McMusing: Let's Talk Policies
How focusing on the cost of eggs scrambles the discussions that matter.
This McMusing results from viewing numerous posts about the high price of eggs—blaming this on the current administration. I have personally solved this problem by raising chickens who not only delight me but will hopefully, one day produce eggs. I am not ignorant of the fact that I will likely invest more financially than I will gain.
Does anyone remember being told (long, long ago) that giving tax breaks to the wealthy would allow businesses to thrive and we would benefit from that wealth "trickling down" to us? This was a completely accepted belief for most of my life. I imagine this was true for most, not just me. The idea was that the way for our lives to be better (more affordable) was for big business to thrive.
The result since I was in my 40s, as this chart shows, is that the share of the wealth held by the top 1% has steadily increased. (Source). And yet, I still hear politicians say that giving the wealthy tax breaks is how we improve the financial life of everyone—you know like being able to afford eggs.
Over the years, I heard a lot of talk about philanthropy as an important part of how this happens. After all, there were Carnegie Libraries in every town to prove it worked. Wealthy people would invest in communities in ways that improve the lives of everyone. (I realized this might not have the impact I was hoping for when I was president of the board for a non-profit that worked hard to compete for a small number of grants.)
Now, as a retired person living on social security and a (very)small pension, the information about the amount of money given to charitable causes seems HUGE but is it? "The members of the 2023 Forbes 400 list have collectively given more than $250 billion to charity, by our count—less than 6% of their combined net worth." (Source)
Let's face it, the wealthy who give this little of their wealth to charity are not going to solve the problem of poverty in our country (see statistics on poverty). Saying that giving them tax breaks will reduce the price of eggs is hogwash.
This week we celebrated Labor Day. If you read the history of that day, it is a reminder that unions began because the primary business of most businesses is not to care for the well-being of their workers. We celebrate those who do!
Another example is that the current administration has worked to reduce the cost of prescriptions and part of that was to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Last week, I received the following email. Do you see what happened here? No, the insurance company is not going to lose money. Big business will always find a way.
What is the solution?
Recognizing that big business (the wealthy) will never solve the problem allows us to begin to discuss policy and the fundamental differences between Democrat and Republican solutions. In recent discussions, several said that this election wasn't a personality contest—it was about policy. I agree.
The following is part of my analysis that enables me to say that no, it is not about personality—it is about policy. My vote is based on what my understanding of the impact of trauma has taught me about how we help others overcome that impact. No matter the candidate.
In addition to this, the connection between poverty and incarceration is well documented.
“While it is difficult to ascertain whether poverty makes someone more likely to commit a crime, data show it does make a person more susceptible to being arrested and more likely to be charged with a harsher crime and to receive a longer sentence.”
“The share of the imprisoned population that was in poverty prior to being arrested equaling 57 percent for men and 72 percent for women, despite a national poverty rate of 11.8 percent.”
(Source The statistics in this article are sobering. Please read!)
The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) study is another essential piece of any conversation about poverty because 78.1% of the prison population has at least 4 ACEs (the point where the impact becomes exponential) in comparison to 15.8% of the general population. (Source).
Getting tough on crime may protect us and that is important, but it does not solve the core problem—childhood trauma and its connection to poverty.
With this information, I leave you with both the Republican and Democratic core beliefs as to what they believe is the answer to poverty. I am not voting against a person but for the party that bases its policies on the trauma-informed question, "What happened to you?" vs. "What is wrong with you?"
The first section below is a quote from a paper titled "Reducing Poverty the Republican Way." I don't claim this as the most reliable source, yet it does embody the basic premise that the cause of poverty rests squarely on the shoulders of those who are poor and the purpose of policy is to enable them to do better. (I want to type “fix them” which clearly shows my bias.)
The second section is from a 2016 source that again may not be the most definitive but it does illustrate the premises upon which Democrats would solve the problems of poverty. I will always choose the party that says, “Let me help you out of the ditch” without blaming them for falling into it.
Republican Principles for Poverty Alleviation (Source)
Four principles summarize the approach:
• Solve the right problem. The problem is not poverty. The problem is that too many Americans are not self-sufficient.
• All policies should be pro-work. Work is valued—it is a source of pride and self-esteem, as well as the dividing line between the poor and non-poor.
• Taxpayer dollars must be accompanied by accountability for outcomes.
• Federal programs will fail without a social foundation of better parents and stronger marriages.
To elaborate, it is important to not frame the problem as poverty. Poverty is the scarcity of material resources—money—and the temptation will be to “solve” the problem by providing just that: money.
Democratic solutions to poverty (Source)
The factors that limit success among the poor are pretty clear. The most important are their low education levels and weak skills; the low pay for unskilled work in the US, the correspondingly reduced incentive for many to remain in the job market, and the difficulty in finding or keeping jobs; and various “group-specific” barriers, such as growing up in a very poor family or neighborhood, having a criminal record, being a non-custodial parent, or having a disability.
The foregoing diagnosis leads directly to the prescription. What we need—very simply—are policies that will:
Raise education and skills among poor children, youth, and adults.
Make work pay for the unskilled, and make more jobs available to them when needed.
Address the specific problems of such groups as ex-offenders, non-custodial parents, children in very poor families or neighborhoods, and people with disabilities.
The price of eggs will always be based on circumstances out of everyone’s control (natural disasters, diseases, supply chain issues, etc.) and/or corporate greed. I get how this works and yes, businesses owned by wealthy people do provide jobs. I accept all this. What I cannot accept are policies that are not built upon our current understanding of the impact of trauma on the most vulnerable adults and children in our society. My vote will always be based on policies that provide non-judgmental compassion for the poor, marginalized, and vulnerable.
Thank you for being brave (😉) enough to venture into this arena! I never talk about politics except face to face, but speak out in this space with faith and hope--just to be able to say what's on my heart. 😔
I firmly believe that until the caring professions (medical, educational, mental health, non-profits, etc.) and the government programs which support vulnerable populations really get a grip on the fact that trauma is the root cause that must be acknowledged and addressed, nothing will resolve the injustices. We need some significant work on discerning our bottom-up issues.
I realize I'm probably preaching to the choir...we, of all people, need to recognize that the connection and relationship needed for solving problems requires safety. Any form of attack removes/prevents safety and triggers self-protection and self-promotion. Collaboration needs to be valued over competition.
There are two main thrusts that need addressing for justice and equality to rise:
First, we must help all influencers recognize trauma and look beyond behaviors (tip of the iceberg) to the actual neurobiology driving those survival responses in vulnerable populations ... or no program, however well intentioned or funded, will be able to succeed... and often makes things worse when it collides with the massive iceberg under the surface.
Second, when it's time to consider top-down implementation policies, we need to bring all the various stakeholders to the table and do the very hard work of listening in order to understand rather than to convince...then we can include the best bits gleaned from all the ideas into any plan we propose/attempt and present it will full buy-in.
Let's orchestrate a win-win for sustainable justice for the vulnerable. No more time and money to be thrown at pandering, knee-jerk, window-dressing, simplistic ideas with little true transformation...but often with devastating unexpected consequences.
If we're going to come together, then let's come together. But without excluding those who think differently. We are better together. One side's experts won't cut it. Respectful discussions that seek to understand different ideas are the only way to actually educate and change minds in order to get to better policies. This is the hard work which our Congress seems to have abdicated over the past few decades. Sigh...there is no magic wand. This will take time...and we tend to be unwilling to be patient with the process.
I will say, though, that when a group can sit down and actually see each other as persons who basically want the same thing, amazing things can happen. 💜
One of the things I love about you is that you always make me think. Thank you.