Poverty is the Responsibility of the Government

Unlike many of the opinions voiced on this week's response, I believe that the government and poverty are directly related and that the government does have an obligation to address poverty. As Caitlin mentions in the beginning of her blog, a major concern of the government should be creating the best circumstances for its people which can include potential of its own people. Some people have said that the government is a separate section from the people and that a small group of people who are living in poverty should not dictate a responsibility onto the government. This, I disagree with completely because poverty is tied in with many factors included the economy and social problems, many of which are created by the government. With tax cuts, tax raises, new law reforms, presidential bills, changes in the economy and stock market system, the effects on the population are endless. Much unemployment occurs from a loss of jobs caused by the government. As we heard today at Bread for the City, the government is responsible for putting many citizens in a difficult position between employment and welfare. Is it right that once employed, the government can take away from that person health insurance, pushing them back into poverty because they do not earn enough to pay for bills? Liz writes in her blog about the government's responsibility to its people in general, not only those in poverty. It is important to remember that the government does reflect the people and if a specific government is passive about ending poverty, this reflects the entire country. Poverty is something that weighs down a government, so if for no other reason, it should be top priority to raise minimum wage and employ those who are unemployed.

This is not even mentioning the moral requirement that is attached to a government, no matter where in the world it is located. Thankfully, in the United States, our government is fairly wealthy, (although in great debt). I find it hard to believe that if we can fund excursions into other countries for security reasons, how can we not work to end something that is so prominent in our society? Poverty is most definetely an issue for public policy to undertake. Public policy should have to do with undertaking problems and projects that will benefit the people.... although sometimes this is addressed, policy should literally mark poverty as a government responsibility. Poverty is a weakness in the country, which can be considered the government, therefore, with a government that has such a weakness, it should be happy to try to fix it.

Lastly, as many people have mentioned in previous blogs, poverty is most likely something that will never be ended. This is life: from the most miniscule, one individual, to larger scale of states and economies, people will not survive without competition, without the need to do better than someone else. This can work the same with states...the economic level of certain nations will probably never, or at least take quite some time to reach a level as, for example, the United States. This point is to push the fact that poverty is permanent and therefore needs designation and an agreement from the government, the highest power that can 'do something.' So, although poverty may be something with no end, this does not give the government the right to look away.