Get Ready for Unfounded Attacks on the War on Poverty

July 15, 2013 at 9:00 am

Next year, the nation will mark the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty, which President Johnson proclaimed in his State of the Union address of January 1964.  Sadly, we should expect to hear a drumbeat of attacks claiming that, as President Reagan said long ago, we fought a war on poverty and “poverty won.”  Indeed, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said recently of the anti-poverty effort, “We don’t have much to show for it.”

The truth is very different.  A number of anti-poverty programs — including some key efforts that have their origins in the War on Poverty and some that came later, often the product of bipartisan agreement — have an impressive record of achievement.  Together, programs such as food stamps (now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP), the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Medicaid, college financial assistance and broader based programs such as Medicare, have reduced poverty and malnutrition, expanded access to health care, and opened doors of opportunity for millions of people.  To be sure, poverty remains a serious problem in the United States and remains higher here than in many western industrialized countries.  And, not every program begun in the 1960s or more recently has been effective.  But, a bumper sticker analysis of the War on Poverty and today’s safety net that implies that “poverty won” misses the mark.

Take SNAP.  Chairman Ryan’s budget would cut the program by $135 billion over the next ten years.  Yet, the program is a prime example of a major national accomplishment.  Before food stamps and other nutrition programs were widely available, it was not hard to find large numbers of children in very poor areas of America with distended bellies or other indications of malnutrition.  That’s no longer the case.

A recent academic study looked back at the babies who benefited from the introduction and expansion of food stamps in the 1960s and 1970s and found that they grew up to be healthier and more likely to finish high school than their peers born in counties where the program had not yet been instituted.

Medicaid, created in 1965 as another core piece of the War on Poverty, also continues to make a major difference in people’s lives, improving health and reducing infant mortality and childhood deaths.  The program now provides health coverage to nearly 65 million low-income Americans, including children, parents, seniors, and people with disabilities.

Various newer programs also have been effective in reducing or alleviating poverty.  Consider, for example, the EITC, a program for working families created under President Ford and expanded under President Reagan and later presidents and congresses of both parties.  Not only does the program directly reduce poverty — this tax credit kept more than 6 million Americans above the poverty line in 2011, including more than 3 million children — but research has shown that it increases employment among single mothers and helps lead to better academic achievement among low-income children in participating families.

Those who claim that we don’t have much to show from anti-poverty programs often cite the fact that the poverty rate under the government’s official measure of poverty is similar now to what it was in the mid-1960s.  Such a comparison, however, is grossly misleading.  The official poverty measure counts only families’ cash income before taxes.  It fails to count food stamps, the EITC, rental subsidies, and the like.  As a result, it counts the forms of assistance that have shrunk dramatically since the 1960s such as cash welfare payments to poor families with children, while leaving out the key forms of assistance that were created or expanded during this period and have powerful anti-poverty effects.

That’s why analysts from a variety of political perspectives prefer the government’s newer Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which includes both cash assistance and “non-cash” benefits such as SNAP, the EITC, and rental assistance, and which also nets out income and payroll taxes that people must pay.  The SPM shows that without the safety net, the percentage of Americans in poverty would be nearly double what it is:  29 percent of Americans would have been poor in 2011, rather than the 16 percent who were poor when safety net programs are taken into account.  SNAP alone kept 4.7 million above the poverty line (see chart).


As we approach the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty, we’ll have more to say about anti-poverty programs.  Stay tuned.

Print Friendly

More About Arloc Sherman

Arloc Sherman

Sherman is a Senior Researcher focusing on family income trends, income support policies, and the causes and consequences of poverty.

Full bio | Blog Archive | Research archive at CBPP.org

2 Comments Add Yours ↓

Comments are listed in reverse chronological order.

  1. 1

    The ironic thing about the rich keeping the poor in the gutter is that it works against economic prosperity. Industrial economies only work well when the wealth is spread around and poverty shrinks.

  2. Anezka Sebek #
    2

    I am a PhD student studying the transition homeless families make from the shelter to what is supposed to be self-sufficiency. The problems with 1996 Welfare Reform are vast and well-documented. However, there have been no cries of outrage. I attribute the lack of outrage to an attitude of considering the poor as “the other.” What we should be doing is making sure that we lift as many people out of needing assistance as possible. The PRWORA and its reauthorization in 2005 does NOT help people out of poverty, it is insurance that will keep people in poverty and low-wage jobs. The “market economy” wants it like this: We need low-wage workers for the many low-wage jobs that are available. We need them to “shut up and work.” We need them to feel guilty that they are collecting any assistance. We enforce this attitude through the sanction-filled PRWORA laws. When people finally do get off assistance, they are sure to STAY poor because they don’t have the skills for higher-skilled work. The PRWORA only pays for 12 months of training or schooling. Why can’t lawmakers see that investment in the over 46 million people who are poor in America is only going to help the rest of the economy? Most of the poor are children. Doesn’t it make sense to empower the parents of these children to raise productive people in this next generation? The system we have now is wasteful and reinforces criminalization and jailing of the poor, a $50 Billion US industry.



Your Comment

Comment Policy:

Thank you for joining the conversation about important policy issues. Comments are limited to 1,500 characters and are subject to approval and moderation. We reserve the right to remove comments that:

  • are injurious, defamatory, profane, off-topic or inappropriate;
  • contain personal attacks or racist, sexist, homophobic, or other slurs;
  • solicit and/or advertise for personal blogs and websites or to sell products or services;
  • may infringe the copyright or intellectual property rights of others or other applicable laws or regulations; or
  • are otherwise inconsistent with the goals of this blog.

Posted comments do not necessarily represent the views of the CBPP and do not constitute official endorsement by CBPP. Please note that comments will be approved during the Center's business hours. If you have questions, please contact communications@cbpp.org.



 characters available