Has Poverty Won the War?

“The Federal Government declared war on poverty, and poverty won.” My least favorite president in history, Reagan, made this “joke” in his 1988 State of the Union speech. In 1992 candidate Bill Clinton promised “a plan to end welfare as we know it.”

Has poverty won? Is “welfare” a failure? First off, there is no government program called “welfare.” There are many government public assistance programs. Starting with Social Security, created by Franklin Roosevelt (FDR).

Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) is the one who declared a “War on Poverty” in a speech to Congress on March 16, 1964. LBJ expanded FDR’s New Deal into the Great Society.

Johnson noted that winning the War on Poverty would be a win-win. His words: “Our history has proved that each time we broaden the base of abundance, giving more people the chance to produce and consume, we create new industry, higher production, increased earnings and better income for all. Giving new opportunity to those who have little will enrich the lives of all the rest.”

He noted the U.S. Constitution opens promising to “promote the general Welfare.” LBJ created the “Economic Opportunity Act of 1964.” Which created such programs as Job Corps, Head Start, VISTA, and local Community Action Programs. The modern Food Stamp (now SNAP) program and Medicare were also created.

The result? Poverty rates plummeted from 19% in 1964 to 11% in 1972. The rate rose under Reagan to 15% and it has pretty much stayed there ever since. The fact is that the programs worked until being killed off or cut for political gain by the Republicans.

The U.S. currently has an 18% poverty rate. Compared to single digit rates in most of Europe. Why
the difference?

Some years ago, I was hit by a car and was medically directed to live on disability insurance during my rehabilitation. I received about half of my working salary during the months I was not working. But then something interesting happened. My medical team had me slowly add work hours.

As soon as I worked even a few hours per week, all assistance ended. I asked my injury lawyer how most people avoid bankruptcy during this period. He said they don’t. Most people in my situation would go bankrupt. I was fortunate to have savings. It took a year to receive a settlement check for my injuries.

Most people in my situation would fail to pay rent. They might be evicted and get a bad credit score that could prevent future employment
and housing.

A key difference between the U.S. and civilized countries? Assistance is never removed while getting back on one’s feet (literally in my case). The U.S. is unique this way. 60 Minutes did a story about a working parent who had to quit her job so that her child could get medical care. Does this make sense?

As I have described before, civilized countries base policies on outcomes. The U.S. bases policies on ancient religious beliefs about “moral failure.”

I recently wrote about Salman Khan and his goal of educational mastery for all. Instead of sorting people into those who are smart and stupid, the idea is for everyone to achieve mastery.

LBJ’s ideals and goals were exactly correct. If not for his failed war in Vietnam, he would have been reelected and he would have continued the Great Society to completion. Medicare would have been expanded to include all Americans. Full employment would have been guaranteed.

We know what works here and in civilized countries: Universal healthcare. Universal education. Guaranteed work and housing.

Some programs take years to pay off. Someone who is currently a homeless drug addict costs everyone a lot and presents a difficult challenge. In the U.S. it is easy to fall into a downward spiral. Health problems can lead to loss of work then housing. There are many ways to end up addicted to drugs through no moral failure.

Guaranteed healthcare, housing, education and work can prevent these problems in the first place. Seems too simple? Sometimes the simplest answer really is the correct answer. Other countries have done it. So can we.