The War on Poverty has Succeeded

Introduction In this debate, I will be focusing on 3 key points that demonstrate that the War on Poverty is a failure. First, the poverty rate has been relatively stagnant since its implementation. Second, the cost of the war on poverty has skyrocketed with no effect on poverty rates. Third, there are inherent problems with the war on poverty programs that make it unsuccessful in alleviating poverty. The Poverty Rate Remains Unchanged after 5 Decades The most significant piece of evidence to indicate that the war on poverty is a failure is by looking at the statistics. Before Lynden B. Johnson started his War on Poverty, the poverty rate was in fact declining at a very quick rate. As you can see below, the poverty rate declined from nearly 35% in 1951 to around 19% in 1964.(1) Proponents of the welfare initiatives set forth by Johnson like to attribute the initial decreases in poverty to these welfare programs. When one looks at the trends of the years before the start of the war, it’s easy to see that this is not the case. Poverty was trending downwards and the welfare initiatives, at the very least, did not continue this trend for very long. Indeed, the poverty rate now is higher than it was in 1970. It’s unfortunate that the poverty rate has remained nearly unchanged despite 5 decades of experimentation with welfare. The Cost of the War has Increased Exponentially The fact that poverty has not been significantly affected is even more of a shame when cost is taken into account. Over time, the cost has increased drastically, with no significant effect on poverty. Below, you can see the increase in welfare spending since 1950. The spending has increased constantly over the past few decades, and even the attempted reformed by Reagan in the 80’s and Clinton in the 90’s did little to stop this growth.(2) This overlay more clearly demonstrates how ineffective the war on poverty has actually been. Even with costs constantly rising, people are still poor and their incomes have not risen significantly since its implementation.(1) The graph below helps visualize how much money we actually spend per person by showing where the poverty threshold is for a family of 3, and how much we spend per person on welfare.(3) What’s also alarming is the fact that welfare spending is one of the fastest growing expenditures in the federal budget, as shown below.(2) Even with all of this money continually spent on welfare, people are not able to uplift themselves out of poverty. The Welfare Programs have Backfired on the Poor There are a few reasons why Johnson’s dream of eradicating poverty once and for all has not come to fruition, and it certainly isn’t because we haven’t tried hard enough with the programs he implemented. Despite our honest attempts, the war on poverty has come short. Why? Currently, the welfare system is designed in a way where one receives benefits only if they are in a certain tax bracket. If one makes enough money to bring them slightly above that tax bracket, they can lose the benefits given to them by one of the 126 different federal programs. This is a problem, because in many cases, the benefits one loses from attaining a job or getting a raise actually makes him or her lose more value in benefits than they would gain in the additional income. This unfortunate consequence of the welfare system is what destroys the incentive to work and move up the economic ladder. This circumstance is what economists refer to as the welfare trap. There are an abundance of examples of the welfare trap in action. One example is how a study in Illinois found that “A single mom has the most resources available to her family when she works full time at a wage of $8.25 to $12 an hour. Disturbingly, taking a pay increase to $18 an hour can leave her with about one-third fewer total resources (net income and government benefits). In order to make work “pay” again, she would need an hourly wage of $38 to mitigate the impact of lost benefits and higher taxes.” (4) The welfare trap leads to an endless cycle of poverty among poor families and it is very difficult to get out of. Another drawback of the current welfare system is it’s inefficient allocation of resources and it’s loaded bureaucracy. Today there are 126 separate federal anti-poverty programs. Each of them attempt to allocate resources in a separate way, and all of these separate programs with the same goal of reducing poverty is wasteful. Above, you can see the percentage of welfare spending used up through bureaucracy. (5) The fact that it’s been increasing over the years should alarm you, as that’s less money going to helping people and less money in the economy. One more problem with the welfare system that I will bring up is how it has had negative effects on family structure. Welfare has had the unfortunate effect of increasing single-parenting and out-of-wedlock childbirths. As the Cato institute states, “Of the more than 20 major studies of the issue during the 1980s and 1990s, more than three-quarters showed a significant link between benefit levels and out-of-wedlock childbearing.”(6) Another studied concluded that “higher base welfare benefits (1) lead unwed white mothers to forestall their eventual marriage, and (2) lead unwed black mothers to hasten their next birth.” (7) The reason these side effects are so significant is because they lead to a cycle of poverty. This table shows how important marriage is in reducing childhood poverty. (8) You can see how a child born to a mother who never marries but gets a college will live nearly the same percentage of his or her life in poverty and a mother who gets married but is a high-school dropout. This demonstrates how important family structure is in alleviating the cycle of poverty, and why we have to look at the effects the war on poverty has on the family structure. Conclusion In this round, I have demonstrated that the war on poverty has resulted in skyrocketing costs, wasteful bureaucratic expansion, negative effects on the family structure of poor people, and a welfare trap that prevents upward mobility. What have we gotten from all of the time, money, and effort in this war? Stagnant poverty rates over the past 50 years. The primary goal of President Johnson’s War on poverty was to completely eradicate poverty. As the Washington Times puts it, “When Johnson launched the War on Poverty, he wanted to give the poor a “hand up, not a hand out.” He stated that his war would shrink welfare rolls and turn the poor from “tax-eaters” into “taxpayers.” Johnson’s aim was to make poor families self-sufficient — able to rise above poverty through their own earnings without dependence on welfare.” (9) It’s clear that this war has not been won, and we aren’t any closer to reaching this goal than when he was in office. The welfare system is a failure by Johnson’s own standards, and by any reasonable standard we can come up with. When escalating costs leads to the same result for half a century, it’s time we admit it didn’t work and try something else. I look forward to my opponent's response next round. Sources:1. http://www.heritage.org...;2. http://www.heritage.org...3. http://object.cato.org...4. http://www.illinoispolicy.org...5. http://www.dailykos.com...6. http://object.cato.org...7.http://www.jstor.org...8.http://www.heritage.org...9. http://www.washingtontimes.com...