Legislation passed in 2025 evidences that we have evolved only slightly since the days of lords and serfs, when one class enjoyed wealth, and the other struggled. Before looking at examples, let’s look at the numbers.
The U.S. Census Bureau reported the nation’s poverty rate in 2024—annual income of $31,812 for a family of four—was 10.6 percent. For children, it was 14.3 percent—that’s over 10 million kids. A report published in 2022 by academics at Berkley reveals that the top one percent of Americans earn 20% of national income, while the bottom 50% earn 13%.
As for our policies, last July’s Big Beautiful Bill cuts Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—programs that assist low income citizens—by $880 billion and $230 billion, respectively, over 10 years. Cutting spending was touted as the reason.
More likely, the cuts were needed to offset, at least in part, $4.5 trillion tax cuts, that largely benefit top tier earners. Roughly $6 of every $10 in tax breaks goes to the top 20% of households.
Ohio legislators held the line in the 2026-2027 budget on the income limit for publicly funded childcare at 145 percent of the federal poverty level—$45,240 for a family of four—choosing not to raise it to 160 percent. At $868 per month on the average, childcare doesn’t come cheap—nor should it.
The statehouse decreased Ohio’s top tax bracket from 3.5% to 2.75% for everyone. According to Policy Matters Ohio, 98 percent of the resulting $1.1 billion tax cut benefits those who earn $139,900 annually. How much childcare would $1.1 billion have covered?
Republicans, who control both Congress and the Ohio statehouse, generally show little interest in poverty-related matters. After all, less government involvement is the Republicans’ paradigm. But not always.
The Ohio legislature didn’t show concern for childcare for low income citizens, but football? That’s different. The statehouse found a way to contribute $600 million for a new stadium for billionaires Jimmy and Dee Haslam.
As Senator Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., put it, “This country has socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor.” Martin Luther King, Jr., said much the same. When government provides opportunities for rich people, it’s called “subsidized,” and when government helps the poor, it’s called “welfare.”
Politicians don’t openly acknowledge poverty. It’s a distant problem for most of them. No surprise that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent opposes an federal minimum wage of $15 an hour. Bessent, a man of great wealth, lives in a world far removed from those who live in poverty. When did Bessent last stroll through a low income neighborhood?
And poverty is a problem that is hard to talk about, let alone solve. When did you last hear politicians talk head on about poverty? Certainly not in the 2024 presidential election. Both sides talked about a housing problem and eliminating taxes on tips. There was some discussion about childcare and family leave, but did anyone ever utter the word “poverty?” If someone did, I didn’t hear it.
It’s a matter of politicians rationalizing their actions in relation to the reality before them by either blaming low income citizens themselves—without saying it out loud, of course—for their lot in life or perpetuating the myth that legislating benefits for the wealthy will benefit everyone. Never mind that the theory of trickle-down economics has been debunked by the London School of Economics and others.
Author David Paul Kuhn puts it this way: there are people who are “expendable.” They range from “the people who brought the delivery food during the COVID crisis … the people that … go to war for us, we have an ‘expendable class,’ whether we like to realize it or not, and that is our working class. They are treated in a way that alienates them both socially and economically.”
Those of low income don’t matter, and this year will likely be no better for them.
___________________________________________
Jack D’Aurora writes for ConsiderthisbyJD. com
____________________________________________________
If you personally want to change the way we treat our fellow human beings, join organizations that do the work and not just demonstrate and moan the woe is me chants. Do not allow the government (Ceasar) be the “all” of yours and mine existence. Be a Christ follower and take up your Cross.
Solid, hard hitting, hard to acknowledge (for some), and sad to read article, Jack. Thank you. Some targeted tax reduction programs can and do spur economic development, revitalization, and new jobs, but unfortunately, most do not. We lament the disappearing middle class, but the truth is many of our tax policies over the course of the past administrations, both Republican and Democratic, have contributed to its demise. What is truly unacceptable is that
many of those who now find themselves at or near the poverty level would have not so long ago considered themselves in the middle class. Given the blame game by many politicians and pundits of the day, I guess the middle class must have just opted for poverty over upward mobility. Kind of reminds me of the popular pun, denial ain’t just a river in Egypt. Unfortunately, like many things in the world of politics today, it’d be a funny line if it weren’t so true.
I just got a chance to read Jack’s piece.
It is sad that the wealthy only care about themselves that their fellow man. If we did increase childcare funding many of my employees would benefit. Why does the right appear to hate everyone but themselves.
I have a wealthy friend that hates the IRS and all taxes. He wants to give to just the charities he thinks that deserve donations.
He once was losing his mind telling me how much he hates our government because they take his money and give it to people that he didn’t think deserved it.
VOTE THIS FALL
Good Job Jack
Thank you for another insightful post, Jack. Keep ’em coming!
You have quite an inventory of comment/articles going back thirteen years ago. That is quite an accomplishment. I haven’t read them all, but somehow I did get on the recipient list, and I catch some of them. They are all well written, logical and clearly argued, though, as you know, I agree with very few of your well-articulated points.
I guess that I do agree that we should assist those in need and that some excess wealth should be as widely arrayed as possible. But I would rather deliver the largess based on earnest effort spent and keep away from sending alms in such a way that otherwise sedulous people become uninspired.
That brings me to what I think is the important question for you. What would be the most proper or most advantageous amount of public support for “low income citizens?” The top 1% of the wealthy pay 37% of the taxes, and approximately 40% of American families pay no taxes. What then is the solution? That sounds like a suggestion for another commentary.
I have a friend from Australia, with whom I discuss these such issues as well. Socialism is his preferred brand of government. But recently, he confessed that the land of OZ (and every land, I suppose) does need Capitalism to generate profit, without which there would be nothing to send to “low income citizens.” So we agree that there should be a blend. We have the ingredients, we need to set the proportions.