On Jan. 8, 1964, during his State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson declared a war on poverty.
Today, the poverty rate is nearly the same as it was the day LBJ delivered his address. If this is indeed a war, we are losing. And losing badly.
Recently, Congressman Paul Ryan released what he is calling a discussion draft to bring in new ideas into the debate on how to fight poverty. The ideas Ryan brings to the table are a fresh look at how to combat shortcomings of the last half-century.
Ryan rightly suggests we need to be focused on outcomes, not inputs. Currently, the measure of success is the total amount of money poured into a broken system. Unfortunately, this metric of success is misguided and inflicts pain on those it aims to help. We have a half-century of data that show solely relying on input to quantify welfare does not help those in need. We need to shift our focus to outputs. That is, how many people in the system are actually provided with a track to what they want: a path to a career and self-sufficiency. As Ryan states, we need to stop managing poverty and start actually making a lasting difference for future generations.
It is not be enough to point out a problematic policy and not offer a reform-based solution. The reader should research Ryan’s plan and decide for themselves, but here are a couple of points that I believe hold the most promise.
The provision that I believe would bring the most success would be the creation of what Ryan terms “opportunity grants.” This would combine several existing programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), into a single fund where each state would partner with caseworkers to tailor benefits to a particular person or family. Some families need more transportation assistance while others need more food aid. The reality is, poverty is a complex issue. Issues faced in New York City are different than what people face in rural Mississippi. A one-size-fits-all approach from the federal government does not allow for the necessary customization required to address specific needs in different geographic areas.
Another idea I find central to Ryan’s plan is the expansion of the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit). This program implemented by the federal government has proven its merit because it makes work pay. Getting people back to work truly allows people to become self-sufficient.
People respond to the incentives of the EITC, and it has lifted millions above the poverty line. Ryan’s plan would extend the EITC to childless adults, the demographic that stands the most to gain from those left out of the serious benefits from the program. These are just two proposals in a plan with the potential to help the most vulnerable in our society.
Staring down poverty for 50 years and offering the same “solutions” makes no sense. Of course, this proposal was presented in Washington, so it had enemies before the first copy left the printer. My question to those who reject even the discussion of fixing this system is this: can you adjust your thinking and come to accept that the system is indeed broken? We still have over 46 million people living in poverty right now. How can we continue to accept these results?
Let’s move away from input-oriented thinking and focus on actually creating an environment where the poorest among us can chart their own courses according to their own desires. The end game must be to strike at poverty. Until both parties can agree the system is broken and we need a shift in thinking, the most vulnerable in our society will continue to suffer and fall behind.
