We laud diversity, particularly diversity in race, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation, but that welcoming attitude slows when the creeds we live by don’t match.
This article pertains well to my experience. I'm navigating the process of directing whatever resources available toward eldercare in all its complexity, on behalf of my 86-year-old mother. The federal poverty level came up in my research today. I just can't believe how poor a person needs to be in order to be "poor" enough to qualify for assistance, depending on the program.
You and President Havel explain well the quandary presented when policy is built on profoundly misleading premises. To think that an individual in the contiguous U.S. and D.C. would be "poor" if their annual income is below $14,580, and not "poor" if $14,581, certifies a paucity of understanding about what it actually costs 1 person anywhere in this country for taxes, decent housing, heat, safe potable water, electricity, broadband, healthy food, healthcare, transportation, insurance, etc. I guarantee it's significantly more than $14,580.
Even when the federal poverty level is multiplied to set the limit for assistance qualification, programs doing their level best to snare funding and distribute it fairly end up outdoing or underdoing themselves and each other, or not doing anything at all. Who thinks this is a great system?
Wise words. Labels matter. This reminds me of the current initiative by the Audubon Society to change its name....apparently because the famous ornithologist & painter was also a slave owner & held racist views. As a longtime member of Audubon, I have to say that I don't think it matters one whit to the birds what the organization chooses to call itself. I had to look up articles to determine "why" the name change is happening. Will prospective members recognize the new name in the same way we all do when the name of John James Audubon is mentioned? We will see.
This article pertains well to my experience. I'm navigating the process of directing whatever resources available toward eldercare in all its complexity, on behalf of my 86-year-old mother. The federal poverty level came up in my research today. I just can't believe how poor a person needs to be in order to be "poor" enough to qualify for assistance, depending on the program.
You and President Havel explain well the quandary presented when policy is built on profoundly misleading premises. To think that an individual in the contiguous U.S. and D.C. would be "poor" if their annual income is below $14,580, and not "poor" if $14,581, certifies a paucity of understanding about what it actually costs 1 person anywhere in this country for taxes, decent housing, heat, safe potable water, electricity, broadband, healthy food, healthcare, transportation, insurance, etc. I guarantee it's significantly more than $14,580.
Even when the federal poverty level is multiplied to set the limit for assistance qualification, programs doing their level best to snare funding and distribute it fairly end up outdoing or underdoing themselves and each other, or not doing anything at all. Who thinks this is a great system?
Wise words. Labels matter. This reminds me of the current initiative by the Audubon Society to change its name....apparently because the famous ornithologist & painter was also a slave owner & held racist views. As a longtime member of Audubon, I have to say that I don't think it matters one whit to the birds what the organization chooses to call itself. I had to look up articles to determine "why" the name change is happening. Will prospective members recognize the new name in the same way we all do when the name of John James Audubon is mentioned? We will see.
Ah Humility where art thou-Like Love,I see you as a verb.