NPR had a short story this morning that touched on how we (in the US anyway) define poverty and suggested that the definition is antiquated. I have to agree. The current definition is food based with general allowances for shelter, clothing and a couple other necessities. My take was that the author is suggesting we move to a more participation based definition, as in whether or not a person is able, at their income level, to participate in some of the basic elements of society that most of us take for granted.
They mentioned things like TV and cell phones. I'm one who mostly sees the dark side of media controlled information streams and so for the most part avoid TV, but I can see how not watching because you can't afford it is far different socially than not watching by choice. Most of our friends just think I'm eccentric because I made the choice to pull the plug, but none of them pity me because of my viewing habits. I'm not branded as "poor Gregg" because I don't have cable. Maybe even more importantly I don't think of myself that way either.
Similar story with cell phones, and in the current age specifically smart phones. No, I don't think having a phone is an inalienable right and I'm not convinced that "Obama-phones" and similar measures are logical, but I do agree that anyone without the knowledge of and access to a smart phone is already handicapped and in danger of being left out of our society.
LBJ's war on poverty hasn't been without some victories, but we're not living in the 1960s any more so I have to agree its time to bring the battle into the 21st century. The solution, as always, boils down to opportunity, or lack thereof, and how we provide that to as many people as possible. What was interesting to me is the notion of starting with a completely different definition of the problem. Maybe a new marketing campaign like that would be enough to help us move from the 'give a man a fish' mentality toward teaching a time where we give people a chance to learn how to fish.