I was struck by a headline in the Daily Mail Online this morning which reads: "U.S. sees highest poverty spike since the 1960s, leaving 50 million Americans poor as government cuts billions in spending... so does that mean there's no way out?" The article details the rise of poverty in the USA and laments the "cuts" in government spending that may leave all these millions of poor folks in poverty without help. The report is so striking that the Drudge Report has it highlighted as its main story at the moment.
The problem with the report is that it is based upon a lie, some misleading facts, and a mass delusion. (Other than that, well, I won't go there.)
Let's look first at the lie: the numbers of folks living in poverty depends completely on how the government defines poverty. A shift of a thousand dollars per year in the poverty level could either greatly increase or decrease the numbers. Even so, over the last fifty years, since the so called War on Poverty of the 1960s, the level of poverty has been relatively steady. It rises and falls, but the core group in poverty does not change much as a percentage of the population.
Here are the misleading facts: First, there are no cuts in government spending. The federal government will spend more this year than last even after the imposition of the sequester. All that is happening is that the increase in spending will be less than was originally expected. The antipoverty agencies will have more money this year than last. With some minimal management by federal authorities, none of the real poor should suffer. Second, the hero of the story in the Mail is a former crack addict who has gotten his life back on track in Baltimore. The man in question was helped by a private charity, not a government program. His success has nothing to do with higher or lower government spending.
And now for the big one, the mass delusion. The Daily Mail report just assumes that the way to help the poor is for the government to spend more. That assumption is not even discussed; it is beyond question to the reporter. The assumption remains in place despite the results of the last fifty years. The American government has spent trillions of dollars on anti poverty programs during that time, but the level of poverty has not declined. Indeed, if anything has changed, it is that the lives of a much greater percentage of the poor are completely disfunctional. There are more drug addicts, more homeless, more unwanted children, more prostitution, more folks living in abandoned housing, and more problems all around. When the government stepped in to "help" those in poverty, it took away from them the need to struggle, to work, and to devote their energies to achieving some measure of success in order to survive. Now that does not mean that the government intervention left every poor person just sitting around waiting for the check to arrive. The problem is, however, that the government intervention had that effect on millions of people, and they, in turn, spread problems in an ever wider circle throughout their neighborhoods. The "help" from the government actually hurt the poor.
But why is this a delusion? The answer is that a much better way exists to assist those who are poor, namely, economic growth coupled with work. Imagine, if you will, an America where the growth rate was 5% instead of the current stagnation. Imagine a country which was creating 350,000 jobs each month instead of 50,000. Imagine a place where those who wanted to find work could actually become employed. Then add in three changes in government behavior: a) a cut off of government assistance to those who are able to work; b) an overhaul of the government job training programs so that they actually benefit the trainees rather than the government employees involved in the process; and c) creation of programs designed to help more folks get jobs in place of assistance. An example of this last item would be a greater availability of day care options for the children of working women; this would allow the mothers greater flexibility to find work.
For all the endless talk from the Democrats about helping the needy, they never move towards any of these options. For them, asking individuals to take the leading role in running their own lives is tantamount to victimizing those folks. The problem, however, is that we have spent the last fifty years and the last five trillion dollars doing things the way the left wants. It does not work. We all know that. The answer now, however, is not to just do more of the same. The country has to rise above the mass delusion and actually take steps that help.
The problem with the report is that it is based upon a lie, some misleading facts, and a mass delusion. (Other than that, well, I won't go there.)
Let's look first at the lie: the numbers of folks living in poverty depends completely on how the government defines poverty. A shift of a thousand dollars per year in the poverty level could either greatly increase or decrease the numbers. Even so, over the last fifty years, since the so called War on Poverty of the 1960s, the level of poverty has been relatively steady. It rises and falls, but the core group in poverty does not change much as a percentage of the population.
Here are the misleading facts: First, there are no cuts in government spending. The federal government will spend more this year than last even after the imposition of the sequester. All that is happening is that the increase in spending will be less than was originally expected. The antipoverty agencies will have more money this year than last. With some minimal management by federal authorities, none of the real poor should suffer. Second, the hero of the story in the Mail is a former crack addict who has gotten his life back on track in Baltimore. The man in question was helped by a private charity, not a government program. His success has nothing to do with higher or lower government spending.
And now for the big one, the mass delusion. The Daily Mail report just assumes that the way to help the poor is for the government to spend more. That assumption is not even discussed; it is beyond question to the reporter. The assumption remains in place despite the results of the last fifty years. The American government has spent trillions of dollars on anti poverty programs during that time, but the level of poverty has not declined. Indeed, if anything has changed, it is that the lives of a much greater percentage of the poor are completely disfunctional. There are more drug addicts, more homeless, more unwanted children, more prostitution, more folks living in abandoned housing, and more problems all around. When the government stepped in to "help" those in poverty, it took away from them the need to struggle, to work, and to devote their energies to achieving some measure of success in order to survive. Now that does not mean that the government intervention left every poor person just sitting around waiting for the check to arrive. The problem is, however, that the government intervention had that effect on millions of people, and they, in turn, spread problems in an ever wider circle throughout their neighborhoods. The "help" from the government actually hurt the poor.
But why is this a delusion? The answer is that a much better way exists to assist those who are poor, namely, economic growth coupled with work. Imagine, if you will, an America where the growth rate was 5% instead of the current stagnation. Imagine a country which was creating 350,000 jobs each month instead of 50,000. Imagine a place where those who wanted to find work could actually become employed. Then add in three changes in government behavior: a) a cut off of government assistance to those who are able to work; b) an overhaul of the government job training programs so that they actually benefit the trainees rather than the government employees involved in the process; and c) creation of programs designed to help more folks get jobs in place of assistance. An example of this last item would be a greater availability of day care options for the children of working women; this would allow the mothers greater flexibility to find work.
For all the endless talk from the Democrats about helping the needy, they never move towards any of these options. For them, asking individuals to take the leading role in running their own lives is tantamount to victimizing those folks. The problem, however, is that we have spent the last fifty years and the last five trillion dollars doing things the way the left wants. It does not work. We all know that. The answer now, however, is not to just do more of the same. The country has to rise above the mass delusion and actually take steps that help.
2 comments:
I'm sick and tired of bleeding heart conservatives whining about "so called" poor people. In fact, according to the Heritage Foundation, these "poor" people have color cable TV's, air conditioning, cell phones and even XBOXes!
These people are poor because they are lazy, and expect everything for free. It's not Obama's fault.
As long as the U.S. Government continues handing monetary assistance to people able to work. They will continue NOT to work.
The Democratic Party instituted our entitlement society. Obama has helped to expand that hands out class of people, look at FOOD Stamps.
God helps them who helps themselves.
No one should receive Gov. assistance when they are able to work.
Get rid of THE GIVEWAYS, People will get up off their lazy asses & take care of themselves.
The liberal left just wants to expand Government, Wake up America, Government creates NOTHING!!!
Post a Comment