As the debate goes on about how to deal with poverty, I am inclined to think that the US government bears a major share of the blame for its continuance.

The most I have ever earned in a single year, as of December 2006 was $42,000. That was part of a three year stretch where I made over $100K. But I worked long hours for that (In the $42,000 year, for instance, I figured I put in about 350 working days), and I paid the price. The majority of my working career has been in the $20-30k range, usually hovering towards the low end. We've raised our family, always had food to eat, always had a roof over our heads. Not once have we had to apply for utility assistance, twice we have had to apply for food stamps, once we had to apply for TANF (until my unemployment came through), and twice for Medical Assistance. Other than that, always and exclusively any assistance we have received has come from private charities. I have waited in line for my number to be called for day labor employment. Over the years, I've been a plumber, a miner, a factory worker, a dishwasher, a prep cook, a busboy, a group home manager, a printer, a tech support person, a cashier, a stockboy, a campaign staffer and a lobbyist. I've seen a wide variety of people in my dealings.

I give you the resume simply to establish that I know something about what it's like to be working poor. That I speak with experience. I have worked with housing advocates in Chicago, homeless advocates in Wisconsin, Illinois, Oklahoma, Washington, Nevada, and Texas. One thing that my experiences have convinced me of, though, is that the major hurdle to eliminating poverty is the government itself.

See, in most markets where I have lived, the most substantial portion of my budget is dedicated to housing. And housing is one part of the budget that's pretty much nonnegotiable. And one of the most significant driving forces in the cost of housing is the government itself. Four factors I can identify that drive up the cost of housing are permitting, zoning, environmental regulations, and property taxes.

Now, understand I realize all of these laws have a well intentioned purpose. Rather than take them all on with one sweeping statement, I'm going to hit on what I view as the pros and cons of each. There are also common denominators of all of these, which I will bring up at the end:

Permitting, at least in theory, guarantees a minimum standard of livability for housing. I don't think it does what it is intended to do, however, as in my personal experience many of the working poor live in substandard housing that should be condemned but isn't because, well, who's going to report the landlord if it means you get kicked out on the streets? These houses usually rent for well under market value, but they are also often disease ridden vermin infested deathtraps. In one home where I lived, it was discovered that, rather than fix faulty plumbing in the house, the landlord, or, according to his allegations, the previous tenant, simply cut the sewer pipe in the basemant and allowed the sewage to dump out. I paid $350 a month for that rathole, and didn't notice the problem because we lived on the second floor (ironically, when we were living there, Habitat for Humanity refused to process our application because our dwelling wasn't certified as substandard housing).

Because of the cost of permits, and of contractors, many landlords simply forego these costs and rent to tenants who won't squeal. They buy and sell these properties  so fast that it's hard for housing inspectors to keep up. Tenants don't squeal because security deposits cost money, and it is not uncommon for it to cost two to three months' salary to move.

Zoning is a similar issue. Again, I know exactly why it's there. Businesses would be adversely affected if their storefronts were intermingled with dwellings for people who are desperately poor, and who, by their very presence, could bring crime into the neighborhood. The problem is, there are too many areas where mixed zoning would be more appropriate.

At one point we seriously gave consideration to renting 2400 square feet of floor space with three separate rooms, a full bathroom, and an open area for $400 a month. It would have been a workable arrangement, but if caught, would have meant a large fine. As with the permitting issue, this leads to slumlords renting upper floors of their commercially zoned properties to people who see getting evicted every once in awhile as part of the proper turn of events, and who won't squeal on the landlord if things are not kept up to snuff.

Environmental regulations can hamper a building project quicker than anything. And they can and have in some instances, harmed species rather than helping them, as it is not uncommon for someone, upon finding a rare species to kill it and destroy the evidence rather than have it declared as habitat for an endangered species. This adds to the cost of the property they CAN develop, as it is passed on to the tenant as a cost.

Property taxes hurt the poor worst of all because they are the first cost passed onto a tenant. A landlord can't rent at a loss, so the tenant pays the taxes first, then the landlord's profit.

There is no easy answer to any of these. While doing away with these factors may seem appealing, the truth is, they would hurt more than help. Do away with permitting entirely and it's a virtual certainty that poorly constructed slums will pop up without any regulation in place to prevent them. Do away with zoning, and you'll have a flophouse next to the high end department store, killing business because of the hassle of dealing with panhandlers, and increasing crime because of the number of pickpockets, car thieves, etc. Do away with environmental regulations entirely and it will put us back to square one. As a member of a generation that has lived most of my life with unleaded fuel and certain checks on pollutants, I'm quite happy living with rivers that don't catch fire, thank you. And do away with property taxes and you lose a major source of revenue for local and county governments.

What we need are comprehensive solutions from ALL players. Not just bipartisan, but tripartisan, quadripartisan, whatever it takes. We need our politicians to talk not just to those involved in ministry and outreach to the poor, but to those involved in the daily PROCESS of poverty. Those who live their lives on sparse budget, particularly those who do so successfully.

On another blog I was challenged when I stated that I spend under $300/month on the food budget for my family of seven. I do it because, simply, I've learned HOW to do it. And I have skills that have resulted from learning how to do it that I can and should be using to teach others. And, truth be told, I could save even more if I could get other members of the community to join with me in a concerted effort to do so.

As housing is usually the single most crippling factor, it's one where we should concentrate our efforts. I propose we do so with a series of tax exemptions for low income landlords who keep their rentals up to a certain standard of livability. I propose we implement an urban homesteading act, allowing a tax credit for landowners to surrender their properties, and allowing families to move in with a filing fee, and matching them with contractors and suppliers who will provide them with goods and services for free or reduced cost. I propose we do a better job of networking people with ideas to help provide viable, long term solutions that are more than just window dressing.

I'll be the first to admit my ideas are just one perspective. But as someone who has managed to live successfully on a budget many people would consider unhrealistic, I think my perspective needs to be on the table. As someone who's lived it, I would take my advice quicker than I would take that of some silver spoon fed politician.