What Is It About the Poor?

This op-ed by Rev. Sandy Strauss and Kathleen Daugherty (Coalition for Low Income Pennsylvanians) was published on PennLive on Monday, June 17 at https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2019/06/what-is-it-about-the-poor-opinion.html.

The Ethic of Reciprocity — often called the Golden Rule — simply states that we are to treat other people as we wish to be treated. It’s a core principle of most all world religions.  And it’s basic human decency.

So, one might wonder why both the state and federal governments try with regularity and persistence to treat the poor without that basic human decency.

Currently in Pennsylvania budget negotiations, the General Assembly is poised to eliminate a program called General Assistance (GA), which offers the very poorest and most vulnerable citizens of the Commonwealth about $200 a month in cash. The people qualifying for this cash are homeless, childless women who are victims or survivors of domestic violence, those with a temporary or permanent disability who cannot work, those who cannot work because they are in drug and alcohol treatment, children who are being cared for by caretakers other than their parents, and those caring for the disabled or children under 13 not related to them.

Two hundred dollars a month doesn’t seem like much, does it?  But it can be a lifesaver providing things like rent for a room in someone else’s home, bus transportation, toiletries, prescription co-pays and other basic necessities. For the disabled, the cash is really a bridge that allows them to function while their SSI benefits are being determined and distributed. Then the money is paid back to the federal government.

General Assistance existed in Pennsylvania until 2012 when the Corbett Administration eliminated it, making more vulnerable those relying on this pittance of monthly cash.  In July of last year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reinstated the program, ruling in favor of a challenge that the law eliminating it (Act 80 of 2012) was enacted unconstitutionally. Immediately, advocates for the poor began working with the Department of Human Services (DHS) to make sure all those eligible for GA were made aware that the cash could be available to them again. Currently, about 5000 people are receiving the benefits but many more are eligible.

But now some members of the General Assembly, many of whom attend worship on Friday, Saturday or Sunday, have decided to ignore the Ethic of Reciprocity and eliminate funding for General Assistance in the budget that’s being rushed through right now so members can go on summer break. For them, passing a budget early has taken precedence over how government treats our most vulnerable neighbors. Where is the concern for basic human decency?

Meanwhile at the federal level, the current Administration is attempting to change the method of updating the federal poverty line for inflation—changing how the Census Bureau’s poverty thresholds are calculated by using an alternative, lower measure of inflation than the traditional Consumer Price Index, resulting in lower poverty thresholds.

Each year the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) releases poverty guidelines, which are the basis for program eligibility and/or benefits in many health care, nutrition and other basic assistance programs. Eligibility for these programs is determined relative to the federal poverty line, which is adjusted annually for inflation.

The federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) supports an inflation calculation that would increase more slowly over time, resulting in fewer people being eligible for assistance because their incomes would be too high. Millions of children, seniors, people with disabilities and others who are poor or near poor would be affected.

The results? Significant numbers of low-income households, primarily working families, would lose eligibility for federal nutrition assistance programs, including SNAP, WIC and free school meals. Recipients of programs for home heating and cooling assistance would be impacted. Hundreds of thousands of seniors and people with disabilities would have to pay higher premiums for drug coverage and more out of pocket for prescription drugs. Health care coverage for children and adults through Medicaid and CHIP would diminish and millions of Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace consumers would be forced to pay higher premiums.

Beyond being just plain mean, one might ask the purpose of the Administration recommending this change in how the inflation rate for the poverty line is adjusted. Research indicates that the current poverty line is below what is needed to raise a family and also that costs may rise more rapidly for low-income households than for the population as a whole. So adjusting the poverty line by a lower measure of inflation would exacerbate this problem, making poor families even poorer.

It strikes us that this is coming at a time when the Administration is seeking more spending for the military—even beyond what the military is seeking. Is this adjustment in the poverty line being done simply to reduce federal expenses for these programs in order to “balance” the effects of military increases? Is the budget so fragile that this vulnerable population has to take the brunt of reducing spending?

The real questions: Are both of these actions driven by a general distaste for the poor? Are we really not able to manage government expenditures in a way that follows that Ethic of Reciprocity? Lawmakers and others in powerful positions, who manage shared government resources, are called to represent ALL people, including those who struggle just to get by. We urge them to take responsibility for ensuring that “the least of these” are treated as the powerful would prefer to be treated.

The Rev. Sandra L. Strauss is Director of Advocacy and Ecumenical Outreach for the Pennsylvania Council of Churches

Kathleen Daugherty is coordinator for the Coalition for Low Income Pennsylvanians