In January 1964, President Lyndon Johnson declared a "War on Poverty" in his State of the Union address. At the time, nearly one in five citizens, the vast majority of those being children, were living in poverty.
Congress acted on President Johnson's agenda and enacted numerous anti-poverty, "Great Society " programs. The Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) was formed to oversee many of the programs, including VISTA, Head Start, Job Corps, Legal Services and many Community Action programs. Along with the Social Security Act of 1965 that established Medicare and Medicaid, the government programs sought to address the destructive forces of poverty caused by health issues for the very young and the elderly.
In the decade after implementing the anti-poverty programs, the rate of poverty in the U.S. declined to about 11 percent and it remained there until the Great Recession of 2008.
According to the Census Bureau, the U.S. poverty rate has risen to 14.3 percent today. With the desire by Conservatives to cut just about every safety-net provision, and the unemployment rate hovering near 10 percent, the likelihood is high the poverty rate will rise dramatically in the future.
Perhaps the most destructive policy to weaken the Great Society anti-poverty efforts was established during the Reagan years. The "starve the beast” strategy was to deny funds to the programs rather than attacking them outright.
The rationale for continuously cutting taxes was not to simply let people “keep their own money” or to let wealth “trickle down” to the rest of us. It was designed to starve the anti-poverty programs, and as the process continues, it is causing real starvation for human beings.
The anti-anti-poverty movement was bipartisan. Following the lead of the Republican Congress’ "Contract with America," President Bill Clinton ended welfare as we know it by promoting and signing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996. Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) replaced the Great Society’s Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). This change, along with a Workforce Development program, attempted to move single mothers out of the home and into the workplace and off welfare.
During those seemingly boom years when jobs (albeit minimum wage) were abundant, it appeared “welfare as we know it” was gone forever.
But, there was a price to be paid. More and more single parents, mostly mothers, were moved out of the home and into the workplace. With no one supervising and caring for the children and showing an interest in their daily lives, too many of the children of poverty found themselves rootless. The children of poverty had few resources to encourage the valuing of education.
At the same time, as more and more poor people were moved into the workplace, the middle classes found one salary could no longer provide for a middle-class lifestyle. Out of necessity, two incomes were needed for a family to survive. The overabundance of workers in the marketplace caused a deflation of good-paying jobs and, as the economy made its downward spiral in 2008, fewer and fewer jobs remained available.
In the meantime, as more middle-income people fall below the poverty line, the strains are being felt in many of our institutions.
First and foremost, the educational system is under great stress, particularly in the communities with the highest rates of poverty. The U.S. ranks near the bottom in science, math, history and languages. The cause is often blamed on teachers, even as most studies indicate poverty is the chief cause of poor education. When families have little hope in the future there is little incentive to value an education.
Secondly, our medical structure is under equal, if not greater, stress. Insurance rates are rising beyond even the average person’s ability to pay the premiums. Over 50 million Americans are without health insurance of any kind. Now the Great Society’s programs of Medicare and Medicaid are under threat to be de-financed by the “starve the beast” measures.
The recent Health Insurance Reform legislation of last year, which really was a modest attempt to speak to the problem of the uninsured and the under-insured in our society, is so vehemently opposed to by a vocal minority that the program is in grave jeopardy.
After nearly 50 years of dismantling the War on Poverty we find ourselves moving toward becoming a much poorer society. No amount of tax slashing is going to turn the situation around. No amount of program slashing is going to make us a better society in which to live.
Those who claim “we are broke” are turning that statement into a self-fulfilling prophecy. What we need as a society, if we are to be a humane society, is a vision equal to that of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.
Times have changed and hopefully we have learned from past mistakes. The programs of a half century ago may not work for us now.
But with a vision, new programs and new ways of dealing with the destructive power of poverty are possible.
Without the vision, as the Hebrew prophets knew, the people die. We will be broke –- and broken -– unless we find a way to lift the least of us up out of the trap of poverty. As a society we are only as wealthy as the poorest of us.
