My most personal experience with poverty comes not from time spent in the United States, but in time spent in Madagascar. In 1998 I spent a semester on the beautiful “Island of the Ancestors.” Our home base was in Tolanaro (Fort Dauphin) where I was placed with the equivalent of a middle class family, not so different from mine back home. My host mother and father had both been teachers at the local school and for a time, my host father served as a “city council member.” My family had plenty to eat, running water, electricity, a concrete floor, four walls and a roof over their heads; although, they did not have an indoor latrine, they did have a shed with a shower. They had access to eduction, medicine, and adequate (although not superb) health care. As life in Madagascar goes, Papa and Mama Yvette, had it pretty good.

Four weeks into my stay in Madagascar our group (12 students, one director) traveled to the most southern tip of the island — a region known as Lavanono (or mother’s milk). Here we were divided into pairs and sent off to live for 5 days with families that would fully qualify for the description “hunter-gatherer.” Our hosts in the tiny village (whose name I do not recall) lived a meager existence of fish, farmed vegetables, and rice imported from inland. Once upon a time you may have read about situations that were so dire, but I would hazard a guess that you’d not imagine them in a 20th century setting. When mealtimes came the family shared one dish. The man (who caught the fish) ate first, followed by the woman (who prepared the food and raised the children), and finally the leftovers were shared with the child(ren) who may or may not survive. This is the way our host family ate and it was described to us by Christine (our hostess) as a necessity. She was not bitter, but saw it as a way of life. Their main source of protein, fat and other nutrients was fish, and if her husband did not have the energy to go fishing — they would all starve.

Fishing was the primary job of the village men. In the mornings they rose early and went out to fish in a rustic pirogue with other men from the village. When we arrived the fishermen had not had any success for several weeks and were becoming quite dismayed. You could compare their discussions to those watching the stock market fall — they didn’t know how bad it might get, before it got better. While the men were fishing - the women would start the days preparations — pounding and sorting rice, cooking beans or working in the fields, where they were cultivating melons and some unfamiliar vegetables.

Upon our arrival at the village I had been a vegetarian for 10 or so years, as had my fellow student, Amy. We’d hoped to uphold our ethical standards and stay “meat free” during our visit. For the first few days this was not difficult as the only food we saw consisted of rice, beans, warm melons, and prickly pear fruit. However, the villagers would often bring up the fact that as a welcome gift we had been given a turkey. I am not sure whence the turkey came, but it was apparent that the large birds did not make regular appearances in this tiny village. And, after several days of denial, Amy and I came to realize that the honorable thing to do, would be to suggest that our hosts cook the turkey for dinner. And, honestly after several days of mostly rice and little else to eat, something a more calorie dense was starting to sound pretty good. The turkey was cooked and a feast was had, Amy and I ate bit to be polite, but from the gusto with which the locals consumed the meat, it was clear that these people (especially the children) needed the meat much more than we did. We were quite aware that although we were “hungry” no one dies of starvation in a week, and unlike the villagers we would be returning to a menu of full and balanced meals in just a few days. If the fishing didn’t get better soon, who knew what might be the fate of our generous and welcoming hosts. (Who btw were paid by our school with rice, beans, cooking oil, basic medical supplies for hosting us.)

In fact, the children living in this village, were more sickly, malnourished and “sad” looking than I saw anywhere else on my travels in Madagascar or West Africa. Several of them had red in their hair (evidence of protein deficiency) and all of them sported runny noses, festering sores and gunky eyes. Several of the adult villagers nursed coughs and old injuries. During our stay one patriarch who looked to be maybe 40 even died of an unconfirmed illness. His house and belongings were promptly deconstructed and his children were sent back with his wife to her family. Life in Lavanono was constantly on the edge.

On the surface our trip could have been viewed as the ideal isolated beach vacation — shore front property, sparkling sands, perfect weather and congenial hosts. But in truth it was a stark introduction to the reality that back home in the United States I had been born into a privileged life. No single experience in my life drove home the difference between living in a country who’s government has the resources and the mandate to care for its people and a country who is struggling to just get by. Since my return from Madagascar, their government has taken a turn for the better, but their population continues to grow out of control with an addition of more than 6 million people in less than 10 years. (In 1998 the population was estimated at about 14 million. In 2008 it is now estimated to have surpassed 20 million.) One in five Malagasy children dies before age 10 and the life expectancy of adults is barely 60.

In the United States, we certainly have thousands of individuals who manage fall through the cracks of our social system; however, we do not have entire villages struggling to get by.  Or do we?

According to The Spotlight on Poverty: ”In the United States, the wealthiest country in the world, 36 million Americans live in poverty - earning less than $20,650 for a family of four in 2007. Another one in six Americans struggle to make ends meet on incomes between 100% and 200% of poverty ( $20,650 to about $40,000 for a family of four). More than 12 million American children grow up in impoverished homes. When compared with 20 other wealthy nations on measures of health, safety and relative poverty, America’s children fare amongst the worst.” Furthermore the life expectancy of both minorities and those living at or below poverty level is significantly lower than that of middle and upper class Americans.  We may live in a “developed country” but that does not mean we are free from the ailments of poverty and inequity.

This issue is particularly relevant as it is election year and given our current financial crisis. Many politicians and lobbyist groups like to scare the average American into believing that the “other party” will raise their taxes thus making it more difficult to climb out of poverty or stay out of poverty. And yet, it is these same politicians and lobbyists who have so often worked to reduce taxes on the most wealthy Americans and corporations, while raising taxes on the average American. In fact, many corporations do everything they can to avoid paying taxes — a rather ignoble game for the wealthy corporation or wealthy individual.

The US may be the wealthiest nation in the world, but if you look at our rate of poverty, amongst many statistics, the wealth is definitely not shared across the board. The wealthiest few in fact pay some of the lowest taxes, because their income comes not in the form of a paycheck, but as interest and dividends. When Barack Obama says that the wealthier members of our society can and should pay more taxes — and that the government should do more to ensure adequate health care — he is correct. And, Obama’s views are backed up by the two wealthiest men in the US (and the World). Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are both highly successful entrepreneurs who came from the average American family. Both men firmly believe in the promise of the American Dream, because they have experienced it first hand; however, they understand that in order for the American Dream to come true for future generations those with the money need to do their part and carry a bigger percentage of the tax burden.

Warren Buffet does not mind paying taxes, because he feels it is his duty to invest in the system. He believes that in order to keep America competitive in the world market that those with the most should invest in America’s youth — providing access to first class educations, scientific research, leading medical research (and cures) and the next generation of American inventors and entrepreneurs. Buffet also understands that if kids don’t have full bellies, good health care or a safe place to sleep that their chances of success are much lower. Warren Buffet, the richest man in the world believes in Social Justice.

In Warren Buffet’s 2003 Annual Letter to his share holders, he notes that a US Treasury official had scolded him for paying more taxes than other corporations. Although “Berkshire’s tax payment for the taxation year was about 2.5 per cent of that paid by US corporations, but that the value of Berkshire in that group was only about 1 per cent. ” In other words, other corporations were dodging taxes, finding loopholes and not paying their fare share. In addition, Buffet noted in 2006 that he payed a lower taxation rate than his receptionist, both facts that that Buffet finds to be unfair. Buffet believes that it is the duty of the wealthy to give back to society — to in a sense pay-it-forward — for the good of their fellow citizens and themselves.

The Gates Foundation (who’s budget has now been doubled by Buffet) also understands the need for Social Justice. Improving Education and Health care is the primary focus of the Gates Foundation. If two of the smartest and most successful men in the world, and the two richest men in the world, believe in social justice and the need to improve both health care and education in order to end poverty, then why doesn’t the Republican Party? Why has George W. Bush continued to lower taxes on the wealthiest few, while cutting programs for the least fortunate? Why does John McCain propose to tax employer provided health care, while giving rebates directly to insurance companies?  Why? Because George W. Bush and John McCain (the make-believe-maverick) don’t really care about the average American, beyond knowing that they want your vote.

In his book, Development as Freedom, Amartya Sen, argues that improvements in public health and education must precede economic development. On the other hand - how do you pay for these improvements without money? If the United States is indeed the wealthiest country in the world than we surely have the funds to pay for such improvements; however, we first have to set our priorities straight. As it stands, someone has managed to convince a huge number of Americans that government funded education programs and health care are not really for the good of Americans, but instead a “socialist trap” that will reduce our freedoms and further lower the quality of our care. And yet, the only “proof” is that our current government funded programs tend to be poorly run bureaucracies. Other than sound bites and fear mongering, there is absolutely no proof that folks like Obama or Hillary Clinton, who support drastic health care reform also support a socialist state.

If you are not convinced take a look at the current situation of health care in the US. 16 % of the US GDP (all money spent in 2007) in our country was spent on health care — that is just over 2 trillion dollars a year. As of 1990 40% of all money spent on health care was spent by our government. In 2005 approximately 740 Billion dollars was spent by the government (Federal and State combined) on health care in the US. And yet, in the same year (2005) nearly 16% or 47 million Americans were without health care! Even more surprising is that health care spending in the US trumps that spent on national defense by 4.3 times!

Healthy individuals are more productive members of society, contributing more and taking less time off from work, so it makes sense that investing in preventive care and quality health care should improve the overall economic well being of individuals, businesses and the country. The US government is already so involved in health care spending that we might as well reform things and do it right. Right now insurance companies face very little regulation and can operate differently from state to state. Insurance companies can pick and choose who they insure, while denying coverage to any one they want on the terms of “pre-existing conditions” or “high risk” situations. There are also numerous inefficiencies in administration of both health care and insurance, inefficiencies that result in serious (sometimes life threatening) and costly mistakes.

On the other hand, John McCain wishes to tax employer payroll spending on health care (average cost $12,000/year) and give you (through a direct payment to the insurance company) a $5,000 tax rebate to offset the cost of the tax on your payroll. What? How on earth can that be called positive health care reform? Increasing the taxable income on individuals and making health care more expensive for employers to provide will not result in increased health coverage for Americans, but decreased coverage. Under John McCains’ plan, more Americans will be forced to venture out on their own to find health care, which is likely to result in increased premiums and more families who cannot afford or even qualify for health care due to pre-existing conditions.

More than half of personal bankruptcies in the US (over 500,000 in 2007) are filed as a result of unpaid medical bills. Unplanned medical emergencies are in fact the easiest way to take a middle class American family and drive them straight to poverty. Accidents, unexpected illnesses, and other tragedies can and do happen to anyone, any where, and every day. Barack Obama believes that it is the responsiblity of the United States Goverment to take care of its citizens and provide for them in situations in which it is not feasible for individuals to provide for themselves. In the Audacity of Hope he wrote “we should be asking ourselves what mix of policies will lead to a dynamic free market and widespread economic security, entrepreneurial innovation and upward mobility. And we can be guided throughout by Lincoln’s simple maxim: that we will do collectively, through our government, only those things that we cannot do as well or at all individually and privately.”

When it comes to health care, Obama is proposing a private and public partnership. Basic regulations for the health care system would be established including a few of the following points (directly from his site): Provide affordable, comprehensive and portable (from state-to-state or job-to-job) health coverage for every American; NO American will be turned away from any plan due to illness or pre-existing conditions (happens all the time now); comprehensive benefits including preventive, maternity and mental health care. Fair premiums, minimal co-pays and deductibles for preventive services; public and private plans available (you can keep your current provider, but the rules they play by will change); modernizing the US Health care system to put a hold on spiraling health care costs and improve the quality of patient care; and, promoting prevention and strengthening public health, to prevent disease and protect against natural and man-made disasters.

The first step to permanently eliminating unnecessary poverty in the United States is to reform our health care system. The second step is to ensure that every American child receives a first class education and the opportunity for on the job training or a college education. An educated public with access to a functional and fair health care system, complemented by a fairly distributed tax burden would be a boon to the American Economy and a boon for YOU the American Citizen.

Democrats care about people and not corporations. Democratic policies are good for your checkbook, for your children, for your grandparents, and for the environment. If you think otherwise take a look at this analysis of what happens to investments under Republican vs. Democratic governments. And then watch this TED Talk.

***For every comment left on this post (between now and 10/17/08) I will donate a canned good to the Our Center in Longmont.***