The War on Poverty has Succeeded

I look forward to your thoughts on the topic. In his first state of the union address in 1964, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed "This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America. . .. Our aim is not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it. " [1] Johnson's critics observe correctly that poverty still exists in America - how then can we say that the War on Poverty was a success? Simple: while significant work remains to be done to ameliorate poverty in the United States, the War on Poverty programs and legislation enacted by the Johnson administration - including Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, Supplemental Security Income, the Fair Housing Act, the Job Corps, SNAP & WIC (food stamps), TANF (welfare), housing subsidies, Pell Grants, and the Voting Rights Act - have significantly reduced poverty in America, particularly among the elderly and African Americans. While entire books have been written on the impact of the War on Poverty, [2] I will focus in my argument on articulating and providing support for a few major outcomes.1) The War on Poverty has reduced the number of people living in poverty. In the first years of the programs, when the War on Poverty was a White House priority and programs were fully funded, the poverty rate fell quickly by half, from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent in just six years. [3] But since then, critics of the War on Poverty note that the measured drop in the official poverty rate since 1967 has only been modest, from 19 percent to 15 percent. [4] But the official "poverty rate" is a poor measure, specifically because it omits most forms of government assistance. When the effects of War on Poverty programs are taken into consideration, poverty has declined from 25.8 percent in 1967 to 16.0 percent in 2012. [5] click="document. location='/CASmnl42/photos/album/5111/35369/'" src=". ./. ./. ./photos/albums/1/6/5111/244158-5111-kbzgx-a. jpg" alt="Drop" />[An aside - while I am following the posted directions for embedding photos, it seems that the formatting may not be working properly. Thus, I will also provide links to imgue for each chart. I apologize for any formatting ugliness that results. . http://imgur.com...]The poverty rate also does not take into account that market forces since 1980 have been working to put more people into poverty - wages have stagnated for the middle and lower classes, and the benefits of economic growth have largely gone to the top quintile of earners. In the absence of government benefits, poverty would have risen from 25 percent to 31 percent from 1967 to 2012, instead of declining as it has. [6] Overall, there are about 45 million people in the United States today who live above the poverty line that would be living under the poverty line were it not for War on Poverty programs. [5] In essence, the War on Poverty and its legacy programs are responsible, as of 2012, for reducing poverty by half of what it would be otherwise. click="document. location='/CASmnl42/photos/album/5111/35368/'" src=". ./. ./. ./photos/albums/1/6/5111/244158-5111-srbvq-a. jpg" alt="W/out gov't" /> . http://imgur.com... 2) The War on Poverty significantly changed the nature of poverty in the United States. Critics of the War on Poverty often trot out these points, as if somehow they work in their favor, that the poor today are significantly materially better off than they were 50 years ago. 92% have microwaves! 80% have air conditioning! [7] This is a vast improvement over the deprivations that defined poverty in Johnson's day. Due to programs like WIC, nutrition for pregnant women and children have resulted in drastic reductions in infant mortality and improvements in children's health. [8] The Voting Rights Act (desegregation was a key goal of the War on Poverty) empowered African American communities politically and economically. [9] Access to a minimum standard of adequate shelter, food, heat and air conditioning, public education, and healthcare for the elderly are now the new American norm, which did not exist prior to 1964. [10]3) The War on Poverty creates economic growth. People without money don't spend it. People with money do! This creates consumer demand, which in turn creates jobs and grows the economy. The taxpayer money that is invested in anti-poverty programs doesn't disappear; it generates a return on investment. "Public investments in the safety net—specifically, programs that target poor children—have been shown to generate exceptionally high returns that benefit all Americans" - for instance, Head Start programs have been shown to create a benefit to cost ratio of 7 to 1. [11]4) The War on Poverty was particularly successful in reducing poverty among the elderly and African Americans. Among the elderly, the poverty rate has dropped from 35% in 1959 to 9% in 2012, largely due to the impact of a Medicare and SSI, both Johnson creations. [12] Using supplemental measures, the poverty rate among the elderly fell from 47 percent to 15 percent [6] Among African Americans, poverty fell more than half, from 57.8% in 1959 to 25.8%. [5] The War on Poverty specifically worked to provide economic opportunities for African Americans, [13] and used direct federal intervention to ensure that African Americans in the deep south were not excluded from anti-poverty programs. [2] The racial gap in poverty, while still substantial and problematic, has been reduced from 3x to 2x since 1964. [2] click="document. location='/CASmnl42/photos/album/5111/35367/'" src=". ./. ./. ./photos/albums/1/6/5111/244158-5111-g7umy-a. jpg" alt="Elder" /> . http://imgur.com... Of course, poverty is still with us today. Baked into the assumptions of the War on Poverty was a belief that a growing economy would tend to benefit everyone, poor and rich alike, as it had consistently in the past. [2] Since 1980 - not coincidentally associated with the onset of the anti-union, anti-regulation Reagan era - this has not been true; wages have stagnated at the bottom. Today, about 75% of the recipients of government assistance are working adults, employed full time in low-paying jobs. [14] The most effective anti-poverty measure available under these circumstances is an increase to the minimum wage. Yet, despite slashes to funding in anti-poverty programs [15], Johnson's War on Poverty has lifted millions out of poverty while dramatically improving the standard of living for those who remain poor. For that reason, I argue that the War on Poverty has been a stunningly effective success. Over to Con, for his primary case[1] . http://www.pbs.org...[2] A particularly good read is Legacies of the War on Poverty, edited by Martha J. Bailey and Sheldon Danziger. Chapter One is here: . http://www.russellsage.org...[3] . http://www.thedailybeast.com...[4] . http://www.theatlantic.com...[5] . https://www.whitehouse.gov...[6] . http://socialwork.columbia.edu...[7] . http://www.heritage.org...[8] . http://www.cbpp.org...[9] . http://www.politico.com...[10] . http://www.theatlantic.com...[11] . https://www.americanprogress.org...[12] . http://www.nytimes.com...[13] . http://www.blackpast.org...[14] . http://hereandnow.wbur.org...[15] . http://www.cbpp.org...