What is it with people who claim the moral high ground because they ostensibly grew up poor? They seem to believe that a tough childhood entitles them to impose their idea of helping the poor on others via government force, and dog forbid anyone whose difficult childhood experiences led them to fight harder, work more, and pull themselves up by their bootstraps speaks out against government entitlement programs (read: forced charity)! Well, they must be ingrates who don’t even understand how government helped them achieve everything they have attained in life!

Remember how the left castigated Ben Carson as a hypocrite, because he believes that generations of welfare entitlements create generations of individuals dependent on government handouts, while he and his family did rely on government assistance to help in times of need? Well, of course, the leftists in their frothing zeal to discredit Carson, decided not to differentiate between generations of entitled welfare recipients milking the government for all they can and those who need a temporary hand up, because had they done so, their narrative of Carson as a hypocrite would have fallen apart. Even left-leaning Snopes slapped them on the nose with a newspaper – albeit lightly – for that.

In yesterday’s Washington Post opinion piece, an Ohio employment lawyer and Congressional candidate Betsy Rader exhibits a similar lack of depth. In her tone deaf missive Rader, endeavors to diminish the experiences of J.D. Vance in his memoir “Hillbilly Elegy,” which discusses his family history of poverty and low-paying, menial jobs and his life after leaving Middletown, Ohio.

Rader apparently believes that because Vance discussed the issues of personal responsibility vice economic insecurity as causes of poverty and misfortune, and is a self-described “conservative,” he must be a heartless hypocrite, because he ostensibly received government aid that helped him climb out of his situation, and because he now denounces the culture that perpetuates the economic misery. And because her experiences were different than his, he must simply be a callous jerk, and couldn’t possibly speak for her!

I take great exception when he makes statements such as: “We spend our way into the poorhouse. We buy giant TVs and iPads. Our children wear nice clothes thanks to high-interest credit cards and payday loans. We purchase homes we don’t need, refinance them for more spending money, and declare bankruptcy. . . . Thrift is inimical to our being.”

Who is this “we” of whom he speaks? Vance’s statements don’t describe the family in which I grew up, and they don’t describe the families I meet who are struggling to make it in America today. I know that my family lived on $6,000 per year because as children, we sat down with pen and paper to help find a way for us to live on that amount. My mom couldn’t even qualify for a credit card, much less live on credit. She bought our clothes at discount stores.

Looking at Rader’s profile, she appears to be at least 10 years older than I am. I’m fairly sure the entire concept of poverty has changed since she was a child, as has the cost of living. Giant TVs, iPads, and other high-end electronics weren’t available or common back then, and neither was easy credit. Credit card debt was virtually nonexistent until the 1970s, and student loan debt really skyrocketed in the 1990s. So Rader is comparing her childhood with Vance’s description of poverty today, and there’s just no comparison.

Meanwhile Vance was born in 1984, so his experiences will have been vastly different, especially with the increases in personal debt and popularity of credit cards, which didn’t exist in Rader’s youth. By the time Vance was born, Rader was already at Yale law school, and away from the poverty she claims to have lived through.

And yet, because her family was ostensibly fiscally responsible, and her anecdotal evidence based on her experience as a lawyer, sitting high atop her privilege perch, seemingly contradicts Vance’s experiences, she relegates and demeans his memoir as nothing but “shark bait for conservative policymakers.”

Rader’s disdain for those who believe every one of us should be responsible for our success, and to understand that we bear the brunt of the accountability for our own success or failure is typical of today’s progressives and demeaning to the very poor they claim they’re trying to help.

As a minority woman who grew up in stinking poverty, “shopping” for clothes in other people’s trash, and living in bug-infested filth until my parents were able to learn enough English and save enough money to move to a better place, I find her claim that essentially echoes Barack Obama’s famous “you didn’t build that” line offensive.

Yes, I went to public school. Yes, a guidance counselor also encouraged me to attend college. Yes, I did get financial aid in the form of loans, which the U.S. Army repaid in exchange for my years of service. Yes, I had an excellent ESL education. But to claim that my family and I somehow couldn’t have done it without government bennies is abhorrent.

Fact is that today’s definition of “poverty” is worlds apart from what Rader (and I) experienced.

Americans who live in households whose income is below the federal “poverty” level typically have cell phones (as well as landline phones), computers, televisions, video recorders, air conditioning, refrigerators, gas or electric stoves, and washers and dryers and microwaves, according to a newly released report from the Census Bureau.

In fact, 80.9 percent of households below the poverty level have cell phones, and a healthy majority—58.2 percent—have computers.

And while she and her family struggled to survive on $6000 per year in the 70s, sad fact is $6000 was worth more than $37,000  in 1970. It’s certainly not a great amount of money, but I started my career in journalism in 1998 at a much lower salary than that and I worked my ass off to get where I am today. Without government help. Without government handouts. Without WIC, food stamps, SNAP, or Medicaid. With huge medical debts for one special needs kid. And as a single mother.

So, frankly, I don’t want to hear it.

Fact is government’s spending on the “war on poverty” is already costing us an enormous amount of money. And welfare programs seem to have done squat to reduce poverty, despite the multiple billions spent on eradicating it.

And yet, progressive politicians continue to push for more and more giveaways to welfare recipients. Is it so hard to imagine that perhaps there’s something more at play that’s keeping people poor?

Like most progs, Rader seems to believe that people can’t climb out of their hole without concern trolls such as her voting for the federal government to pour millions of taxpayer dollars into their holes of misery. And while I absolutely believe that there is room for a safety net for people who are experiencing economic hardship, today’s poor are, in fact, a lot better off than most.

Like most progs, Rader poo-poos the role a lack of motivation, high levels of revolving debt, and dependence on state and local government play in keeping poor people from succeeding.

And like most progs, Rader seems to have tunnel vision and a lack of ability to analyze current economic trends to examine the roots of economic hardship and misery, preferring instead to advocate for the disadvantaged by advocating handouts at others’ expense.

In other words, Rader is a typical politician wannabe, who is trying to get elected by promising handouts.

Well, as someone who has had to claw her way out of poverty, Betsy Rader doesn’t speak for me.