The War on Poverty

[Townhallsavoy]

Princeton, New Jersey (CNN) -- America's poverty rate is now the worst since 1993, according to a shocking report last week from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Over 46 million people are living in poverty, 2.6 million more than in 2009 and the poverty rate has reached 15.1 percent.

The outlook is grim. The recession has compounded decades of growing economic inequality, structural poverty, and urban decay. With the projections that unemployment will remain high for several years, these numbers are not likely to improve.

Making matters worse, as Ron Haskings at the Brookings Institution noted, "Safety net programs run by the federal and state governments are helping millions of families avoid poverty, but thee programs could be subject to cuts at the federal and state level because of continuing deficit and debt problems."

Despite the enormity of this social problem, American politicians in either party rarely discuss the subject. Since the poor don't tend to vote in high rates or contribute much in campaign funds, they don't get a place at the table in Washington, D.C. Yet with the U.S. poverty rate being the highest in the developed world according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, this statistic marks a terrible failure for the nation as a whole.

Most Republicans have tended to avoid the question of poverty because they reject the notion that government can do anything to solve it. For decades, conservatives have railed against welfare programs for creating a cycle of dependency.

Republicans and conservative Democrats ultimately believe that the only way to reduce poverty is to grow the economy. But poverty has been a problem in good times and bad.

Democrats avoid tackling the problem because they fear the political consequences of being tagged as big government liberals. In 1996, when President Clinton signed the welfare reform act that ended Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), he effectively took poverty off his party's agenda.

Those who support government programs for the poor have been haunted by the political backlash against the War on Poverty.

It was during the 1960s, an era of unprecedented economic growth, that President Lyndon Johnson and allied Democrats decided to tackle the problem of poverty in this wealthy nation.

President Kennedy had started to explore an anti-poverty program in 1963 under the guidance of Walter Heller, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, but Kennedy was assassinated before he could take action.

When Johnson heard about the program shortly after taking office, he said it was the kind of initiative he could support. Johnson, who had been inspired by the New Deal and grew up amid poverty in Texas, sympathized with the plight of the poor and believed that the government could and should so something about it: "That's my kind of program. I'll find money for it one way or another. If I have to, I'll take away money from things to get money for people."

To build a legislative coalition in favor of the War on Poverty in 1964, Johnson enlisted the support of liberals in Congress as well as the conservative Democrat Phil Landrum of Georgia, who won over the votes of many in the party who usually opposed new federal programs. Landrum, and other conservatives in the party, had constituencies who struggled with economic hardship.

In his address to Congress in March 1964, Johnson said: "What you are being asked to consider is not a simple or an easy program. But poverty is not a simple or an easy enemy. It cannot be driven from the land by a single attack on a single front. Were this so, we would have conquered poverty long ago. Nor can it be conquered by government alone. For decades American labor and American business, private institutions and private individuals have been engaged in strengthening our economy and offering new opportunity to those in need. We need their help, their support, and their full participation. Through this program we offer new incentives and new opportunities for cooperation, so that all the energy of our nation, not merely the efforts of government, can be brought to bear on our common enemy."

The War on Poverty claimed some notable accomplishments. According to the historian Michael Katz, "Between 1965 and 1972, the government transfer programs lifted about half the poor over the poverty line." Many programs, such as Head Start, became popular across the nation and perceived as integral to the well being of struggling Americans.

Even as the policies were making great strides, Republicans attacked the War on Poverty as a waste of federal money that only helped elected officials. Many Democratic urban machine politicians lambasted the Community Action Program—a part of the war on poverty that put money into the hands of local organizations to shape anti-poverty initiatives--because they felt the dollars were winding up in the hands of left-wing organizations who then opposed them. Many groups representing the poor felt the War on Poverty did not go far enough.

For decades afterward, attempts to reduce levels of poverty through government action were unpopular. Indeed, AFDC, a product of the New Deal commonly known as welfare, became the focus of conservatives who called for eliminating the program and younger Democrats who felt it needed to be reformed. Reforming welfare gained more attention than the problem the program was originally meant to solve.

Today's silence about poverty is striking. Very few presidential candidates ever bring up the issue. There have been a few in each party, such as John Edwards for the Democrats and Rick Santorum for the Republicans, but in general this is the cause that has no champion.

The new data from the Census Bureau, comes at a crucial time, with government programs on the chopping block as Washington focuses on cutting the budget deficit.

Candidates running for office in 2012 should be forced to confront this issue and explain what they intend to do about it.

Proposals such as public jobs, education reform, and tax incentives to rebuild blighted areas must be discussed. There must also be strong consideration given to protecting -- and even expanding --state and local services for the poor despite the current obsession with budget cuts.

Unless voters and the media help to make this an issue in the campaign, the problem will likely only become worse.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Julian E. Zelizer.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/19/opinion/zelizer-war-on-poverty/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[Townhallsavoy]

I'm one who believes that the government can't solve the issue of poverty by enacting government programs that hand out gifts as if the poor deserve them at no cost. 

But this article does make a few good points despite his apparent support for the government's ability to remedy poverty from our nation.

It is an issue that has to be discussed at some point. 

If the economy isn't going to regroup for quite some time, how do we enable the growing impoverished population to get back on their feet?  To be successful and climb the social ladder or at least climb to a point where their families can be provided for?

Obviously there's not enough money, jobs, or opportunities to go around for everyone to not be poor.  But honestly, there are enough people who make their own insufficient bed with the poor decisions they make in their lives. 

But for those who work hard?  There has to be something to help them.

[GH2001]

Gov't causes more poverty than it prevents. When people have jobs and are self sufficient, the poverty will take care of itself. Unemployment and Poverty usually ride parallel together. And as weve seen gov't cant create a good economy or net jobs.

[Kaos]

Stay off my ass, cut my taxes by 25% and I'll hire four new people.  I'll pay enough that they won't be impoverished. 

But when my actual tax rate hovers around 57%?   I'm hoarding. 

Want to eliminate poverty?  Leave the people who actually CAN create jobs the hell alone people. 

[Townhallsavoy]

Stay off my ass, cut my taxes by 25% and I'll hire four new people.  I'll pay enough that they won't be impoverished. 

Would you really hire four people? 

You honestly wouldn't keep the extra money for yourself?  Safer retirement?  Nicer vacation?  Buy the wife a new car?

Just wondering.  I think a lot of people are scared that they would only spend more on themselves.

[AUTiger1]

Would you really hire four people? 

You honestly wouldn't keep the extra money for yourself?  Safer retirement?  Nicer vacation?  Buy the wife a new car?

Just wondering.  I think a lot of people are scared that they would only spend more on themselves.

I would, there are/were times at work if we could have hired more people on the R&D side of things, some ideas would have got off the ground and made the company huge money, more than the cut in taxes, instead the higher ups tell our PM that he can't hire anyone.  So multi million dollar ideas die on the vine. 

Sometimes employees are an investment in your future.  You hire the right people with the right skill set and you can bid and win on different contracts and more contracts which in turn make you more money.  Rinse and Repeat.

[GarMan]

A few things...
- First of all, poverty as measured in the United States is an intentionally misleading statistic.  We only measure income or earnings without regard to capital gains, assets, debts or other forms of material wealth or destitution.  Virtually anyone who collects Social Security as their sole source of "income" would be characterized as living below the poverty line.  It doesn't take into account the value of their property or the size of their investment and bank accounts.  If Warren Buffet didn't collect so much in public speaking engagements, he'd probably be living in poverty per the US Government's definition, and we all know that he has billions. 

- Lots of people work really hard.  I can spend 23 1/2 hours per day digging holes in my back yard, but no matter how hard I work at it, the return for digging holes in my back yard will not cover my bills.  At some point, I need to take responsibility for my well-being and pursue skills/training that have marketable value in our economy.  I'm probably not going to go from a ditch digger to CEO of IBM overnight, but even with the economy in its current state, there are enough jobs out there to maintain a basic income and work towards the next logical career/employment milestone.  Hard work alone is not the answer.  Success is the answer, and it takes time. 

- Finally, the government's war on poverty has been and still is an absolute mess.  As others have hinted, if you foster growth in the economy, the true measureable poverty problem in the United States will diminish.  We will never completely do away with poverty as long as we have free will as individuals and we allow individuals to profit or lose based on their actions (risk/reward and benefits/consequences).  If we continue to provide "safety nets" for those who "require" them the most, we really need to put strong constraints on eligibility, whether it be mandatory drug testing and/or other beneficial standards. 

Meanwhile, Barry's doing it again with his recent "it's not class warfare...  it's math" speech.  He's going to effectively sustain the poverty rate by going after those who create the jobs.  Then, he's going to demand more money to increase funding for programs that benefit those people who are jobless.  It's a viscous circle, and it's from the same playbook that started with FDR.  Thankfully, these ideas of his will never really get through the current House, but the influence of his messages will continue to deter economic growth.  The damage was still done.

[GH2001]

Would you really hire four people? 

You honestly wouldn't keep the extra money for yourself?  Safer retirement?  Nicer vacation?  Buy the wife a new car?

Just wondering.  I think a lot of people are scared that they would only spend more on themselves.

No, because to grow, get bigger and make more money/flourish, K needs to hire more people. Skilled people. He can't do that when the govt is taking half of his revenues. So every little bit he does get, he is going to keep. It makes perfect sense, and this is something liberals have never gotten.

[Kaos]

Would you really hire four people? 

You honestly wouldn't keep the extra money for yourself?  Safer retirement?  Nicer vacation?  Buy the wife a new car?

Just wondering.  I think a lot of people are scared that they would only spend more on themselves.

I would hire four people if I knew I wasn't going to get taxed to death. 

Right now?  Because they take so much?  I hoard it in case they come back for more.  I worry that they're going to tax me out of business. 

I want to expand.  Most people like me who own businesses we don't milk the company for nicer cars, more expensive vacations and that kind of shit.  We pour the money right back into it hoping that for every dollar we put in the long-term gain will be three more dollars.  We constantly ride the edge, we keep as many people on as we can -- and WE are the ones that get fucked in the ass by the government when it takes our money to give to more people who aren't working because we can't afford to hire them because the government takes our money to give to them. 

Yep.  If they cut my taxes by 25% I'd hire at least four people and I'd put some of it into new product development. 

[GarMan]

Would you really hire four people? 

You honestly wouldn't keep the extra money for yourself?  Safer retirement?  Nicer vacation?  Buy the wife a new car?

Just wondering.  I think a lot of people are scared that they would only spend more on themselves.

None of that should matter to you or anyone else for that matter.  Here's the reason...  If you cut the top tax rates for individuals and corporations, your freeing up funds that can be used in the free market.  Whether those funds are used to directly hire someone, plan for a better retirement or purchase a fancy-schmancy car doesn't really matter.  Either way, the funds are being utilized in the free market and spurring economic growth. 

[GH2001]

None of that should matter to you or anyone else for that matter.  Here's the reason...  If you cut the top tax rates for individuals and corporations, your freeing up funds that can be used in the free market.  Whether those funds are used to directly hire someone, plan for a better retirement or purchase a fancy-schmancy car doesn't really matter.  Either way, the funds are being utilized in the free market and spurring economic growth.

Aaannnnnnnd, THIS ^^

[CCTAU]

A few things...
- First of all, poverty as measured in the United States is an intentionally misleading statistic.  We only measure income or earnings without regard to capital gains, assets, debts or other forms of material wealth or destitution.  Virtually anyone who collects Social Security as their sole source of "income" would be characterized as living below the poverty line.  It doesn't take into account the value of their property or the size of their investment and bank accounts.  If Warren Buffet didn't collect so much in public speaking engagements, he'd probably be living in poverty per the US Government's definition, and we all know that he has billions. 

This....

Since the left want to be like Europe so badly, let's begin to measure poverty on the same scale as Europe. Shouldn't the poverty level be one in which people are just getting by with enough to eat? Should poverty really include those people who have a dry warm place to live and food in their belly every day? I know that according to some, things like TV, DVD, cell phone/phone, hot water, etc are the necessities, but are they really? Why are people supposedly living in poverty, driving around daily in a car they own?

I don't want anyone to starve, but damn, my tax dollars are going to people who are not close to starving.

So I ask once again, what really is POVERTY.

[GarMan]

Since the left want to be like Europe so badly, let's begin to measure poverty on the same scale as Europe. Shouldn't the poverty level be one in which people are just getting by with enough to eat? Should poverty really include those people who have a dry warm place to live and food in their belly every day? I know that according to some, things like TV, DVD, cell phone/phone, hot water, etc are the necessities, but are they really? Why are people supposedly living in poverty, driving around daily in a car they own?

I don't want anyone to starve, but damn, my tax dollars are going to people who are not close to starving.

So I ask once again, what really is POVERTY.

That said...  I don't believe that true poverty exists in the United States as a result of circumstances beyond an individual's scope of responsibility. 

[AUJarhead]

That said...  I don't believe that true poverty exists in the United States as a result of circumstances beyond an individual's scope of responsibility.

Totally 100% agree.

[DnATL]

None of that should matter to you or anyone else for that matter.  Here's the reason...  If you cut the top tax rates for individuals and corporations, your freeing up funds that can be used in the free market.  Whether those funds are used to directly hire someone, plan for a better retirement or purchase a fancy-schmancy car doesn't really matter.  Either way, the funds are being utilized in the free market and spurring economic growth.

And those funds will cycle over several times through the economy - it doesn't stop once the rich guy spends it

If you deter the rich guy from realizing a capital gain and spending cash because of a higher tax rate (lower return incentive for him), then he won't pull out the cash and the money will remain stagnant

There is so much cash sitting on the sidelines, afraid to commit because of the unknown of what other deterrents or interferences that may be put out there

[CCTAU]

Also, within the current definition of poverty in the US, Do they include all of the illegal immigrants who come here and bring their third world living conditions with them? These people exist in true poverty in their own country and come here to live a BETTER life, IN CONDITIONS THAT WE DEEM AS POVERTY.

Look around your town. Every town now has a little Mexico. And in that area, the people are living in crowded conditions that classify them as living in poverty. All the while, the conditions are better than where they come from. And to top that off, they get assistance form our government without paying taxes. This type of action by our own government perpetuates the problems of poverty in our country.