and that'st true even if you place his words on not being concerned about the very poor in the context of the social safety net.
This is a must-read - and pass-on - column.
It is not easy to abstract, and in a sense I will not.
Rather than the official poverty level of 22,314 - which gives 15.1% of our population, or 46.2 million people, of whom approximately 20 million are non-Hispanic whites, 13 million Hispanic and almost11 million Black - Robinson argues to use a figure of the poverty level plus 25%, which results in approximately 1 in 5 Americans. Robinson writes
Romney says that we have a safety net. That’s still true, despite the best efforts of his party to rip it to shreds.
Robinson reminds us that the figures he is using are from 2010, resulting from a sharp rise beginning 2007. The last 2 years of the Bush administration created the beginning of the crisis, regardless of in whose presidency the greatest number of people went on to foodstamps, a major portion of the social safety net. Another major portion is unemployment insurance, and we all here remember that Romney's part has fought against extending benefits for those with long periods without a job, and as of yet we have done nothing for the 99ers, those who cannot get a job even beyond the extended benefits (which are not offered in all states).
But there is more.
Immediately after the words in which I have already blockquoted Robinson are several paragraphs which make clear why this column is so important:
For the sake of argument, let’s assume the most important support for people living in poverty — the food stamps program — continues more or less unchanged. Let’s also assume that Romney, as president, manages to “fix” Medicaid and Social Security in a way that does not reduce the benefits they provide to poor people and that Romney’s tax plan is altered so it does not raise taxes on the lowest earners, as many analysts say it would.
In Romney’s worldview, case closed. No need to be “concerned” about poverty as long as people are not starving.
What our society ought to be concerned about is making sure that poor people have the tools they need to lift themselves out of poverty. Liberals and conservatives might disagree on how best to accomplish this goal. We can argue about the role government should play versus the private sector. We can dispute the merits of traditional public schools versus charter schools. What we cannot do is simply write off up to one-fifth of the nation’s human potential, as if it were a footnote in a corporation’s annual report.
Here is the heart of the empathy gap.
The first step is ensure that people are not starving. Remember, a greater percentage of children are affected by poverty than are adults: it more than 20% of children living below the poverty level, not the 15.1% of the overall population.
All tax proposals I have seen from Republicans have the effect of raising taxes on poor people without increasing their benefits.
What none of the Republicans seem prepared to do is to address how to move people out of poverty, how we best give them the tools as Robinson says, or how we provide them with the assistance, as at least he implies.
I would go further.
If we do not evaluate all proposals for government policy at least in part for how the address those we have not only been leaving behind, but condemning to meager lives in the midst of increasing opulence at the higher end of the income scales, if we do not attempt to address the increasing percentage of Americans slipping into poverty, often permanently, than our approach to policy is immoral.
Last night I wrote on morality in politics . . . where I addressed the issue of those claiming a moral basis for their approach while condemning their opponents. I failed to address all of the content of the policies in question, which is in part why I am posting this piece.
Robinson rightly challenges Romney on his apparent lack of empathy for those who neither start with the benefits of a wealthy family, nor advance by the benefits of things like tax codes that favor those who achieve or have wealth by methods not available to most Americans. It is ironic that on the day after he made his unfortunate remarks Romney received the endorsement of another such person in Donald Trump, someone else who came from family wealth and who benefits from a tilted set of government policies that enables him to achieve great wealth despite not only a lack of compassion ("You're Fired" is emblematic of his approach to other human beings) and apparent lack of any redeeming social characteristics.
Robinson notes the criticism Jim DeMint offered to Romney, phrasing it in terms of the latter's apparent willingness to allow those poor to languish in what he calls "government dependency programs." DeMint wants Romney to indicate he doesn't want them to "languish" perhaps because DeMint really would like to get rid of the programs.
What DeMint is doing is suggesting Romney demonstrate compassion, to which Robinson's final line, offered in bold, is telling:
I worry — and the nation should worry — that he can’t show what he doesn’t have.
I worry not about whether he shows it, but that one of our two major parties seems about to nominate for President someone who does not even understand what compassion is.
But you do not need my words.
The point of this post is to call your attention to the Robinson column.
Read the entire column.
Pass it on.