Fighting over slices while others hold the loaf

Leland, MS


Another little gift that keeps on giving. I'd like to touch on the issues point by point over time. I am not here to get into a flame war with this blogger. Rather, this is an exercise for me in learning how to talk across differences with people and how to make an impact in the lives of those who are America's most vulnerable.

Today, I'd like to start with the claims about the war on poverty. The blogger is referring to the name for legislation first introduced by former President Lyndon B. Johnson during his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964. This legislation was proposed by Johnson in response national poverty rate of around nineteen percent. The War on Poverty speech led the United States Congress to pass the Economic Opportunity Act, a law that established the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to administer the local application of federal funds targeted against poverty.

Legacy programs like Head Start and Job Corps still remain. From the initiative grew some familiar legislation like that which created Medicare and Medicaid, Civil Rights Act, and the Higher Education Act, to name but a few. These programs have had a significant impact on the lives of most Americans in some shape or form.

Historical poverty tables state:In the decade following the 1964 introduction of the war on poverty, poverty rates in the U.S. dropped to their lowest level to date: 11.1% . They have remained between 11 and 15.2% ever since. Since 1973 poverty has remained well below the historical U.S. averages in the range of 20-25%

Despite these programs being fragmented, under-funded, and besieged—they helped lower the poverty rate, reduce disorder, and absorb the shock from Baby Boomers entering the job market. Those defenders pointed out that most Americans have favored most of the Great Society’s programs. In that regard, support for the Great Society’s contributions to the welfare state—especially elements with formidable popular backing like Medicare, Head Start, Social Security expansion, and education funding. Despite what conservatives would like some to believe, these programs make a real difference in the lives of all people, especially since folks like the blogger who posted the assault on the program collects Social Security funds!

Why then do conservatives, and more accurately, Republicans hate on these programs? The easiest answer is that the Republican Party is pro war funding, but views everything else as an extravagance and personal, not political. This kind of neocon thinking is what seeks to destroy the very fabrics of what is truly American and good for all citizens.

As you can begin to tell from my post yesterday, poverty is a real issue in America, especially in Southeast, Appalachia, and rural America. It has been estimated that more than thirty-six million Americans live below the official U.S. poverty line today. This means less than $16,000 in income for a family of three or $10,300 for a single individual. $16,000 is just the government defined number. We all know that certain states and cities are far more expensive to live in than others and true poverty is hard to measure as such.

Nevertheless, approximately one-third of all poor Americans are children, and many remain that way throughout childhood and often into adulthood. Childhood poverty usually results in inadequate to poor health care, residing in high-crime neighborhoods, and lower-quality schools. Drop out rates, drug use, and teenage pregnancy are often the penalty from these socioeconomic ills.

During the 1990s, more Americans were able to escape poverty. Despite former President Clinton’s assault on welfare programs, more Americans became educated and climbed out of poverty. In fact, poverty among single mothers fell to its lowest rate ever during the Clinton years. While there was strong economic growth in the US, this change is better explained through policy changes at the federal level that included expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (which provides a subsidy to low-income working families), increased minimum wages, expanded child care subsidies, and welfare-to work programs.

Clearly sound federal policies (and a strong economy) can reduce poverty. I guess I don’t need to make a big splashy conclusion here. For those of you in the know, it’s pretty clear that the friendly blogger needs to review this. If he did, he might change his mind. He might appreciate that instead of fighting over the slices of bread with the poor, he’d be better served to be angry with spending 60% of federal dollars on war toys and AIG bonuses in excess of $100,000. Remember, before AFDC, which more than 99 percent went to poor children, the majority Caucasian, was abolished in 1995,three cents came out of every American taxpayers check for. Today, more than $3.00 comes out of every taxpayer's check for the Bush war in Iraq. You decide...