In a major piece in the Sunday New York Times, the paper presents the "news" that the War on Poverty was a "mixed bag." It was the sort of liberal justification presented as news that thrives in the pages of the Times. Here are the first two paragraphs of the article which pretty much sum up the entire effort:
50 Years Later, War on Poverty Is a Mixed Bag
WASHINGTON — To many Americans, the war on poverty declared 50 years ago by President Lyndon B. Johnson has largely failed. The poverty rate has fallen only to 15 percent from 19 percent in two generations, and 46 million Americans live in households where the government considers their income scarcely adequate.
But looked at a different way, the federal government has succeeded in preventing the poverty rate from climbing far higher. There is broad consensus that the social welfare programs created since the New Deal have hugely improved living conditions for low-income Americans. At the same time, in recent decades, most of the gains from the private economy have gone to those at the top of the income ladder.
Let's consider what is being presented here as "news".
First, the reporter tells us that the poverty rate has fallen from 19% to 15% since president Johnson declared the War on Poverty. This is selective reporting. In 1959, five years before Johnson declared the war, the poverty rate stood at 23% according to census figures. In 1969, five years after the War on Poverty was declared, the poverty rate stood at 12%. All during the decade between 1960 and 1969, the economy was booming and millions moved out of poverty. The Johnson declaration of war on poverty in the middle of that boom had no noticeable effect on that movement. So what did cause the decline in poverty? The answer may surprise, but it was the change in economic policy put in place by president Kennedy and Congress when they passed a major tax reduction at the start of his term. These tax cuts, like the Reagan tax cuts two decades later, produced a sustained boom in the economy which brought higher incomes to all Americans. Needless to say, the Times does not even mention this fact.
But while we are looking at what the Times does say, we should note that the poverty rate today is, even by the Times' way of looking at things 15% as compared to only 12% some 45 years ago. Is this rise in poverty the result of the War on Poverty? If you think the answer is "no", then you also need to admit that the change from 19% 50 years ago to 15% today is also not due to the War on Poverty.
And finally on this point, the Times fails to mention that the current 15% rate of poverty announced by the Census Bureau does not include the vast bulk of illegal aliens living in America. These people go uncounted by the Census Bureau since most of them hide from the government. Throw these folks into the mix, and we are back at something like the 19% poverty rate of 50 years ago.
Second, let's move on to the big "success" claimed by the Times in government efforts to fight poverty. Here, the Times tries to use misdirection to make the facts look good. Notice that the reporter talks about all the good done by social welfare programs created since the New Deal? It may be a news flash to the reporter, but the New Deal began in 1933, not 1964. The New Deal created Social Security, the single biggest government program which has successfully reduced poverty. Millions of elderly Americans now have income during their old age who would have had to rely on the support of their children during earlier times in our history. Take away Social Security, however, and that "broad consensus" of which the reporter speaks would disappear. The truth is that there is no way for the government to claim success in fighting poverty when the percentage of folks living in poverty is higher now, by far, than it was 45 years ago.
Third, the Times ends its main points with the usual dismay that most of the gains in the economy have gone to those at the top of the income ladder. But guess what? That point is not true; at least it was not true until the last five years while president Obama has been in office. During the first 45 of the last 50 years (1963 to 2008), the median household income in the USA rose steadily with the rate going from $6200 per year to over $52,000 per year. Obviously, much of the increase was due to inflation, but the amount above inflation was still quite substantial. Growth in the median income means that the vast middle group in America is seeing higher and higher incomes. The rich were getting richer, but the middle income groups and even the poor were getting richer as well. And since the middle income group is nearly three quarters of the country, it is that group that was getting the bulk of the gains in the economy.
During the Obama years, however, there has been a steady decline in the median household income of the American family. Adjusted for inflation, the decline has been almost 10%. Even unadjusted for inflation, the number has declined from over $52,000 to about $51,000, so as prices have continued to rise, incomes have fallen. While Obama's policies have guided the nation, the rich truly have gotten richer while everyone else has gotten poorer. Obama and his policies have actually produced greater income inequality while claiming to do the opposite.
So the War on Poverty has cost the USA over two trillion dollars since it began. Poverty has not been reduced. There are few successful programs in that war on poverty. Indeed, if one puts aside food stamps and Medicare, it is hard to think of anything else that has had a major demonstrable good effect on the country. Of course, you won't hear that from the Times; it is too caught up in ideology to actually present the true facts.
50 Years Later, War on Poverty Is a Mixed Bag
WASHINGTON — To many Americans, the war on poverty declared 50 years ago by President Lyndon B. Johnson has largely failed. The poverty rate has fallen only to 15 percent from 19 percent in two generations, and 46 million Americans live in households where the government considers their income scarcely adequate.
But looked at a different way, the federal government has succeeded in preventing the poverty rate from climbing far higher. There is broad consensus that the social welfare programs created since the New Deal have hugely improved living conditions for low-income Americans. At the same time, in recent decades, most of the gains from the private economy have gone to those at the top of the income ladder.
Let's consider what is being presented here as "news".
First, the reporter tells us that the poverty rate has fallen from 19% to 15% since president Johnson declared the War on Poverty. This is selective reporting. In 1959, five years before Johnson declared the war, the poverty rate stood at 23% according to census figures. In 1969, five years after the War on Poverty was declared, the poverty rate stood at 12%. All during the decade between 1960 and 1969, the economy was booming and millions moved out of poverty. The Johnson declaration of war on poverty in the middle of that boom had no noticeable effect on that movement. So what did cause the decline in poverty? The answer may surprise, but it was the change in economic policy put in place by president Kennedy and Congress when they passed a major tax reduction at the start of his term. These tax cuts, like the Reagan tax cuts two decades later, produced a sustained boom in the economy which brought higher incomes to all Americans. Needless to say, the Times does not even mention this fact.
But while we are looking at what the Times does say, we should note that the poverty rate today is, even by the Times' way of looking at things 15% as compared to only 12% some 45 years ago. Is this rise in poverty the result of the War on Poverty? If you think the answer is "no", then you also need to admit that the change from 19% 50 years ago to 15% today is also not due to the War on Poverty.
And finally on this point, the Times fails to mention that the current 15% rate of poverty announced by the Census Bureau does not include the vast bulk of illegal aliens living in America. These people go uncounted by the Census Bureau since most of them hide from the government. Throw these folks into the mix, and we are back at something like the 19% poverty rate of 50 years ago.
Second, let's move on to the big "success" claimed by the Times in government efforts to fight poverty. Here, the Times tries to use misdirection to make the facts look good. Notice that the reporter talks about all the good done by social welfare programs created since the New Deal? It may be a news flash to the reporter, but the New Deal began in 1933, not 1964. The New Deal created Social Security, the single biggest government program which has successfully reduced poverty. Millions of elderly Americans now have income during their old age who would have had to rely on the support of their children during earlier times in our history. Take away Social Security, however, and that "broad consensus" of which the reporter speaks would disappear. The truth is that there is no way for the government to claim success in fighting poverty when the percentage of folks living in poverty is higher now, by far, than it was 45 years ago.
Third, the Times ends its main points with the usual dismay that most of the gains in the economy have gone to those at the top of the income ladder. But guess what? That point is not true; at least it was not true until the last five years while president Obama has been in office. During the first 45 of the last 50 years (1963 to 2008), the median household income in the USA rose steadily with the rate going from $6200 per year to over $52,000 per year. Obviously, much of the increase was due to inflation, but the amount above inflation was still quite substantial. Growth in the median income means that the vast middle group in America is seeing higher and higher incomes. The rich were getting richer, but the middle income groups and even the poor were getting richer as well. And since the middle income group is nearly three quarters of the country, it is that group that was getting the bulk of the gains in the economy.
During the Obama years, however, there has been a steady decline in the median household income of the American family. Adjusted for inflation, the decline has been almost 10%. Even unadjusted for inflation, the number has declined from over $52,000 to about $51,000, so as prices have continued to rise, incomes have fallen. While Obama's policies have guided the nation, the rich truly have gotten richer while everyone else has gotten poorer. Obama and his policies have actually produced greater income inequality while claiming to do the opposite.
So the War on Poverty has cost the USA over two trillion dollars since it began. Poverty has not been reduced. There are few successful programs in that war on poverty. Indeed, if one puts aside food stamps and Medicare, it is hard to think of anything else that has had a major demonstrable good effect on the country. Of course, you won't hear that from the Times; it is too caught up in ideology to actually present the true facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment