Homeland security, same-sex marriages, and an uncertain economy are among the most significant issues in the 2004 presidential campaign, but one subject that is not likely to receive much attention is that of poverty. Charles Hurst, professor of sociology at The College of Wooster, is an expert on poverty, and he explains why the issue is of little concern to John Kerry or George Bush.

Q. Why is it that poverty is not much of an issue in the 2004 Presidential Campaign?

A. Issues are defined by those in power and they tend to involve those topics on which candidates can gain political leverage. Unfortunately, most candidates don’t pay a lot of attention to poverty as a political issue because the poor are not seen as an important constituency. They represent an almost invisible and voiceless group of people who bring in few votes. As a result, politicians don’t see a need to address poverty as a major problem. On top of that, there are a lot of people who are hostile to the poor. When most people think of poverty, they typically think of the inner city, welfare mothers, single parents, and the like, and this tends to turn them off. If you start talking about poverty, you risk turning off a lot of middle-class constituents who may vote for you, so there is no reason to raise the issue. Many people think that poverty is due to individual causes anyway. They do not see it as a social problem, but rather a personal problem.

Q. Why are politicians seemingly out of touch with the issue of poverty?

A. The values and interests of politicians typically reflect their middle and upper-class backgrounds. They know who butters their bread, and it isn't the poor. Most national politicians come from very well-to-do backgrounds. Roughly three of four members of the current Congress are bankers, lawyers, or businessmen. The majority of presidents were college graduates from wealthy families, educated in the best northeast elite schools. Most of the cabinet members in the history of the United States were either from the upper class or members of the corporate elite – top executives and CEOs. There is nothing in those backgrounds to encourage politicians to either identify with the poor or develop full-scale programs that will focus on and address problems faced by those in poverty.

Q. How do we define poverty in the United States today?

A. The definition and the meaning of poverty are two different things. To define it, the government looks at one’s total income from all sources before taxes. If your income is below a certain level, then you are defined as poor. In 2002, a single person with an income of about $9,400 or below was determined to be in poverty. For a family of four, the threshold was a little over $18,000. The thresholds vary with the size and composition of the family and vary by year according to the consumer price index.

Now, when you talk about what poverty means, it becomes a much broader issue. The poor have no power and very little leverage. People tend to look down on them. But for the government, those things are harder to measure. It’s easier to measure income, so they chose the easier route in defining it in a narrow economic way rather than trying to capture what poverty really means. There are a lot of problems that create inequities because of the different measures that are used, and there are some flaws that need to

be addressed. The poverty measure that is currently in use was initially intended to be temporary, and the time to change it is long overdue.

Q. How does the definition of poverty vary along political lines?

A. In general, conservatives look to minimize the scope of poverty as a problem, while liberals tend to define it as a much larger issue that needs to be addressed.

Conservatives say that when you measure income, you ought to incorporate all of the economic benefits and all of the in-kind benefits that you get from the government, such as the value of food stamps, Medicaid, educational vouchers, and so on to develop a realistic indicator of what their true economic standing is. Liberals object, saying that if you are going to do that for the poor, then you have to include all of the benefits that the middle and upper-class receive from the government. It is also difficult to distinguish the total cost of these programs and the actual cash value to the recipient of these benefits. So the definition of poverty has become a political football because a lot is at stake for different political constituencies.

Q. What about the future of poverty as a political issue?

A. The next administration, whether if be Democrat or Republican, is going to have to address several issues related to poverty. First, they are going to have to come up with a more effective way of how to measure it. They are also going to have to address the issue of employment, particularly the addition of well-paying jobs. One of the major reasons why people are poor is not that they don’t work but that their wages are insufficient to raise their families above poverty. Even people that work full time, year round, often times don’t make enough to bring them up past the poverty level. Another issue is that of single-parent households being headed by females. The primary reason why these women don’t work is that they have to make a choice between caring for their children and going to work, which is a no-win situation for the mother. Adequate and affordable childcare for people who want to work is critical in helping those people get out of poverty. Finally, we should not forget Social Security. It must be stabilized economically because it is the major avenue by which many senior citizens are kept out of poverty.