Today I attended a Minnesota Public Radio program in which Newt Gingrich and Vin Weber were the guests. They were talking about the "new conservatism." There is, of course, a lot I could say about Gingrich's remarks, but I want to focus on just one thing he said.
He said, citing James Q. Wilson of all people, that there were three things one could do to make it almost "statistically impossible" to end up in poverty: finish high school, get a job, and don't have a child before the age of 20. Call me crazy, but it seems that, while those things are certainly important, what really matters is what that job pays. If you are making even $7/hr - a figure above federal minimum wage, I might add - you are earning $14,560 a year, before taxes.
In 2005, according to the US government, if you were a family of three, one of whom was a child under the age of 18 you are living in poverty if you make less than $15,720 a year. Don't even get me started on the issue of where the poverty thresholds should be. If you are fortunate enough to be making $10/hr you aren't in poverty because you're making a whopping $20,800/yr. Yeah, right.
Actually what Wilson has written, citing William Galston, is this: "To avoid poverty, do three things: finish high school, marry before having a child, and produce the child after you are 20 years old. Only 8% of people who do all three will be poor; of those who fail to do them, 79% will be poor."
I found myself wondering how these statistics were derived. That is, is this of all persons of a given age, say 18? Since the framing is "to avoid poverty" it seems to be that the study might have focused on adolescents not already living in poverty. If that's the case, the work seems terribly flawed methodologically; not to mention that it means there's little application to the hundreds of thousands already in poverty. But, even if the study was of all persons, what about those 8%, Newt? Or, is 8% not enough to worry about?
I just found this whole line of thought really frightening...
10 months ago
5 comments:
MSEH:
Let's not put too much stock into what Mr. Gingrich spouts as gospel . . . As a former resident of his home state of Georgia, he's been spewing drivel for quite a few years.
If his decisions in life were so perfect, I don't think he would be in his third marriage at this point. I've always been impressed with people that can tell others how to live their life, but can't get their own s- _ - i - _ together.
With repuglican "superstars" like this lurking in the wings to take over w's failed position, maybe there is hope for the dems in '08. People I talk to think the US is ripe for a third party. I have doubts that anyone will step up to the plate with all the $$$ involved in a national campaign, however.
He's definitely in line. I was told yesterday that he's polling second or third, depending on the others in the poll. As for the Dems, this source, a reliable political strategist, thinks that Clinton is a shoe-in for the nomination if for no other reason than money.
As for stock in Gingrich, I put no stock in what he thinks. But, I find it offensive, nonetheless. To imagine that some folks think that staying out of poverty is that easy... Grrr!
And, yes, either a third party or Feingold!
This is getting scary . . . . First the UPS Store/MBE reference and now you mention my personal favorite politician at this point: Russ Feingold!! Have his website as one of my bookmarks to check and see his statements on events which invariably mirror my own beliefs. I have been trying to get people to pay attention to him and don't know how much success I'm having . . . Glad you approve, tho! Maybe he's getting more traction than I assumed . . . . Hope so.
Well, he's right next door so we might hear more than in most places. One of the guys at the program/lunch yesterday (a terrific leftie political cartoonist!) has him at the top of his list!
Don't know why you would, but if you ever find your travels bringing you to or via the Twin Cities, let us know!
It's quite possible - can't remember if I told you I grew up in Eau Claire, WI and still have family up there.
My sister who lives just outside of Eau Claire prefers to visit me either here in Florida (in the fall/winter) or now in Vancouver - if I'm lucky enough to be out there - so I don't get up to Wisconsin much.
I am flying through there the latter part of May on my way to Vancouver via Northwest Airlines (assuming they are still flying!) but have a very tight connection on my way out . . . will have to look at the return trip and see if there's much of a layover . . . If so, I'll get your # and give you a call . . .
Hope your leftie political cartoonist is right about Feingold!
Post a Comment