Opinion

Opinion

Opinion: War on poverty should shift to states

January 31, 2014

Advertisement

America recently marked an important milestone. Jan. 8 was the 50th anniversary of the declaration of war on poverty. This event has intensified an ongoing debate about the federal government’s role in supporting society’s least affluent members.

In his 1964 inaugural address, President Lyndon Johnson stated “this administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America. I urge this Congress and all Americans to join me in this effort. It will not be a short or easy struggle, no single weapon or strategy will suffice, but we will not rest until that war is won.”

And America did respond. In the months following that speech, the federal government created a series of important programs including Medicare and Medicaid, Head Start, Job Corps, a permanent food stamp program, VISTA and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

The extent of the progress made during the ensuing five decades is the subject of considerable debate but no one, regardless of political beliefs, argues that significant battles were not won.

Poverty in America today is still rampant: 15 percent, more than 46 million people, live in poverty (less than $24,000 annual income for a family of four); 7 percent, 22 million people, live in deep poverty (less than $12,000 annual income for a family of four); 22 percent of our children, more than 16 million, live in poverty; and 38 percent of our African-American children and 34 percent of our Hispanic children live in poverty.

Conversations about government’s response to poverty have been exacerbated by two more recent trends. One is the increasingly skewed distribution of wealth toward the rich. The other is the increasing difficulty achieving in social mobility (the bettering one’s absolute and relative economic position).

The combination of these three issues has provided political fodder to all parts of the political spectrum, each playing to its bases, reiterating its traditional positions.

We have learned several lessons since 1964. Perhaps the most important is that fighting poverty is not only the right thing to do but is also the smart thing to do. In an increasingly competitive and interconnected world, survival depends on the stability and productivity of the whole. Another lesson is that responses to poverty cannot be simple. A single focus — whether on education or minimum wage or job training — will not yield long- term and widespread results. A third is that responses must be long-term. Poverty, in many cases, is deep seeded, requiring sustained efforts.

It is highly unlikely that the federal government can develop and implement effective new programs. It is bogged down in partisanship too extreme to come to agreement on the components. In addition, the federal government is too unwieldy to effectively mount large-scale operations. And public support, required for efforts of this kind, would be unlikely. Poll after poll tells us that the American people have little faith in the federal government’s motives and effectiveness (particularly on domestic issues).

But one possible effective response does exist: giving each state the funds to develop its own programs. The advantages are threefold. One, each state can tailor the programs to meet its specific needs, serving diverse populations and issues. Two, this will produce a variety of solutions that can inform one another. Three, this kind of response can garner public support: Polls clearly show that while the public has little faith in the federal government, they do trust state and local governments. Any such initiative would require combined federal, state and local understanding, cooperation and investment.

The war on poverty must continue. As President Johnson said in his inaugural address, “The richest nation on earth can afford to win it (the war on poverty). We cannot afford to lose it.” But in 2014 and beyond, the answer lies with the states.

— Gene Budig is past president or chancellor of three major state universities, including Kansas University, and of Major League Baseball’s American League. Alan Heaps is a former vice president of the College Board in New York City.

Comments

Linda and Bill Houghton 1 year, 6 months ago

Unfortunately, there is little faith in a lot of the state governments. Ours would probably try to find a way to channel the money to the top 1 percent.

Bart Johnson 1 year, 6 months ago

From 1950 to 1964 poverty was steadily going down. A rational person would conclude that this would mean it was time to roll back the anti-poverty programs of the New Deal since poverty was being alleviated. What actually happened? LBJ doubled down and created a massive increase in the size of government. Since then poverty has stopped going down.

They did this precisely because poverty was going away on its own. If they waited too long, then there would be no more poverty to provide an excuse for a massive expansion of the State. The War on Poverty was really a War on the Poor, with the point being to keep them poor. That is the product of these programs: poverty. Without poverty, all those bureaucrats lose their jobs because the program would have to be shut down.

Make no mistake, the only way to overcome poverty is to end the War on Poverty.

Beator 1 year, 6 months ago

I thought "War" was a banned word in intellectual circles? Shouldn't it be a kinetic action on poverty?

Leslie Swearingen 1 year, 6 months ago

Yeah, Mike, are we all fired up?

My thing is that those who need help should qualify by the same criteria regardless of what state they live in, otherwise you get enormous differences in what benefits are given out.

Some states like some cities are simply richer than others so their citizens are better off in even times of trouble. Federal benefits and rules would change this so that someone in Manhatten, New York and someone in Manhatten, Kansas would get the same amount if they were in the same situation.

Scott Burkhart 1 year, 5 months ago

For 100 years the social experiment of a large central government has "progressively" made things worse. It is time to roll back the size of the central government and block grant this money back to the states. The Federal government couldn't run a lemonade stand efficiently.

Thomas Bryce 1 year, 5 months ago

The Kansas State Legislature has proven it Can't run a State efficiently either. That is what happens when Church Groups try to Run a Government. All those pesky Laws getting in the way of Scripture! Darn It!

Gerald Kerr 1 year, 5 months ago

As government has grown larger it is no wonder that disposable incomes have fallen. As government keeps spending money it doesn't have and borrowing more and printing more to repay its growing debts- the dollar drops in value. The greenback dollar was first distributed in 1913, it's worth less than 4 cents today.

The war on poverty has created more poverty than it has fixed. Regulation, false sense of entitlement, corruption, inflation, and crushed job creation has been the ill gained spoils of this political war fought to empower the ruling class and grow the dependent class that empowers it.

More bloviation from the elitists who have nursed the trough all their lives. No thanks, Gene.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.