Letter 2 America for January 10, 2014

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
Dear America,
English: Al Gore and Newt Gingrich applaud to ...

English: Al Gore and Newt Gingrich applaud to US president Clinton waves during the State of the Union address in 1997. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Bill Clinton is famous for several things, some of them dubious.  But it is his misfortune that the single most memorable thing he ever said was, "It depends on what the meaning of "is" is."  That moment--captured on tape as he was interrogated over his statements under oath at a deposition regarding Monica Lewinski and played on the evening news more than once--is probably the high watermark in modern logomachy intended to obfuscate...until now.  The anniversary of the "War on Poverty" initiated by President Lyndon Baines Johnson in January 1964 during the course of his State of the Union Address occurred earlier this week, and the Republicans in congress have jumped on their band wagon to wage a war of their own against it.  Among the elements of their strategy is debate over what the meaning of "poor" is.  Of course, if you're poor you know it.  And even if you're not poor, it can be possible to think you are in these times when jobs are fewer in number than workers.  So the Republicans are pointing out that under the measure used by the federal government when the program was initiated, there has been little progress--a few percentage points they say--and that the reason is that the idea of government as an agent of that kind of change is a failure.  Of course there is also a debate over how to define poverty on both sides of the issue; it's the kind of debate that only those who aren't poor can afford to indulge themselves with.  But the underpinning of the issue scholars take with the now ancient definition is that it doesn't take into account the benefits that some people receive, which would lift them from the ranks of the poor if they were included in their income, and there is some legitimacy to that argument.  The point of the War on Poverty was to assure every American a standard of living that represented the modicum of creature comfort that everyone can recognize as just that: a modicum of comfort.  Thus, having to spend one third of one's income on food came to be the standard, though it begs the question, why a third; why not a quarter, or ten percent, which is apparently the average today.  And including the government benefits such people receive is imperative if we are going to measure whether the War on Poverty has succeeded to any extent, but then so is taking into account what factors may have added to the roll of the poor as these programs were diminishing it.  The point is that, all in all, the question shouldn't be what the meaning of poor is.  The question should be how do people become poor and what else can we do to prevent it.

One of the things we shouldn't have done goes back to Bill Clinton; fitting in that his logomachy is where I started.  Conservatives, Republicans in particular, point to the "end of welfare as we knew it" as a moral victory.  That occurred in 1996 when Newt Gingrich's "contract with America" succeeded in shoving a welfare "reform" law through congress and down Clinton's throat, as well as that of the poor.  It imposed a work requirement on welfare recipients after two years, which accomplishes nothing but diminution of the welfare rolls in an era in which jobs are scarce.  It doesn't induce employment because there is not enough employment to be had.  And of those who get jobs, much of the work available is at low wages that fail to lift them out of poverty when welfare is no longer available, or food stamp eligibility ends as the reform statutes required.  And all the while, the disparity in earning power and affluence between the poor and the rich continued to burgeon, exacerbating the problem of poverty in American, the richest country in the world.  So, while the debate over the meaning of the word poor has some merit, in the final analysis it is meaningless because it doesn't comprise a comprehensive discussion of the subject of poverty, including all of its causes, one of which must surely be greed as the credo of American business and finance.  We never talk about what the differences between what I have called artificial wealth and natural wealth, and the discussion today makes scant reference to it.  The observation that CEO's today make 400 times what the average worker makes as compared to 40 times in the 1950's almost never comes up.  And something I mentioned just last Tuesday...the abdication by business of its responsibility to train its workers and provide them with the security of life long careers...has been swept under the political rug by conservatives who would rather blame labor's demand for financial security for the failures of businesses to thrive than look at squandering profits on high-paid executives who fail and on trillions of dollars already in corporate coffers sitting idle instead of developing the workforce. 

In short, the conservative plan for reducing poverty is delegating to the states the task of pulling everyone up in the fashion most suitable to each respective state.  But the problem with block grants is that they are used for various other purposes as well: incentivising the poor to leave a state, driving minorities from the state, punishing single mothers and the like.  In fact, the Social Security Act of 1935 was based on the same concept: federal funding of state programs.  But by 1939 it was clear that nothing constructive would ever happen under such a system and FDR and his congress passed the amendments of that year, taking back control of the four Social Security programs, which included welfare, and creating the Social Security Trust Fund for the old age retirement part of the plan so as to protect the program from claims that it cost too much and providing it with a perpetually renewed source of funding.  But the welfare and unemployment compensation programs, which were for people who had no means and thus couldn't contribute, also returned to federal control...and for the same reason.  The states could not be relied upon to do the best thing then, and they still can't be, so central, federal control of such programs is essential, and "block grant" strategies continue to be just a euphemism for leaving the underprivileged to the mercy of local politicians, some of whose motives are not necessarily pure.

As usual, the resolution of the debate in the final analysis will come when the voters go to the polls in November.  Will they will repudiate the casuistry in the name of fiscal responsibility that is spewing from conservative fonts like Marco Rubio and Mitch McConnell?  It is tempting to working people who are just barely keeping up to blame those less fortunate and confiscate some of what little they have.  But there seems to be a rising tide of rational progressive thinking in this country, which is colliding head on, even in the Republican Party, with the mindless parsimony of the Tea Party right.  As has been the case in the past three elections, this one may be the most important one yet.  One side or the other is going to turn a corner.  The question is, which one.

Your friend,

Mike

Enhanced by Zemanta

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://letters2america.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/attymwol/managed-mt/mt-tb.cgi/530

Leave a comment

Categories

Pages

OpenID accepted here Learn more about OpenID
Powered by Movable Type 4.34-en

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Michael Wolf published on January 9, 2014 10:12 AM.

Letter 2 America for January 7, 2014 was the previous entry in this blog.

Letter 2 America for January 14, 2014 is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory google-site-verification: google9129f4e489ab6f5d.html

Categories

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Michael Wolf published on January 9, 2014 10:12 AM.

Letter 2 America for January 7, 2014 was the previous entry in this blog.

Letter 2 America for January 14, 2014 is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

google-site-verification: google9129f4e489ab6f5d.html