For the poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore I command you, saying, ‘You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land.’
— Deuteronomy 15:11
At some point in this editorial series, I want to address the concept of “justice”. But today, some historical background.
I’ve yet to meet Colorado’s U.S. Senator Michael Bennet in person, but over the years I’ve viewed a number of his videotaped speeches. He appears to honestly care about the nation’s children — a quality not typically evidenced by some of the most-outspoken Senators and Representatives in Washington DC.
Meanwhile, most of the people living in Archuleta County also honestly care about children.
Yesterday in Part Two, I mentioned the fact that Archuleta County voters recently voted (by a 3-to-1 margin) to approve a permanent continuation of the $1.7 million Mill Levy Override, to fund better teacher salaries and other benefits for the Archuleta School District. Since this is a property tax, the amount paid by each family or business varies based on property values.
This additional property tax is a slight burden on everyone, but the largest portion is contributed by wealthier households, while the education funding flows mainly to children from lower income families.
During a conversation with a neighbor a few months back, we touched briefly on the subject of generational poverty, and on the fact that — while the state of Colorado has a ‘poverty rate’ of about 10% — the ‘poverty rate’ in downtown Pagosa Springs is closer to 35%.
42% of children in the town of Pagosa Springs live below the poverty rate, according to CensusReporter.org
We know that the federal legislation being championed by Senator Bennet — the Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act of 2024 — failed in a preliminary Senate vote last week, defeated mainly by Republican Senators. Many of those Republican Senators claim to care deeply about American families. But politics is complicated.
We also understand the dangers of socialism. We often hear that constant government support for impoverished families with children cannot produce a positive outcome, because those families will, sadly, become dependent upon the government — the same way the military-industrial-financial complex is dependent.
If you didn’t get a chance to watch the video clip of Senator Bennet appealing to his fellow Senators, to approve the Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act of 2024 and possibly lift 500,000 American children out of poverty, here’s the edited version I shared in Part One.
Senator Bennet’s version of U.S. history points to an economic philosophy commonly known as the “Trickle-Down Theory”… also known as the “Supply-Side Theory.” Basically, the theory proposes that government policies should be designed to ensure that the owners of American corporations become wealthier, because their business success and increased wealth will trickle down to the rest of the population.
But history has been around for a while, if you know what I mean, and the Trickle-Down Theory is a relatively recent idea. For a better understanding of domestic American policies around poverty, and the ways we feel today about helping families, we probably need to go back to English laws from the 1600s.
When British colonists first arrived in North America, they brought with them certain ideas about how to deal with poverty in their communities. The legal template in many communities was the British Poor Laws enacted during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. For example, this from Wikipedia:
The Poor Relief Act 1601 created a system administered at parish level, paid for by levying local rates on rate payers. Relief for those too ill or old to work, the ‘impotent poor’, was in the form of a payment or items of food or clothing also known as ‘outdoor relief’. Some aged people might be accommodated in parish alms houses, though these were usually private charitable institutions. Meanwhile, able-bodied beggars who had refused work were often placed in Houses of Correction or even subjected to beatings to mend their attitudes.
This passage references an idea central to the English approach to poverty: that there are essentially two classes of people who suffer from lack of food and shelter. On the one hand, we have the ‘impotent poor’ who are physically or mentally unable to work and earn a living — and who must be supported by society in general through tax-funded relief and organized charity. On the other hand, we have the the “able-bodied beggars who refused to work” and who must be punished.
We still tend to think of adults in these terms. At the same time, we want our society to provide a living wage for everyone able to work.
Where do children fit into this model? Are they “impotent”… or “able-bodied”? …Or a special case?
Our ideas about children have changed significantly since 1601, but we generally believe a child is the responsibility of their parent(s)… unless the parent is abusive or neglectful, in which case the child ought to be removed from the family, and thus becomes essentially a ward of the state.
Our ideas about “people too old to work” have also changed dramatically over the past 100 years. American attitudes about families and older citizens took a rather radical turn in 1935, when the 37-page Social Security Act was signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The legislation included Unemployment Insurance, Aid to Dependent Children, Old Age Insurance, and Old Age Assistance. The old age insurance program gradually developed into the Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance program, which is what Americans typically associate “Social Security” with.
In 1954, a disability program was added to Social Security, and in 1961, an option was added to take early retirement age at age 62, at reduced benefits.
As a result of this program, we have millions of able-bodied older citizens in America — fully capable of playing pickleball every morning — who are living off the labor of younger people.
How should we be dealing with impoverished children?
The ones who will someday pay for our retirement with their payroll taxes?
Congress can’t seem to agree on the best way forward. Especially in an election year.