Poverty in America: who is really deserving of help?

By Charles Brooks

The Economic Policy Institute recently reported that in the roughly three decades leading up to the most recent recession, looking at the officially measured poverty rate, educational upgrading and overall income growth were the two biggest poverty-reducing factors, while income inequality was the largest poverty-increasing factor. The federal government set the poverty line at $23,550 for a family of four in 2013, $11,490 for a single individual, and $4,020 for each individual person. The Blackboard spoke with Dr. Wilhelmina A. Leigh, who serves as a Senior Research Associate with the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, about poverty in America: “People have to be aware of (poverty), care about it and understand that having the kind of inequality we have in this country is not good for any of us. People have to be made aware, somehow, that inequality and high levels of poverty impairs all of our lives and limits the growth of our economy.”

The poor suffers again...billion$ in cut$ to food stamp$

By Charles Brooks

                         Photo credit: kevin dooley via photopin cc

Just ten days after delivering his most recent State of the Union address, where he described 2014 as the “year of action” – President Barack Obama kicked off the year by signing into law a $987 billion Farm Bill. In doing so, the president signed away $80 billion, over a ten-year period, in cuts to food stamp benefits. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cuts will affect approximately 850,000 people, who will see their monthly benefits reduced by $90. But just a few days ago, President Obama stood before the nation and outlined his proposals designed to tackle poverty, income inequality and economic mobility. These proposals focused on job creation, immigration reform, tax policy reform, job training, and unemployment insurance reform. Yet days later, President Obama talks about the reforms and the billions of dollars the new law will save. The $987 billion Farm Bill appears to be another example of how public policy can exacerbate poverty while simultaneously advancing income inequality. Consider for a moment that while billions of dollars are cut from food stamps – the agribusiness interests will reap the benefit$.

President Obama's State of the Union address - "At least they're thinking about it..."

By Charles Brooks

(Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)

In the days leading up to President Barack Obama’s fifth State of the Union (SOTU) address, income inequality emerged as a highly anticipated topic to be discussed. This was quite understandable and actually made sense considering the recent events - the president’s speech on income inequality (though billed as a speech on economic mobility), his announcement of the Promise Zones as part of his administration’s anti-poverty strategy, and the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty. As the president delivered his address and spoke about working hard and getting ahead in America, he said, “Now, let's face it: That belief has suffered some serious blows. Over more than three decades, even before the Great Recession hit, massive shifts in technology and global competition had eliminated a lot of good, middle-class jobs, and weakened the economic foundations that families depend on.” The President continues, “Today, after four years of economic growth, corporate profits and stock prices have rarely been higher, and those at the top have never done better. But average wages have barely budged. Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled. The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by; let alone to get ahead. And too many still aren't working at all. So our job is to reverse these trends.”

A look back at 1964: Part II - Johnson's War on Poverty

                                           (Photo credit: LBJ Library photo by Cecil Stoughton)
                                            
Robert Caro’s book, The Years of Lyndon Johnson; The Passage of Power provides some insight to perhaps a fundamental flaw with Johnson’s War on Poverty. For example, the book recalls a remark made by Mr. William M. Capron, an early architect of the war on poverty program, “We started out with the notion that we were not talking about big new budget resources, and that was a constraint. That’s why…we talked about a targeted demonstration program. We used the argument that we were all terribly ignorant about poverty and programmatic ways to do something about it, that we had to learn a lot more. We were not talking about a massive program at all.”

A look back at 1964: Part I - Johnson's War on Poverty

                                  Photo credit: LBJ Library photo by Cecil Stoughton
                  
               
As President Barack Obama prepares to deliver his fifth State of the Union address, we are reminded of the recent celebration of the 50th anniversary of Lyndon B. Johnson’s announcement of his anti-poverty program – called the War on Poverty.

So, 50 years ago, on January 8th in 1964, Lyndon B. Johnson delivers his first State of the Union speech – barely six weeks after the Kennedy assassination. President Johnson used the moment to outline not only his desire to push for what many considered “Kennedy” initiatives such as civil rights and a tax cut – but the one issue that was not on the public’s radar – poverty. Looking ahead ten months or so to the 1964 presidential election, potentially going up against Republican Barry Goldwater, addressing poverty can help, particularly in the areas of the country where he is weakest –“liberal urban areas.” During the morning press briefing before delivering the State of the Union, President Johnson told reporters, “…so I would suspect that the poverty program itself would run in excess of one billion dollars. But there is specifically $500 million in new obligation authority in this budget.”[1] Johnson now had one billion dollars for his anti-poverty efforts that amounted to 1% of the nation’s spending to help 20% of the population. This was in contrast to the New Deal’s work relief appropriation bill was more than $4 billion, plus nearly $880 million in previously authorized funds.