Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Republicans Ignoring Poor?
According to Martin of CNN, the 10 poorest states in the United States are solidly red, staunch GOP supporters. Thus, it would make sense that Republicans running for president would spend considerable time discussing their plans to alleviate the issue, especially if they want the 15% poor (on average) and the considerable percentage close to poverty to vote for them. Martin cites examples of Republican debates where the candidates only discussed the poor regarding welfare reform / opposition and a Tea Party / CNN debate where Mitt Romney only mentioned 'poor' in reference to U.S's poor use of energy. Although Republicans are likely to argue that their economic agenda would bring more jobs to the market and thus rescue people from poverty, Martin refutes that "the poverty issue extends beyond employment -- to education and health care." Although this might be a single sided argument / anti-republican argument, I think that it makes sense at the surface level. (Perhaps if I followed the debates / campaigns more carefully, I would see loopholes in the presentation of the issue, possibly in glossed-over data.) However, if I currently were a poor person in a mostly GOP state, I would vote for a candidate that has seriously discussed improving the poverty situation regardless of party affiliations. Therefore, if the republicans should desire to keep a substantial amount of votes in their states, perhaps a deeper look into poverty is warranted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Kore, I agree that Republicans should address poverty and welfare programs, especially considering the poverty rates in states consistently relied upon for votes by GOP candidates. However, there must be reasons that voters in these 10 poor states usually vote Republican. One that comes to mind is the fact that Republican candidates usually advocate lower tax rates than Democrats. For someone struggling to make end's meet, taxes come as a burden. This being said, it would make sense for a poor voter to choose a candidate who allows them to keep their hard-earned money, as opposed to a candidate who forces them to part with more of their money. I assume that poor voters would rather have more money in their pockets than in the hands of the government, knowing that the vast majority of their tax dollars will not be channelled to welfare and poverty programs.
Post a Comment