Myron Magnet often writes about America’s underclass and failure of the 1960s-era War on Poverty. The underclass is loosely defined as the permanently poor in urban areas marked by such pathologies as generational underemployment, crime, drug use, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, grandmothers, mothers and daughters on welfare, etc. (Also see War on Poverty Revisited, by Thomas Sowell.) Where they live is referred to as “the Ghetto.”
As Magnet describes in the Opinion Journal:
[T]he sense of victimization and of entitlement to government support that the War on Poverty fostered created a corrosive self-pity and resentment among the children of its beneficiaries, and their children’s children. The self-pity led to drink and drugs; the resentment to crime and violence; and both together to a perpetuation of irresponsibility, dysfunction, and failure over the generations.
In the so-called War on Poverty, blacks have fared far worse than the rest. Because of existing institutionalized racism at the time, government handouts became a way for whites to relieve guilt. As a consequence, government-dependent blacks developed a sense of entitlement, which continues in 2005.
I’ve always said that George Bush needed to be less compassionate and more conservative. Compassion, much like the word “tolerant,” has been abused to fit the liberal agenda. To liberals, compassion is the same old excuse-making and dignity-stealing government dependency that fuels much of the underclass; however, there is a distinction between the underclass poor and working poor (although by third world standards, the so-called poor in America are far from it).
Magnet continues:
[C]ompassionate conservatism’s elements added up to a sweeping rejection of liberal orthodoxy about how to help the poor, which a half century’s worth of experience had discredited. If you want to help the poor, compassionate conservatives argued, liberate them from dependency through welfare reform; free their communities from criminal anarchy through activist policing; give them the education they need to succeed in a modern economy by holding their schools accountable; and let them enjoy the rewards of work by taxing their modest wages lightly — or not at all.
He touches on illegal immigration, the failure of communism, and resistance to social security reform. Fascinating article from beginning to end. About Bush’s “ownership society” mantra and efforts to empower the poor despite liberals’ resistance, Magnet writes “The Europeans call this ‘cowboy capitalism.’ If so, then yee-haw!”
Yee-haw, indeed.
{ 80 comments }
Yippee-Kai-Yea!!!
Agreed with your take on “tolerance.” Unfortunately, “tolerance” has been redefined as “acceptance.”
“In the so-called War on Poverty, blacks have fared far worse than the rest.”
didn’t the lot of blacks improve in the 60’s and 70’s?
Not through government dependence, actus.
I never took philosophy, but consider this:
How can anyone say that a situation would have been better or worse if “X” did or did not take place? We really don’t KNOW, we just make a GUESS.
Some guess that the war on poverty has not done any good. To that I generally say, how do you know it would not have been worse? You really don’t. On the other side, how do you know it would have been better without the w.o.p.? You really don’t.
So, it’s just a mental excercise. But it’s a mental exercise that, as is being practiced, is intellectually dishonest, IMO.
“Not through government dependence, actus. ”
Its hard to conclude that from Sowell. Of course relative black gains would slow as they approach whites. Specially so if they’re just part of a greater program.
But you all probably believe in the ‘multi-generational cycle of dependency’ eh?
Not only do I believe it exists, I witness it almost every day, and members of my own family are part of it.
I am not a conservative, but I agree with your thoughts on government dependency and how it can rob someone of dignity. Are there still social barriers for non-whites? I believe there are. But government dependency isn’t solving that problem, and could actually be making it worse.
“Not only do I believe it exists, I witness it almost every day, and members of my own family are part of it. ”
thats interesting. I usually chalked it up to “the children of the poor are likely to be poor”
I don’t know what that means, and I’m too-glad-it’s-Friday to figure it out, but I suggest you take a break from commenting further today.
Not only was the “War on Poverty” an utter failure, but I believe that government attempts to address poverty are too often de-humanizing. I do believe that those of us on the right should put our time and money where our mouths are by helping the poor to such an extent that there is nothing left for the government to do.
http://lawnrangers.blogspot.com/2005/02/considering-poverty.html
Excellent. I agree completely.
La Shawn, considering my dad’s side of the family dependance has encouraged the majority to hang around waiting on one handout or another.
Where’s the incentive to better one’s self when living in inherited houses from my grandparents and an uncle and pooling checks makes for a comfortable living for a dozen people? My 5 cousins at one time were “acting white” in school, but either drugs or premarital sex killed whatever dreams and asirations they might have had for them and their offsprings. Now that benefits are being cut, the best they can do is flip burgers and work in low skill jobs. Careers in nursing and for one nuclear science just faded and bitter dreams of years gone by.
Fairfield, Alabama in the 50s & 60s had a thriving and educated black middle class, now it’s just a big slum the last time I visited. And all the elders can do is just shake their heads miserably.
Good points, Andy, but according to our friend DarkStar, it’s all just a “mental exercise” by the “intellectually dishonest.”
I live in a urban area and many of my friends are black. It always amazes me that their values are very traditional and conservative but they vote exactly the opposite. I think your post hits the nail on the head…They have been bought off.
I wonder if the Democrats know buying votes is a crime…Never mind they do it with taxpayers money that is legal.
Wasn’t it in one of Thomas Sowell’s books where he talks about how the black family was actually more intact in the years following the Civil War than in the years following the introduction of the Welfare State?
Well, the black schools that were succeeding under separate but equal rules were equally devastated for the simple reason that big brother intruded on the community and their leaders to decide what was best.
My take on education is if something ain’t broke, stay out of the local decision process. If the school consistently fails to make the grade IAW their perspective accreditations and/or fail to meet minimal State standards, then there would be cause for the gov’t to come in, analyize and advise, if necessary, enforce change, then step out again.
But I guess that’s all a mental exercise to discuss whether schools that were succeeding under Jim Crow laws could actually sustain, let alone enhance their standards of excellence under post-Civil Rights America.
I’ve always found it interesting to look at the difference in the Black communities from the time of legalized segragation to now. The best clubs, strong stores and service businesses, intact families were the norm.
I guess we’ve found the dividing line. Course it could have been worse.
We could’ve been Native American.
Darkstar,
That’s like saying, I had a car accident and my legs were severed. However, had I stayed home I might have drowned in the bath tub. Come on! Dependency on government has been disastrous. Self reliance and personal responsibility are qualities that help people succeed, and they are discouraged and sidelined by government dependence.
I do think that somehow the poor need to start valuing education as a general good, as well as a means to getting ahead, before education reforms will ever see progress.
Good points, Andy, but according to our friend DarkStar, it’s all just a “mental exercise” by the “intellectually dishonest.”
That’s out of context.
Concerning the war on poverty, how are you sure that poverty would not be worse without it? I know of families that depended on welfare for a short time to get them through a rough spot. In the end, it turned out fine. What would happen if that support weren’t there?
I can’t say one way or the other.
Would someone please give a definition of “working poor”?
That’s like saying, I had a car accident and my legs were severed. However, had I stayed home I might have drowned in the bath tub.
No, it’s more like saying if I had stayed home, how much different would things have been?
Dependency on government has been disastrous. Self reliance and personal responsibility are qualities that help people succeed, and they are discouraged and sidelined by government dependence.
Dependency on government includes:
FHA loans.
Gov’t backed student loans.
SBA loans.
Farmer subsidies.
Business subsidies.
Don’t be selective, address them all.
I do think that somehow the poor need to start valuing education as a general good, as well as a means to getting ahead, before education reforms will ever see progress.
I know people who had financial problems, who valued education, but could not continue college. A few dropped out. One went to the military so that his sister could go to college.
Darkstar,
if I stayed home, as I thought was obvious, there is no question but that things would have been much better. To suggest they would be worse is as absurd as to say “who knows how things would have turned out without government dependency.” Families were healthier before, and it is apparent that subsidization fostered pernicious dependence and pathological behaviors (e.g., rise in illegitimate birth rates, drug use, etc.).
If all of your income consists, and will always consist, of some sort of government check in return for no work, that is dependency. I am not speaking of these other programs. I made a simple statement that complete dependency upon the labor of others for your wherewithal is unhealthy in almost every way. The various other programs you list do not function as the be all and end all for anyone. Their usefulness, or lack thereof, has no bearing on the apparent harm caused when perfectly able people grow to depend on support from the rest of us. Addressing them all, as if they are all the same, is apples and oranges.
Gee…my commenters are more articulate than I am.
DarkStar,
My apologies, I missed the end of your comment. When I spoke of the poor not valuing education, I referred to the many who do not value education. Of course there are many who do. I myself had it pounded into me by my non-college educated parents that being ignorant was being a fool and that I would indeed go to college. Of course there are poor who get it and work in that direction, but they are the few.
You know, I wish just once my dear conservative friends would take the time to look at some genuine facts and figures. You can find all sorts of them in the Census Data, if you’re willing to read them. And if have the moral courage to think clearly about their implications.
From 1959 to 1974 both the percentage of people in poverty and the absolute number of people in poverty declined dramaticly. You can see it displayed here:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/img/incpov03/fig06.jpg
Since the beginning of the Reagan Administration, the rate of poverty has increased, and about 16 million more poor in absolute numbers have been added to the country’s population in the past 25 years. That’s the equivalent of two whole cities the size of N.Y.C.
Moreover in 1969 we reached the greatest absolute equality of distribution of wealth and income this country has ever experienced. From that point forward wealth and income has steadily flowed into the hands of the richest 20% of us.
From 1947 to 1979 the incomes of all classes of society increased by + or – 100%. From 1980 forward the poorest 40% of us have seen an income increase of 10%. The richest 20% of us have seen their income increase by 68%. And the richest 1% of us have seen their income increase by 201%!
You can see these facts and figures here:
http://www.inequality.org/facts.html
They are also derived directly from government data.
The notion that the War on Poverty failed is simply arrogant and ignorant blather unsupported by the real facts and figures. And anyone who actually looked at those facts and figures instead of merely playing Narcissus in front of their own ideological mirror would see this to be the case.
if I stayed home, as I thought was obvious, there is no question but that things would have been much better.
Even if in an abusive relationship or you were a drug addict or…
See how I can keep going with it? That’s the same “game” being played with the comment about the war on poverty not helping.
We really don’t know.
Families were healthier before, and it is apparent that subsidization fostered pernicious dependence and pathological behaviors (e.g., rise in illegitimate birth rates, drug use, etc.).
Let’s see, divorce didn’t play a part? More women in the work place didn’t play a part? More efficient transportation methods thus making it easier to transport drugs didn’t play a part? The age old desire to “self medicate” didn’t play a part?
If all of your income consists, and will always consist, of some sort of government check in return for no work, that is dependency. I am not speaking of these other programs.
That’s the problem. People don’t seem to include those other programs.
Farm subsidies help raise the price of food. Have you noticed the rise in diary costs? Did you know that congress created a diary farm subsidy package that “helps” diary farmers in the diary states but raises the costs of diary products?
FHA loans have a higher default rate than conventional loans. But FHA loans have “helped” people get into homes they would not qualify to buy. So the demand for homes goes up and supply goes down. When that happens, home prices rise.
You don’t think those two examples have hurt segments of our society?
Their usefulness, or lack thereof, has no bearing on the apparent harm caused when perfectly able people grow to depend on support from the rest of us. Addressing them all, as if they are all the same, is apples and oranges.
When you understand the ripple effects of the programs I mentioned, you will start to see that it’s apples and apples. However, it’s only the low level apples, those easy to see, that people comment on.
Joseph – To what is the poverty rate attributed? Racism? Dumb luck? I don’t need to look at numbers to be convinced that poverty exists or is increasing. I wish you liberals would consider why poverty rates are so high. The reasons can be very simple. Working members of the family or the willingness to work has much to do with it. The presence of pathological factors (crime, drug use, illegitimacy) has A LOT to do with why people are trapping themselves in the cycle. It is certainly not MY FAULT that a grown, able-bodied man doesn’t have a job, for example. Notwithstanding the effects of wrong-headed economic policies, if people want to work, they can WORK.
Yes, they may still be poor in the end, but earning your keep is dignified; existing on government scraps IS NOT. LEGAL immigrants who come here with NOTHING are a testament to the opportunity in this country. I’m so tired of whiny Americans.
Dear LaShawn,
Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams are both PhD’s in economics, and they are very articulate writers about welfare and black education and financial assets both before and after LBJ’s War on Poverty. People have achieved much before 1965 and after. They have all done it because of hard work and brains and not LBJ. Forty years ago, I was told by many people that black-only schools (K12) produced great students because of better discipline with separate and unequal facilities. The buildings, textbooks, lab equipment, typewriters, etc were inferior. Dunbar High in DC
compiled a record of outstanding students ’s better then any public HS in DC today. Dr. Condi Rice’s father and mother were from the black educated class in Birmingham, AL. They showed on TV the middle class house where Dr. Rice grew up until the age of 15. Alma Powell (Colin’s wife) grew up in same area. By the late 1960’s most middle class blacks had moved out of DC. That left the rich and poor only. Forty years ago, the home of the former owner of the Senators was owned by a black doctor. It is a great neighborhood to photograph in late April. Its in the third alphabet and 16th St for those who know DC. The discipline without police are gone everywhere. At a local high school five fights broke out last Tuesday and its still winter. The warmer it gets, the more fights seem to occur. If you got in trouble at school, you got in more trouble at home. The teachers are hard working and the facilities better then ten years ago, but parents (and grandparents) are sending their youngsters to private schools which have sprung up and are affliated with church groups. How can we save K12 education?
JMB
“The notion that the War on Poverty failed is simply arrogant and ignorant blather unsupported by the real facts and figures”
Did things go bad once we started de-funding the war on poverty?
LaShawn pointed out: If all of your income consists, and will always consist, of some sort of government check in return for no work, that is dependency. I am not speaking of these other programs.
DArkstar misses the point:
That’s the problem. People don’t seem to include those other programs.
Darkstar, did you miss where she explains *why* those other programs are different, and so do not pertain to the current discussion?
Darkstar:
::Farm subsidies help raise the price of food. Have you noticed the rise in diary costs? Did you know that congress created a diary farm subsidy package that “helps” diary farmers in the diary states but raises the costs of diary products?
FHA loans have a higher default rate than conventional loans. But FHA loans have “helped” people get into homes they would not qualify to buy. So the demand for homes goes up and supply goes down. When that happens, home prices rise.
You don’t think those two examples have hurt segments of our society?::
I have concerns about these other programs as well, and they do hurt segments fo our society- but they are different concerns for different reasons, and the hurt is one area- not a blight over an entire life.
The problem LaShawn is talking about it is complete and total dependency- if farm subsidies stopped abruptly today, farmers would be hurt (although I think they could over come it)-but they would still have other income, food, and their farms- in some cases, maybe they wouldn’t have their farms for long- but then the farms could be sold for income (which I would hate, being a family farm descendant myself)- but however hard it would be, it would still be an option.
If welfare stopped abruptly today- that would be the entire, sole, only, complete, utter (get the idea) _all_ the income of some people- and this is the problem LaShawn is addressing- the specific point of the demoralizing dependency that comes from having _all_ your income coming from government subsidizing in exchange for… nothing. No work, nothing to take pride in. It’s not doing people any real favors.
Dodo David: “Would someone please give a definition of ‘working poor’?”
Working poor are those who are employed and earning incomes insufficient to lift themselves and their families above the poverty line. There are millions of working poor people in the United States. It is a disgrace when people work hard all day and don’t make enough money to get out of poverty. This is part of what John Edwards was talking about when he spoke of “Two Americas.”
Did welfare programs in the United States create a culture of dependency that was bad for the poor, and slow the economic development among American Blacks? Yes, to some extent. And that is why liberals and conservatives worked together during the Clinton administration to reform welfare and attempt to change that culture of dependency.
The main welfare program of the past half-century, until it was abolished in 1997, was AFDC, Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Under AFDC provisions, it was difficult or impossible to collect benefits if there was an employable man in the household. After all, the theory was, if he could be working, he should be working, and we’re not going to subsidize his laziness. As a consequence, millions of Black men, who might have seemed employable, but had trouble getting and holding jobs, abandoned their families. It was a disastrous policy and contributed to the prevalence of family breakdown among Black Americans.
Question: who put that provision in there, liberals or conservatives? Until you answer that question, don’t be blaming liberals for creating the culture of dependence and the breakdown of the family among Black Americans.
What’s more shameful is someone thinking the government owes them a living or should dictate to private companies how much they should pay employees, when such matters should be dictated my market forces.
Seemingly complex problems often have simple solutions. Deport illegal aliens and fine/penalize companies that hired them. What may look like a good living here in the US to illegals may not actually be one from the perspective of American workers. Once the illegal border jumpers are gone, companies will have to hire/rehire legal Americans, and the dirt cheap wages will likely rise as companies compete for these workers.
What’s shameful are grown men whining about minimum wage when they can get TAXPAYER-supported training to develop skills, receive more education, work more hours, etc.
I think it’s laughably sad that we’ve created a feminized welfare state where even our country’s men expect to be coddled and pitied because they have to scrape by on minimum wage, as if suckling on the government is a better way to go through life.
Many jobs pay poorly because they are entry level and require almost no skills. The assumption is that workers will not stay in these jobs. Once, after I had graduated from college, I considered taking a job managing a fast food outlet just to get some managing experience on my resume. What surpirses me is that so many people seem to think that any job they take should support an apartment or house payment, a car, cable or dish TV and anthing else their heart desires. That isn’t how the world works but some politicians seem to make hay on the unrealistic expectations of people who don’t want to work.
Evon, thanks for adding that. You’re correct. Entry level jobs are just that: an entry into a profession where one can learn the necessary skill sets to move on to higher paying jobs.
When people see how well others are living, they tend to think (quite irrationally) they should be living that way, too. They’ve bought into the egalitarian notion that we all have equal talent, skills, motivation, incentive, intelligence, etc., so we should all have the same stuff. Nowhere but in the minds of jaded liberals do people live that way.
If people think the world is designed to allow all to be equally compensated, they’re tragically deluded. NO system works that way, anywhere on the planet, and never will.
“Seemingly complex problems often have simple solutions. Deport illegal aliens and fine/penalize companies that hired them”
So much for “market forces.”
There you go again, actus. Market forces working within legal bounds is what I’m referring to, and you know that. (Are you really in law school?) Illegal aliens are breaking the law, and businesses hiring illegal aliens are also breaking the law. Illegal aliens who take these jobs do so because they are better than what’s back home. In this case, our market forces are working to their advantage and our disadvantage.
I’m not even saying these jobs should go to Americans only, but they definitely SHOULD NOT be going to criminals.
Comment by Anomalocaris – 02.26.05 @ 2:23 p
“Question: who put that provision in there, liberals or conservatives? Until you answer that question, don?t be blaming liberals for creating the culture of dependence and the breakdown of the family among Black Americans.”
Wrong. This is typical. Lets try another 40 year experiment engineering peoples lives; just make sure we remove that one bad clause, and everything will be great. SOCIAL ENGINEERING itself is the problem. And social engineering is the liberals work.
Lashawn will you post about Tavis Smiley’s State of the Black Union. Its on c-span today. Im sure you will have interesting comments. I cant wait to hear them. It would be a good topic. Obviously the questions are more geared toward Bush is destroying us what can we do, and self sufficiency ideas are there but few.
Anomalocaris:
And how, exactly, do you define “poverty”. The way that I have usually seen it described is in relation to some fractin of average income. Whilst it’s certainly true that a large number of people earn a fairly small amount of money, and so are clearly “poor” when compared to the average American, comparitively few people in America actually live in poverty. If you can afford food, clothing and somewhere warm to sleep, you’re not living in poverty. Note that clothing does not include new Nike footwear every few months, “somewhere warm to sleep” does not include cable TV, and “food” does not include alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs.
“Market forces working within legal bounds is what I’m referring to, and you know that. ”
I know. And a minimum wage law is a “legal bound,” just like immigration law, overtime laws, and union laws.
But you can’t hire workers who are here illegally! Good grief. Knowingly hiring illegal aliens is OUTSIDE LEGAL BOUNDS. That is what I’m referring to, actus.
http://www.fairus.org/ImmigrationIssueCenters/ImmigrationIssueCenters.cfm?ID=1195&c=13
You’re trying my patience again, and I think it’s deliberate.
Shari – I didn’t watch CPAN this morning, but I’ll find out if I can watch online. Two people e-mailed me about it this morning. It must be hot stuff.
“Good grief. Knowingly hiring illegal aliens is OUTSIDE LEGAL BOUNDS. ”
I know. And so is hiring people below a minimum wage, or under certain working conditions. Yet you mentioned that the government dictating how much people get paid is something that should be left to “market forces.” Even thought it would be OUTSIDE LEGAL BOUNDS.
So it’s odd, that one area of the law is attacked for being an encroachment on market forces, while another area of the law is not.
I don’t believe this. You’re flipping the whole thing around. In my opinion, I believe there should be NO federal minimum wage law, but “market forces” used in this context refer to allowing the market to re-adjust itself when companies stop hiring illegals for ANY WAGE. The minimum has NOTHING to do with what I’m talking about.
Do me a favor? Go bother someone else.
“The minimum has NOTHING to do with what I’m talking about.”
I know. You’re saying that minimum wages should be set by market forces.
I’m saying that if so, then why can’t immgration as well?
Actus,
We certainly could have open borders and allow whomever to live and work here undocumented and unregulated. And yet, we have chosen to protect our citizens by not allowing that. Our government has written laws to protect us. I like our citizens being protected from cheap foreign labor. What is your argument for open borders?
We have also chosen to have a minimum wage. For the sake of argument, I’d like to see this change. I don’t feel the government should dictate to private business how they should pay their employees. I think that minimum wage keeps some businesses from ever coming into being. It demonstrably raises unemployment. It closes significant opportunities for teens seeking employment. The government cannot possibly have the necessary information to set “fair” wages for businesses. They don’t know bottom lines or any particular circumstances to avoid being a stupid broad brush. Also, it is not the government’s business to stick its nose into private business.
“What is your argument for open borders”
It would be to let market forces decide on optimal allocation of labor resources. But I don’t particularly like unfettered market forces, so I wouldn’t make that argument. At least I wouldn’t unless there were other guarantees in place that would insulate us from these market forces, such as strong labor and employment protections.
Guarantees in place to insulate us from market forces? Strong labor and employment protection from what?
LaShawn,
In late 1960’s, my father and I took a trip to West Virginia. There was a state park with waterfalls but outside this park, my father pointed out there were white people living in poverty in the mountains conplaining the government was not doing enough for them. There were generations with poverty, little education, and no expectations of upward mobility. With many Native Americans in the West, there has been government welfare with the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs). Being middle class, from my mother’s point of view, meant wanting your children to rise with education and hard work.
JMB
A paradox in conservative thinking:
1A. If your life partner abandons you and your children and disappears, too bad. The government should not help you and your children for even one day with a little income support to assist you in transitioning to self-sufficiency. If you can’t find help from family and friends, you are on your own, period.
1B. If you are unconscious and in a persistent vegetative state, then even after 15 years, all of all of your needs should be taken care of at taxpayer expense, costing hundreds of dollars every day.
OK, I apologize, because I realize that some people dispute the persistent vegetative state, and perhaps some people would be willing to pay for this individual’s care. But, who is paying for her care? Note: I am not saying in this post whether I agree with keeping this individual alive. I am merely pointing out what I consider to be an interesting paradox in the thinking of some conservatives.
Respectfully submitted,
“Guarantees in place to insulate us from market forces? Strong labor and employment protection from what?”
The changes that would occur if we allowed just market forces to allocate labor resources between the US and, say, Mexico.
if u are referring to terri shiavo her parents want to care for her
I was going to post something strong, but luckily I waited and have cooled down. I’ll just say this: I recently went to a court advocacy meeting at a police station across the street from some projects, and I saw a list of cases from that area that are going to court. The list is long and ugly, and those are only the ones who were caught. Not many people work in those projects, and there’s lots of crime. There’s something definitely wrong, and unfortunately, some idiots a few generations ago thought they were helping the ghetto-dwellers.
Very informative post, and a compelling presentation of the conservative case. Must have touched a nerve, too, judging by the number of trolls on this thread. Keep up the good work, LaShawn.
Anomalocaris,
I do not speak for conservatives, but I fail to see the paradox you refer to. A person incapable of caring for themself cannot be compared to a person who is capable. You insult the capable and bully the incapable with the comparison,
I guess most conservatives support the notion of temporary assistance for people in times of emergency (hurricane, working spouse dies or leaves). The tendency of temporary becoming permanent is what conservatives, I guess, find unacceptable.
“Working poor are those who are employed and earning incomes insufficient to lift themselves and their families above the poverty line.”
I myself once fit Anomalocaris’ definition of working poor, largely because we decided that it made more sense for my wife to stay home and educate our son than to work at any of the jobs available to her after the union priced the work she had trained for as an apprentice above what it was worth to an employer. We rose above it very suddenly when the Gingrich-era “tax cut for the rich” enabled us to put our hands on the wealth we had been accumulating thru the mortgage payments we had struggled to make.
The statistics Joseph Marshall cited above support my understanding that the arbitrary poverty line has been being moved upward. He also offers the ever-popular counter-factual assertion that the common folk are worse off, rather than better off, because people such as Bill Gates has created more wealth, and kept more in absolute numbers, than ever before. A rising tide has no obligation to lift those boats which have drifted far from shore.
Off on a slight tangent, but related to poverty and social issues.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/4296231.stm
Moral here is be careful what you wish for, especially socialized medicine such as what cHillary touts. Simply put, while it may be expensive, we have the best health care. Reform thru certain reforms, certainly, downgrade to social medicine, no way Hosea.
Darkstar, did you miss where she explains *why* those other programs are different, and so do not pertain to the current discussion?
No, but you missed where I explained why they are not different.
I have concerns about these other programs as well, and they do hurt segments fo our society- but they are different concerns for different reasons, and the hurt is one area- not a blight over an entire life.
Increased food prices, increased home prices, and increased higher education prices hurt an entire life and not just one area.
if farm subsidies stopped abruptly today, farmers would be hurt (although I think they could over come it)-but they would still have other income, food, and their farms- in some cases, maybe they wouldn’t have their farms for long- but then the farms could be sold for income (which I would hate, being a family farm descendant myself)- but however hard it would be, it would still be an option.
From my understanding, most non-agribusiness farms are on a shoestring. Without the subsidies many (most?) would go under. That’s why it’s such a big issue.
Question: who put that provision in there, liberals or conservatives? Until you answer that question, don’t be blaming liberals for creating the culture of dependence and the breakdown of the family among Black Americans.
During Reagan’s terms, two modifications that I know of were put into place concerning welfare:
1. The amount of money people on welfare were “allowed” to have in a savings account was lowered.
2. Families could not receive welfare if an abled body man was in the house.
DS, what’s wrong with enacting the above as an interim mechanism to wean a certain segment off the welfare teat? Gotta start somewhere. As I recall, there were a number of other initiatves that didn’t get passed until Clinton came along and co-opted them. Bottomline, back in Reagan’s day, welfare was also a 3rd rail of politics, but Reagan grabbed hold anyway and shorted it.
DS, what’s wrong with enacting the above as an interim mechanism to wean a certain segment off the welfare teat?
People say that welfare forced men from the home. Reagan helped that process.
Something interesting about welfare reform: the most sucessful implementation was in Wisconsin. It cost more than what the pre-welfare reform cost. Ironically, to me anyway, it implemented many of the things liberals said were needed: job training, education, and child care.
Dear Nardo,
The paradox does not necessarily apply to all conservatives, but there are some here to whom it does apply.
Conservatives want to help Terri Schiavo, because she obviously cannot help herself. And conservatives don’t want to provide welfare for those who can help themselves. Well, what about children? What happens to the children when a husband runs out on his family? Whatever the faults of pre-1977 welfare, AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) or current welfare, TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), these programs help assure that children (who are financially helpless almost by definition) get taken care of — that they can continue to go to school and prepare themselves to be responsible adults, and not have the emotional tragedy of Daddy leaving become compounded by further breakdown of homelessness and lack of food.
I’ll be the first to agree that neither AFDC nor TANF is perfect. But homeless kids is a moral failure too. There are some people here who believe that welfare is so evil that it should be abolished 100%. But most liberals, and many conservatives, including the late President Ronald Reagan, believe that there is a moral purpose in having a social safety net, paid for by the taxpayers, because life isn’t perfect and sometimes people (especially children) need help. If you agree with Ronald Reagan, great. There’s no paradox. And I share your view that welfare is supposed to be temporary, not permanent. So do most Americans of all political stripes, which is why the welfare reform law passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton has a lifetime cap on benefits.
If you disagree with Ronald Reagan and believe that welfare should be totally abolished, and you also believe that every Terri Schiavo needs to be taken care of at taxpayer expense, forever, if the family cannot afford the several hundred dollars a day it costs to keep her hospitalized, well, to me that’s paradoxical.
Respectfully,
Dear Sam,
You ask how to define poverty. There are multiple definitions of poverty, but for the purpose of the term “working poor” I would probably define poverty as having an income below the official poverty line.
For an idea of what life is like for a working poor family living at (not below) the poverty line, please take the tour of Poverty USA:
http://www.usccb.org/cchd/povertyusa/tour2.htm
By the way, in many American cities, housing would cost much more than suggested in the tour.
Respectfully,
This is my first time to post a comment on your blog. I would like to know what your thoughts are about that freakshow that was televised live from Atlanta last weekend on C-span.My father watched it last week and he thought it was absolutely disgusting and embarrassing. Hear you’ve got a supposed Ivy league professor acting a like a thug as if that is some great thing to be. I thought the Civil Rights movemnet and what Carter G. Woodson started ‘26′ was to put a attend to this negative stereotyping of Blacks and look at us today, these goons make Steppin Fetchit look smart. All this can’t be blamed on white liberals though. Much of it now is the fault of our people not teaching decency and morals as Bill Cosby has pointed out. Even Cynthia Tucker of the AJC even said that most blacks and many whites are not comfortable when teaching our contributions in this country, from medicine, history, philosophy, science, military, and other interests to this society. By the way Ms.Barber, so this has nothing to do with party politcs. Part of the reason our people find themselves in the shape their in is because of as Niger Innis points out of “Sports and Entertainment industrial complex”this stuff is like a disease for most our young people they have know culture because in most cases their parents didn’t try to develop any culture and these kids are clueless as to the world around them. I want to see that changed.
DS. Granted. That’s the main problem with national initiatives. One size fits all. For welfare to be a functonal safety net, it has to be brought down to the local level. Where the paradox really lies is that in any bureaucracy, there is the overiding instinct for survival of the administration. If welfare or whatever is solved, the admin would have to go looking for a new job.
Personally, I think that by getting out of the management of social services, the govt would get out of our pockets. As the Tsunami has shown us, more $$ were donated by the private individuals than by the govt. Volunteerism and giving to charity is affected by the notion that the average citizen doesn’t need to donate since the govt is on the job.
If there were no govt involvement, 1) people would keep more of what they earn, and, 2) people will donate more as various charities make their appeals on a case by case basis. Bottomline, the govt is not an individual and as such is wholly incapable of charity. For them, cgarity is a business unto itself.
Dear Andy,
You said “the govt is not an individual and as such is wholly incapable of charity.” I don’t quite catch the logic there; are you saying that two or more people cannot band together for charity? But never mind the logic, I take it that you opposed federal asstance to New York in the wake of the attacks of 9/11/2001 and federal assistance to Florida in the wake of a series of tropical storms in 2004?
Your example of the tsunami is interesting. What’s interesting is that people are all terribly aware of the awful distruction of December 26, 2004 — a tsunami that destroyed homes, hospitals, boats, cars, schools, and farms, and took the lives of well over 200,000 people. But how many people who know about the tsunami realize that over 200,000 children under age 5 die every week, most of preventable causes? It’s a moral disgrace that over half a million kids every year are still dying of measles, a vaccine-preventable disease.
Private charity alone is not up to the task of addressing the magnitude of this problem. Foreign aid is everybody’s favorite target of disdain, but it’s the smallest slice of the federal budget, and humanitarian foreign aid is controlling disease and providing self-help opportunities for millions.
I can see it now, everybody jumping on this post about why America should send hard-earned taxpayer dollars down a foreign aid rathole. Well, diseases such as TB and polio are communicable, remember? There hasn’t been a case of polio in the U.S. in years, but it until we wipe it out everywhere, we have to continue to immunize ever American child. It actually costs less to wipe it out internationally than to immunize our own population forever. As for TB, it’s the number one infectious killer of adults. a third of the world’s people are infected, and of those, 10% will eventually come down with the disease. It can be cured for just $10 worth of drugs, and it’s spread by coughing or just breathing. We can’t control TB in our own country unless we control it internationally. That’s why there is strong bipartisan support in Congress for maintaining international TB control as a component of U.S. foreign aid.
Private charities are great, and I contribute what I can to the charities of my choice. But they have been insufficient to the magnitude of the problem.
Respectfully,
Dear Anomalocaris,
I fear that dollars/food/drugs from government or private sources are not enough to help people living under regimes that do not allow people to live productive lives and do not let relief get to the suffering. I certainly support helping people in emergency situations, but you can only do so much when working with a hostile government.
Dear Nardo,
I agree with you, you can do only so much when working with a hostile government. But, where that is a problem, there are sometimes ways around it. For example, aid can go directly to civil society organizations working on disease control, and avoid hostile or corrupt governments altogether.
If anyone would like to see how much subsidy our “family farms” are raking in from the federal government go to http://www.ewg.org. These payments are public information, much to the chagrin of many farmers. Please keep in mind that these people have these payments separated in many instances so that it cannot be determined how much is being paid to any individual. Many of them have certain land in a spouse’s name or in their children’s names to cover up how much they get.
Dear Friends,
May I toss in my two cents from a slightly different perspective?
Modern political regimes rest on a very conscious separation between the state and civil society, the state and the economy. This sharp separation does two things. On the one hand, it makes the state an independent actor in a way that it never was in pre-modern times. On the other hand, it makes the state and civil society competitors.
You see where I am going with this: it’s inherent in the way modern political regimes are set up that there should be a tension between the desire to use the power of the state for the social good and the fear that the power of the state, even if set in motion for the social good, will end up encroaching on civil society.
Personally, I think that governments have responsibilities to help needy citizens who aren’t being helped in other ways. In that sense, I agree with Anomalocaris, on the level of principle.
The problem, though, is that, given the structure of our system, the state can’t help the poor, etc. without tending to REPLACE civil society, which means: what is left of the more local community structures that should be there to offer the first and most substantial help on the ground.
In this sense, I agree with La Shawn, Andy, Nardo, etc. that, whatever good federal welfare does in individual situations, its net effect, for poor blacks and poor whites, has been far from 100% positive. But I would put the problem like this: the welfare state has also been a dis-incentive for the renewal of local community structures that could and should be doing most of the helping on the ground—and it’s those structures that are going to make the most difference between poverty (which in this country is often an inner, cultural matter) and participation.
In other words: the way to go at poverty is neither to make the government the dispenser of aid nor to throw everything on private charity—neither collectivism nor individualism—but to revitalize local communities FROM BELOW, so that the state is not the only trans-individual agency around to help people.
Adrian
“Cowboy Capitalism?”
Excuse me, but didn’t we try and try and try (like the little red engine of liberalism) to make these federal entitlement programs work using the tried and true socialist approaches of increasing taxation and reducing benefits?
Didn’t we try borrowing our way out of this mess?
The fact of the matter is that the current crisis is but a symptom of the larger problem – the federal government is operating these programs within an economic system of its own construction and not within the context of the free market.
When they decided to do this (dumb-dumb donks), they “conveniently” forgot (ignored) the fact they would be automatically removing the benefits that only the free market can provide. Benefits like cost controls, operating economies-of-scale, efficient allocation and utilization of capital resources, and improving service quality.
By electing to operate these entitlement programs within a quasi-socialist/command economic structure they “baked in” the seeds of these programs’ own demise (budget busting, low service quality, no capital return, no economies-of-scale).
Sooner or later we will ahve to face the reality that unless we want to become another version of the Dutch socialist paradise we will have to privatize them.
Look on the birght side though. If we privatize them now we can eliminate the current $11 trillion Social Security shortfall and the entire federal budget deficit within 10 years.
All without raising taxes ever again or reducing benefits.
Please visit our website and download “The Fix For Social Security” if you want to see the numbers and the entire program proposal legislative summary.
Dear Clint Lovell,
If by “red engine of liberalism” you are suggesting that American liberalism is tainted by communism, those oats have been through the horse one time too many. Liberals are not communists. Period.
“Borrowing our way of this mess” is exactly the plan of President George W. Bush. Our federal deficit outside of Social Security is $600 Billion — that’s more than $2,000 for every man, woman, and child, every year. And his plans to reduce that deficit are based on assumptions that nobody believes, such as allowing the tax cuts to expire.
You speak of “cost controls and economies of scale” as an argument for de-federalizing some program (you don’t say exactly what, but imply it is Social Security). Actually, whatever the faults of federal programs, in many cases cost controls and economies of scale are advantages.
Social Security is extremely efficient in terms of administrative costs. Whatever criticism you may have for the the present Social Security system, administrative costs are far smaller than they would be with any privatized system. As for miraculously creating $11 trillion of new wealth in 10 years without raising taxes or reducing benefits, please share with me whatever it is you are smoking!
Sincerely,
I rest my case with regards to my previous post, as expanded upon by Adrian, Nardo and Clint among others.
With regards to 11 trillion in 10 years, that’s not unreasonable should the brakes of taxes and certain regulatory restraints be taken off. Especially since a significant chunk of our “deficit” (approx $1.7trillion) is a paper deficit created by the current pay as you go shell game.
Dear Anomalocaris:
I’m sorry you are upset about these issues, but not having the depth of knowledge that I do can be frustrating for people – explaining this in a way people can understand is hard, but I’ll try to help you out and then you can decide all over again (if you like) about how you feel about the solutions to the problem.
First of all, you have to understand that the reason the free market exists is that it provides the most cost-efficient means of governing the allocation of capital resources (investment) and governing the competitive forces that create the benefits you enjoy every day. Federal government entitlement programs that, to one extent or the other, redistribute wealth (i.e.: education, welfare, and health care to name the main ones) are currently constructed to operate outside of the free market system.
Now, how many times have you complained about standing in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles or dreaded having to go to the Social Security office?
Like most people, I’m sure you have complained your fair share of times because the service quality isterrible.
Now why is that?
The service quality is terrible because there is no incentive for the workers, management, or the owners of the system to improve service quality because there is:
a) no competition for capital investment resources; and
b) there is no competition for the particular service they render (the government does it all).
When these conditions exist, it is no longer possible to effectively control expenditures because there are no checks and balances in the system and the system is still subject to the laws of mathematics (mathematics will become more important in a moment). The lack of checks-and-balances automatically removes the benefits of economies-of-scale from impacting the program in a beneficial manner. Indeed, the economies-of-scale end up working against you. An example of this that is easy to relate to is the current employment crisis in France. To address this issue, the government imposed artifical standards on top of the free market (i.e.: they arbitrarily reduced the work week for workers to 35 hours per week). Not only did this not fix the current problem, it made it worse (unemployment climbed, GDP dropped, and jobs were moved out of France).
Now let’s look at our situation. Social Security, education, and health care account for over 40% of the federal government budget and also represent some significant assets owed by the government that PROVIDE NO ECONOMIC RETURN AT ALL. So the assertion that the plan has very low administrative costs is right and wrong. It’s right in that for a plan of its size, they are doing as good of a job as they can, I’m sure. It’s wrong because when we look at the overall costs of the plan compared to those costs (and benefits) created by the private sector, Social Security is a financial failure.
Now why is it a financial failure?
You’ll have to read our policy paper (”The Fix For Social Security”) to get all of the answers, but the biggest are the lack of current funding (meaning it is an unfunded plan – something NOT allowed in the private sector) and that it provides no substantive return for the investment compared to the private sector.
Finally, let’s address your comment about what I’ve been smoking. I take no offense, as a lot of people feel the same way you do because they do not have a comprehension of the complete universe of solutions available to use to fix this problem.
One of these “fixes” is the “Royalty-Based Structured Finance Business-Combination Transaction Model” (or as it is commonly known, the “royalty limited partnership” or “RLP”). The RLP is a bankruptcy proof business organization approach that is virtually immune to investment failure. It creates the highest amount of theoretical and practical financial investment leverage possible for a business operating in a free market context, so its “guaranteed” returns are 12 to 18 times what we now get from Social Security. I know this is tough stuff, but I hope you can stay with me to the end, here.
If you completely privatize education, the sell-off of government controlled assets would net the federal government (it’s share of the proceeds) somewhere around $167 billion. If these funds were then reinvested back into the newly privatized education system thru RLP’s and allowed to grow, the math works out to paying off the $11 trillion Trust Fund deficit within 10 years.
Again, please read the position paper and check the math. If you have problems with the math or the concepts, please feel free to contact me via email.
Hang in there, kiddo. This is going to only get better for us all.
Clint, exactly so. There are so much of the government, particularily in assets, that is “invisible” to the average taxpayer. In truth, the govt does a lot of things accounting-wise that were we to try it, we’d end up in the hoosegow for a long time.
Clint, well said.
The way the govt handles its books, so as to make the true cost of operation difficult to sudd would be downright criminal if we were to run our businesses that way.
OTOH, the federal deficit ain’t so bad in relation to GDP and certainly better than most people’s own debt to income ratio. And certainly the National Debt Burden is better than it was thru most of the Clinton era, let alone WWII when it spiked up to just over 120% of GDP. Our NDB is also better than compared to Germany, France, Japan to name a few.
Sorry for the quasi double post. I thot i lost the 1st comment, hence the second (sheepish shrug)
@Andy: Thank you for your kind comments (or so I hope I may take them). One of the dirty little secrets about Social Security is the fact that it is the ONLY retirement “plan” allowed to operate as a pass-thru account funding plan. In the private sector, all pension plans are required by law to be “funded” plans – meaning assets are constantly set aside to defray future obligations based upon actuarial calculations. With Social Security we just collect the taxes and turn around and send them out again to beneficiaries with nothing being set aside (in the proverbial “lockbox”) for future obligations. That is why we are in the mess we are in today. Indeed, if we applied business accounting standards to Social Security we would be forced to declare it bankrupt today because the Trust Fund could not “call” the $11 trillion in notes it is holding from the federal government and hope to have them paid back within a year, so these “assets” would have to be written down to the value we could get out of the system. That amount is less than 10% of the $11 trillion shortfall.
The federal deficit and national debt are items a lot of people fail to properly understand, so politicians take advantage of this to the detriment of us all.
It is true that the federal deficit is at a record level. It is also false that the federal deficit is at a record level.
The federal deficit nominal dollar amount is a record, but as you pointed out it is a much smaller share of GDP than it was in the 1980’s when we were told we were owned by Japan.
I would submit that the biggest challenge facing the federal government entitlement program funding process today is finding a solution to make these programs self-sufficient because the dirty little secret is that wealth redistribution programs overlaid onto a market economy eventually destory the economy because they eat up an ever-increasing share of national wealth due to a lack of competition.
Indeed, it could be the death of the Democratic Party (they’ve embraced the socialist approach without wavering), but fiscal sanity and abject poverty will eventually force us to do what we’ve known for a long time – the only way out is to privatize these programs.
The question is, who will have the courage to get on with doing it? It doesn’t look like the current crop of Republicans in Congress have the sand in their pockets to stand up and do anything of courage – they are leaving it all to GWB and that is not the way a team (or a party) is supposed to get the job done.
Clint,
I meant well.
Regarding your comment:
“The federal deficit nominal dollar amount is a record, but as you pointed out it is a much smaller share of GDP than it was in the 1980’s when we were told we were owned by Japan.”
That sort of reminds me of my first real civillian job in the late 80’s when a colleague filed for bankruptcy. He had over $10K in crdedit card debts, incurred in customizing his bigfoot wannabe 4×4. At the time, I remembered think “wow”, how could he let himself get into this mess, or more appropriately, how could the cc companies let him incur that debt with only a $25-30K income, depeding on OT.
Then as I got to know most of the workers, altho they were all making good bucks, yet living paycheck to paycheck — keeping up with the Jones syndrome.
Yet 15 years later, it is not uncommon to find people with $20k+ in debt. If anything, their personal debt load is higher than back then.
So yes, it does strike me as ignorant when people wail & rail about the deficit when all the while they’re busy racking up personal debt. Before they expect the govt to restarin themselves, they should probably start with themselves. Especially if they would realize that “furriners” also own a portion of their personal debt.
Comments on this entry are closed.