House Republican Budget Committee staff have been very busy. They’ve produced a 240-page report that summarizes — and provides snippets of research on — 92 programs creatively attributed to the War on Poverty.
“Creatively” because some of the programs have little or no bearing on efforts to reduce poverty, e.g., homeownership assistance, the fresh fruit and vegetable promotion program for elementary school children.
By and large, the research snippets are more balanced than one might expect — a triumph of low expectations, I suppose.
Ron Garver at The Fiscal Times cites four researchers who claim the report misrepresents or manipulates their findings. We get other examples of cherry-picking and misrepresentation in the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ commentary on the report.
There’s notable bias in presentation too — for example, the bolded conclusion that “Head Start does not improve student outcomes,” though the research cited shows it sometimes does, as Jonathan Cohn at New Republic notes.
And a HUGE exception to balance for Medicaid, as one might expect from a Committee that’s likely to again propose block-granting the program and slowly starving it. “Zombie Medicaid arguments,” proclaims the Incidental Economist‘s headline.
As this indicates, policy wonks of a progressive persuasion have already weighed in on the report — mostly, though not exclusively trying to set the record straight on what the research actually tells us.
I want instead to focus on a couple of the major messages, explicit and otherwise.
The report stretches to sweep in as many programs as possible in part because one of its messages is that there are far too many of them. Congress created them “to solve different problems — and at different times,” it says. As a result, “there is little coordination among them.”
Overall, this seems to me a reasonable assessment. Where it might take us is another matter.
The House SKILLS Act, for example, blows away
18 35 job training programs and rolls the surviving 17 into one big block grant. It also freezes funding for seven years — virtually ensuring that some of the formerly-targeted populations lose out to the more readily employable.
The larger problem, the report says, is that many programs are “a poverty trap” because they’re means-tested, i.e., provide benefits only to people below a certain income level.
They’re thus a disincentive to work — or at least to doing your best to get ahead because if you do, you face a “high marginal tax rate.” In other words, what you lose in benefits partially offsets what you gain in earnings.
No one, so far as I know, disputes the fact of marginal tax rates. They’re an inherent feature of programs that limit eligibility to people below a certain income level.
How big they are depends on who’s estimating and for what programs. Whether they actually “discourage … [people] from making more money,” as the report says, is less certain.
The Congressional Budget Office is inclined to think they do, though only for some people already in the workforce. Economist-blogger Jared Bernstein says that leading research has found the impact to be negligible.
Again, the question is where does this take us? Not, I trust, to the elimination of all means-tested programs. But like as not, to more expansive work requirements — and to time limits, since these would override any long-term disincentive.
Welfare “reform” is thus again pronounced a rip-roaring success — one of the instances of research misuse cited in the Garver article and by CBPP.
The report is surely a set-up for further spending cuts. Casting a wide net enables the Budget Committee to come up with a total anti-poverty bill of $799 billion in 2012 — and “trillions” over the last 50 years.
Ironically, as Cohn observes, the defects the report finds in a number of anti-poverty programs imply the need to spend more money.
But Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan seems to have something more grandiose in mind than fixing fixable problems, even when that might yield some savings — and something more grandiose than slashing here, slashing there.
In his view, federal anti-poverty programs need to be “entirely reimagined,” according to an indirect quote in the Washington Post.
We get a whiff of where he might be tending in a key test the report imposes whenever remotely feasible: Does the program encourage or discourage labor force participation?
Thus, for example, all the “evidence” cited to evaluate Supplemental Security Income relates to employment. Recall that adult SSI recipients under 65 are, by definition, blind or unable “to do any substantial gainful activity.”
SNAP (the food stamp program) is also viewed through the lens of labor force participation, as well as poverty reduction, based on the cash value of the benefit. “Evidence” for its effects on reducing hunger is apparently irrelevant.
But maybe there’s no real reimagining behind the words. As The New York Times editorial board observes, the report provides a “high-minded excuse” for Congressional Republicans “to eviscerate” major safety-net programs, as they’re already hell bent on doing.
Some also seem to cherish the notion that the reforms Ryan says it’s a precursor to will persuade us that they truly care about “people who’ve fallen through the cracks.”
Not, I think, if the report foreshadows what we’ll soon see in the House budget plan.