Today the President announced a new anti-poverty initiative. He chose the unfortunate name of "Promise Zones" to signify areas where the efforts will center. With all the smart people around him, you would think someone would have warned him off using the word "promise" given all the press recently about his record for keeping his promises. Besides the unfortunate nomenclature, there are several problems with another government anti-poverty program.
First, our government has spent trillions of dollars to fight poverty since Lyndon Johnson declared war back in 1964. Sadly, the application of all that tax money has done next to nothing to relieve poverty in the United States. The rate of poverty is still at 15%, virtually unchanged from the 1960's, according to an article in US News and World Report.
Second, why only certain zones were chosen is a mystery. If the policies the President is suggesting are going to lift the people in these areas out of poverty, it would make sense to apply the same principles across the board. There is no question that these are good ideas; they have been proven in actual practice under the name of Enterprise Zones. The idea is to offer tax concession, infrastructure incentives, and reduced regulations to attract investments and private companies into the zones. While it is true there are mixed results from different locations, the success rate compared with government hand-out programs is undeniable.
Third, what we call poverty in the United States would be unimaginable wealth for most of the people in the rest of the world. For 2013, the Federal poverty guideline is an annual income of $23,550 for a family of four. I am familiar with this demographic. My wife and I maintained a family of five at near "poverty" levels for most of our married life. During that time we always owned a home, had two or more cars, ate well-balanced meals and even had a little left over for vacations and recreation. Both of my daughters went to very expensive private colleges toward which we made substantial financial contributions. In other words, we were not poor in my estimation.
I understand that there are genuinely underprivileged people in America. However, I think the level of privilege to which many aspire may be unrealistic. The use made of food assistance (aka food stamps) is a good example. You seldom see people buying beans and rice with their food stamps; it is more likely to be Coke and potato chips. Then there are the ones who buy hamburger to feed a dog because food stamps cannot be used to buy dog food. These abuses are not rare; they are rampant.
The solution: make assistance personal. The President's idea of relieving some of the government pressures to encourage personal industry is laudable. Give most Americans a way to earn a buck, and they will go to town with it. The best weapon against poverty is a job. But more jobs will be created by government stepping back instead of stepping in. Then the truly needy can be identified by people closest to them, and assistance can be tailored to their personal needs.
The best vehicle for doing this is the church. The Roman Emperor Julian (332-262) was confounded by the way Christians took care of "not only their own poor, but for ours as well, while those who belong to us look in vain for the help we should render them." I don't have the statistics handy, but I would wager that if each church community took care of its own, the welfare rolls would shrink considerably. And since it is "more blessed to give than to receive," the blessing of the poor would multiply to us all. That is a promise you can count on.
No comments:
Post a Comment