More whining about defining poor from Debra J Saunders.

Now I do not wish to make light of the decisions families have to make to stay afloat or get ahead. But the Times did report that the Pendleton and her janitor husband gave up Red Lobster, movie nights and new clothes for three years in order to amass the $3,000 nest egg that will serve as a deposit on their new home. I think it’s fantastic that the Pendletons are making their dreams come true, even though it can be a bumpy ride.

New definition of “near poor” — no iPad?

Still, how does Washington categorize this family “near poor?” As the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector objected, “the emotionally charged terms ‘poor’ or ‘near poor’ clearly suggest to most people a level of material hardship that doesn’t exist. It is deliberately used to mislead people.”

I find it offensive that my tax dollars are paying for a bureaucracy that has to cook up new ways to expand the definition of poverty — so that ”near poor” now includes a family that managed to save $3,000 in the last three years.