Too many go without adequate food, without heat in the winter, without the basic essentials of life. Living without cable TV is one thing; going without lunch is another. It's a sad testament that the world's most powerful nation still has a sizeable portion of its population affected by poverty's wide-ranging effects.
When Alabama looks in the mirror, it sees some disturbing, troubling images. Residents with little to their name. Children who get one nutritious meal a day, if that. Pregnant women who can't afford basic prenatal care. Too many minimum-wage jobs dominating workforces of too many counties, a devastating item to twin with recession and the slow death of many of the state's manufacturing industries.
And, a critical element: too little effort among some legislators to provide a hand up, not a hand out, to the state's less fortunate.
Anti-poverty groups work in what's often a tiresome, never-ending profession. Little glamour, little glitz. No red carpet for them. But groups such as Alabama Arise and Alabama Appleseed Center for Law and Justice are just two of the organizations on the front line of this struggle for what's right, for the essence of a civilized world. Without them, and others, Alabama's poor would be worse off than they are.
Last week, new statistics provided by Auburn University's Center for Governmental Services showed the need for advocacy groups to redouble
their efforts on behalf of low-income residents. The struggle is far from over.
The university's Ask Alabama public-opinion poll revealed that 27 percent of residents believe "a lot" of Alabama families are cutting the size of meals or skipping meals because of the length of the recession. Thirty-six percent believe "a fair number" are skimping on meals.
As one would expect, those with money polled more positively than did those without. The Auburn poll revealed that 51 percent of people who make less than $20,000 a year said many families were eating less during the recession. But state households that make $150,000 a year or more said they believed only 8 percent of Alabama families were cutting back at mealtime.
Regionally, results were predictable: Southwest and southeast Alabama residents believed many were going hungry due to the recession; more affluent parts — those with more education and less minority residents — polled more positive numbers.
One's proximity to poverty should never be discounted.
It would have been wise if Auburn pollsters had taken the direct approach and asked Alabamians if they were cutting back. Concerns that respondents would have been reluctant to offer personal information aren't invalid, but they do weaken the poll's results. Nonetheless, the results still offer a compelling gaze into the attitude of the state's poor and rich.
Those who advocate for Alabama's less fortunate know the drill. Numbers, facts and polls rarely stray from the obvious. Sadly, poverty is among us, never ceasing. Lessening its grasp is a task for us all.
