The Huntsville Times published a column written by Lukata Mjumbe as the lead editorial in the “Forum” section of today’s Sunday paper.  The column is entitled “Middle Class and Broke in Alabama.”  Mr. Mjumbe tries to make the case that there is an expansive group of people he deems “working poor” and “so-called middle class” and that, among other things, the government should give them - I kid you not - food stamps.  The Times didn’t include Mjumbe’s column on-line, but you can read a nearly identical version from 2006 on the Tuscaloosa News website.

Mjumbe begins by lamenting the percentage of Alabamians who are “officially” poor by federal guidelines, which he says is nearly 17%.  He continues:

[T]he paradox of poverty reveals that the majority of Alabama’s “de facto poor” may be those who are stereotypically defined as apart [sic] of the “middle class.”

Most people would define “middle class” as someone who has a job, went to college and owns their own home. Using these standards and definitions, about 90 percent of the people in Alabama who will file for bankruptcy this year will be middle class.

The definition of middle class that Mjumbe suggests most people use is quite broad indeed!  George W. Bush would be middle class and so would Warren Buffett.  Bill Gates kind of would because Mjumbe only said people who “went to college,” although I suspect that Mjumbe intended to set the threshold at actually receiving a diploma, which would leave Gates excluded due only to dropping out of Harvard.  The soft definition of middle class is a favored ploy by people, typically politicians and others interested in influencing policy and public opinion.  At one point the Democrats set the definition of middle class so loosely that depending on which metric you used you might be both poor and wealthy at the same time!  Mr. Mjumbe doesn’t explicitly state what his own definition of middle class is, so we’re left to assume he shares the definition that he claims “most people” use.

So-called middle class people lead the nation in foreclosures and repossessions. Yet, these families find themselves in a dilemma not even faced by the poorest of poor. These families are ineligible for most state and federally funded poverty programs because they officially “make too much money.”

That “so-called” middle class people lead the nation in foreclosures and repossessions is something of an unavoidable result since Mjumbe defined the “so-called” middle class as people who are employed, went to college, and own a home.  With home ownership as a pre-requisite for admission into the middle class is it at all surprising that this group of people would lead in foreclosures and repossessions?  It’s kind of like boldly stating that pilots lead the nation in airplane crashes.

Let’s give Mjumbe the benefit of the doubt and briefly assume that his own definition of the middle class isn’t the same as what he says is held by “most people.”  He appears to eschew income based definitions, but I presume he does not think highly compensated CEOs and professional athletes - despite satisfying the generally accepted requirements - are in the middle class due to their extreme incomes.  Again, is it at all surprising that people with lower incomes would lead in foreclosures and repossessions?

The federal formula fails to factor in the contemporary realities of the growing number of single parent homes, expanding costs related to childcare, health care, transportation, geographic differences, access to food stamps and other forms of public assistance denied to the so-called middle class.

I agree with Mjumbe that poverty guidelines should take geographic differences into account due to cost of living differences.  The federal poverty guidelines list individual values that apply to the entire contiguous 48 states.  I’ve long been critical of this method because it makes Alabama seem more impoverished than other, higher cost of living states.  Mr. Mjumbe, though, seems to revel in the skewed perception of poverty caused by not including geographic differences; he did include the “official” poverty statistic in his opening sentence.

I can’t help but be amused, though, at Mjumbe’s suggestion that middle class people, however broad the definition, should have access to food stamps and “other forms of public assistance.”  I have a slightly better idea.  How about cutting government funding - and the accompanying taxes - for groups that exist to tell us how poor we are.  I’d rather the government just let us keep more of what we earn instead of taking it from us, telling us how little we have left, and then giving it back.

You can read the balance of Mjumbe’s column yourself.  It is laden with emotional pleas, but is void of any hard statistics defining the size of the poor middle class individuals he talks about.  His proposed solutions include raising the minimum wage and “investing in community action programs” (like the one he runs!).  He doesn’t suggest what might be an appropriate amount for the minimum wage.  How about $50 an hour? Or maybe $100?  Surely people could live on that.

Mjumbe’s piece struck me as quite absurd and his conclusions seemed to lean heavily towards collectivism.  If he thinks that government aid should be expanded up the income ladder it is not a long trip out on the proverbial limb to the conclusion that “the rich” should foot the bill.  Increased income redistribution!  What a great idea.  Surely that wouldn’t mollify the desire to work hard and achieve.  Everyone gets an equal slice of a smaller pie.  Sounds fantastic!

I don’t dispute an element of Mjumbe’s argument.  I do believe that there are a startling number of people who are in desperate financial situations, but I vehemently disagree with the implication that their situation is arrived at innocently or that government “safety nets” are an appropriate response.  The top two reasons, which are tightly coupled, most “middle class” people end up living paycheck to paycheck are poor consumption choices and lack of saving.  I’ve seen this situation personally more than I care to admit.  Working couples, both of who make approximately what I do if not more (i.e. twice my family’s income), who complain about how tight things are.  But they miraculously always seem to be driving new cars, have the most extensive cable TV packages, and are meticulously well dressed in clothes I don’t even bother shopping for.  It is not shocking to find out they aren’t saving.  They choose to live beyond their means - voluntarily living paycheck to paycheck.  Similar observations can be made at all income levels.  Just go to Costco or Sam’s Club on Saturday and see how many people walk out with enormous, expensive flat panel televisions.  If you think all those people are paying cash for the TVs and are caught up on their savings please raise your hand.  I didn’t think so.  It’s hard to feel bad when the rainy days come.  Certainly a knowledge that there was a government “safety net” for them wouldn’t do anything to rectify their bad decision making process.

You can read another of Mjumbe’s editorials, published today, in the Montgomery Advertiser.  He also penned a column that appeared in a Head Start newsletter.  That column is particularly amusing because he suggests that Alabama could have used the $400 million in corporate welfare used to attract ThyssenKrupp to build 4,000 homes that would simply be given to poor people.  That seems like a brilliant idea.

He is quite an interesting individual.  Born Lawrence Jefferies, Mjumbe legally changed his name in 1995 “to make a connection to my heritage and my history and who I am.”  He spent ten years working on a degree from Morehouse in Atlanta, where he graduated summa cum laude, and claims to have been homeless for a brief period.  Apparently while in Atlanta he also was the “political director of a community-based group in Atlanta called the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement” according to The Farrakhan Factor by Amy Alexander (I suppose there is a fleeting possibility there were two Lukata Mjumbes in Atlanta at that time, but I’ll take my chances).  According to the MXGM’s website:

We understand that the collective institutions of white-supremacy, patriarchy and capitalism have been at the root of our people’s oppression. We understand that without community control and without the power to determine our own lives, we will continue to fall victim to genocide. Therefore, we seek to heighten our consciousness about self-determination as a human right and a solution to our colonization. While organizing around our principles of unity, we are building a network of Black/New Afrikan activists and organizers committed to the protracted struggle for the liberation of the New Afrikan Nation - By Any Means Necessary!

Maybe that explains Mjumbe’s obvious skepticism about capitalism and his name change.

Since coming to Alabama, Mjumbe spent about two years as a staffer for U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (I wonder if Davis would hire a former activist in a “White/New European” organization?) and is now the executive director of the Community Action Association of Alabama.  He is also a supporter of Barack Obama for president.

Related content:

This entry was posted by Brian on Sunday, March 9th, 2008 at 2:33 pm and is filed under Alabama, Poverty, Social Issues. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Please note the copyright policy.