Sections


Archive

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930
COLUMN archives back to April 26, 1999

TRANSCRIPT & COMMON GROUND archives back to July 2007

Common Ground on Poverty

Adjust font size: Decrease font Enlarge font
image
Cal Thomas is a conservative columnist. Bob Beckel is a liberal Democratic  strategist. But as longtime friends, they can often find common ground on issues  that lawmakers in Washington cannot. View the video version of this column at  www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/default.htm or at USA TODAY's YouTube channel at  youtube.com/usatoday.  Today: What to do about poverty.   Bob: If folks had any doubt about the depth of this recession, they need not  look any further than the number of Americans suffering in poverty. And I'm not  talking about those who lost their too-expensive home because they were living  large on credit cards and fictional home equity. I'm talking about people who  were barely scraping by before this recession and who are now being buried under  its weight.  Cal: With 8 million jobs lost in such a short time, it's no wonder.   Bob: Recent reports of an increase in the number of Americans who have fallen  below the poverty line is tragic, but sadly predictable. When the economy sinks,  people are caught in the undertow. In the recession of 1980, the poverty rate  was 13%. In today's Great Recession, according to new data, it's up to 14.3%, or  nearly 44 million people. Million!   Cal:  Something else has been acting like a nest of termites, gnawing away at  the foundations of our economy. We have spent trillions of dollars since Lyndon  Johnson's "war on poverty," and that war has been lost. If you wind up with as  many poor people as when you began - actually more - something isn't working.  What's not working - and here I will invoke an apt cliché - is that there have  been too many handouts and not enough hand-ups.  Bob: I've never had a problem with the hands-up concept, the problem is: a  hand-up to where? The fact is most poverty is concentrated in areas with fewer  well-paying jobs.  We can't expect the government to supply all those jobs, but  there is still a role for government to play to encourage the private sector to  create jobs in these poverty zones.  Cal: Wait a minute. Government can't simply wave the magical wand and create  jobs? Isn't that what Obama and company have been trying to do since he took the  oath of office?  Bob: Do you really want to get into the stimulus argument now?   Cal: We can tackle that another day. Look, we've been through "enterprise zones"  and all sorts of other failed government programs and strategies for elevating  the poor to independence. What's needed are incentive zones. Look at the common  ground reached - however reluctantly - by Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich in the  mid-1990s. They cooperated on welfare reform, despite claims from the left that  people would starve and that the bill was "legislative child abuse," as Sen. Ted  Kennedy put it at the time. They didn't starve. Most  found work and are now  paying taxes, not  receiving them.  Bob: The jury is still out on the Clinton-Gingrich welfare reform measure. Under  that bill, the federal government no longer provided standardized welfare  payments as they had since 1959. Instead, they left it to the states to  implement their own anti-poverty programs. Some have apparently been successful  and some have not.  Cal: The jury is still out?! I guess in your world it'll never render a verdict.  Bob, this was a case where the states were far better equipped to decide who  should get help and who was a lazy so-and-so simply gaming the system. Instead  of a one-size-fits-all approach, the states - and cities like New York - devised  plans to wean  the able-bodied off welfare by putting them to work.  As a  result, people got jobs as well as their dignity and self-respect.   Bob: As a liberal involved in anti-poverty programs over the years, I have a  confession to make. It is clear to me that direct payment of welfare grants to  people with no strings attached has bred two generations of people dependent on  the government. I want to emphasize that our intentions were honorable, but like  so many things, there were unintended consequences and in the case of many  anti-poverty programs, one of those consequences has been the stifling of  incentive to move out of poverty.  Cal: You know what that "road to hell" is paved with, don't you? But better late  than never. You may not believe this coming from a conservative, but I have been  poor. I know what it's like to squeeze every dime out of a dollar. But I never  accepted poverty as the final verdict. I worked very hard - and was willing to  work at anything, including jobs that had nothing to do with my professional  goals - in order to feed and house my family. I had faith that better days were  ahead. That's the attitude missing from so much of today's entitlement and  dependency culture.  Bob: You are indeed a success story. For those on the left, you're too  successful! However, you had  advantages that many people on welfare today do  not. You are educated, you came from a two-parent family in a safe neighborhood  and went on to establish a wildly successful marriage. Many on welfare today are  single mothers who lack education, have no child care help or transportation for  jobs out of their neighborhood. Initiative alone can only do so much.   Cal: I know women who fit this profile and who are successful today. One of  them, Star Parker, a Republican, is running for Congress from California. She  and others who made it determined in their minds and heart to find a way out of  poverty. A 60 Minutes show a few years back focused on the hard-core unemployed  in New York and taught them how to dress and act at job interviews. Most found  jobs. Yes, they were entry level, but it got them in the door.  Bob: There are always stunning, and laudable, examples like  Parker, but let's  be realistic. We're talking tens of millions of our fellow citizens in poverty  today. Only a fraction of them will find the formula for success that she has.  What about child care, transportation and those other impediments?  Cal: I am willing to see my taxes go for that, lest people hang on to the  stereotype that conservatives believe in no assistance for those down on their  luck. But here's a longer-term fix: While various administrations have been  arranging the chairs on the Poverty Titanic, let's start focusing more on the  children, but not with more failed government programs that do little to lift  them from poverty. If we can save the kids, we can greatly reduce poverty in the  next generation.  Bob: You'll get no argument here.   Cal: OK, since we've agreed in a previous column on education choice, I draw  your attention to something that is actually working. The Children's Scholarship  Fund in New York reports it has already helped nearly 29,000 disadvantaged  children nationwide and 9,300 in New York City with scholarships to private  schools. For a donation of $85, this non-profit is able to pay one child's  tuition for a month. (www.scholarshipfund.org/drupal1/).  These kids can then  get out of failing schools and find a sustainable path  to a better life. I'm  sending a check for $85. Can I count on you to match mine?  Bob: Of course.   Cal: The entire welfare formula has been wrong from the beginning. I salute  liberals for compassion,  but compassion without seeking to change  behavior  merely perpetuates poverty.  People still must face consequences for bad  choices, and these disincentives work toward general welfare.   Bob: What has been lacking in welfare are incentives for people to succeed.  You're not going to force someone into success, but you need to remove as many  obstacles as possible. I still believe government has a major role in removing  these obstacles.  Cal: "You can do it" has been a cry I've heard since the training wheels came  off my bicycle as a child. This used to be a nation that focused on people who  overcame obstacles, not obsessed with those who couldn't.  "Nothing succeeds  like persistence," President Calvin Coolidge once said. He was right then, and  the sentiment still works today. If government is to have a role in this, it  should be mainly focused on encouraging incentive and persistence. Americans  embrace these traits, and government should not encourage people to suddenly  abandon them. 

General Archive Listing - *use menu buttons for specific category