Keep the poor poor

by Donna L. Anderson

The Insiders’ Instruction Manual

Part three in a series of satirical policy explanations for government and private social service providers. The prevalence of hypocritical practices in social services leads PNN Texas correspondent Donna Anderson to conclude that there must be an interagency conspiracy to keep the poor poor. The scenarios and statements presented here are based on her actual experiences during 12 years in social services.

Donna L. Anderson

Tuesday, ----, 2001:

Policy Statement: Keep the Poor Poor

Strategy No. 3: “Kiss My Assets!”

This is the third strategy in the domestic policy for government, quasi-governmental and non-profit institutions in support of our nation’s necessary evil, poverty. It addresses the problematic issue of the poor having a net worth. Though the illusion of “getting ahead” keeps the poor from being too disquieted, we must assure that for every one step forward, there are two steps back.

The premise behind this strategy is that poor people should not be allowed to have or acquire anything of financial worth if they are going to seek assistance from the government. The poor must be made to utilize their assets before accessing the taxpayer dollar or even the charitable dollar. Many poor mistakenly believe that help might be available in time of need, layoff, unemployment, disability or even old age, to prevent them from getting so far behind that financial stability is not within reach.

On the contrary, the social services safety net is a net of last resort, not the net on top of their personal safety net. We serve poverty from the bottom up, giving aid first to those most in need first. Not only is it logical, it appears humanitarian to the public. And because of insufficient funding to really address the problem of poverty, serving from the bottom up ensures that people on the verge of becoming poor or homeless must “bottom out” to reach the safety net, rather than being able to access assistance at a less critical point. This whirlpool action has an ancillary mental castigating effect that prevents the poor from trying too hard to build assets again in the future.

For our purposes, assets are defined as IRA’s, 401K’s, cash-value life insurance policies, checking and savings accounts, automobiles and pawnable items such as stereos, televisions, bicycles, jewelry, and in some cases, gold teeth. Though a house is normally considered an asset in calculating net worth, we exclude houses in this definition because they cannot be quickly and easily liquidated for cash to meet immediate needs like food, utilities and rent. A poor person’s house could not possibly be worth much anyway, or he/she could not afford to pay the mortgage, insurance and property taxes.

How is it that the poor ever build a net worth in the first place? There are the unlikely windfall assets such as lottery winnings, gifts or inheritances. More often though, the poor build assets by working for large corporations and businesses that offer benefit packages. The benefits inadvertently assist the poor, though they are actually directed toward professional staff. Due to the almost socialist nature of current human resource practices, lower-paid employees benefit from 401K and IRA plans as well. Therefore, the stable, low-paid worker can “get ahead,” even if solely through employer contributions.

Preventing unnecessary asset build-ups is, of course, the ideal. Whereas many large concerns are too well scrutinized by unions and are easy prey for legal action, smaller businesses can employ shrewd tactics to avoid asset-building benefits and even raising salaries. One brilliant tactic worth sharing comes from the cotton industry in Texas. Every three years, Company X is sold, maintaining everything the same, except the name. (We don’t know who buys Company X, but the profits stay in the family.) Though the flow of work is uninterrupted, every employee is “new” to the company, starting at ground zero for benefits and salary increases. Employee retirement plans fold unvested. Only employees of longer than six years would even notice the pattern. Those longer-term employees are likely too complacent or intimidated to agitate for change.

Where asset-building prevention efforts in private industry fail, our systems can intervene. Some poor who have managed to build assets will fall again on hard times. This is our opportunity to liberate them of their assets, allowing them to live unencumbered, one day at a time, without regard to the future.

In terms of procedural steps to carrying out this strategy, the process of applying for aid should always be riddled with paperwork. Make the applicant prove his financial situation by providing supporting documentation such as the three most current IRA, checking, savings and 401K statements. This should be done even if the applicant’s assets exceed the limits for receiving aid. The waiting encourages the applicant to liquidate tangible assets at that noteworthy and time-honored institution, the pawnshop.

A minimal level of assets is permissible, usually up to $2000 per household. It is no great threat for a man to own a car, for instance a 1989 or earlier model, or keep a small savings or IRA in his name. For people with disabilities, the limits are lower, but pertain to cash assets, like checking and savings accounts. After all, if a person with disabilities manages to accumulate more than $999 in cash, he can’t be that disabled now, can he?

Once the applicant has supplied documentation showing assets in excess of the limit, no further human interaction is necessary if the agency has a form rejection letter in place. Simply notify the applicant by mail and state the reason succinctly, “Assets exceed limits.”

An enterprising poor person will know what this means. Time to cash in that IRA, penalties and all. Time to trade in that ’95 Explorer that he bought before the layoffs, for a more economical ’82 Monte Carlo. Time to return that rented furniture. Time to sell the washer and dryer to the neighbor who has been working steadily at the ice factory for six months. And time to pawn anything that is not nailed to the floor.

When all he has left of value is his gold tooth, he can return to apply for aid, which should be grudgingly granted him after he has completed the application process again in full. Finally, warn the applicant that his continued aid is contingent on remaining asset free. Random asset tests can be conducted using the consumer’s social security number and FBI and CIA databases.

We certainly do not want the poor to become miserable enough to revolt. Therefore, the occasional “rags to riches” story is useful to keep hope alive among the masses. But we must take measures and be ever cautious to contain class shifting thereby preserving the social order and our American way of life.

Stay tuned for the next strategy in the Keep the Poor Poor Policy, “Useless Life Skills: Learn them again and again.”