Maslow's Peak: Reports From the Left
  • home
  • blog
  • about/contact

GOP: SNAP is a terrible program that works too well.  

11/2/2013

0 Comments

 
Picture
Benefits for SNAP (the federal food stamps program) went down Friday, and will decrease again drastically if Congressional Republicans have their way.  So far, budget negotiations have not been about whether to increase or decrease food stamp benefits, they have only been about how many billions to cut.  And the GOP is defining the debate by telling the timeworn fairy-tale of the Government-Spending Money-Trap Moral-Decay Monster.

If you are hearing it said that SNAP benefits must be cut; to address rampant waste, fraud and abuse - a classic chapter in this tale - be aware that in fact, the federal food stamp program, maintained in the US since the Depression, proves decade after decade to be a model of integrity and efficiency, operating with about a 3% level of waste and fraud, almost unheard of for a program this size.  While it's a cinch to sound credible accusing a government program of being rife with abuse and fraud, if they were asked (come on, Democrats!), Republicans would be unable to prove anything of the kind about SNAP. 

"We want to work with our Democratic colleagues in Congress to implememnt reforms in the SNAP program to cut back on waste, fraud, and abuse."
 - Rep. Steve King, (R), Iowa   

      

"We want to ensure that truly vulnerable families receive the support they need in a more efficient and effective manner."
 - Rep. Steve Southerland, (R) FL

If you’re hearing it said that SNAP has become bloated, serving people who fall far outside the realm of "the truly needy", be aware that in fact, eligibility criteria are based on income and federal poverty guidelines using the same formulas as always.  We aren't spending more because people who make more are now getting benefits.  There are simply many more people who don’t make enough to get by.

This Republican tale-telling does a disservice to the general public, but also to hard right conservatives with real philosophical objections to an economic model that uses tax revenue for social spending.  Why aren't they asking to be heard right now, too?  Where are the voices of those who want a safety net, but want it realized by components of the free market that include charity and philanthropy; those who believe that hunger, even on the scale it exists in this country today, could be addressed effectively with for-profit ventures that don't involve government contracts?  Ideas driven by authentic concerns, with solutions more creative than “just cut it so bad people can’t use it,” would at least encourage a more substantive dialogue.  

"Why does the safety net need reform?  Because people are getting tangled up and stuck in it.  The House addresses this by ending benefits for individuals that, quite honestly, don't qualify for them."
 - Rep. Randy Neugebauer, (R) TX
 

"Asking people to work in return for food stamps is not any kind of cruel and unusual punishment.  The dignity of work has been a pretty common theme throughout all the ages."
 - Rep. Mike Conaway, (R) TX

My own feelings about the latter economic philosophy are obvious, but I’d sure rather have an argument in those honest terms than one relying on specious claims of fraud, cheap phraseology about who is or isn’t deserving; or, worst of all, more muck from the Myth of the Moocher Class.  Republican House members are espousing and exploiting a fear of the moocher that is only barely still acceptable among their constituency, and not at all among its representatives.  It’s based on lingering stereotypes that sprang from gut provincialism, festering in a time before comprehensive information about class norms was widely accessible.  When leaders with the resources of the modern day member of Congress internalize and articulate those fears, at televised hearings, in tones utterly dripping with frankness and reason, as though they have no way of knowing otherwise, it is hard to forgive.  
Democrats in Congress must keep telling the real story.  It is simply not true that people receiving food stamps sit around idle, gorging on luxury foods billed to taxpayers, growing ever more fond of being poor, losing their incentive to work, purposely making less than their earning potential so they will qualify for benefits.  Ever since social safety-net programs were introduced, such a picture has been painted.  It has developed for some into preoccupation with a fear that millions of Americans will find living at this level, with means and status so low that they qualify for food stamps, is tempting enough to vanquish any motivation to succeed.  

Even before we had a chance to study and answer such questions, some could see it was an unrealistic concern.  Nutrition assistance in the US is a bare-bones benefit.  There are purchasing restrictions, and the allowances are modest. There is social stigma associated with using food stamps.  These benefits don't provide people with anything they want out of life, except survival.  There's nothing enjoyable about making so little money you qualify for food stamps.  

But because this question has been a fundamental concern for some, and does have huge policy implications, it has been rigorously studied and explored.  These questions have always been asked, and there are now decades of research to answer them.  There is no evidence that negative societal outcomes, or the degradation of character, can be associated with food assistance.  In fact, there is plenty of evidence to show otherwise.  Such information is easy enough for the layperson to find.  Members of the US Congress cannot be excused for ignoring the literature - wide-ranging and multi-disciplinary – addressing these fears.  Let them at least put up applicable research and shoot it down.  Let them explain why their fears are unabated.  But they can’t pretend it is legitimate to wonder - in the face of more than half a century of accumulated knowledge in behavioral and social psychology – if maaaybe receiving free supplemental nutrition coupons is so intrinsically rewarding that eventually, long-suffering productive citizens will be unable to lure legions of their fellow Americans away from the seductions of poverty. 

Finally, if you hear it said that a 5% reduction in benefits isn’t all that painful, truly consider the source.  A favorite chapter in the fairy-tale is about how easy it is to live on so little.  If we want to know about the impact of cuts, there are plenty of reliable sources.  Perhaps we should be hearing testimony from program administrators trained to do needs-assessments and impact studies.  Or from case managers who work directly with needy families. But sure, sometimes anecdotal evidence can help us understand how policy decisions may be felt by those affected.  Just make sure you are hearing less from those who want to experiment and speculate on the impact of a 5% funding adjustment, and more from those who will open their own cabinets to see 5% less food.  

"Food stamps have played and will continue to play an important role in taking care of out most needy Americans.  But the program exists to help lift up those who have hit bottom, not keep them there."
 - Rep. Martha Roby, (R) AL

I was reflecting on that impact as I did my own shopping yesterday.  I have more grocery money to work with than I used to.  I still have to mentally add up the price of each item I put in my cart to make sure I have enough to cover my total, and it gets tight.  But it’s nothing like the distress I used to feel grocery shopping when our family was young.  I can still get a knot in my stomach remembering it.  Slogging through the aisles with hungry kids in tow, trying to solve the problem of how to get enough food with not enough money.  I remember the frustrated, primal longing to nourish my family.  I remember trying to appear cheerfully reassuring while churning with feelings of dread, anxiety and inadequacy that were almost unbearable.  I remember all of this going on in the aisle of a grocery store while reaching for a jar of peanut butter.  

It came back in waves yesterday, thinking about the food stamp cuts as I shopped.  When I went to check out, I saw that there were small signs posted at each register informing or reminding shoppers with SNAP cards that their benefit reductions were effective immediately.  The sign explained that cashiers would be glad to check the balance on their cards.  My heart sank realizing there were lots of moms and dads and others who would arrive at the register to see this just after completing the exhausting experience I described.  Because I wasn’t unique - when every item you pull off the shelf or pass up has repercussions for your own hunger or that of your dependents, whether young, elderly or disabled; groceries become more than boxes and cans of food.  There really is both a physical and emotional impact.  

So they will get to the front of the store after the selecting, subtracting, second-guessing, and strategizing, to realize that regardless of how well they'd done, they went over by 5%.  To use the figure the Associated Press is reporting as an example, that’s a reduction of about $36 dollars for a family of four.  That means taking back out of the cart $36 worth of fruit, beans, cereal, meat, and juice.  Kids, perhaps, in tow.  This is not a fairy-tale.

As the nation debates food stamp funding, let's keep it honest.  The program works.  It does what it sets out to do.  It helps poor people get basic food they can't otherwise afford.  The program has low overhead, and measurable positive outcomes.  If you think there is a better way to get food into empty tummies, lay out your plan.  If you think doing so is not an appropriate function of government, make your case.   But don't just sit and spin a scary yarn, or sit silent while others in your party do so.  We don’t need the fairy-tale; the true story is harrowing enough.

-Julie Boler

0 Comments

Pre-Debate Reference Point

10/3/2012

0 Comments

 

During tonight's Presidential Debate, the economy will be discussed, and numbers will be thrown around.  On the campaign trail, Mitt Romney has been heard to say that President Obama has not lowered the unemployment rate, or added jobs.  These two charts show otherwise.

Picture
Using numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, I created the chart above.  It shows the unemployment rate as reported each month for the month before.  March, 2009 numbers reflect the first full month the President was in office.

When Bill Clinton turned the keys to the White House over to George W. Bush, he left behind a budget surplus.  By the time GW left office, the economy was a disaster.  Obama and his team came in to a mess we hadn't seen in decades.  They pushed through the stimulus plan - the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - immediately.  Within months, roughly $800 billion dollars began to roll out to the states.  Tax cuts were arranged and jobs were created in record time.  In October, ten months into the Obama presidency, the unemployment rate peaked at 10%, then finally started to go down.

As you can see from the chart, it was a bumpy road.  Every time the rate went up by .10% point, there was a chorus of cries about "Obama's failed policies."  When it went down, it wasn't fast enough.  But as you can also see, as the "failed policies" had more and more time to take effect, improvements gathered momentum.  The team acted to stabilize the housing market, address crises in Detroit and on Wall Street, and invest in small business. 

And private sector jobs were also added, which takes us to the chart below.

This one was produced by the Obama Campaign, but the numbers are also straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Just the facts.  Again, the President has been accused of failed policies every single month he has been in office, when every single month he has made improvements.  Immediately upon taking office, this administration started us back on the right path.  For the first many months it was a matter of stopping the bleeding. 

Then, between February and March of 2010, we turned a huge corner, going from losing jobs to finally adding jobs to the positive.  That day should have been celebrated with popping corks across the country.  Do you remember it?  Do you remember Obama getting credit for a miraculous achievement?  Far from it - he was scoffed at for using the word "recovery" in a speech.  If you can draw a better picture of a recovery than the ones in these charts, send it my way.
Picture
When I study these charts, not only do I conclude that it is flatly not true that Obama has not reversed the economic disaster we were in, it is even clear that the charge of "not fast enough" is absurd.  The change has been dramatic.  See for yourself.

For the most recent version of the jobs chart, with an interactive application you don't want to miss, go to Obama For America's jobs page.

To check my numbers, see the tables on this page at the Bureau of Labor Statistics website.
0 Comments

All Economic Policy is About Redistribution.

9/20/2012

0 Comments

 
PictureBarack Obama, 1989 & the late Hazel M. Johnson, Chicago, IL
We're finally getting somewhere. 
Thank goodness for a 1998 videotape of a Barack Obama
who was so impolitic (read: thoughtful)
as to use the taboo word redistribution. 

Such language!

It triggers antisocial-ist spasms on the right.


But if you listen more carefully to this old Obama speech, you'll hear him then, as he does now, also extolling the values of the free market. You'll hear him boosting competition, and supporting a healthy marketplace.    

What is this, some kind of crazy mixed message??  No, mixed economy.  A.k.a, the economic system we use in the US today.

Here's a longer excerpt than the one making the rounds on the right.  Classic Barack. 

"I think the trick is figuring out, how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution; because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure that everybody's got a shot. How do we pool resources at the same time as we decentralize delivery systems in ways that both foster competition, can work in the marketplace, and can foster innovation at the local level and can be tailored to particular communities."

More than the one word...  But that's okay!  Let's discuss redistribution.  We should! 

Because every time we change the tax code, we're engaging in it.  Every time we shape trade agreements and levy user fees, we're deciding who gets what.  When we impose fines, or print money, or repair a stretch of train rail, we are making judgements about how best to distribute the wealth of this country. 

And we need to talk about it like grownups.  So everyone please, just calm down and talk.

(Okay, okay, we can start with me.  I'll calm down after November 7th, promise.)

Here's the thing.  In broad strokes, it's working pretty well. Neither side on this issue is about to take over. We don't live in anything like a socialist country, and we don't have a laissez-faire economy.    

Can we acknowledge that, and move on to talking about levels of government intervention and investment?  Can we respectfully examine whether a specific program or regulation is effective or wasteful?  Maybe we could do a less emotional cost/benefit analysis of a proposal for revenue, or one for cutting expenses.  We could have a rational conversation about whether a major facet of democracy, say providing an education to the populace, is better administrated on a large scale - as we do with Defense - because of its scope;
or on the local level - like libraries, or zoning, in order to be more responsive to community concerns.   
Most of us have both visceral and thoughtful philosophies about these issues.  Probably because wealth is power, and absolute lack of it is impotence.  And most of us spend our lives floating somewhere between the two extremes, hoping for more of the one, and fearing the other.
But right now in this country it's the visceral aspect of our individual philosophies that is holding sway in our dialogue.  We are all responsible, myself included.  The benefit is that the visceral can get people saying what they mean - like in a family fight.  But to get anywhere constructive, everyone has to settle in after the shouting and figure out, with a commitment to working it through together, how we get everybody's needs met.

Democrats and Republicans need relationship counseling.  The first thing we would probably be told is to develop some ground rules.  And if I had to start us off with just one, it would be this:

Agree that there is no correlation between character flaws and income level.  This is just my own theory, and yes, I have the seen studies to the contrary, in both directions.  I think the very exercise of trying to quantify it is flawed. 

If you presented me with research that found more people at one income level guilty of bad behavior than at another, I would immediately ask, "what intrinsic problems for people at that income level might be leading to your results, and how on earth do you control for that?!"

  • For example, if a low-income person is observed demonstrating focus on short-term goals, and displaying a lack of confidence in upward-mobility, wouldn't that be based on learned realities?  Are they realistic? What might change them?

(Obviously, I'm making these examples up for argument's sake!  I'm using the stereotypes for shorthand.)

  • If a wealthy person appears oblivious or indifferent to the toll taken by the long-term daily grind on poor people, isn't it the cumulative effect of endless obstacles that is impossible to grasp without direct experience?

  • If a middle-income person shows a tendency to provincialism, couldn't that be due to the competitive aspects of achievement, and the tenuousness of social status and material comfort at that income level?

On top of all this, observable attitudes and behaviors that appear to reflect someone's income experience could be more a function of personality, or family history. 

And more flamboyant attitudes and behaviors are incorrectly seen as representative. 

And context gets ignored. 

So the woman on welfare who gets up at 5 am to go to work stocking shelves is invisible, as is the heiress that puts on sweats to go cook meals at the Rescue Mission.

What if we could stipulate that class does not dictate moral superiority - at any level. 

And when we find ourselves thinking it does, we take ownership of our prejudices and bend over backwards to overcome them. 

Then we can decide how to distribute the pie without slinging apple-filling at each other.
0 Comments

If you must speak in cliches...

9/19/2012

0 Comments

 
Picture
Try this one:
Poor people just want a hand up,
not a hand out.

Conservative pundits are very stressed right now, fretting about how to position themselves on Mitt Romney's comments at a May fundraiser in Florida.  In a just released video, recorded by a hidden camera, the Republican presidential candidate is seen wringing his hands, convinced that almost half the country is belligerently dependent on the government. 


His supporters don't know how to spin it.  Not because they disagree with what Romney said, but because they're afraid he won't get elected and put his ideas into action. 

Some think he got the numbers wrong.
Okay...so if it's not 47%, what's the right number?  It doesn't matter.  It wouldn't matter if he said 37%, or 27%.  He mis-characterized the group of people he's talking about. Who cares if he got the head count wrong?

Some think he sounded mean and stupid. 
That he could have found a more graceful way to phrase it.  But it's the idea, that liberals want people to stay dependent, that is mean and stupid.  It's the idea that people receiving public assistance are happy with their lives, and want to reelect this President so he can keep their checks coming in while they do nothing, that is mean and stupid.  It's better that he said it in such an ugly way.  It's ugly.

Some think he didn't really mean it. 
Mitt Romney doesn't really mean this?  "... there are 47 percent who are with (Obama), who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it."

If Mitt Romney doesn't mean that, it's only because he doesn't "mean" anything.  It's because he doesn't think deeply about anything, and doesn't care much about who we are in this country. That's the only way that excuse works; if he didn't mean what he said in that videotape, it's not because he means something more hopeful, caring, and respectful of his fellow citizens.

The best Republican response is from the irrepressible Grover Norquist. 
Not surprisingly, he's in the I-like-what-Romney-said-just-not-how-he-said-it camp. He merely wants the campaign to get their wording right. He was relieved to talk to an operative who assured him they had sorted out their responding rhetoric. "I went up to the campaign and I said, What’s your take on this? And I got back the perfect answer: 'We’re working to provide opportunity, while the other team is trying to teach dependence.' And (Norquist chortles,) we win that fight in America.  If this was Bulgaria in 1957, I’m not sure we’d win the debate. In the United States, we win that debate."

Thing is, though, the other team is not "trying to teach dependence."  What we are trying to do is give people a hand up, not a.. well, you know the saying.  We try to explain this over and over.  And yet, here we are again.  Now it's Communist Bulgaria.

To review: 

  • Believing that government must play a role in guaranteeing that people have food and shelter, when they otherwise wouldn't, is not teaching dependency. 
  • Believing the government should play a role in providing for its citizens' education, health care, and infrastructure, is not teaching dependency. 
  • Believing government can play a role in teaching illiterate adults to read, so they can get jobs and pay taxes and support their families - is not teaching dependency.
  • Believing government can play a role in helping ex-convicts re-enter society - so they can get jobs and pay taxes and be self-supporting - is not teaching dependency.
  • Believing government can provide job-training to low income youth - so they can get jobs and pay taxes and be self-supporting - is not teaching dependency.
  • Believing government can contribute funds to agencies that teach budgeting, treat addiction, and counsel the homeless - so that more people can get jobs and pay taxes and be self-supporting is not teaching dependency.

These things have nothing to do with teaching dependency.  Quite the opposite.  To use Grover's words, we're working to provide opportunity.

0 Comments

Mitt Romney references the great American unwashed..

9/17/2012

2 Comments

 
Picture
Mitt Romney has made plain what we've always presumed his dark fantasy to be: he believes nearly half of this country comprises a maladjusted, useless, huddled mass. 

Mitt, you have so much to learn about the country you love and want to lead.  Let me see if I can help you down your path of discovery.


  • Actually, each and every person on this earth is "... entitled to health care, food, and housing." Applying that to everyone on earth, that's my opinion. But at least for those who live in the US, it's settled law. It's the "life" part of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  • Even if this imaginary group - this mass of whining, irresponsible parasites - existed, rest assured, you and your fellows at that fundraiser would be the last folks on earth we would turn to for help.  You aren't at any risk of misleading "dependent" people into thinking you would throw us a crumb.
  • It doesn't exist, this scary group you describe.  Mitt, you patriot, you celebrator of the American people, you don't know your own country.  And you're missing out.

Your vision of the poor people in this country embarrasses you.  Shouldn't you know, at your age, and with your breadth of life experience, that there are whiny, irresponsible parasites at every income level.  Yes, sir, there are individuals who walk around feeling entitled to be handed something they haven't earned.  One can find them living as inner-city thugs, middle-management loafers, and, well, high-level corporate predators. 

But the underclass you envision as dependent is made up of the hardest working people you'll ever find.  You are actually talking about the backbone of the country, Mitt. 

I would have thought a finance guy would take a look at the numbers before making such proclaimations: If you had stopped to compare the number of people on some kind of assistance with the number of people hunting for work, holding down part time jobs, holding down several jobs, working jobs and going to school, working jobs and raising kids, you'd have realized the only way it adds up is when working people still aren't making enough to eat.  They don't stop working when they get food stamps, Mitt. 

You're talking about the people that wait for the bus and catch rides and go to their service industry jobs and hospital jobs and day care jobs and maintenance jobs and food service jobs.  

Think about what you're saying, Mitt - that half the country is sucking off the other half.  You don't know what you're talking about.  But you're talking about us, and we're offended.

2 Comments

Don't try to fight me on this one.

6/22/2012

0 Comments

 
Picture
I will try to assume that GOP Senator Jeff Sessions, (R - AL), doesn't understand that the specter of the hungry child is real. 
He can't knowingly accept the existence of actual hunger in this country, and still say that it is a colleague's proposal to end that hunger that is immoral.

I'll try to assume that those who decry the rising cost of the federal food stamp program as the problem, rather than the rising need for food stamps, are simply confused.

I have to believe that they truly aren't processing the fact that they are trying to reduce the deficit by forcing desperate people who come to agencies looking for help to literally go away hungry.

Picture
It's hard to figure how this lack of resourcefulness, and inability to prioritize humanely, could exist in the US Senate.  Even with my own unsophisticated research into other ways to find that money, it wasn't hard to do.  Simply exploring tax breaks for corporations and investors, it was easy enough to find several ways to more than make up for the $4 billion Congress is currently trying to pull from the food stamp program. 


So I cannot fathom that Republicans in Congress just can't think of any other way to locate deficit-reducing funds than to sneak them off the kitchen table of a poor American family; and worse, that they think it is an acceptable option.


Picture
Here are just three ways we could adjust the tax code to save more than enough money to make up for what Republicans are suggesting we rob from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, (SNAP), a.k.a. food stamps. 

  •  1. Get rid of the rule that allows stock holders to "lease" their holdings to banks for several years, avoiding capitol gains taxes on those funds.  This costs the Treasury billions of dollars a year, far more than the amount we supposedly are being forced to glean from the food stamp program.
  •   2. End the practice of allowing corporations to use one value for their stocks for tax deductions and use another value to sell.  This is sort of like the Blue Book value vs the market value of a used car.  You report one to the IRS, and one to potential stock holders, and can actually come out ahead by showing the loss.  Billions lost to the treasury.
  •   3. Close the loophole that allows huge, profitable corporations to pass out massive numbers of stock options to executives then claim those as losses to lower their taxable net profits, and even go into a loss, meaning future taxes are plunged even lower.  More billions.
 
These are just three quick examples to show that there is money that can be moved around without touching food stamps.  I know this is a simplistic way to look at it - it's almost silly to set up my argument this way,  I do it to illustrate a point, and there are surely countless easier and more immediate ways to shift funds to avoid cutting spending on a program that literally keeps people from dying. 

There is no better way to ensure we feed the hungry in this country than keeping SNAP funded.  There is no more direct, efficient way to cause people to have food in their mouths.  This is a matter of giving people who don't have enough to eat a debit card they can use to purchase food.  This is about beans, apples, ground beef and milk - it is not theoretical, it is not a legitimate question of policy. 

The program isn't intended to replace efforts to help people get back to work so they don't need food stamps.  Feeding people should not be questioned in discussions about how to improve the economy over time.  I have no problem debating the merits of closing tax loopholes.  I understand there is an argument to made by some on the Right that reducing benefits and advantages enjoyed by the wealthy could stifle investment.  My point here is that there is no legitimate reason to suggest that the only way to reduce the deficit would be to take it out of the food stamp program, or that it would be okay to do so if even if there was no other way.  What could be more urgent than this? 

There is no comparison between a wealthy investor feeling the pinch of government overreach, and a 3 year old feeling the pinch of an empty stomach. 

This is what is really at stake.  Something I'll have to assume that Republicans in Congress would care deeply about, if they only understood. 
Picture
0 Comments

How about a little bit of both - on teaching folks to fish.

5/13/2012

9 Comments

 
Picture
Let's be fair and assume that conservatives and liberals agree on this; we should feed the hungry.  And that we all look forward to a time when fewer will face hunger.  The axiom "give a man a fish, he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime" resonates with people from all political persuasions.  The majority of us even agree that the government has some role in providing that initial fish, if you will, so while we do argue about the scope of programs like food stamps, Medicaid, and Social Security, you don’t hear many calling to shut them down completely.

Most of us would also concur that in the long run, we’d rather teach someone to fish, allowing as many folks as possible to participate actively in our social and economic systems. 

You wouldn’t know it by listening to the zealots of any ilk, but most of us, across parties and ideologies, want the same things.  For example, you don’t find mainstream Republicans rejecting interstate roads, safety standards for pharmaceuticals, or a federal court system.  You won’t find most Democrats claiming they don’t enjoy material comforts, appreciate the entrepreneurial spirit, or want young people to aspire to their highest goals, whether that means becoming an artist or a wealthy CEO. 

Most of us, left or right, are neither radical socialists, or robber barons.  

It's when we we turn to the question of how to lift millions of poor-but-able adults out of poverty, our viewpoints do start to diverge.  What should we expect of the individual, despite their circumstances and external barriers to success?  What role should government play?  We know that escaping really tough beginnings is statistically unusual.  And I would hope most people know that many, many people in living in poverty labor hard to improve their lot - research bears that out as well.

Again extending the benefit of the doubt, I truly believe that most of us, left or right, want as many folks as possible to be happy, healthy, and productive.  There is plenty of altruism among every political sector, and there is also a healthy self-interest in seeing the country thrive.  So how do we get there?

The conservative “bootstraps” ideal clashes with the liberal “intervention” ideal, and, stoked by opportunistic punditry and entrenched suspicion, animus has flourished.  It’s a complex area, and stereotypes have evolved to the point of of mythology.  We default to lashing out, with “why can’t these people just get a job??” versus “why do you people hate the poor??”  We fall prey to cynical voices, shrieking that heartless conservatives want to eat caviar while hungry babies cry, or that smarmy liberals want feckless thugs to revel in lives of state-sponsored ease.  

In reality, it is possible for well-meaning people (to paraphrase the old saying) to differ on how to best teach someone to fish.

Some of the misunderstanding may come from of a lack of awareness about the differences between the kind of “situational poverty” that has come out of the recession, as opposed to the more prevalent “generational poverty” that has existed in the US for well over a century.  The most promising remedies to these two very different problems are not the same.  Add that to the fact that poverty is an emotional issue, and that our vocabulary about it has been ravaged by cable news and talk radio, and you have ordinary people with opposing viewpoints seeing each other as immoral lunatics.  

If we could tone down the demagoguery, we could learn to apply the best aspects of both approaches:
  • An authentic emphasis on job-creation and recovery could be applied to help those devastated by the economic collapse. 
  • Robust federal investment into ravaged communities could ease suffering from chronic poverty, and provide a way out.

While Republicans have been forced by a few into espousing radical theories, support for their classic ideas is widely distributed across ideologies.
Eliminating pointless and outmoded regulations allows businesses to use increased revenue to hire more people.
Tax breaks for small business encourage new ventures and expansion of existing operations. 
Federally-funded social programs should be accountable and transparent, and evaluated for effectiveness. 
Without the right formatting, ample assistance programs run the risk of encouraging dependency.

Democrats have been pushed to fight tooth and nail to protect basic entitlements, so their demands may have come to sound strident and one-dimensional.  But the desire is not to simply truck in endless supplies of free goods and services to poor communities, achieving nothing but stasis.
The desire is to provide training, skills-building, support services, encouragement, and access to opportunity, to people who aren’t getting it elsewhere. 
The idea is that people naturally want to better and support themselves. 
That social programs are an investment. 
That by funding the teaching of literacy, job skills, effective parenting, family-budgeting and health management, the country will profit from a stronger and more productive citizenry.  

In any case, we’ll need to re-learn how to work together as soon as possible, because the country can only afford so much fish.

9 Comments

    Politics & Policy
    all posts by Julie Boler

    Categories

    All
    2012 Election
    2016 Election
    Better Angels Journal
    Capitalism
    Church/state
    Conservatism
    Crime & Justice
    Democracy
    Election Law
    Gun Regulation
    Lgbt Policy
    Liberal Theory
    Media
    Obama
    Poverty
    Race
    Reproductive Law
    Voting Rights
    World Affairs

    Archives

    February 2019
    January 2018
    March 2017
    February 2017
    November 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    May 2016
    October 2014
    May 2014
    November 2013
    October 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photo used under Creative Commons from nathanrussell