With its catchy
"We are the 99 Percent" slogan, the Occupy movement focused millions of
Americans on our nation's chronic inequality. As that movement regains momentum,
it must pay more attention to the whole 99 percent.
We certainly
should worry about how the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans isn't paying its
fair share of the cost of running the country. But we should be just as worried
about how people at the other end are doing.
It's not just
about the continuing wave of foreclosures. Millions of people are stuck in
low-wage jobs that don't pay enough to make ends meet. And millions more live on
incomes so low that it's hard to imagine how they survive.
Low-wage work is
a pandemic. A third of our population ekes by on less than $36,000 for a family
of three. That's 103 million people living on less than twice the poverty line,
but most of them technically aren't poor or don't consider themselves poor. Yet
they struggle every month to make ends meet and are one medical emergency or
protracted illness away from bankruptcy.
Why so much
low-wage work? Because over the past 40 years, well-paying industrial jobs
disappeared, unions lost much of their clout, the minimum wage stagnated, and
the field of competition in many areas became globalized.
The result: half
of U.S. jobs now pay $34,000 or less a year. A quarter of U.S. jobs pay less
than $22,000, the poverty line for a family of four. And the wages for those
jobs have been stuck for four decades. Today, they pay only 7 percent more than
they did in 1973.
Most families
cope by having both parents work, but the rising number of single moms means
that millions of households have just one possible worker. It's no wonder that
42 percent of single-mother families with children under 18 are
poor.
Meanwhile, our
safety net is in tatters at a time when 20.5 million people have incomes that
amount to less than $9,500 a year. That's half the poverty line, which is
currently pegged at $19,090 for a family of three. This number grew by almost 8
million between 2000 and 2010. Why? Cash assistance for the mothers and children
who need it in many states has been scratched.
Many politicians
still crow about the supposed "success" of Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF), the threadbare national welfare program that replaced Aid to
Families with Dependent Children during the Clinton
administration.
At last count,
Wyoming has a total of 617 people enrolled in its TANF program. The kids it
covers comprise just 4 percent of the children in the state's poor families.
Twenty-five states now provide less than 20 percent of their poor children with
this kind of support.
Nationwide, the
percentage of kids covered by these benefits has declined to 27 percent from 68
percent before President Bill Clinton and the GOP-controlled Congress "reformed"
the welfare system. As a result, we have 6 million people whose only income is
from food stamps. Food stamps provide an income of a third of the poverty line -
about $6,000 for a family of three. This is the most urgent problem we
face.
Rep. Paul Ryan
and his House Republican colleagues want to make matters worse. They're touting
a budget that would slash virtually every program that helps low-income people.
Their rationale: we're helping too much.
But the House
Republicans evidently think we're not helping the rich enough - their budget
proposes massive new tax cuts for the wealthy. Robin Hood would turn over in
this grave.
Seeing that work
produces a decent income and that our people are prepared for the jobs of the
future is cost-effective and will benefit corporate bottom lines. But there's an
even more fundamental reason to act. The concentration of power and wealth at
the top and the sense of political exclusion and impossibility at the bottom
threaten a new order that's antithetical to the animating ideals of our country.
Poverty and inequality are threatening our democracy.
ARA/HJ