Useful Poor

THANK HEAVENS FOR THE POOR
by
TOM MOLLOY



In the early 1960’s we had never heard of the War on Terrorism or War on Drugs, but in March 1964, President Johnson, in a stirring speech, declared the War on Poverty. At that time I was a Peace Corps volunteer (PCV). I and most of my fellow PCVs were euphoric that the United States would be the first nation in history to successfully eradicate the scourge of Poverty. We were young, optimistic, and passionate. Well, my optimism fled with my youth, my passion is somewhat dampened and Poverty is thriving. Since our defeat in the war on Poverty, the term “liberal” elicits derisive reactions from a large segment of the American people. “Liberal” is defined in the rightwing vernacular as “a godless socialist who foments class warfare”. Had someone told me in 1964 that the term “liberal” would evoke such rancor in US politics or that the United States would be the only Western industrial democracy not to have eliminated Poverty, I would have been incredulous.

Instead of eliminating Poverty, we have become dependent on it. Most of us (80 to 85%) have a relatively high standard of living at least in part because our working poor provide cheap labor. Think of the consequences of raising the minimum wage to a living wage. Suppose, over a period of time, we doubled or even tripled the minimum wage and also provided health insurance to all the working poor. Whatever the other consequences, the working poor would join the ranks of those earning a living wage. A good part of the cost would be passed on to more affluent consumers in the form of price increases. A hamburger, a plane ticket, a hair cut, a car---all would cost more.

In fact, in Europe, where the “common good” is a social ideal and poverty is considered a social aberration, wages are generally sufficient to keep wage earners out of poverty. More affluent Europeans accept paying higher prices for goods and services. In America, the ideal of “rugged individualism” has trumped the common good.

In recent electoral campaigns, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans made the elimination of poverty a major issue. To be sure, the Democrats timidly made pro forma proposals for palliative increases in the minimum wage and lamented recent tax cuts, pointing out they disproportionately benefited the wealthy. The right wingers preach the mystical powers of the free market to reduce the number of the working poor. According to their paradigm, the free market is a panacea and tinkering with wages of the poor is anathema. Nonetheless, when it comes to the rich, the right wingers have a tendency to disregard free market principles. A steady stream of tax breaks cascades out of Congress, gushing into corporate coffers and the pockets of the rich. Judging by the tax breaks dished out to the rich, it appears that making money is not an incentive per se, the rich have to be given special incentives to make money.

The cynicism that is the handmaiden of aging has replaced my youthful optimism. I am almost ready to believe that the reason that Poverty exists on such a large scale in America is that the elimination of Poverty would disrupt the lives of the affluent. I am not just talking about economics here. The least disruptive consequences might be the ensuing price increases for goods and services.

The most disruptive impact of eliminating Poverty might be on finding recruits for the all-volunteer military. The majority of enlisted recruits are from low-income families. They join the military to improve their lot in life and many of them do so.. If it weren’t for a large pool of economically disadvantaged young men and women, the enlisted ranks of the military would have to be filled by conscription.

The French use their Foreign Legion to do their dirty work. After all, foreigners are expendable. We use our economic underclass to do our dirty work.

Woe to the politician who proposes any scheme to draft the sons of middle and upper class “patriots’. Their patriotism consists of wrapping themselves in the flag and bombastically extolling the valor of the poor kids dying to preserve the standard of living of the rich kids. Many of our hawkish fat cat patriots, whose sons are the future power brokers, passionately support our invasion of Iraq. If it were their sons dying in Iraq, I suspect their ardor for this war would quickly wane. President Bush speaks of the nobility of our soldiers in Iraq and openly weeps at the mounting casualties. I don’t presume to question his sincerity, but if serving in Iraq is such a noble endeavor why aren’t his daughters there soaking up some nobility?