The American Conservative: Timothy S. Goglein: The Moynihan Report at 50

The American Conservative: Timothy S. Goglein: The Moynihan Report at 50

I believe the failure of the Great Society and where it comes up really short, is that it has essentially subsidized poverty in America. Not help people get out of poverty, but subsidize them while they’re in poverty. It seems to me anyway if your goal is to eliminate poverty and you’re going to call that strategy that has something to do with war, like the War on Poverty, the goal would be to actually defeat and eliminate poverty itself. When you subsidize something, you essentially leave as is. And you’re also encouraging it to stay there. Thats what government subsidies are about. But if your goal is to eliminate poverty, then the idea should be to actually move people out of poverty all together.

That instead of just giving people money so they can live more comfortably while in poverty, you’re instead helping them financially in the short-term, while at the same time giving them tools like childcare assistance and education, so the mother and these families tend to have single-parents, that tend to be uneducated mothers, can finish her education, get a good job and move into with her kids into a good home and neighborhood. And getting off public assistance all together. While you’re also cracking down on parents, generally fathers, who walk out on their kids. And forcing them to pay all the child support that they owe out of their paychecks.

What is what the so-called Moynihan Report found out about the African-American Family in 1965. That many families that were in poverty, only had a single-parent. Who tended to be the mother, who wasn’t educated and a lot of times didn’t even finish high school. Who simply didn’t have the skills to get herself a good job and be able to support her kids. With the father of her kids being completely out of the picture and not even knowing where he is. And as a result she goes on Welfare to try to support her kids. But all Welfare did was give her money while she was in poverty. And gave her more money if she didn’t have help raising her kids, or had more kids while on Welfare.

So-called Progressives back then and fifty years later, say that the reasons for high poverty in the African-American community, have to do with racism. And that there are no other reasons for their high level of poverty. And sure, racism has kept African-Americans down compared with Caucasians in America. But if racism and ethnic bigotry were the only reasons for poverty in America, Asian and Jewish-Americans, wouldn’t be doing as well in America. And doing as well, or better than Anglo-Saxons and other Caucasian-Americans. A lot of the reasons for poverty gets to personal behavior and responsibility and government policy. That subsidizes people for not being able to take care of their kids. And not making better decisions early on so they wouldn’t be in poverty at all.

US News: Eric Schnurer: Why Ending Poverty May Require an Entrepreneurial Approach

Source:The New Democrat

I agree with Eric Schnurer that the private sector should be involved in fighting poverty in America. Things like grants and subsidies to train low-income low-skilled adults who either work for them, or are currently not working. Things like community job training centers, that would be privately run and owned and business training seminars, that would also be privately run and owned. But we need to get liberally pro-active in how we assist people in poverty in America. Whether they are currently working, or not.

Instead of just giving people in poverty whether they are working or not public assistance, to help them get by while they are still in poverty and then declaring victory, because these low-income low-skilled adults have these funds to help them pay their bills, we shouldn’t declare victory until they no longer need the public assistance all together. And are working with a good job and able to pay their own bills and paying into the programs that they once collected from.

The 1996 Welfare to Work Law has been a success and that is the approach we should take from, but go even further with it. That if you’re working and on public assistance, that finishing you’re education becomes a requirement to receive the public assistance that you’re getting. So you’re working and going to school and getting assistance in order to go to school. Financial assistance for your education and whatever childcare the person may need as well.

That if you’re on Welfare and not working and are low-skilled, but you at least have your high school diploma, or GED, you’re going to work even at a low-income job as soon as possible. And finishing your education as well with the financial assistance and childcare you would need to do those things. And leave Welfare, will you would still be eligible for the other public assistance benefit as a low-income worker. So we’re training and empowering people on Welfare to be able to get themselves off of Welfare and move to the middle class instead.

We need to move pass social insurance and the concept of the safety net and instead be looking at an empowerment or opportunity society, for people who need it for whatever reasons. So people on Welfare and on public assistance in general in America won’t have this to look forward to as their way of life. Because they’ll be able to get themselves the skills that they need to leave Welfare and public assistance all together. And live in economic freedom with the skills and resources to take care of themselves.

The Nation: Leighton Akio Woodhouse: These Motel Rooms Are The Last Resort For Families Without Homes

The Nation: Opinion: Leighton Akio Woodhouse: These Motel Rooms Are the Last Resort for Families Without Homes

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

I saw a HBO documentary back in the summer of 2010 about families who couldn’t afford apartments even and lost their homes due to the Great Recession. These people by in large at least before the Great Recession were educated with good jobs with both parents working. But now finding themselves without a home and out of work and for some reason not even able to find affordable public housing. I think that story also took place in Los Angeles. Both parents were able to find jobs again, but still not able to find an apartment for their family.

What that family was able to find was similar to what the family in this Nation story was able to find. The family in the film was better off and found a motel room for families who couldn’t afford apartments. But the motel wasn’t located in a crime and drug infested neighborhood. And the HBO family had a room with two beds and I believe an actual kitchen and not two mattress’ like the family in the Nation story. I bring this up because it is pretty sad, but also gives some hope that struggling families don’t have to live in a shelter or under bridge some place like that. We could find them temporary housing while they get better jobs and are able to move out on their own.

We could set up a system where families like this could stay at some type of housing center, for lack of a better term, that would serve as their temporary housing, but also as a transition and improvement center. Where they could get the healthcare, rehab, education, job training and job placement that they need to finally get a good job and not only move out of the center, but into a good apartment or home. Living independently and in freedom and not have to stick these motels or centers in rundown areas, but in middle class communities where they could find good jobs and not be surrounded by crime and drug addicts. And this could be paid for out of current public assistance budgets and run by private non-profits.

CBPP: Commentary: Arloc Sherman: Policymakers Often Overstate Marginal Tax Rates

CBPP: Commentary: Arloc Sherman: Policymakers Often Overstate Marginal Tax Rates

I saw a video this afternoon of President Richard Nixon giving a speech to the country outlining his Welfare reform plan from 1969. In it he talked about the dangers of paying people more not to work than people could make in not working. I agree with that which is why I'm not only in favor of increasing the minimum wage to 10-12 dollars and hour and indexing it for inflation. But tying today's Welfare payments to that of what a full-time minimum wage worker would make  at today's $7.25 an hour minimum wage.

You tell someone on Welfare that they can not only make more money working than not working whatever the job is and you also tell them even if you do take a short-term low-wage job that pays more than not working and we'll meaning taxpayers will help you finish your education which includes credits for childcare and finishing their education including vocational training. You now have incentivize them to leave Welfare and reenter or enter the workforce. And for people who simply are on Welfare because they are uneducated and don't want to work they'll get kicked off of Welfare for simply being irresponsible, or their time limit will run out on them.

But again work should pay more than not working. So I'm not only about increasing the minimum wage, but I would propose and idea that was proposed by the great economist Milton Friedman in the 1960s. He called it the Negative Income Tax, my version of that would be would instead of cutting people's Welfare assistance once go to work you let them keep that up to the point that they are no longer collecting or making a poverty income. Whatever money they make from washing their neighbors laundry, or looking after their kids and doing other household chores, or cooking food for people you allow for them to keep all of that money plus what they collect from public assistance.

As well as going back to work with an official job again up to the point they are not longer collecting or earning a poverty income. Why, so we encourage people to work and go back to work and finish their education so they can finally get themselves a good job. Instead of saying "for whatever you try to do for yourself and that allows you some type of economic independence, we Uncle Sam or whatever government are going to penalize you in the form of some tax. To encourage you to stay on public assistance and not work at all so you become complete dependents on us the government".

The New York Times: Germany & the Minimum Wage

The New York Times: Editorial Board: Germany and the Minimum Wage

More evidence that Germany is not as socialist as it get's stereotyped. The German Bundestag which is the lower chamber of the German Federal Parliament which is like the U.S. House in our Congress passed a sensible minimum wage law last week. 8.50 Euros which would be $11.60 in American dollars assuming the the upper chamber of parliament in Germany the Bundesrat which would be like the U.S. Senate in the U.S. Congress passes this law as well. This is not a twenty-five dollar and hour minimum wage that American so-called Progressives want. But $11.60 which is less than half.

$7.25 and hour is way too low for a minimum wage in America especially with our high cost of living. And then you add the fact that it is also unfairly too low when you consider that grocery store cashiers and fast food cashiers and cooks are vital employees to their employees. Without these workers these companies would be out of business. So paying them a wage that doesn't allow them to come close to being able to pay their bills and having to rely on taxpayers in order to financially survive is not fair to the workers, but also not the taxpayers who have to pick up their employers tab.

My first offer when it comes to raising the minimum wage in America would be ten-dollars an hour with a thirty-percent tax break for small employers. And then index it for inflation so it keeps up with cost if living. But I could go to twelve-dollars and hour without much convincing needed with the same thirty-percent tax break. Or even fifteen-dollars an hour with a 30-40 percent tax break. Which would be benefit taxpayers because their taxes wouldn't be needed as much to fund public assistance. It would also help our debt and deficit situation because again fewer Americans would need public assistance. And it wouldn't hurt small employers because they would get that money back in a tax cut.

Democracy Journal: Opinion: Mike Konczal: "The Voluntarism Fantasy": The Advantages of the Public/Private Social Insurance System

Private Charity

Democracy Journal: Opinion: Mike Konczal: The Voluntarism Fantasy

I was waiting to read from Mike Konczal in his piece some call for nationalizing private charity and completely nationalizing private charity all together and giving the Federal Government complete control over the charity system in the United States. He stopped short of that and instead proposed to nationalize the retirement system and completely turning Social Security into the sole source when it comes to retirement in this country. As well as call for nationalizing Medicaid, which is another bad idea. But that is a different topic. But apparently there are even limits that the most socialist amongst us put on government.

A problem that Socialists have in America is that they are collectivists living in a very individualistic society. And they don't trust people to do the right things when it comes to their own lives. Especially from an economic point of view and charity would be one example of that. But even to a certain extent a personal point of view as it relates to their prohibitionist policies as it relates to what Americans should be able to eat and drink.

The fact is Americans donate a lot of money to charity every year. And every time there is some humanitarian crisis in the world the rest of the world tends to look at America first. And we always respond both with our government assistance. As well as our private charities stepping up and individuals either volunteering their time, or money and sometimes both to help people in need either in this country, or in another country. Private charity has worked very well in America and if anything should be expanded and encouraged even more. Not messed with by government.

Not making the argument that private charity would be a suitable replacement to public assistance. Just making the case that we need to do both. One to encourage Americans to do what they can for struggling Americans. Because there actually is a big limit to what can government can do well for the people. But there is also a limit to what Americans can do for each other especially in a struggling economy that shrunk in the last quarter. And you need government to step in and try to make up the difference.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Blog: Sharon Parrott: War on Poverty: Large Positive Impact, But More Work Remains

Center on Budget and Policy Prioities: Blog Sharon Parrott: War on Poverty: Large Positive Impact, But More Work Remains

I agree with Sharon Parrott from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities that there has been some real success in the so-called War on Poverty in America, but there is still a lot of work to be done. And I believe that is sort of the obvious answer. But if CBPP was a partisan political outfit and not a real think tank especially coming from the Left, they wouldn’t have admitted that. And that is why I respect CBPP because they are a real think tank.

CBPP is like what the American Enterprise Institute is for the conservative-right. CBPP is for the progressive-left a real think based on analyzing facts and not trying to make facts look as positive as possible for your side. Which is what partisan think tanks does for Progressives. And The Heritage Foundation does for the neoconservative right in America. The difference between think tanks and political action groups.

The War on Poverty in America and by the way if it isn’t obvious enough, the War on Poverty is not a real war and I hope that isn’t a newsflash for anyone. Wars involve military’s, combat, deaths obtaining land and so-forth. The so-called War on Poverty launched in 1964 by then President Lyndon Johnson end goal was to eliminate poverty in America. And not by fifty-years, but even if the goal was by year fifty and I can guarantee you the original goal wasn’t to eliminate poverty within fifty-years.

But if he original goal to eliminate poverty on this scale alone, it has been a failure. We’ve gone from having a poverty rate by 1968 of twenty-five percent to now somewhere around twenty percent today with all that trillions of dollars being spent on it. For African-Americans they went from fifty-percent of people in poverty to today of thirty-percent. And these aren’t from partisan right-wing sources, but from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Because we still have a very high poverty rate compared with the rest of the developed world, that is not all the fault of the War on Poverty. We had the Great Deflation of the 1970s a real bad decade for our economy that included two bad recessions. 1974-75, and again in 1979-80 and then another bad recession in the early 1980s.But the rest of the 1980s and the 1990s were very good and then we of course are off to a horrible start in this century when it comes to economic and job growth.

But the so-called WOP does deserve some of the blame because of how it was designed. What they basically said was “lets give some people with very little a little more and not much hope for a future outside of poverty.” And then say, “if you add up all of their cash benefits, they technically do not live in poverty”. When of course that is not true, because unless you are retired and on Social Security, if you do not make enough money to pay your own bills, you live in poverty.

If you are familiar with my earlier posts about poverty in America, you know I’m about yes short-term cash assistance so these people can pay their bills in the short-term. But long-term I’m about job training, education and job placement in good jobs. So these people can get themselves out of poverty all together. And better economic and job growth for everyone else, has to be part of that package or good jobs for our less-fortunate won’t be around at all.

Which I why I would like to see a new national campaign to defeat poverty. And 2014 may not be the time to launch it with so many middle class Americans struggling. Saying “hey what about me I work for a living, that is for the people who still have jobs”. But that is basically what we need that is about short-term cash, assistance, education and good jobs.

The New York Times: Gregory Mankiew: Help The Working Poor, But Share The Burden

Source:The New York Times 

Gregory Mankiew seems to be arguing in his New York Times column that the best way to help the working poor is to take from the economically successful that is the middle class and not the struggling middle class. But Americans making lets say seventy-thousand-dollars and up per year. And the upper class those making lets five-hundred-thousand-dollars a year or more to take care of the less-fortunate. There a couple of big problems with that and not so much how socialist of an idea that it is.

That somehow government would decide what people need to live well in life. But the fact that we would be discouraging people to be productive in America because if they are, a lot of that money would go to people who aren’t very productive as far as what they are able to produce for themselves. But on the other side now we are encouraging people not to be productive because if they aren’t, the economically successful in America will be forced to take care of them.

Gregory Mankiew also seems to be saying that instead of expanding education and job training opportunities to the low-skilled working poor that we should instead just financially take care of them instead. Because education and job training and are more long-term solutions that will take time. And these workers need financial relief now. And the education and job training solutions aren’t politically possible right now.

Well if you are not familiar with the current makeup of Congress. We have a Republican House of Representatives as part of one half of a very divided Congress. With Democrats controlling the Senate with a Democratic president. And even if we had a united Democratic Congress with a Democratic president, there still wouldn’t be enough Democrats to support these more social democratic policies. And there would be enough Republican Senators to block them in Congress.

So instead of arguing for what is politically possible right now, how about we instead come up with a plan that actually solves the problems. And then come up with a political coalition in Congress that would support the plan.

1. We increase the minimum wage and move towards more of a living wage. But not quite getting there with these workers probably still needing public assistance to support themselves. But part of that minimum wage increase comes with educational and job training opportunities for these workers. So they can actually get themselves a good job instead and move from public assistance. We go from $7.25 and hour to ten-dollars and hour within two years and even twelve dollars within five-years.

And index it for inflation so the purchasing power of the minimum wage keeps up with inflation. With a thirty-percent tax break for small employers so their payroll costs don’t go up too high. As well as another tax break for all employers small and large to train their low-skilled employees. So they can move up in their companies.

2. Expanding educational and job training opportunities for our low-skilled workers. And put in a requirement for everyone on public assistance whether they are working or not for them to finish their education. And if that means they haven’t finished high school, they would need to do that. And for those workers with high school diplomas, they would have the opportunity and be expected to go to a community college or vocational school. To get themselves the skills that they need to do get themselves a good job.

3. Requiring employers who pay low-wages to pay payroll taxes that goes to pay for Medicaid, Welfare Insurance, Public Housing and Food Assistance. So these employers would no longer be able to pass the cost of living of these employees on to average taxpayers.

4. If you want to talk long-term. That means education reform and having a public education system where everyone can get themselves a good education. No matter the income level of their parents. And that means having public school choice so students are no longer required to go to school based on where they live, but what is the best school for them and their parents would be able to make that decision. Funding public schools based on need and not where they are located. And that means additional resources to fund public schools and not just using property taxes. And paying teachers based on how well their students are learning and not how long they’ve been teaching. And we could do this when the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is extended

This debate shouldn’t be about what is politically possible at the current moment in time. But what we should be doing as a country to address these problems and then finding the people in Congress. And the people who are running for Congress both House and Senate who would support these policies.

Townhall: Michael Tanner: A Real Life Example of Welfare Reform

Townhall: Opinion: Michael Tanner: A Real Life Example of Welfare Reform

If you want more people in the workforce working with real jobs they can rely on that they are qualified for, than working whatever the job is has to pay more than not working and collecting public assistance at home. And that starts with having a real minimum wage that pays more than being at home and collecting public assistance per hour. But moreover we need a real education and job training system in this country that empowers our low-skilled workforce to finish their education. And that means both high school and at least junior college or vocational education.

And that also means that people on public assistance need to be required as well as encouraged to be actively searching for work while they are also finishing their education. And not passing up jobs because they do not like the job, or doesn’t pay a lot. Even if that means finishing their education while they are now working. And they could still get their public housing, Medicaid, food assistance, but as long as they are doing what they can to go to work, or go back to work and improve their employment outlook. 

I’m all in favor of education and job training in America especially for our low-skilled adults and kids who are still in school. But as long as the work is part of the puzzle and the end goal of having a good job that empowers people to finally get off of public assistance and become economically independent. Living in economic freedom with the power to take care of themselves and making these services affordable to taxpayers and the people eligible for them. But as long as work is part of the package and we are empowering people to get themselves solid job experience. 

Empowering people to finish their education with the skills that they need to be successful in life that comes with a good job that allows for people to become economically independent in life. And you don’t get there as long as we pay people not to work and not do anything constructive that empowers these people to improve their lives. And education, job training and work experience are investments that expand economic freedom in America. 

When you are talking about public assistance in America, you are essentially talking about public charity. Even though taxpayers do not have a choice in whether or not to help finance it. But if public assistance comes with education, job training and work experience, as people are collecting public assistance checks, now you are talking about economic investments that lead to good jobs with a high-skilled workforce. With a small population of people who still need to finish their education so they can get off of public assistance.

The New York Times: Thomas Edsall: 'Is The Safety Net Just Masking Tape?'

Source:New York Times- columnist Thomas Edsall.

"It’s easy for liberals to explain away setbacks to programs and policies that they favor — ranging from infrastructure investment to food stamps to increased education budgets — as the result of the intransigence of the Republican Party, with its die-hard commitment to slashing government spending on nearly every front. 

But that explanation is too facile. 

A mix of economic, social and political forces have weakened the clout of those in the bottom half of the income distribution. The list of forces is long, but its signal features are the decline in manufacturing jobs, the strengthening of the bargaining power of corporations, the gutting of middle income employment and competitive pressures to limit wage growth.

How did the Democrats let these developments gain momentum? It depends on how you see the world. Some progressives argue that the Democratic Party stood by and let it happen passively; others suggest that key segments on the left simply sold out to #Wall_Street.

The same forces that have pushed the country to the right are attempting to define those on the bottom rungs – the infamous 47 percent — as mired in “dependency,” “an army of moochers and slackers.”

In the conservative worldview, social insurance programs undermine initiative and self-reliance and encourage those out of work or struggling to make ends meet to turn to the state for support.

In fact, structural economic obstacles to upward mobility for the bottom half are as important as personal behavioral decisions like dropping out of high school or not getting married when you have children. Such decisions often originate in or are reinforced by a lack of economic opportunity. Behavioral norms and structural economic issues are clearly intertwined, but in my view, structural issues have pride of place.

The economics of survival have forced millions of men, women and children to rely on “pity-charity liberal capitalism.” The state has become the resource of last resort consigning just the people progressives would like to turn into a powerful force for reform to a condition of subjugation — living out their lives on government subsidies like Medicaid, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and now, Obamacare.

In many respects, the safety net has worked to hold society together, and it has the backing, explicit or implicit, of Democratic elites. This system also has the support of much of corporate America, especially of major low-wage employers like McDonald’s and Wal-Mart. These companies are themselves subject to brutal market competition and use government programs that benefit their employees as a means of sustaining inadequate wages and fringe benefits.

The call of Konczal and his colleagues on the progressive left for an empowerment agenda — for structural economic reform — faces roadblocks far higher than many people realize. The loss of a political movement (economic liberalism) and its political vehicle (a stable progressive coalition) has put the left into a position of retreat, struggling to protect besieged programs that are designed explicitly for the poor and which therefore lack strong public backing.

The shift of the Democratic Party from economic to “#pity-charity” #liberalism has put the entire liberal project in danger. It has increased its vulnerability to conservative challenge and left it without a base of politically mobilized supporters. Progressives are now dependent on the fragile possibility that inequality and socioeconomic immobility will push the social order to the breaking point and force the political system to respond."  

From The New York Times 

"Author Charles Murray (American Enterprise Institute) and Larry Reed (Foundation for Economic Education) compare policies of the Roman welfare state to America's.  Liberty Pen"

Source:Liberty Pen- economist Charles Murray.

From Liberty Pen 

First of all, just to correct the record on a couple things: America doesn't have a welfare state. We've never had a welfare state, as much as Socialists may hate that. 

A welfare state is a universal economic insurance system for anyone, regardless of income, can collect from it and then spend that money to subsidize their lives. We have a public social insurance system that's just for people who truly need it. Meaning they can't financially support themselves without some type of outside financial assistance, whether it's from government, private charity, friends or family, whoever might help them when they're living in hard times. 

And the 2nd correction which is just part of a pet peeve of mind, welfare statism is not liberal. Neither is social insurance or safety net. People who want a welfare state in America and who support it outside of America, the Bernie Sanders of the world and his supporters and ideological colleagues in Congress, are not Liberals. Believing that people are entitled to live off government (meaning the taxpayers) and shouldn't even be asked to go to school or get a job, is actually very illiberal. Socialists believe in government dependence, including unlimited government dependence, but no one else. 

A safety net, like with any car or any sports franchise, any local business, is only as good as you use it and make it. 

You let people stay on public assistance forever and even incentivize them too and punish them when they try to become independent, they'll be on public assistance their whole lives. 

But if you empower them to get a good education, help them get a starting job and eventually when they have the skills that they need, help them find a good job, if they still need your assistance, then the safety net can really good investment for taxpayers that everyone would benefit from. Because of all the new taxpayers, customers, and well-skilled workers that it could create, along with fewer people on public assistance and in poverty, which also benefits everybody. 

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on Blogger.

Los Angeles Times: Alexandra Zavis: Homeless Aid: Community Project Gets Dozens of Homeless Off The Streets of Hollywood

Source:FreeState Now 

Here’s an example of how we should be combating homelessness in America. By getting them off the streets and into motel rooms or small apartments. That could be financed through Section Eight Housing. Get them temporary financial assistance through Welfare or Unemployment Insurance. Instead of just giving them a meal and a cot and sending back on the streets the next day. This is what this project in Los Angeles is doing.

I’m not sure about the public assistance from government. Thats my approach, but what they are doing is getting them off the streets and into apartments. How they are financing the rest if at all, I’m not sure. But this approach is a hell of a lot better than what we did a a country in the 1980s. By kicking mentally ill people out of mental hospitals and sending them out on the streets. And then we saw a spike in poverty and homelessness in that decade. Which by in large was a very productive decade for us economically. And then we went to the give them a cot and a meal and send them on their way approach, which means they are still homeless, but with some food and one less night on the street.

This would be just my first approach to combating homelessness in America. Then I would move into health care, including mental health for those who need it. Including alcohol and drug rehab for those who need it. As well as education and job placement, again for those who need it. These things can all be financed through Public Housing, Welfare and Unemployment Insurance and Medicaid. As well as requiring the clients who benefited through these services to pay back what they collected, once they are on their feet. We wouldn’t have to create a new government agency to finance it. And figure out how to finance it. Homelessness is one big problem that we can solve as a country by just using our available limited resources better.

Heritage Foundation: Blog: Ryan Messmore: Does Advocating Limited Government Mean Abandoning the Poor

Source:The FreeState

There has been a lot of talk about deficit reduction. Which has been helpful and something we need to do and looking at our entitlement programs. And other social insurance programs and how we can make savings and make them work better. I have some suggestions in how we can do that, by accomplishing what they are intended to do. Which is to assist people in poverty as well as cut costs. By moving people out of poverty so they are no longer dependent on them. And no longer need those resources by empowering them to become self-sufficient. 

Since the War on Poverty was launched in 1965, the poverty rate then and now is about the same, 20-25%. But with the African American poverty rate actually falling. So thats been a great sign from 60-25%. But our overall poverty rate being flat with a major drop in poverty in the 1990s. With a booming economy as well as the Welfare to Work Act of 1996. But with the poverty rate spiking back up in the last decade. 

We had a couple of recessions in the last decade, including the Great Recession of 2008 which we are still recovering from. Which tells me with the trillions we’ve spent fighting poverty and the fact that we now have the same poverty rate as we started from, that we haven’t gotten our tax dollars worth and need to rethink how we address poverty in America. So we are more successful in actually moving Americans out of poverty and into the workforce with a good job. 

If you want to make savings and cut back in social insurance, the way to do that without hurting anyone, but actually helping them, as well as the most cost-effective way to accomplish this, is pretty simple. By getting them out of poverty so they are no longer dependent on public assistance and become self-sufficient. And are paying taxes instead of just collecting them, putting money they earned into the system. For people who have a place to live, but aren’t working, its a three step process. 

Temporary financial assistance, so they can support themselves in the short-term. 

Education, support them going back to school or going to school. So they can get themselves the skills that they need to get themselves a good job and become self-sufficient. 

And then job placement, helping them find a good job that will support them and their families. 

For homeless people its a bit more complicated. They will need a temporary place to stay, perhaps health care, perhaps drug rehab, perhaps mental rehab, perhaps education, perhaps job placement and housing placement. For other homeless people, they just might need a temporary place to stay, job placement and housing placement. It really depends on the client that you're trying to help. There’s no silver bullet that can help all people in poverty the same way. 

That's why it takes a grand strategy in fighting poverty, that's designed to empower people to get themselves out of poverty. But that has to be fought on multiple fronts. A strategy to deal with homelessness, hunger, education and job placement. There’s not one type of silver bullet program, private or public that wins this campaign. It has to be a combination of several different things. But that all have the same strategy, empowering people in poverty to get themselves out of poverty.

I wouldn’t call this easy, but the easiest segment of our poverty population, our low-income people who are working, a lot of times full-time jobs or multiple jobs, or even multiple full- time jobs. Again in a lot of cases just to make ends meet. They are the easiest people to address, because they are already working. But perhaps receiving other forms of public assistance, like Food Stamps or public housing. The good thing though, perhaps they just need to go back to school, like at a community college. To get the skills that they need to get one good full-time job. 

Or perhaps low-income workers just need to back to school to get retrained. Because they used to have a good job, but got laid off and their job that they are trained for no longer exists. So now they need a good job, but in a different field. This happens to the unemployed all the time. Or perhaps they are already well-skilled, but just need help finding a good job. This is the population we should really focus on and could move out of poverty again by empowering themselves to do it. And could do this fairly quickly.

The most effective as well as cost-effective to save money on our social insurance programs, is to design them in a way so they empower people to become self-sufficient. So they are no longer on public Aasistance and we wouldn’t have to spend as much money on them in the future.

Hazelden Foundation: Ending Homelessness For People With Mental Illness & Addiction

Source:FreeState Now

When I think of poverty in America, I think about the worst aspects of poverty for people. First, not being able to afford a house or providing enough food for themselves and their families. I believe if we are going to win the "War on Poverty" in America we need to start there first, because low-income people or the working poor generally have a place to stay and, in many cases, jobs, and even in some cases enough food to eat, but are struggling to pay their bills, which is why they would be considered low-income.

So I believe winning the so-called "War on Poverty" should be a bottom-up approach rather then a top-bottom as we saw from the FDR New Deal in the 1930s and the LBJ Great Society of the 1960s, which were both top-bottom approaches to fighting poverty in America.  We are still fighting that war today over 70 years later, since the New Deal was created because of that approach. I want to put the focus on the people who are living in impoverished conditions and the local governments that deal with them daily and are on the scene so to speak and have the best ideas of how to handle the situation along with the people they serve. With this post about poverty in America, I'm going to focus on homelessness.

In America, the worst part of poverty is battling to survive every day, not knowing where the next meal is coming from or the quality of the food, or how long they must go between meals or worst, where they will sleep. Will they have to sleep outside and worry about being mugged?  Roughly 30 years ago, when homelessness started to become a big issue in America, mental patients were being released well before they were mentally capable of taking care of themselves. The approach to dealing with the issue was to put the homeless people in homeless shelters, where they could get a meal for the night and a place to stay for at most a few days.

But then they would be put back on the streets and back in the same position wondering where they were going to sleep that night or where their next meal was coming from. In the last few years, some local governments like those in San Antonio and Sacramento have taken a different approach. They've brought in homeless from the streets and into homeless shelters, given them a meal and a place to sleep, but then have helped them find jobs and apartments.  This is a much better approach, but it's expensive, especially in these tough economic times.

I want to create a nonprofit national organization that wouldn't be owned or run by the Federal Government or any other government but would be under the same regulations as any other nonprofit organization. Its sole purpose would be to move homeless people off the streets throughout the country and into what I would call housing centers, not projects located in bad neighborhoods.  They would be housing centers where the homeless could get food and a temporary place to stay.

They would also receive help with health care, education, and job training and finding their own place to stay and finally be on the road to self-sufficiency. At first this national organization to end homelessness would be owned by the Federal Government until it is up and running but be independent of the Feds with its own management, Board of Directors, State and local affiliates, and its own budget and finances.  It would be subject to the same regulations as any other nonprofit homeless advocacy group.

How would these Homeless Centers work?

Homeless people would either be recruited off the streets or walk into a housing center. They would get a health checkup, a meal, and a temporary place to stay in the housing center. Some homeless people wouldn't be mentally or physically capable of working and would need to be institutionalized. But those who are capable of working would be given ID and a background check to determine whether they have a criminal record and what, if any, is their professional background. Some homeless people might not have finished school and would be given the opportunity to return to high school to get their GED or diploma or given the opportunity to go to a junior college or vocational school to acquire the skills needed to get a good job and their own place to stay.

Once they finish their education, they'll be helped with job placement and housing placement. 

How would these Housing Centers be financed? 

Not by taxpayers, Federal, State, or local, at least not short term, but by the homeless people who consume these services.  Their welfare, disability Insurance, unemployment insurance as well as grocery and housing assistance will cover the costs. Once they leave a housing center, they would be obligated to cover whatever costs they still owe from their paychecks. Inside a Housing Center they will be given jobs to cover those costs. 

For reasons that I've already laid out, we need a new approach to ending homelessness in America, an approach that actually empowers homeless people to become self-sufficient so they will be off the streets and self-sufficient going forward.