
Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow, DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society Domestic Policy Studies
One of the functions of the Heritage Foundation is to provide talking points to wing-nut bloggers. Robert Rector, a long-term poverty buff at the Heritage Foundation is a good example. In a September, 2011 report, he and Rachel Sheffield explain that the poor have it really great in the US. Some of them have flat screen TVs, washing machines, computers and cars, and sometimes all four! They get lots of money from charity, and from their boyfriends and so they are fine. And, of course, it’s their fault they’re poor:
Among families with children, the collapse of marriage and erosion of the work ethic are the principal long-term causes of poverty. When the recession ends, welfare policy must require able-bodied recipients to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving aid. It should also strengthen marriage in low-income communities rather than ignore and penalize it.
Of course, that last is reference to Rector’s claim to fame, his role in creating Bill Clinton’s end to welfare as we know it. He’s sticking by that go to work thing. The average poor person, he says, works only 16 hours a week. They need to get married and work more, and Rector is just the man to make them.
Rector and Sheffield claim that liberals say that the poor suffer in other ways.
In fact, the overwhelming majority of poor households have an adequate and reasonably steady supply of food, are not hungry, and are well housed.
We’ll just ignore that minority. Even better, most Americans think that you aren’t poor if you live that well. Rector hides the fact that one reason so many poor aren’t dying in the streets is Government programs, like food stamps, Medicare and SCHIP, which isn’t even mentioned in the report. Rector and Sheffield see this as proof that the poor are dependent on government aid, and that we should “reorient the massive welfare state to create self-sufficient prosperity rather than expanded dependence.” I wonder if they feel the same way about subsidies to the rich, like tax-deductible contributions to the Heritage Foundations.
Of course you can’t argue with people paid to have a Randian point of view. I’ll just round out this picture with data from tables 4A and 4B the most recent Federal Reserve Bank Survey of Consumer Finances, done in 2009 and published last year.
The lowest quintile by income of Americans has a median net worth of $7,200, including homes. That means that 10% of the population has a net worth of less than $7,200. Among renters, the median net worth is $3,600. Looking at percentiles of wealth, the lowest 25 percent of Americans has a net worth of $1,700. Remember, that net worth figure includes all that stuff Rector and Sheffield talk about, the microwave, the VCR, the non-portable stereo and the cars.
On the debt side, about 56% of the lowest income quintile of the population reports having debt, with a median of $10,000. About 14.4% of these families have mortgage debt, including second liens, with a median of $42,300. About 33% report installment debt, with a median of $8,200. That includes student loans, car loans and other debt. Credit cards are reported separately. About 28% of people in this category report credit card balances, with a median of $1,100.
For the bottom 25th percentile in wealth, among families reporting debt, the median debt is $16,000, including mortgage debt. About 12.6% of families in this group have mortgages, with a median of $16,000. About 70% of these families report having debt, which suggests that something like 58% of families have only non-mortgage debt. The Fed doesn’t report on this group, but I estimate that the median debt among that 58% is in the range of $10,000.
It’s debt that makes people miserable, as Katherine Porter reports in her book Broke. It causes stress and sleeplessness, and it contributes to family breakdown. It means that sometimes people go hungry, and by people, I mean poor children. It means debt collectors pounding on you, and making you miserable. It means your truck gets repossessed.
I wonder if any of that looks like poverty to Rector or Sheffield. Probably not. And remember they’re not hacks clinging to their sinecures. They are respected members of the DC Wankery. I wonder if Rector and Sheffield get paid extra when reactionary bloggers dumb down their cherry-picking discourse-fogging pronouncements so their real audience can chant them at Tea Party rallies.




36 Comments

They get paid good money to make our lives bad so their bosses get even richer.
Thank you for mentioning this.
Let’s look at this belief tank.
They are funded by donations. Tax-deductible donations which them are used to push less taxes for the rich. Nice scam they got going their.
They are paid to push Randian ideas. So that is the return on investment that the donors get.
But wouldn’t it be fun sometime to ask them about their business.
Me: “How much revenue did you generate from the products you sell?”
Heritage: “What?”
Me: Well explain to me your business model. Every year you go to big donors and say, ‘Last year you gave me 3 million dollars. This year I want the same, plus an extra 200,000.’ Do your donors ever say, “Nah, our views are already out there, we aren’t going to give you more money. or do they always say, “There is still more work to be done, until my tax rate is zero (like GE?) and government is destroyed you will always be funded. What metrics to you show them that you have changed the world? What more do they want? Do they just look at how many times you were quoted on Fox? How many programs for the poor you destroyed? What?”
Heritage: You don’t understand, we are educator pushing a view point to go up against the liberal viewpoint that rules the world.
Me: But it doesn’t anymore. You won.
What would make you stop? Anything?
Heritage: We will never win.
Me: Right because then you would have to stop begging for money to do more.
Heritage: We are not beggers! We provide a valuable service.
Me: Which is? And how much revenue does that service generate?
Heritage: Piss off!
Always appreciate your writings, but THIS on left me ROTFLMAO!!!
Rcc’d!
That 5 year lifetime cap for ‘welfare benefits’ from Clinton’s Welfare Reform, has hit the Isles mighty hard…! 8-(
It is the promotion of madness; being jealous of what poor people get and feeling sorry for the rich.
Hey, the Heritage Foundation designed Obama’s health insurance plan. Who are we to scoff at what they say?
It’s too bad no one asks questions like this of Heritage. They have become like the NRA: now that their policies are shared by both legacy parties, they have to stake out positions further and further to the crazy right.
So, what’s the economic version of Stand Your Ground?
It’s perfectly sane if you consider it the voice of the rich asking for empathy. It’s only insane if it’s viewed objectively.
I thought in the big picture we were watching that now. The 1% shoot first and bury the bodies later.
Tweeted. Recommended.
There is plenty of work we need done in this country.
There are plenty of people ready, able and willing to work.
There is plenty of money in our country to put people to work.
But there is no will by the private or public sector to fund infrastructure projects, high speed rail development, alternative fuel, sustainable electric generation, etc.
The money is invested in paper games and high profit speculations, which are profitable until the bubble of the month pops, and another shitload of “perceived value” vanishes like a tulip.
Work? Hah. Let’s have a brush clearing party at my place for these keyboard jockeys.
Grab a choker and dig, you hard ass…
The Heritage authors need to be challenged starting with their conclusion that current poverty levels are due to an erosion in work ethic. If one types in what is the ratio of unemployed workers to available jobs, you quickly realize that there are 100 dogs looking for bones and only 16 bones to be found. Even if your President says that some of the dogs need retraining, there will still only be 16 bones to be found by super trained dogs. That leaves 84 jobless dogs. Don’t criticize the jobless dogs for not having jobs, blaming them for not having a ‘work ethic’.
Additionally, income inequality is different from suffering due to poverty. Poverty is just the lowest, lowest social status in our society which is among the most unequal when the top 20% of the five income quintiles is compared with the lowest 20%, the poorest quintile at the bottom. In the U.S. the ratio of the top 20% to bottom 20% is almost nine. Only Singapore has a higher inequality ration, at near ten. Below the U.S. is Portugal, then the U.K., then Australia. Among the most income equal countries are Japan at #1, Finland at #2, Norway at #3, and Sweden at #4, all falling below four when comparing the top quintile to the lowest quintile. Unequal societies tend to be more hierarchical and exploitative and score highest on an Index of Social and Health Problems. (level of trust;mental illness including drug and alcohol addiction); life expentancy; obesity; children’s educational performane; teenage births; homicides; imprisonment rates; and social mobility.
Our society is riddled with problems, not just because we reduced many families to poverty, but moreso because we have allowed society to become severely unequal in incomes.
Source: The Spirit Levelby Wilkinson and Pickett.
Here’s a link to a review for my source:
http://www.bloomsburypress.com/books/catalog/spirit_level_hc_362
Obama probably appreciates their work.
Collapse of marriage? Er, could that have something to do with loss of jobs and *declining wages* that these guys celebrate?
Erosion of the work ethic? Using classic Heritage Foundation-logic, if you pay people less for work and effectively more for not-work (i.e., “investment”) then would what would one expect that what you pay less for–work–would be socially devalued?
-stewartm, hey, they use the same logic when it comes to tax cuts for the rich.
E-X-A-C-T-L-Y. Truth is, any kid who pumps gas or mows lawns contributes more to the economy and the world’s well-being than any of these bozos.
-stewartm
So let’s see if I have this straight… the lowest quintile is composed of people who have been wronged by the rich? Nothing to do with being stupid, lazy, incarcerated, or pregnant? Thank goodness the biggest problem they have is obesity.
Now, now. It’s not nice to characterize the Palins that way.
-stewartm
Recc’d.
Not to be picky or anything but:
IIRC, each quintile is 20%.
You are an arrogant putz. Please stay off my threads.
Yes, and half have a net worth above $7,200 and half have an income lower than $7,200.
Right on.
And, what the fuck is with the condescending self-righteousness of the recipients of wing-nut welfare working for propaganda mills that they try to fob off as “think tanks”?
Why, so you can amaze the hoi-polloi with stunning observations like… the botttom quintile is poor relative to the top quintile, without ridicule? Why not do something constructive like pointing out that staying out of jail or the maternity ward before graduating HS increases one’s likelihood of staying out of the bottom quintile? Or is that too judgemental?
It’s also true that some people are too feeble to make it without help, and they get it. Even the lefty versions of Heritage like CAP will acknowledge that. Contributions to CAP are deductible too, yes?
Societies can be better designed than ours in which people are not allowed to ‘fall’ into poverty. We know that, for instance if we do not punish a high-school drop out with a label and poverty, that we can get 100% through school and find work for everyone. It really is a matter of what you expect. If you want space rockets to make it into space every time, you have to plan for and anticipate all the possible ways in which the darn thing might fail in advance, and then plan in enough redundancy and safety mechanisms to insure success. Imagine if instead of accepting that 80% of our population should not get a decent liberal arts education, we planned for 100% to complete post high school education of some kind. If we did that and insisted on providing jobs to all those who completed, then I think we might have an 80% happiness rate, instead of the 20% of those elites who have access to a first class education that exists for them now. It really does depend upon our capacity to endorse a higher standard for inclusion of everyone in our schools and in our workplaces. Societies which have set the bar high, have not been disappointed (Sweden, Finland, Norway, Germany). We can do so much better to help each other to achieve lives worth living; as long as we are willing to leave conventional thinking behind, do with a bit less material wealth, and see each other’s lives as important as our own.
Let them eat cake.
Well said, shooters name pretty sums up his whole position.
That’s a lovely story, that has no possibility of becoming true. It would require everyone in the country sharing the same sentiment, and in America, that’s not going to happen. Have you noticed that the success stories you mention are/were all monarchies? When ones history revolves around all aspects of life coming from a single source, socialism is easy.
I’m not kidding. You irritate me. Go away.
Or?
What have you got against the Palins??
Silly you. The rich commit the same crap. They take drugs, they drink heavily, they father and mother out-of-wedlock kids. In fact, they’re more likely to have booze problems by my experience than poorer people.
Secondly, we don’t suffer from a lack of qualified, educated people. Period. End of discussion. In my job, they’re now hiring college-educated 4 year degree people for jobs that really only require HS. It’s the shortage of *jobs*, a shortage created by your free-market capitalist wanker dream world, which is the problem.
-stewartm
The rich may do the same crap but they don’t rely on taxpayers to fund their personal misadventures.
Secondly, this isn’t about the job market this is about dropping out of HS to become a thug or baby momma. That’s a sure road to poverty. As for jobs, jobs are created when there is a potential for profit. No new profit, no new jobs. Is Obama supportive of profit? Nope. Therefore it shouldn’t be a surprise the job market stinks.
Are you SURE ’bout that? Last time I heard the banksters and Wall Street were getting a pretty penny, interest-free.
And if you’re a defense contract, no matter how many times you get caught with yer hand in the cookie jar, it’s A-OK for Uncle Sam largesse, far more than anything we pay for “welfare”:
So, no, they get plenty of taxpayer money too. Much more than anyone on SSI or food stamps.
Didn’t used to be that way. And no, it’s not because that suddenly the jobs started to actually *need* a high school diploma.
Moreover, when teens back then became pregnant, it wasn’t the end of their economic future.
All that is the result of yer Reaganomics.
And profit is only created when there is demand.
Which makes US consumers and workers, the ones whose incomes your Reaganomics has been slowly starving, the real “job creators”. Not the rich.
He’s been supportive of nothing else but profit, for the 1 %. Not for the 99 %.
-stewartm, economics tutorial.
* I presume when you change the subject, you’ve conceded my point. Onward.
* You’re actually arguing that in the past being a thug or pregnant wasn’t a path to poverty? Really?
* Demand is ever present, having the money to pursue it isn’t. That requires income. The job comes first, then demand.
* Lastly I can definitely agree that Obama is supportive of banksters.
shooter242, real life tutorial.
You *do* realize that stupid, lazy, and pregnant is equally common among the rich and that incarcerated is only less common because of their wealth, right?
Which is the entire point. They aren’t a burden on taxpayers.
No and no.
You were the one who claimed:
And I refuted that, in spades. Better yet, Dean Baker refuted the same point even more cogently than I.
Your original “point” was the classic neoliberal blame-the-victim screed about not having a high school education or being a pregnant teen. I merely pointed out the fact that neither of these things disqualified one for the middle-class life back when we had things like, oh, 90 % tax rates on those “job creators” you go on and on about.
If you knew anything about the so-called *classical* economics you defends, you’d know its argument that money is just a facade, a curtain, behind which goods and services are exchanged. You, like all capitalists, want to empower those who manipulate the curtain above all others.
But you’d then also know that governments have this power to create that same thing–money–out of thin air if they so decide. Whether this is a wise thing to do depends on the circumstances–no, you can’t legislate prosperity–but when (like today) you have (ahem) idle resources laying around (er, people w/o jobs) then that is an excellent time to do just that. You can buypass Daddy Warbucks and his capitalist crowd, you don’t need those so-called “job creators”, the government can kick-start the economy without them.
In fact, when this is not done (and the screed that Obama is anti-profit is best shown a lie by the fact that corporations are sitting on a lot of cash) what happens when Daddy Warbucks and his capitalist cronies have all that loot and no demand, they don’t “invest and create jobs” but gamble it in speculation that crashes the economy. What you get is the *opposite* of job creation, wealth destruction.
So are your conservative pals. They’ve all been bought: lock, stock, and barrel. Boehner and Cantor have told Wall Street that the Republicans will help Daddy Warbucks even more than Obama has! It’s a bidding war.
-stewartm