|
|
|
When To Get Out of
the Way
The poor will always be with us — or will they?
|
Business New Haven
11/16/1998
By: Laurence D. Cohen
|
The news that Connecticut's poverty rate declined between 1996 and 1997 was greeted with predictable hostility from the social-service types, who insist that not only will the poor always be with us, but that we will always be one grant, one program, one new tax increase away from doing anything about it.
National poverty levels have declined as well in the face of a growing economy that does, in fact, lift all ships - or at least most ships. The job market, combined with welfare reform that has prodded thousands of folks to join the world of work, has lifted many productive Americans out of economic lethargy. The self-interest that gets most of us out of bed in the morning can work its magic on rich and poor, alike.
The social-service lobby risks making itself look ridiculous with its the-sky-is-falling insistence that Connecticut is awash in the desperately poor. Connecticut continues to be among the most generous states, with health care, housing assistance, “free” school breakfasts and lunches, improved day-care access and job training. Combined with a better economy, it is counter-intuitive (and refuted by the Census Bureau numbers) to suggest that we are teetering on the edge of the Third World.
Herbert Stein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors in the Nixon administration, argues that the true national poverty rate is closer to nine percent than the official 13.8 percent, due to distortions in the federal inflation calculations. In addition, of course, the social-worker lobby somehow believes that non-cash benefits (free health care, for instance) somehow doesn't count when we evaluate the “poverty” of lower-income families.
Robert Rector, the senior welfare analyst at the Heritage Foundation, had argued for years that the American definition of “poverty” distorts public policy by including hundreds of thousands of people who aren't hungry, who have safe, adequate housing, a color television in the living room, and a car.
“Real material hardship does occur,” he wrote in a September study, “but it is limited in extent and severity. The bulk of the 'poor' today live in material conditions that would have been judged comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago.”
“Poverty” levels are also distorted by ignoring accumulated assets - which puts many senior citizens (and many “working poor”) into a class of poor that doesn't deprive them of homes or creature comforts.
The left's discomfort with good economic news is fueled by its love for class envy, with the “rich” cast as the villains. But only 1.3 million tax returns filed in 1995 reported income above $200,000 - 1.1 percent of all returns filed. Most of us aren't rich, just as most of us aren't poor.
Even Bill Clinton, one of the world's biggest crybabies about such things, conceded in September that “Economic growth continues to raise incomes, lift millions out of poverty and extend opportunity.”
The economic spurt of 1996 fueled an extraordinary jump in the family incomes of blacks and Hispanics - better than four percent, compared with 2.5 percent for whites. The “poverty” numbers are simply not sufficient to gauge the good news, the robust health of an economy that provides extraordinary opportunity.
The bleeding-heart cadres in Connecticut insist that we focus on why so many are poor in a rich state. But the more important question is why so many are financially comfortable - the sources of wealth are more interesting and helpful to understand. Luck and brains and discipline and education and hard work and freedom breed wealth - and these characteristics, in varying degrees, are available to all of us.
“The conservatives” may well overdo the pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps mantra, but at the same time it is the conservatives who want to offer the poor alternatives to lousy schools and spirit-killing public housing. It is the conservatives who are willing to sound like dorks, with stern warnings about the irresponsibility of out-of-wedlock pregnancy.
For the truly hopeless and sick and confused and dislocated, America should (and, to a large extent, does) offer comfort and safety and protection, with public and private charity. To those who need a swat, an understanding of incentives and the freedom to succeed, America is slowly evolving into a parent that knows when to help - and when to get out of the way.
Laurence D. Cohen is a senior fellow of the Yankee Institute for Public Policy and a public-relations consultant based in Glastonbury.
|
Go FirstGo PreviousGo
NextGo LastGo
to Index
|
|
