Reporting people below the poverty line is generally bad politics if you’re in office.  So it’s no surprise that the latest Census statistics brought on a spate of initiatives.  But I’m still waiting to hear a really good idea.

When the US Census Bureau came out with the numbers the other day  that 1 in 6 Americans lived below the poverty line, it caught my attention.  As I read further, I discovered that experts have long agreed that the “poverty line” is well below what it should be.  The Government sets it at about $22k for a family of four, and $11k for a single person.  I suspect that readers will agree that it’s just about impossible to raise a family of four – heck, even live alone – for $22k, especially in the northeast.

The causes were as expected; high fuel prices, economic collapse, joblessness.  News at 11.

So let’s say the poverty line for the northeast is realistically around $40k for a family of 4, and $20k for a single person.  That puts the poverty line for me, with a family of 3, at $30k.  Let’s just say my family has seen that particular number from above and below.  My business is doing reasonably well, and I’m working in a job I love.  I work 6 or 7 days a week, and am grateful to have a job at all.  Isn’t this “the pursuit of happiness” Jefferson talked about in the Declaration of Independence?

From the left we hear proposals for new government programs.  I have read quite a bit of the President’s proposed jobs bill.  Some interesting ideas, and lots of regulations to support the programs.  Many of the jobs will be short term, but I speak from experience – that’s not such a big deal when you’re unemployed.  Unfortunately, we’re trillions in debt, and trillions in deficit, with no realistic way to pay for the programs we have, much less any new ones.  It reminds me of the time my neighbor said to me, “Darn.  My tomato plants are being choked out by weeds. I think I’ll throw on more fertilizer!”

From the right we hear, “cut taxes.”  And for the most part, “cut taxes” requires spending offsets.  Unfortunately, the first candidates are usually the social safety nets and the Department of Education, and anyone who proposes cuts to the Department of Defense is accused of being anti-American.   Well, like it or not, the net result of cuts to social safety nets will effectively abandon the urban poor.   It’s not realistic to hope these folks go out and get jobs, because the jobs aren’t there to get.  And it’s hard to get over the mythical $22k hump on minimum wage, believe me.  (A year’s take at minimum wage in CT, for example, is $16,500.)

Now, the Department of Education (USDE)?  Well, that’s a thought that may have some potential.  The USDE doesn’t provide education funding, it regulates it.  It doesn’t develop new and innovative practices, so much as it regulates what is used and isn’t.  Any funding from Washington for education comes from congress, goes through each state’s bureaucracy, and trickles down to the poorest districts.  Most districts are funded by local property taxes, and managed by local boards.  Local boards, for the most part, are responsible for hiring, firing, and/or managing a Superintendent, passing the district’s education budget along to the municipality, and insuring compliance with USDE, SDE, local, and union regulations.  I speak here from 20 years experience in the field.  But of course, anyone who recommends that we so much as reduce the size of the USDE is accused of being anti-intellectual and wanting to return to the one-room schoolhouse.

Just so you have a few facts, here is how the government spent it’s money in 2010, by category.  (This is from Wikipedia, so you know it has to be accurate, right?)

Before my critics tee off on me, I don’t want to see any of the following:

• Grandma choosing between medicine  or food (Pensions),
• my family choosing between eating and going to the doctor (Health Care),
• my child growing up ignorant and learning math on a pile of lead paint and rubble (Education),
• barbarian hordes overrunning our land (Defense),
• the poor starving in the streets (Welfare), or
• the Chinese foreclosing on our nation (Interest).

I do hope that someday we can graduate from an emotionally charged electorate to an educated one.  Right now, the average American media consumer is educated in sex and blood, because that’s what sells.  Congressman Weiner’s sexting, or Sarah Palin’s marital issues, are not priorities for me, nor should they be for our country.  And god help us all, our obsession with Lindsay Lohan or the late Amy Winehouse is downright sick.  Escapism is one thing, but this isn’t news.

So, I have a thought.  Let’s try reading. Then, let’s talk.

I read the news daily.  Yes, I get it on line, and yes, it’s free.  Yes, it’s biased, so I deliberately seek out conservative and liberal opinions on major issues.  I don’t wonder whether the media are lying to me to promote an agenda – I assume they are.  I learned a long time ago that “truth” and “fact” are two very different concepts, so I gather as much fact as I can find in the hope that I’ll find a genuine truth.  I love my screaming liberal friends, and my right-wing nut job friends, and encourage debate about politics, religion, education, parenting – stuff that matters.

I don’t fear a conservative electorate, I don’t fear a liberal electorate.  I fear an emotional, unthinking electorate that has lost hope and come to terms with ignorance.  I fear a cowardly electorate who is uncomfortable with difficult conversations, who would rather talk about celebrities and Survivor because, in the end, that stuff doesn’t really matter.

So, do you have an idea of how to get us out of this financial mess?