We love “rags to riches” stories. The idea of someone who is born into modest means or even poverty who has the right combination of initiative and luck to become wealthy is a story we like to read. Such things really do occur. But they aren’t very common. A more common story in our neighborhood - and in our country - is that those who are born rich become more rich and those who are born poor remain entrenched in poverty. One of the biggest reasons for this is the inequality of education. A big factor in the difference between wealth and poverty is eduction. People with money tend to live in neighborhoods with better schools. They tend to have more time to volunteer in schools and become involved in encouraging their children’s educations. More money means more options for educational advantage for college students. Intense poverty effectively eliminates the option of college for all but a very few students.

But we don’t like to think of our system as unfair. We’d rather believe that people are poor because they somehow deserve to be poor. We’d like to believe that people with wealth have wealth because they have earned it.

I’m struck by how often, in my conversations with compassionate and caring people, I hear stories of poor choices made by people living in poverty. I often hear criticism of government programs for the poor. We often come fairly close to saying that people are poor because they deserve to be poor. A prevailing attitude is that entrenched poverty is the result of poor choices.

Of course poor people do make unwise choices. Then again so do rich people.

In Missouri a bill has been introduced in the legislature to make it illegal for food-stamp recipients to use their benefits “to purchase cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood, or steak.” I admit the list includes some poor food choices in terms of health and that a family living on a very limited budget can get more benefit from making other food choices. But do we really want to live in a society where some choices are available to only part of the population? I’m pretty sure that people who are dependent on a $7/day food stamp allotment aren’t lining up to buy filet mignon or crab legs. There may be an occasional extravagance, but I’m not sure that making it impossible for them to buy canned tuna and chuck steak is going to solve the problem.

After all, when wealthy people make poor choices or indulge in unnecessary extravagance, we don’t suggest that we make laws to prevent their behavior. In fact the tax laws reward certain poor choices made by wealth people. The mortgage interest deduction can be applied to second homes and even to a boat, provided that it has sleeping quarters, a kitchen and a toilet. That means you get a mortgage deduction for a yacht, but not for a canoe or a fishing boat. So if you are poor, you’re not going to get fish in your diet that way, either. And if you rent out that home or yacht for part of the year there are all kinds of business deductions that can come your way. Maybe owning a yacht isn’t really a bad choice in the first place.

How about gambling? Gambling losses are deductible for people who have enough money to gamble. I confess that I’m not a gambler and I don’t really understand how this deduction works, but I’m thinking that there aren’t a lot of people living in entrenched poverty who pay accountants to find this deduction for them.

Somehow we’ve come up with the belief that it’s OK for rich people to make poor choices, but poor people shouldn’t be allowed to make bad choices.

There is another important difference between wealthy people and poor people in our country. Politics is expensive. It’s a game poor people can’t afford to play. We’ve made campaigning so expensive that running for elected office is an option only for the wealthy or those who have lots of wealthy friends. The people who are making the laws are unlikely to have any first-hand experience with entrenched poverty. They are making laws based on their perception of poverty rather than the reality. They may be very compassionate. They are unlikely to really know about poverty or what might help.

Add to that the simple fact that there is a big difference in wealth between states, so that many rural states such as our own tend to have a lot of legislation presented that was developed and paid for by out of state money. It is rare to see a bill in the South Dakota legislature that was actually written by a South Dakotan. Our legislators rely primarily on out-of-state interests to actually write the legislation proposed in our assembly. I’m thinking, off the top of my head, that there aren’t a lot of poor people who are spending their time trying to get legislation passed in other states.

I don’t remember reading anywhere in the Bible about Jesus trying to determine whether or not a poor person was worthy of compassion or healing. In fact one gets the impression from the Bible that the reason to show compassion and to share is because it is good for the giver. Remember Jesus and the rich young man? Matthew, Mark and Luke all report that Jesus had compassion on the rich man when he said, “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.” Jesus didn’t say anything about the need of the poor to receive, only the need of the rich man to give.

I know that I do not know how to solve the intense poverty suffered by some people in my own town. I know that my means of helping are inconsistent and often ineffective. Still, it seems to me that I’d rather give what I can than save my funds for the purchase of a second house or a yacht. And gambling holds no appeal for me whatsoever. I’d much rather buy lunch for a stranger I met on the street than feed coins into a slot machine.

For the record, however, none of my canoes has a mortgage on it.

I wrote this. If you want to copy it, please ask for permission. There is a contact me button at the bottom of this page. If you want to share my blog a friend, please direct your friend to my web site.