The surveys use the federally defined poverty level, which is largely considered to be far short of a realistic threshold for estimating poverty. For example, under this definition a family of four that earns $20,500 a year is not in poverty. I imagine that the persons responsible for establishing those numbers would have quite the difficult time finding such a family that would agree that they are not in poverty. Many statisticians will include people with incomes of 150 percent or even 200 percent of the federal poverty level in their estimations.

The surveys indicate that 36.5 million Americans, or 12.3 percent of the population, were living in poverty in 2006. While many headlines noted that this was a slight decrease from the 2005 level of 12.6 percent, the Census Bureau itself acknowledged that the decline was statistically insignificant. The surveys again confirmed that minorities are more likely to suffer the effects of poverty, as non-Hispanic whites were in poverty at the lowest rate in 2006 (8.2 percent), while blacks (24.3 percent) and Hispanics (20.6 percent) were defined as impoverished at the highest rates.

In Michigan, the poverty rate was even higher at 13.3 percent, with 1.3 million Michigan citizens living below the federal poverty level, including more than 430,000 children. With more families and children living in poverty since 2001, Michigan has one of the fastest growing poverty rates in the country. Similarly, the state’s median household income has been declining since 2001 and more than 1 million people in Michigan are without health insurance.

That picture alone is a grim one, but poverty is not an isolated problem. For a child born into poverty, statistical life chances start lower than their counterparts of higher socioeconomic status and diminish quickly. Children born into poverty have higher rates of low birth weight, lead poisoning, hunger and malnutrition, all of which impair development. These children also are less likely to have health insurance than their more affluent peers, which lowers their attendance at school and makes them statistically more likely to be underperforming.

With higher rates of health problems, lower quality and availability of health insurance, and inadequate education, these students are often in the minority if they graduate from high school. Accordingly, few go to college and even fewer persist to earn any type of postsecondary degree. Faced with an increasingly knowledge-based economy that values education and skills, these individuals then face few employment opportunities that can support a healthy family, thus continuing the cycle of poverty.

These statistics should prompt widespread outrage at our national priorities in allocating resources. From a humanist side, America must invest more in helping move people out of poverty and into the economic mainstream rather than fund war, death and destruction abroad. From a strictly economic perspective, it is in the country’s best financial interest to help people achieve what was once called “the American dream.” Healthier, better-educated people make better-paid employees who contribute more in taxes and cost less in public expenses.

While food programs and other aid can help treat some immediate problems related to poverty, the only way to reduce future poverty is through significant change and sustained effort. The nation must aggressively support access to quality education, job training, health insurance, financial literacy and other services that will help move people from poverty to prosperity. These efforts must address the needs of individuals who are affected at all stages.

As the total amount spent on the war in Iraq inches toward a half-trillion dollars, Americans should demand that presidential aspirants propose plans to put this money to use helping the neediest of Americans and instead start a new, intelligent, and practical war on poverty.

Ryan Dinkgrave is a State News columnist. Reach him at dinkgra2@msu.edu.