enough food for basic nourishment - compared to 33.6 million in 2001 and 31 million in 1999. (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Household Food Security in the United States, 2002, October 2003.)

The Midwest experienced the greatest increase in poverty rates, rising from 9.4 percent in 2001 to 10.3 percent in 2002 - yet the American South still had the highest poverty rate at 13.8 percent. The South had a disproportionately large share of those in poverty: 40.6 percent, compared with 35.6 percent of all people. And the American suburbs saw the highest rise in poverty, from 12.1 million and 8.2 percent in 2001 to 13.3 million and 8.9 percent in 2002. (U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty in the United States: 2002, Current Population Reports, September 2003.)

Nine out of ten Americans believe the federal government has a responsibility to alleviate poverty. A strong majority believes that government should do more, not less, to help people move from welfare to work by providing skills needed to be self-sufficient. (Lake, Snell, Perry & Associates, January 2002.)

Poverty in the World's Weathiest Nation
Debunking Common Myths related to Poverty and Homelessness

(In the United States) 9.2 million families, including 20 million children, now make such low wages that they are barely able to survive financially.

“Poor people are lazy and should just get jobs.”
According to a new study from the Annie E. Casey, Ford and Rockefeller foundations, 25% of working families in America are living in poverty. 71% of low-income families work. The average annual work effort for low-income working families is 2,500 hours, equal to 1.2 full-time jobs. Additionally, a full-time, minimum wage job does not pay enough to cover basic living expenses in any major American city.

“If marriages were more stable, poverty would be reduced.”
While it is certainly true that single parent households are often smothered by poverty, the AECF study reports that an alarming 53% of families in poverty have two parents.

"Low-income working families are headed by immigrants."
Seventy-two percent of low-income working families have American-born parents only.

"Low-income working families are overwhelmingly minority."
47% of low-income working families have white, non-Hispanic parents only; 28% have an Hispanic parent, and 20% have an African-American parent.

"Low-income working families have very young parents."
88% of low-income working families have a parent between 25 and 54 years old.

“Most homeless people are adult males and addicted to drugs or alcohol.”
This is simply not the case. Sure, some homeless people are addicts, but then again, so are many CEOs. In Chicago, the average age of a homeless person is nine years old.

“Most drug users are black people.”
African Americans account for 13% of drug use in the United States but represent 74% of drug sentences.

“Poverty has nothing to do with things like abortion.”
From 1993-2000, abortion rates declined while the economy improved. The last three years, however, abortion rates have increased along with jobless rates. A survey by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life found that two thirds of American women who abort say that they cannot afford a child.

“There really aren’t many kids affected by poverty in America.”
Children are often the ones who fall most violently through the cracks in society. In Cleveland, America’s poorest city, 47% of children are living in poverty.

For More Information:
Call to Renewal (Isaiah Platform information) http://www.calltorenewal.org
Working Hard, Falling Short (study from AECF) http://aecf.org/initiatives/jobsinitiative/index.htm
Pro Life? Look at the Fruits (article by evangelical theologian, Glenn Stassen)
Children’s Defense Fund http://www.childrensdefense.org/
National Coalition for the Homeless http://www.nationalhomeless.org/

return to top of page index

The Larger Shame
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF, New York Times

The wretchedness coming across our television screens from Louisiana has illuminated the way children sometimes pay with their lives, even in America, for being born to poor families.

It has also underscored the Bush administration's ongoing reluctance or ineptitude in helping the poorest Americans. The scenes in New Orleans reminded me of the suffering I saw after a similar storm killed 130,000 people in Bangladesh in 1991 - except that Bangladesh's government showed more urgency in trying to save its most vulnerable citizens.

But Hurricane Katrina also underscores a much larger problem: the growing number of Americans trapped in a never-ending cyclone of poverty. And while it may be too early to apportion blame definitively for the mishandling of the hurricane, even President Bush's own administration acknowledges that America's poverty is worsening on his watch.

The U.S. Census Bureau reported a few days ago that the poverty rate rose again last year, with 1.1 million more Americans living in poverty in 2004 than a year earlier. After declining sharply under Bill Clinton, the number of poor people has now risen 17 percent under Mr. Bush.

If it's shameful that we have bloated corpses on New Orleans streets, it's even more disgraceful that the infant mortality rate in America's capital is twice as high as in China's capital. That's right - the number of babies who died before their first birthdays amounted to 11.5 per thousand live births in 2002 in Washington, compared with 4.6 in Beijing.

Indeed, according to the United Nations Development Program, an African-American baby in Washington has less chance of surviving its first year than a baby born in urban parts of the state of Kerala in India.

The national infant mortality rate has risen under Mr. Bush for the first time since 1958. The U.S. ranks 43rd in the world in infant mortality, according to the C.I.A.'s World Factbook; if we could reach the level of Singapore, ranked No. 1, we would save 18,900 children's lives each year.

So in some ways the poor children evacuated from New Orleans are the lucky ones because they may now get checkups and vaccinations. But nationally, 29 percent of children had no health insurance at some point in the last 12 months, and many get neither checkups nor vaccinations. The U.S. ranks 84th in the world for measles immunizations and 89th for polio.

One of the most dispiriting elements of the catastrophe in New Orleans was the looting. I covered the 1995 earthquake that leveled much of Kobe, Japan, killing 5,500, and for days I searched there for any sign of criminal behavior. Finally I found a resident who had seen three men steal food. I asked him whether he was embarrassed that Japanese would engage in such thuggery.

"No, you misunderstand," he said firmly. "These looters weren't Japanese. They were foreigners."

The reasons for this are complex and partly cultural, but one reason is that Japan has tried hard to stitch all Japanese together into the nation's social fabric. In contrast, the U.S. - particularly under the Bush administration - has systematically cut people out of the social fabric by redistributing wealth from the most vulnerable Americans to the most affluent.

It's not just that funds may have gone to Iraq rather than to the levees in New Orleans; it's also that money went to tax cuts for the wealthiest rather than vaccinations for children.

None of this is to suggest that there are easy solutions for American poverty. As Ronald Reagan once said, "We fought a war on poverty, and poverty won." But we don't need to be that pessimistic - in the late 1990's, we made real headway. A ray of hope is beautifully presented in one of the best books every written on American poverty, "American Dream," by my Times colleague Jason DeParle.

So the best monument to the catastrophe in New Orleans would be a serious national effort to address the poverty that afflicts the entire country. And in our shock and guilt, that might be politically feasible. Rich Lowry of The National Review, in defending Mr. Bush, offered an excellent suggestion: "a grand right-left bargain that includes greater attention to out-of-wedlock births from the Left in exchange for the Right's support for more urban spending." That would be the best legacy possible for Katrina.

Otherwise, long after the horrors have left TV screens, about 50 of the 77 babies who die each day, on average, will die needlessly, because of poverty. That's the larger hurricane of poverty that shames our land.

E-mail: nicholas@nytimes.com

return to top of page index

Other Ways We Kill

"We kill at every step, not only in wars, riots, and executions. We kill when we close our eyes to poverty, suffering, and shame. In the same way all disrespect for life, all hard-heartedness, all indifference, all contempt is nothing else than killing. With just a little witty skepticism we can kill a good deal of the future in a young person. Life is waiting everywhere, the future is flowering everywhere, but we only see a small part of it and step on much of it with our feet." - Hermann Hesse, German poet and novelist

return to top of page index

Priorities for the Poor?
by Elizabeth Green

Hurricane Katrina has shown us the depth of poverty in America. Even the mainstream media, not normally a voice for the "least of these," has reported on the vast needs of the poor with increasing alarm. But will we follow through with greater attention to the policy decisions that impact poor families?

For many, poverty is the grinding constant of daily life - it does not merely surface in times of tragedy or emergency. And not only is poverty a continual reality for many, it is growing. Our nation's spending and policy priorities do not seem to account for this.

The U.S. Census Bureau released its annual report a few weeks ago, and the statistics are grim: poverty numbers increased again. In 2004, 1.1 million more people fell into poverty, with 37 million total living in poverty in the United States.

There are also now more people without health insurance (a rise from 45 million uninsured in 2003 to 45.8 million in 2004), and more children in poverty than ever before - 17.8 percent of all of America's children were poor last year, a total of more than 13 million children.

What does it say about our national priorities when poverty has risen for four straight years while national leaders have passed tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthiest of our society? During the crisis in the Gulf states, at a time of emergency and tragedy, our nation's lack of concern for the poor was very clear. But how have we considered the poor in other, more ordinary times?

It is clear that our national budget and spending priorities do not reflect the gospel's call to include the needs of poor people in our understanding of the common good. Many cuts in the federal budget have come at the expense of low-income families - such as the 2003 tax cut, which removed the low-income child tax credit from the bill at the last minute, excluding almost 12 million children from that benefit. Furthermore, if Congress extends the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which primarily benefit the wealthiest Americans, the national deficit will increase to a total of $4 trillion over the next 10 years - which affects all of us, but the poor first. At the same time, programs that keep many low-income families out of poverty are in danger of $35 billion in cuts - programs such as Food Stamps, Medicaid (health insurance for low-income families and kids), and housing vouchers that increase stability.

In addition to the $35 billion in social cuts, Congress may cut taxes for the wealthy by $70 billion. Can this be a real option when hurricane relief is projected to cost more than $100 billion? And do we really think health care, housing, and other needs for those affected by Katrina will not also increase? We are ignoring the realities of these needs and how best to meet them if we do not stand up against both types of cuts. We must also speak out against repeal of the estate tax, which is still on the table and would cost an additional $1 trillion over 10 years. Further, although the Congressional Budget Office said this week that the House of Representative's Social Security privatization bill (HR 3304) would "increase federal outlays by more than $1 trillion" and "increase debt held by the public by 20% of GDP by 2063", Congressional leadership still plans to try to pass the bill this fall. With the deficit averaging roughly $300 billion a year, we must examine how we invest in - or ignore - the common good.

Low-income families are hurt first and suffer the greatest damage in times of tragedy and disaster. In the aftermath of Katrina, people in poverty will have a much more difficult struggle in rebuilding, since many lack insurance and other supports that wealthier Americans often take for granted. Those with better means often have contingency plans - freedom to choose - in time of emergency. Too many low-income people simply have no choice, no alternatives, and no emergency income. They lack a "living family income" that would meet needs such as transportation, housing, and health care. They are left with whatever policies and priorities accompany - and also precede and follow - times of devastation.

People of faith must use this moment, when poverty is in the national spotlight, to call for a change in our country's priorities for the common good. Will we accept a federal budget that provides tax benefits to the wealthiest while deeply cutting vital programs for the poor, and all of us? Or will we use this opportunity to call for morally grounded budget and tax policies that help families escape the growing vise of poverty in times of crisis and "normalcy"?

Elizabeth Green is public policy associate for Call to Renewal.

return to top of page index

No food, but plenty of money for killing...
It's not going to be that happy a holiday season for millions Americans. An estimated 35 million Americans are "food insecure" with food insecurity and dependency upon food stamps experienced by at least four in ten Americans between the ages of 20 and 65. That's 50 percent of the population! In other
words, millions starve while President Bush signs a $400 billion spending bill (August 2004) that will largely go to military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan (the U.S. spends as much on military as the rest of the world combined).

Something is wrong when we sit quietly by and allow our government to fund its military to this absurd extent, while 50% of our population is not guaranteed adequate nutrition. Please consider writing our elected officials and insisting that they reprioritize the use of our tax dollars to serve humanity - not kill it. - Tim Nyberg, LiberalWare host

return to top of page index

A Challenge to our Nation

I see a great nation, upon a great continent, blessed with a great wealth of natural resources. Its people are at peace among themselves; they are making their country a good neighbor among the nations. I see a nation which can demonstrate that, under democratic methods of government, national wealth can be translated into a spreading volume of human comforts previously unknown, and the lowest standard of living can be raised far above the level of mere subsistence.

But here is the challenge to our democracy: In this nation I see tens of millions of its citizens—a substantial part of its whole population—who at this very moment are denied the greater part of what the very lowest standards of today call the necessities of life.

I see millions of families trying to live on incomes so meager that the cloud of family disaster hangs over them day by day.

I see millions whose daily lives in city and country continue under conditions labeled indecent a century ago.

I see millions denied education, recreation, and the opportunity to better their lives and the lives of their children.

I see millions lacking the means to buy products and by their poverty, denying work and productiveness to many other millions.

I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.

It is not in despair that I paint you that picture. I paint it for you in hope—because the Nation, seeing and understanding the injustice in it, proposes to paint it out. We are determined to make every American citizen the subject of his or her country's interest and concern. The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.

(The source of this liberal-sounding quote? Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1937)

return to top of page index

"Would Jesus Drive a BMW?"
-Tony Campolo
In this audio address to more than 20,000 university students, Tony offers a powerful challange to serve Jesus by serving the poor. He also makes a strong case for "the simple life style."

return to top of page index

Going Hungry in America
by Anuradha Mittal, AlterNet
http://www.alternet.org/story/20726/

Today the United States faces a hidden epidemic. It is striking Americans of every age group and ethnicity, whether they live in cities or rural areas. And despite the diversity of targets, those suffering in this silent epidemic have two things in common: they are poor or low-income, and they are increasingly going without enough food.

Although politicians talk about "poverty in America," decision-makers avoid specifically mentioning the growing, and often deadly problem of hunger. George McGovern said in 1972, "To admit the existence of hunger in America is to confess that we have failed in meeting the most sensitive and painful of human needs. To admit the existence of widespread hunger is to cast doubt on the efficacy of our whole system."

Three decades later, evidence indicates that the existing system is failing a vast number of Americans.

A look at the United States reveals a wide gap between the goal of universal access to adequate nutrition and the reality of hunger that plagues millions in this country alone. The number of hungry people in the United States is greater now than it was when international leaders set hunger-cutting goals at the 1996 World Food Summit. The pledges by United States government leaders to cut the number of Americans living in hunger – from 30.4 million to 15.2 million by 2010 – are lagging behind. An estimated 35 million Americans are food insecure with food insecurity and the necessity of food stamps being experienced by at least four in 10 Americans between the ages of 20 and 65. That's 50 percent of the population.

Meanwhile, the already burdened food safety-net program, which was designed to alleviate hunger and food insecurity, is under attack by the threat of reduction of funding and ease of enrollment by policy makers. With food expenses being the most elastic part of a family's budget, as limited funds usually get allocated to fixed payments first, such as rent and utilities, food purchasing has become the most compromised portion of the average family's budget. So far in 2004, 35 percent of Americans have had to choose between food and rent, while 28 percent had to choose between medical care and food. Others, forced to stretch their budgets ever further, are buying less expensive but often less nutritious food.

The problem is worse in low-income neighborhoods and inner-city areas that face food red-lining. The majority of low income/minority neighborhoods do not have enough supermarkets to serve the entire community effectively. Therefore, these communities generally meet their food needs at smaller, more expensive corner stores – especially at liquor/convenience marts that tend to provide less nutritious foods and little if any fresh produce.

While three companies control 57 percent of the huge food retail market in California, the community of West Oakland, with 32,000 residents and a 60 percent unemployment rate has only one supermarket – and 40 liquor and convenience stores. The price of food in these small stores is almost 30 to 100 percent higher than the price in the grocery store.

The most vulnerable – children, immigrants and rural families – are hit hardest by this epidemic. Despite evidence that hunger causes chronic disease development and impaired psychological and cognitive functioning in children, an estimated 13 million children are living in households that are forced to skip meals or eat less due to economic constraints.

The worst off are the children of 6 million of America's undocumented immigrants: they go without necessities as milk and meat on a daily basis.

Tulare County in California, the number two county in the nation for agricultural production, is one of the hungriest and poorest areas of California. Many of the county's towns (Alpaugh, Earlimart, Plainview, Woodville, etc.) host mainly Hispanic farm-laborer families who came to America hoping for a better life, only to find that their jobs – putting put cheap produce on America's and the world's tables – have left them starving amidst the bounty. These families suffer from the appalling economic and social injustices. They live in lean-tos made of plastic or cardboard, dilapidated trailers, wood shacks, caves and even parking lots, and yet are surrounded by vinyards and fruit tree orchards.

This kind of hunger rarely makes the evening news. Millions starve while Bush signs a $400 billion spending bill in August 2004 that will largely go to military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Bush administration has already spent $150 billion on the war in Iraq – three times the original estimate. The United States already accounts for nearly half of the world's military spending. This means that the U.S. spends on defense nearly as much as the rest of the world combined.

It is going to be a grim holiday season for millions this year. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed 56 years ago this week, committed our government to provide a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of every person. This included commitments to respect, protect, facilitate and fulfill the right to food, clothing, housing, medical care, and necessary social services in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability or old age. A widely supported statement at the time, the promises of the declaration seem outrageous to many in today's age of "personal responsibility."

It might be useful to ask: What's more outrageous? A broad and sturdy safety net and living wage jobs for all members of our society? Or one out of four children going hungry and poor in the richest country on earth?

Anuradha Mittal is executive director of the Oakland Institute and the former codirector of Food First/ Institute for Food and Development Policy.
© 2004 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

return to top of page index

January 10, 2006
New York Times Op-Ed Columnist

Waging a War We Could Be Proud Of
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

PUTTALAM, Sri Lanka

One of the lessons of the tsunami a year ago is that however stingy we Americans have been in giving foreign aid, we want to do better.

For every $100 of national income, the U.S. gives 17 cents in overseas development assistance - a lower percentage than any donor country except Italy. But after the tsunami, Americans responded with a wave of stunning generosity, and there is growing bipartisan support for helping poor countries.

It's an opportunity that President Bush should seize, by working with Tony Blair and Kofi Annan to wage a Global War on Poverty.

President Bush could help revive his floundering presidency by providing moral leadership to the world. He has taken half-steps in this direction, with his landmark programs against AIDS in Africa and against sex trafficking, but his overall efforts against global poverty have been grudging. It's sad when we must rely on a compassionate rock star, Bono, or a generous computer geek, Bill Gates, for moral vision on poverty - instead of on our president.

If the tsunami demonstrated how generous Americans could be, it also showed the blindness of a system that responds to natural disasters but neglects ongoing suffering. For example, here in the northwestern Sri Lankan town of Puttalam, people might be better off if the tsunami had reached this far and sucked a few victims out to sea.

That's because people in this area have been sitting in shantytowns for 15 years after being displaced by civil war, yet they have never gotten half the help that has gone to tsunami victims. Unicef showed me around a hospital where a 13-year-old boy, Abdul Quadar, is so malnourished that he stands just 3 feet 9 inches tall and weighs just 26 pounds. The average 1-year-old American boy weighs that much.

Abdul Quadar is smart and ranks 19th out of 50 in his school class, but he is just about starving to death.

Perhaps the malnutrition results from neglect (he's one of 10 children), or perhaps from some underlying disease like tuberculosis or AIDS. But the hospital says this is the first time that a doctor has seen him.

If we are to help kids like Abdul Quadar, we can't wait for tsunamis. We need a War on Global Poverty, and I suggest that it focus on three elements that might capture public imagination and support.

Wiping out malaria Each year, malaria kills about two million people, many of them children, and it helps stifle economic growth in Africa. Yet demonstration programs have shown us how to control it: with treated bed nets and low-level DDT spraying, coupled with cheap medicines. It's a disgrace that we let two million people a year die unnecessarily.

Cutting maternal mortality in half Every year, more than half a million women die in pregnancy and childbirth, and many more suffer injuries like fistulas. Countries like Honduras and Sri Lanka have shown us how to cut maternal deaths - what is lacking is simply the will to do it.

Educating girls If women are literate, they hold better jobs and have fewer, healthier children. They also learn how to complain about injustice (my next column, on Sunday, will tell of an educated Indian woman who has become a champion complainer).

Some fine groups already tackle these problems. TamTam Africa fights malaria. Averting Maternal Death and Disability saves mothers. The World Food Program and Unicef run a terrific school feeding program that keeps girls in class. But these are a drop of water in an ocean of need.

To be sure, the real solution to poverty isn't cash handouts, but economic growth. What distinguishes the African countries that are doing well, like Botswana or Rwanda or Mauritius or Mozambique, is good governance, which promotes growth. That's why it's also crucial to encourage African leaders to nurture markets, trade and investment - and to push out thugs like Robert Mugabe.

If President Bush took on global poverty in a major way, I think the American people would sign on enthusiastically. And Laura Bush, who has shown an interest in women in the developing world, could greatly assist. Just as John Kennedy bolstered America's image in the world when he started the Peace Corps and the Alliance for Progress, we could restore luster to our reputation around the globe.

What we need is leadership. Mr. Bush would do wonders for his legacy - and, above all, wonders for the poor - if he'd summon the moral vision to launch a high-profile Global War on Poverty. That is one American-backed war that nearly all the world would thunderously applaud.

return to top of page index

Address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, People of Faith Luncheon
- Jim Wallis, July 28, 2004

“The best public contribution of religion is precisely not to be ideologically predictable or a loyal partisan, but to always raise the moral issues that will challenge both left and right, and governments who put power above principles. The best thing for the country and for politics is to let the prophetic voice of faith be heard.”

I am Jim Wallis, editor of SOJOURNERS magazine that deals in every issue with the two topics you are not supposed to raise in polite company—faith and politics. But those are our topics today. And I’m also the convener of Call to Renewal, the broadest network of churches and faith-based organizations in America working to overcome poverty—the only table where the National Association of Evangelicals and the National Council of Churches sit together (for those of you not familiar with religious politics in America, that’s like the Crips and the Bloods coming together—and that’s why I always like to put a Mennonite between them to make sure nothing happens!). Thank you for your invitation to address this important event.

Let me begin with a story, about another occasion when I was invited to speak – not to a wonderful lunch in a beautiful hotel, but for the inmates at Sing Sing Prison in upstate New York. The invitation letter came from the prisoners themselves and it sounded like a good idea. So I wrote back asking when they wanted me to come. In his return letter, the young Sing Sing resident replied, "Well, we're free most nights! We're kind of a captive audience here." Arrangements were made, and the prison officials were very generous in giving us a room deep in the bowels of that infamous prison facility - just me and about 80 guys for four hours. I will never forget what one of those young prisoners said to me that night -- "Jim, all of us at Sing Sing are from only about five neighborhoods in New York City. It's like a train. You get on the train when you are about 9 or 10 years old. And the train ends up here at Sing Sing." Many of these prisoners were students too, studying in a very unique program of the New York Theological Seminary to obtain a certificate of Ministry - behind the walls of the prison. They graduated when their sentences were up. Here's what that young man at Sing Sing told me he would do upon his graduation: "When I get out, I'm going to go back and stop that train." Now that is exactly the kind of faith and hope we need right now—the kind of faith-based initiative the country is really waiting for.

The media is filled these days with stories of a divided church. And highly controversial social questions are again being used during this election year as “wedge issues.” Some want us to believe the only “religious issues” in this critical election year are gay marriage and abortion. These are important issues, but they are not the only issues. Others say religion shouldn’t matter at all in an election. But I believe that our faith does matter in politics, and has a much wider and deeper meaning.

Some of us feel that our faith has been stolen; and it is time to take it back. In particular, an enormous misrepresentation of my evangelical Christian tradition has taken place. And because of an almost uniform media misperception, many people think Christian faith stands for political commitments that are almost the opposite of its true meaning. How did the faith of Jesus come to be known as pro-rich, pro-war, and only pro-American? It’s time for a rescue operation—to get back to the historic, biblical, and a genuinely evangelical faith rescued from contemporary distortions. The good news is that the rescue operation has begun—in a time where the social crisis we face cries out for more progressive and prophetic religion.

Too many people still believe that faith is private and has no implications for political life. Some politicians seem almost to be saying, “Sure, I have faith, but don’t worry, it won’t affect anything.” But what kind of faith is that? Where would America be if the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had kept his faith to himself? The United States has a long history of religious faith supporting and driving progressive causes and movements. From the abolition of slavery to women's suffrage to civil rights, religion has led the way for social change.

The separation of church and state does not require banishing moral and religious values from the public square. America's social fabric depends on such values and vision to shape our politics — a dependence the founders recognized. Not everyone in America has the same religious values, of course. And many moral lessons are open to interpretation.

Yet, it is possible (and necessary) to express one's faith and convictions about public policy while still respecting the pluralism of American democracy. Rather than suggesting that we not talk about "God," we should be arguing — on moral and even religious grounds — that all Americans should have economic security, health care and educational opportunity, and that true faith results in a compassionate concern for those on the margins.

How a candidate deals with poverty is a religious issue.

Neglect of the environment is a religious issue.

Fighting pre-emptive and unilateral wars based on false claims is a religious issue.

Such issues could pose problems for both the religious and the political right — IF someone were to define them in moral terms. The failure to do so is not just a political miscalculation. It shows a lack of appreciation for the contributions of religion to American life.

God is always personal, but never private. It is wrong to restrict religion solely to the private sphere, as one side has done; and it is wrong to define it solely in terms of individual moral choices and sexual ethics, as the other side has done. In an election year, people of faith are called to see our political responsibilities in light of our religious faith and our deepest held values.

One of the most central biblical imperatives compels us to uplift those living in poverty, a commitment that unites us across our theological and political differences.

We must shift the political debate over the “religious issues” in this election campaign from abortion and communion to inequality and poverty, compassion and justice. And we can.

Call to Renewal has been using the biblical prophet Isaiah to offer a vision of a good society. His words are as relevant today as they were nearly 3,000 years ago. Isaiah envisions a society where:
"No more shall there be in it an infant that lives but a few days, or an old person who does not live a lifetime…They shall build houses and inhabit them: they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They shall not build and another inhabit: they shall not plant and another eat; for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be, and my chosen will long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labor in vain, or bear their children for calamity; for they shall be offspring blessed by the Lord…." (Isaiah 65:20-25)

Isaiah’s vision includes fair and good wages, housing and health, safety and security. In America, people who work should not be poor, but today many are. We must ensure that all people who are able to work have jobs where they do not labor in vain, but have access to quality health care, decent housing, and a living income to support their families. The future of our country depends upon strong and stable families that can successfully raise their children. We must also ensure that those who are unable to work are cared for by our society.

I have often told the story of a young woman working the drive-through window at 4:00 in the afternoon. Whenever there was a lull between orders, she returned to a table in the corner of the local Burger King. Three kids were sitting there, with schoolbooks, papers and pencils all spread out, doing their homework. And Mom was helping as best she could while keeping straight the orders for Whoppers, fries and chicken nuggets. Given her low wages, this single mother was no doubt balancing more than fast food and homework; she was also deciding between paying the rent, going to the doctor and getting prescriptions when somebody gets sick -- or worrying about winter boots for her kids. I call her "Burger King Mom."

"Soccer moms" and "NASCAR dads" have received much attention in recent election campaigns. But who will speak to, for or with Burger King Mom?

Most Americans believe that if you work hard and full time, you should not be poor. But the truth is that many working families are, and many low-income breadwinners must hold down multiple jobs just to survive. With stagnant wages in an economy that is growing for some but clearly not for others, more and more people and their children are simply being left out and left behind. What is at risk is the reality of a genuine opportunity society and the ethic of work when work no longer is enough to support a family.

Democrats should also be saying that a just foreign and military policy will not only work better, but also be more consistent with both our democratic and spiritual values. And they must offer a moral alternative to a national security policy based primarily on fear, and say what most Americans intuitively know: that defeating terrorism is both practically and spiritually connected to the deeper work of addressing global poverty and resolving the conflicts that sow the bitter seeds of despair and violence. Poverty is not the only cause of terrorism, but unless we drain the swamp of injustice in which the mosquitoes of terrorism breed, we will never win the battle against terrorism. As Rowan Williams, the Arch-bishop of Canterbury has said, “There is no security, apart from common security.” Or as Pope Paul the VI said, “If you want peace, work for justice.”

We must ensure that overcoming poverty becomes a bi-partisan commitment and a non-partisan cause, one that links religious values with economic justice, moral behavior with political commitment.

Religion says that budgets are moral documents reflecting our values and priorities, and should be evaluated by how they assist people in overcoming poverty while strengthening our families and communities.

By withdrawing into secularism, and failing to define critical political issues in moral and religions terms, the Democratic Party concedes the “religious issue” to the Republican Party, which then defines it solely on their own terms. It also deprives Americans of an important moral and religious debate on crucial issues like poverty. We must not let that happen.

It’s time to recover our hijacked faith.

When we take back our faith, we will discover that faith challenges the powers that be to do justice for the poor. We will remember that faith hates violence and tries to reduce it and exerts a fundamental presumption against war and its tragic sacrifice of human life. And we will be reminded that faith regards the sacredness of life and family bonds as so important that they should never be used as ideological symbols or mere political pawns in partisan warfare.

The media often like to say, "Oh, then you must be the religious left." No, and the very question is the problem. Just because a religious right has fashioned itself for political power in one predictable ideological guise does not mean those who question this political seduction must be their opposite political counterpart. The Republican Party has misstepped in co-opting religious leaders. The Democratic Party should not make the same mistake.

The best public contribution of religion is precisely not to be ideologically predictable or a loyal partisan, but to always raise the moral issues that will challenge both left and right, and governments who put power above principles. The best thing for the country and for politics is to let the prophetic voice of faith be heard.

The loss of religion's prophetic vocation is dangerous for any society. Who will uphold the dignity of economic and political outcasts? Who will question the self-righteousness of nations and their leaders? Who will question the recourse to violence and rush to wars, long before any last resort has been unequivocally proven? Who will not allow God's name to be used to simply justify ourselves, instead of calling us to accountability?

I believe that the real battle, the big struggle of our times, is the fundamental choice between cynicism and hope. The choice between cynicism and hope is ultimately a spiritual choice; and one which has enormous political consequences.

More than just a moral issue, hope is a spiritual and even religious choice. Hope is not a feeling; it is a decision. And the decision for hope is based upon what you believe at the deepest levels
- what your most basic convictions are about the world and what the future holds - all based upon your faith.

One of the best street organizers I ever met was Lisa Sullivan. Lisa was a young African American woman from Washington DC; a smart kid from a working class family who went to Yale and earned a PhD. But Lisa felt called back to the streets and the forgotten children of color who had won her heart. With unusual intelligence and entrepreneurial skills she was in the process of creating a new network and infrastructure of support for the best youth organizing projects up and down the East Coast. But at the age of 40, Lisa died suddenly of a rare heart ailment.

Lisa's legacy is continuing though countless young people who she inspired, challenged, and mentored. But there is one thing she often said to them and to all of us that has stayed with me ever since Lisa died. When people would complain, as they often do, that we don't have any leaders today, or ask “Where are the Martin Luther Kings now?” - Lisa would get angry. And she would declare these words: "We are the ones we have been waiting for!" Lisa was a person of faith. And hers was a powerful call to leadership and responsibility and a deep affirmation of hope.

Lisa's words are the commission I want to give to you. It's a commission learned by every person of faith and conscience who has been used to build movements of spiritual and social change. It's a commission that can only be fulfilled by very human beings; people who, because of faith and hope, believe that the world can be changed. And it is that very belief that only changes the world. And if not us, who will believe? If not you, who? After all, we are the ones that we have been waiting for.

Lisa’s wisdom is echoed by the words of my five-year old son, Luke. In a voice mail he left me as I was traveling, he updated me on his day, told me he missed me, and told me he really, really, really loved me. Then, he said, “Dad, don’t be afraid.” These were the most frequent words of Jesus – “Be not afraid.”

What is really possible? The eleventh chapter of the book of Hebrews says this:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." And my best paraphrase of that for you is this: Hope is believing in spite of the evidence, and then watching the evidence change.

Progressive people of faith: you are the ones we have been waiting for.

If your political commitments are rooted in your deepest moral values, its time to let those moral values shine through.

If you are a person of faith, its time to let your faith shine through.

We’ve heard it said that we must walk the walk and not just talk the talk. Well, I am saying to you today, that it is not enough to just walk the walk, it’s time to also talk the talk; to speak the language of values and the testimony of faith.

It’s time to take back our faith; to name it, to claim it, and to live it, and to forge a movement that puts faith into action. Because, what really changes history is social movements with a spiritual foundation. So let’s get to work.

And let's give the prophet Micah the last word; something to take away with you as you leave from this place; a good summary of our vocation and the task ahead.

"What does the Lord require of you, but to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God."

Thank you and God bless you.

Jim's book The Soul of Politics - beyond the "religious right" and "secular left" may be ordered by clicking on the image on the left.

To read more from Jim Wallis we suggest you visit Sojourners magazine online at www.sojo.net

return to top of page index

Poverty USA: The Faces of American Poverty

Children in America have higher poverty rates than adults, and people 65 and over have higher chronic poverty rates and lower exit rates than children or adults. (U.S. Census Bureau, Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Poverty 1996-1999, July 2003.)

At 16.7 percent, the poverty rate for children did not change between 2001 and 2002, however, the total number of children in poverty increased to 12.1 million in 2002, up from 11.7 million in 2001. (U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty in the United States: 2002, Current Population Reports, September 2003.)

Children under the age of six have been particularly vulnerable to poverty. In 2002, the poverty rate for related children under six was 18.5 percent, or approximately one out of every five children. Yet, of children under six living in families with only a female householder - with no father present - nearly one out of two, or 48.6 percent, were in poverty, five times the rate of their counterparts in married-couple families. (U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty in the United States: 2002, Current Population Reports, September 2003.)

For Americans 18 to 64 years old, both the number in poverty and the poverty rate rose from 2001 to 2002 - from 17.8 million to 18.9 million, and from 10.1 percent to 10.6 percent, respectively. Similarly the number of elderly in poverty increased from 3.4 million in 2001 to 3.6 million in 2002. (U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty in the United States: 2002, Current Population Reports, September 2003.)

The number of African Americans living in poverty rose the greatest among all groups, to 24.1 percent in 2002, an increase from 22.7 percent in 2001. For Hispanics, the poverty rate was 21.8 percent in 2002, unchanged from 2001. (U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty in the United States: 2002, Current Population Reports, September 2003.)

In 2002, 7.2 million American families - 9.6 percent of all families - were in poverty, up from 6.8 million (9.2 percent) in 2001. And poverty rates for married couple families increased as well, rising to 3.1 million, or 5.3 percent, in 2002, up from 2.8 million in 2001. (U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty in the United States: 2002, Current Population Reports, September 2003.)

Poverty USA: The Working Poor

One out of every three Americans living in poverty held a job during 2002 - 37.9 percent or 9 million out of everyone living in poverty - yet, despite working, could not earn enough to afford the basic necessities, like food, housing and healthcare. (U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty in the United States: 2002, Current Population Reports, September 2003.)

Of all Americans living and working in poverty, 2.6 million, or 11.2 percent, held full-time jobs that did not pay enough to raise them above the official "poverty threshold." (U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty in the United States: 2002, Current Population Reports, September 2003.)

The working poor in America grew poorer during 2002, with incomes dipping farther below the poverty line than in any other year since 1979, the first year for which such data is available. The average amount by which people living in poverty fell below the federal "threshold" was $2,813 in 2002. (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, September 2003).

A single parent of two young children working full-time in minimum wage job for a year would make $10,712 before taxes - an wage more than $1,000 below the poverty threshold set by the federal government. (U.S. Department of Labor; U.S. Census Bureau.)

About 40 percent of poor single-parent, working mothers who paid for child care paid at least half of their income for child care; an additional 25 percent of these families paid between 40 and 50 percent of their incomes for child care. (Child Trends, 2001.)

While the Census figures reveal a significant number of Americans living in poverty, many experts feel that the measures used by the federal government drastically underestimate the real scale of poverty in America - primarily because the official poverty thresholds are considered "too low." Many experts believe a more realistic poverty threshold for a family of four would be in the area of $30,000 a year - and that a more accurate estimate of the poverty rate in America would be 30% of the total population. (Economic Policy Institute, 2001.)

Opportunities for those trying to work their way out of poverty are dwindling; by September 2003, 2.1 million American jobless workers - nearly a quarter of the total unemployed population - had been out of work for half a year or more - the highest level in 20 years. (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, October 2003.)

Contact your elected officials and tell them that you want them to make fighting poverty a major issue in the 2004 election. If you profess the Christian faith, please also visit CallToRenewal.org.

A Proposal to End Poverty
New York Times Editorial, January 22, 2005

It is so easy to sit back in the affluence of our comfortable lives, protected from scourges like malaria and extreme poverty and hunger, and nitpick to death the United Nations' landmark action plan to eradicate poverty and hunger and the plagues they spawn. Indeed, no sooner had the long-awaited report, bearing the stamp of the Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs, hit the street this week than some economists took shots. "Utopian central planning by global bureaucrats," carped one.

There is certainly much to debate about the details of Mr. Sachs's report, which calls for rich countries like the United States to drastically increase foreign aid to poor countries in an effort to halve poverty in its many forms - hunger, illiteracy, disease - by 2015. But this is not a time for armchair quarterbacking. The United Nations report is a bold initiative that refuses to accept hunger as the inevitable fate of so many Africans, Latin Americans and Asians. There will be and should be a debate about it as world leaders prepare to meet in September on the antipoverty goals, but it is vital that it not turn into another excuse for inaction.

Mr. Sachs's report lays out, in real terms, the myriad ways to help poor people. The beauty of his ideas is in their simplicity: Provide mosquito nets for children who live in malaria-infested regions. Eliminate school and uniform fees to ensure that poor children don't stay home because they can't afford to go to school. Provide farmers in sub-Saharan Africa with soil nutrients to ensure healthier crops. Reform and enforce legislation guaranteeing women and girls property and inheritance rights.

None of this is rocket science, although many will try to make it seem so. The strongest, and probably most legitimate, critique of approaches that flood poor countries with money is that many of these poor countries are run by corrupt governments that will stash most of the donor money in private Swiss bank accounts. That has certainly proved true in the past, particularly in Africa, where the poor have stayed poor while a succession of despots have run country after country into the ground.

But it is counterproductive to make poor people suffer because they have bad governments. Mr. Sachs says now is the time to try the radically different approach of giving bigger amounts of real, quality aid directly to recipients on the ground. That means money to clinics and schools, to build generators and buy medicine and food, instead of the usual low-interest loans to benefit companies back home.

The United Nations proposal calls for rich countries to increase their foreign aid to 0.7 percent of G.D.P. by 2015. That's a target that these very same rich countries, flush with good will at the start of the new millennium, set for themselves. In 2002, world leaders, including President Bush, supported a declaration promising to "make concrete efforts" toward the 0.7 percent target.

Three years later, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Luxembourg are already there. The United States remains far behind, at 15 hundredths of 1 percent. So, let's get started, America. The world is waiting.

Flynn (St. Paul Archbishop) takes on Pawlenty (MN Governor)
by Patricia Lopez, Star Tribune
Published May 20, 2005

On his decision to speak out for higher taxes:

"It's so easy to make decisions on a budget without really knowing how that decision is going to affect a single mother, someone who needs assistance in health care, someone who needs child care. When I heard them [legislators] talking about cutbacks and no increase in taxes at all, I was compelled to do something. I pay taxes, you know, and my salary is about $2,200 a month plus room and board, so I'm not starving. I wouldn't mind a tax increase. I would be happy to pay it if I knew a single mother was going to be assisted, to put her child in a day care center so that she could go out and do her work and not worry about that child. I'm not going to let this go. I'm hosting a meeting of religious leaders at my residence within the next month, simply to keep revisiting this, so we don't let it get lost, this idea that the state budget is a moral statement."

On meeting privately Gov. Tim Pawlenty:

"I met with him earlier in the legislative session. I think the governor has a real good heart. I think he's obviously made a promise of no increase in taxes. And we all like to stand with our promises. But I've made promises too in my life. Then when I hear the other side of the story ... I've changed my mind. It's my hope and prayer that the governor, listening to the stories of the many, will modify his position. I asked him to listen to the stories. Otherwise, the poor are out there, a nebulous cast of people who we don't even know. How can he change? Do exactly ... what I did. Walk to the day care centers, watch the mothers coming to pick up their children, ask a little child, 'Did you enjoy your meal today, your hot meal, and what are you going to do when you go home for dinner? Are you going to help your mother get dinner?' And listen to the answer, 'Oh, we don't have any food in our house.' That's the way to change hearts. And any heart should be able to be changed by that."

On helping the poor:

"We live in a society where if someone has a broken marriage, if someone is on welfare, if someone loses a job, we have a tendency to say you didn't try hard enough. You were lazy and that's why you're unemployed. It's your fault, whatever it might be. So added now to the misery of not having a job is the guilt that I didn't try hard enough. And that's not it at all. Generally speaking, if someone is unemployed, that person wants to make a living, to live a respectful life. We as a society should always ask that question, how is this going to affect the most vulnerable among us? I've been a priest for 45 years. My experience has taught me that the inner core of every person is good. Every human being. That's something taught to us by God. We try to encourage that person along the right pathway, so people will not get so discouraged they feel like they cannot make it another day."

On who takes care of the poor:

"I had one man who wrote to me and said, 'How dare you speak before the committee on taxes. It is up to the church and the church alone to care for the poor. The state has no obligation and this is from the Bible.' I wrote back to him and I said, would you please tell me where I could find that in the Bible? I never heard of that before. It's every person's obligation to care for the other. I don't need the Qur'an for that. I don't need scriptures for that, or the New Testament, nor do I need the Old Testament for that. All I need is the sense of the human and a sense of the dignity of every person. Born out of that should be the realization that I have an obligation to this person."

On social justice versus moral issues:

"It's an easy thing to fall into one category or another, to take just one tenet of one's faith and run with that and forget all the others. For instance, my faith teaches me that every child in the womb is a child. It would be easy to get on that and forget the caring for that child after it's born and forget the mother who cares for that child, and forget the tension that any poor mother might experience when she finds that she's pregnant. We need to be holistic in our approach to the caring of the other. From the child in the womb to the man or woman on death row, we need to remember that is a human being. Taking care of the poor costs us something. I can sit here all day and talk about other issues that are good moral issues, but if I talk about caring for the poor, it's going to cost me something and cost society something. That's why we don't see more of that."

On changing attitudes:

"In our society we have developed an attitude of 'I'll take care of myself, I'll make it myself and you make it yourself and if you don't make it, that's your fault. And if I make it, well, then, I'm very good and I deserve a lot of credit.' We don't have enough sympathy for those who don't make it. Part of the reason, I'm convinced, is that we've learned not to see the poor. When the American people saw, with vivid pictures, the destruction that resulted from the tsunami, they responded. They saw the devastation. They don't see that child who's going home tonight to no food in the house."