Congressman Ryan Renews War on the War on Poverty

Congressman Paul Ryan, Chairman of the House Budget Committee, held a hearing last week supposedly to get a “progress report” on the War on Poverty.

A highly suspect enterprise, since Ryan had already proclaimed the War on Poverty a failure — most recently less than a week before the hearing.

“When I look at the money spent, when I look at the programs created, when I look at the miserable outcomes and the high poverty rates, … [I say] ‘We can do better than this.”

Interestingly, however, most of the witnesses he’d called didn’t engage in wholesale trashing on our anti-poverty programs, though Jon Baron, who heads the Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy, came pretty close.

Ryan’s Republican committee colleagues pulled out all the stops. References to “perpetual dependency,” confiscating taxpayers’ money, a remarkable attack on the Catholic church for calling on the government to help serve the poor.

Democrats countered with some myth-busting — mainly the notion that poor people don’t want to work. They also repeatedly noted that large majorities of safety net beneficiaries either are working or aren’t expected to — because they’re children, elderly and/or severely disabled.

And they took the occasion to point out the irony of a hearing on poverty when the House has already passed a budget (Ryan’s creation) that guts several major safety net programs and sets a spending level that will force severe cuts to others.

In the midst of all the bickering and posturing, some genuine issues emerged. To me, the biggest of all was what we should expect anti-poverty programs to do — and how we can know whether they’re doing it.

For Ryan, the programs have “miserable outcomes” because about 46 million people fell below the official poverty threshold last year.

Congressman Van Hollen, the committee’s highest-ranking Democrat, and Sister Simone Campbell, best known as the leader of the Nuns on the Bus, countered with top-line figures from the Supplemental Poverty Measure.

As I’ve written before, the SPM factors in major non-cash benefits, e.g., SNAP (the food stamp program), plus money received from the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit and partially refundable Child Tax Credit.

These benefits reduce the SPM poverty rates — or, as is commonly said, lift people out of poverty. Some examples from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which foresightfully launched a preemptive strike on Ryan’s messaging.

Not good enough for Congressman Sean Duffy. We need to “get to the root cause of poverty, not just address pain.”

Nor for Ryan. “We focus on how much money the government spends.” True in his case for sure. “We should focus on how many people get off public assistance — because they have a good job.”

Or more tellingly in the TV clip I linked to above. “Our goal is not to make poverty easier to handle … and live with. Our goal in these programs ought to be to give people a temporary hand so that they can get out of poverty.”

And so Ryan chose to put Eloise Anderson, head of his home state’s Department of Children and Families, on the panel — the Republicans’ “star witness,” Greg Kaufmann at The Nation smartly observes.

The state’s welfare program got 93% of families off the rolls, she said. What we need in other programs are work requirements and time limits like those in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

No one, I think, would argue against programs that help people who can work prepare for and find jobs that will enable them to support themselves and their families. (Whether that’s a good description of TANF is another matter.)

But time-limiting all our safety net programs will surely leave some people in destitution — rather like the conditions former reporter Dan Morgan recalls from the early 1960s.

And is getting people off the rolls and over the official poverty line the only result we should measure?

What then do we do about people who are too old or too disabled to work — or working and still unable to make a go of it without public assistance?

About children, whose health, well-being and future prospects are significantly improved when they’ve got enough to eat, good medical care, a safe, stable place to live and positive learning experiences from an early age?

I’d be the last person to say that our anti-poverty programs are all they ought to be. But the only result Ryan and compeers seem willing to credit is far too narrow.

I personally think that a group so eager to claim their Christian bona fides would hesitate to dismiss programs that feed the hungry and heal the sick — services that local charitable organizations can’t do alone.

See, for example, the Bread for the World figure Sister Simone cited to show this — a $50,000 per year additional burden on every single congregation in the country merely to compensate for the SNAP cuts in Ryan’s budget.

And it’s genuinely offensive to hear Ryan claim that his attacks on anti-poverty programs aren’t “about cutting spending.”

If he really wanted to “start a conversation” about how we could better approach the multifarious problems that underlie our high poverty rate, then why has he plunged ahead with budgets that embody his radically right-wing conclusions?

6 Responses to Congressman Ryan Renews War on the War on Poverty

  1. zoom314 says:

    Simple Ryans a rich cheapskate snob, He wants more money for the Military, yet He won’t close corporate tax loopholes or make a 1.0% tax on wall street transactions, I could swear He wants to spend a trillion a year on the Military, all for what is essentially blood money, but then We out spend almost all the other countries on earth combined, an F35 aircraft that costs way too much, ships the Navy needs that could maybe cost less, private jets, golf courses, chefs & staff that 3 and 4 star Admirals/Generals have that would make rock stars jealous and I’m sure there’s more waste, yet Ryan and company won’t do any fact finding at all, just the lazy way of doing things, cut what one doesn’t like, even if it hurts people, the guys a snob… I’m sure there’s more behind the Military curtain, Eisenhower was right to warn US about the Military Industrial Complex…

  2. dnilan says:

    Thanks, Kathryn, for pointing out the many inconsistencies (to be kind) of Mr. Ryan’s hypocritical performance. I, too, felt his hearing fell short, especially in the witness department. For those interested in my observations, and for links to related resources, I offer my latest AlterNet blog.

  3. Kathryn Baer says:

    I’m glad that you highlighted (and linked to) Tianna Gaines-Turner’s testimony, as well as your own fine work. I think she had many important things to say and said them very well.

  4. Wendy Love says:

    Very well put. The time limits on TANF and the criteria that states prove they reach a certain percentage of success or get reduced % of funding, cause many states to put folk on state programs until they are sure they can be successful and only then are they moved onto TANF. In Vermont, if you are a single mom with two children you would have to earn approx $17 dollars an hour to replace the healthcare, childcare, and basic grant assistance that you would get on TANF.. Not too many jobs that I know of that pay that kind of money to someone who may have only a GED and a spotty work history and need safe daycare for their children. Kinda hard to justify letting your kids starve so you can have the dignity of a minimum wage job.

  5. Kathryn Baer says:

    Thank you for this comment, Wendy. I especially appreciate your calling attention to what a mother loses when she leaves TANF. I’ve been reading about this cliff, as some call it, and about cliffs in other programs for low-income people. Trying to get my mind around how to write about them because they’re a serious deterrent to what the programs are supposed to do. The details you give are a fine example.

  6. […] 3. The House held a hearing about the war on poverty. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s