An amusing story about outrage based in math confusion. How can North Carolina be 39th in wealth and 12th in child poverty? Ummmmm. . . .
Perhaps even more interesting to me is the dim woman's initial question. "How can it be legal to have so much poverty in such a wealthy state?" asks the financially comfortable commentator flying home to her comfortable home and job. Oh, I don't know: the same way it's legal for you not to have given 90% of your income to those poor kids? The same reason Massachusetts and Connecticut (fourth and fifth in income and famously liberal) don't voluntarily send foreign aid to North Carolina?
It's a strange way to think about "poverty" and "legality." It's always someone else's responsibility to help. Bad, politically incorrect someone elses! What can account for them?
4 comments:
If it were just me, and I weren't responsible for anyone elase, I'd rather be poor in Western North Carolina than rich in the suburbs. Or, really, almost anywhere else.
It's also nice that the 'working definition of good fiscal policy' is almost immediately undercut by her claim that West Virginia shows a sign of 'good stewardship' by raising taxes to fund retirees' benefits. So let's say we haven't got a lot of money: do we focus on the children, or the retirees? On our 'working definition of good fiscal policy' or our 'sign of good stewardship'?
I suspect the answer is, "Don't be dense: the money has to come from somewhere. Just go get it, and as much as it takes to do all we want."
The same reason Massachusetts and Connecticut (fourth and fifth in income and famously liberal) don't voluntarily send foreign aid to North Carolina?
Look at Bridgeport, New Haven, and Hartford in Connecticut for poverty. Not to mention Roxbury and Springfield in Taxachusetts.
If 'helping the poor' were as simple as throwing some money at them, we'd have abolished poverty a few trillion dollars ago...
Post a Comment