I've had the topic of this article on the shelf for awhile. What I couldn't get my hands around, though, was how to make it clear who I was and wasn't talking about in the context of the article. So, for the purposes of this article, I am going to differentiate between "classes" of the poor in America (this article is about American poverty, not world poverty, by the way):

• The first class of poor are the "down and out". These are people who, due to some misfortune are suffering a personal downturn in their lives. This article is not about them
• The second class are the politically poor. These people aren't really poor, but the Census Bureau says they are, so they must be. This article is not about them either
• The third class are the working poor. These people are working to gradually improve their lives, but, most importantly, ARE working. This article is not about them
• The fourth class are the truly disabled. Though some people with lesser disabilities do fall under the category of chronically poor, this article is not, by and large, about them either.
• The fifth class are the elderly. Many of these people have worked long and hard and deserve some degree of respect. This article is not about them either.
• The sixth class are the chronically poor. These people have no ambition for self improvement, and will continually bemoan their status while taking advantage of every entitlement program and handout their grubby hands can access. This article is decidedly, and bitingly, about them.

I have come to the firm belief that the chronically poor in America are mentally handicapped. This is not entirely a subjective opinion, though, as most reliable statistics will point to a heavy incidence of mental illness among the homeless. In addition, there is the inescapable fact that we live in a nation where there are so many help agencies, so many benefit programs, that there is absolutely no reason why someone would have to live out on the streets, or without food. Indeed, we are probably the only nation in history who can cite OBESITY as one of the leading causes of death among its poor (of all of the classes I have mentioned above).

While I shy away from LW's notorious position of poorhouses, I am beginning to think the idea has some merit. Certainly, we do not need to degenerate to the disease infested tenements of Dickensian lore, but one needs only look at our inner cities and impoverished neighborhoods to see that we've already degenerated to that state for many of our poor. The fact is, the best way to humanely deal with the most people using the least resources is in clean, bare housing structures with community meals and community responsibilities. Any parent with 5 children will tell you it's cheaper to feed a family of seven than it is to feed seven individuals.

Assuming my thesis of the chronically poor being mentally handicapped is correct (a broad assumption, I know, absent hard statistical evidence, but humor me here), then our current methods of handling their condition are not only the least cost effective, but the least humane. A humanitarian response to their condition would be to put them in a controlled environment such as the one that a "poorhouse" would have to offer. They could receive the medication, the support, and most importantly, the companionship, they need to become productive citizens in society instead of living their lives on the fringe as is currently their plight. If we employed the poorhouse approach for the down and out and the working poor, we might see a gradual improvement in their conditions as well. After all, the cost efficient environment of the poorhouses would allow these individuals and families to save more of their hard earned money to get back into society on better footing and decrease the likelihood of their returning to an impoverished state. As for the children of these families, my feeling is that if the families can afford the extra housing units and food to keep their children with them in the poorhouse, they should remain with their parents. If the parents cannot do so, orphanages could potentially offer a temporary solution to the problem, as long as it was stipulated that the children would be IMMEDIATELY returned once the parents showed themselves to be demonstrably capable of caring for them.

Sure, there are some downsides to the "poorhouse" approach. But one of the biggest problems of the Victorian era poorhouses was hygiene, something we have the resources and knowledge to address. And we cannot properly begin finding solutions to the very real problems of society if we throw out practical solutions on the basis that they don't fit our own pet political agendas. We are most likely to find workable solutions to these problems if we invite ALL sides to the table to discuss and dissect the issues, even those we don't personally find appealing.

I believe that it's time to take the idea of the poorhouses off the shelf, for the moment, at least, and put it back on the table to study whether the problem was actually in the poorhouses, or in the administration of the same. One thing is for sure: 70 years of throwing money at the problem HASN'T worked; it's time we find solutions that DO work!