From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Marian Wright Edelman Statement on Child Poverty Increase
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 19:02:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.080753.1581@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.014353.10986@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep9.011934.13561@samba.oit.unc.edu> Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:
>>>Here is a press release from the Children's Defense Fund.
>
>>>   WASHINGTON, Sept. 3 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a statement
>>>of Marian Wright Edelman, president, Children's Defense Fund, on the
>>>child poverty increase in 1991 to the highest level since 1965; CDF
>>>calls for immediate enactment of initiative to combat childhood
>>>hunger and strengthen families:
>
>>>   Due to the leap in the number of poor children in 1991 reported by
>>>the Census Bureau today, America now has more children living in
>>>poverty than in any year since 1965 -- a fact that demands immediate
>>>action and long-term and comprehensive plans to combat child poverty
>>>from candidates from all parties at all levels of government.
>
>>Bogus statistic report: These numbers do NOT include in-kind
>>subsidies like food stamps, housing benefits, WIC, and other
>>non-cash benefits.
>
>>Scratch the surface and you will find that the percentage
>>of people in poverty has, although with dips and rises,
>>pretty much bottomed out since 1970.
>
>>Essentially, it only proves that there are large numbers of people
>>which do not support themselves sufficiently with their own income.
>
>>James J. Kilpatrick had a good column on this. Something like half of
>>all "poverty" families own their own homes; many have substantial
>>household assets. cars, boats, pools, etc. The image of destitution does not
>>apply to all those in "poverty". (Although it certainly applies to some.)
>
>Ah, another welfare queen "fact."

These "facts" are indeed real facts, found in the very same census data.

>Many welfare families with their own
No. families in 'poverty' as defined by having cash income below a certain
level.

>swimming pools.  As to home ownership, so?  Homelessness and poverty are
>not equivalent, and no one claimed they were.

To *own* a home, one needs quite a bit of personal resources. You set up
strawmen (welfare family != poverty family, lack of home ownership != homeless ).

>>[biased report deleted]
>>>nation in the world is a moral disgrace.  When will we begin to
>>>value our children as well as our families and begin the essential
>>>task of eliminating child poverty in America?

>>When we end our stupid welfare policies. (see below).
>
>You forgot to mention all those people who *love* being on welfare.

Nope. I used the word 'trapped'. Pyschologically different, behaviorally the
same - they feel that it is their only/best life option at the time.

>>>         Table 1: Poverty status of persons younger than 18
>>>                       (Numbers in thousands)
>
>>>           TOTAL         POOR            RATE
>>>
>>>   1991    65,918        14,341          21.8%
>
>>>   1989    64,144        12,590          19.6
>>>   1988    63,747        12,455          19.5

>>>   1981    62,449        12,505          20.0
>>>   1980    62,914        11,543          18.3
>>>
>>>   1977    63,137        10,288          16.2
>>>   1976    64,028        10,273          16.0
>>>   1972    67,930        10,284          15.1
>>>
>>>   1969    69,090         9,691          14.0
>
>>Note that this is where progress stopped ... just when
>>welfare spending took off. hmmmm.
>
>So what you're saying is that this is all Richard Nixon's fault?
>I'll buy that.  

You should. Social spending didn't really kick in until the late 60's.
Check the numers.
>
>>>   1968    70,385        10,954          15.6
>>>   1964    69,711        16,051          23.0
>>>   1960    65,601        17,634          26.9
>>>   1959    64,315        17,552          27.3
>
>>Gee, so the huge expansion of the welfare state in the late 60's,
>>that has continued to this day, had exactly the effect the
>>conservatives have claimed: we have a permanent welfare-dependent,
>>underclass trapped in poverty, and the poverty rate has not been reduced
>>despite (or because of) these programs.
>
>It looks to me like progress was made until 1969, when Richard "Not a
>crook" Nixon was elected.

And welfare spending was greatly expanded.

> Then it kept getting worse until Carter was
>elected, improved a little,

You win the "failure to read a table" award:

>>>   1981    62,449        12,505          20.0
>>>   1977    63,137        10,288          16.2

Under Jimmy Carter the percentage of children in poverty increased from
16.2% to 20%.  "Improved a little"? Hardly.

>then basically stagnated in the Reagan/Bush years.

Under Reagan it fell slightly. From 20.0% to 19.6%.

>I'm not sure what point you're making.

Obviously. You misstate facts and figures, and just plain don't get it.
We've had certain policies since the 1960's on through to today that
have kept people in poverty. Prior to these policies, people in poverty
moved into the economic mainstream and out of poverty. That is why
in the 40's, 50's and 60's the poverty rate went down.
Now we instead have a permanent underclass, outside the economic mainstream,
people who have poor access to jobs and who are trapped by the backwards,
job-destroying anti-achievement incentives of a failed welfare system.

Yet somehow, these statistics are used for an appeal for "more-of-the-same"
from a trendy Liberal group. 

>>>   Table 2: Poverty Rate of Families With Children Younger Than 18
>>>                            1990 and 1991
>>>                                                    Percentage
>>>                                                      Point
>>>                                                    Difference:
>>>                                                    1991 minus
>>>                          1990           1991           1990
>
>>>   Total                  16.4%          17.7%         +1.3%
>
>>>   Married Parents         7.8            8.3          +0.5
>>>   Mother Only            44.5           47.1          +2.6
>>>   Father Only            18.8           19.6          +0.8
>
>>Poverty correlates with single parenthood. No kidding.
>>Would it be too much to suggest that single parenthood is not ....
>>er, I guess it would.
>
>Correlation and causation aren't the same.   Furthermore, what rich
>fictional characters do on TV shows has little to do with what poor
>Americans do in real life.

Uh huh. The media shows a misleading picture of single parenthood
that has little to with reality. So?

What poor Americans do has a *lot* to do with the same misguided
welfare and poverty policies that have broken up families and kept
people trapped in poverty. Support the Wisconsin experimental plan to
encourage unwed teen mothers to marry, and we might see if it improves the
lot of their children. Lower the marginal tax rates for the poor (by
adjusting subsidies/tax credits and reducing payroll and income taxes),
allow them to save more while still receiving benefits, put a limit on the
numbers of years that they can receive benefits so they aren't permanent wards
of the states, turn welfare into workfare, and end policies that encourage the
breakup (or non-formation) of families.
*Then* we'll see a reduction in poverty.

Pat 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:44418 ca.politics:7559 ba.politics:5138 soc.motss:38617 ba.motss:1564