In the article, Heller proceeds to lay every ill that befalls the city of Philadelphia - and that's plenty of ills - at the very feat of this fearsome monster known as poverty.
The city budget shows 62% of resources go towards fighting crime and social needs? Poverty is the culprit. Michelle Obama visits Philly to campaign against obesity because too many parents shove McDonald's down their kids throats? Poverty. Teachers are overworked? Poverty. School violence is tolerated? Poverty. Health rate is poor, and kids don't take education seriously? Poverty.
The problem, not with the city but with Heller's article, is that she simply cries "poverty" at every opportunity. She makes the typical liberal mistake of failing to see the forest for the trees. The problem is not some general epidemic of poverty. Philadelphia's problem is an epidemic of liberalism.
That's right, little kids go without food because of the political philosophy and ideology of liberalism. Little kids get fat in some cases because of the exact same ideology. Kids don't stay in school, don't want to stay in school let alone advance further, because of it. Violence is greatly increased because of it, and health problems are magnified because of it.
