I’ve heard that Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin has concocted
another plan in which to reduce government and lower the federal deficit. It’s
called “Expanding Opportunity in America,” and if you are wondering what the
two goals have in common, don’t worry, because Ryan has it all figured out,
sort of.
Let’s see: Fold all federal programs into “block grants” and
give them to the states to pass out as they wish. Of course, the saving money
part comes in when Republican-controlled states decide they don’t need the
block grants, because it is a matter of small government principle; that, of
course, is just one reason why Ryan’s ideas should be ignored at all costs—because,
unlike red-right states, the federal government doesn’t deny people needed
assistance based on partisan political (and, of course, racial) “principles.”
There is another part of Ryan’s plan that is just as obnoxious: Low-income
people don’t necessarily need more money—they need to spend what they make more
“wisely,” and even “save” what pennies they can, if they can. But of course
they “can.”
However, that is just a brief overview of Ryan’s proposal to
get people off government “relief” and on the road to “opportunity,” or
whatever. The fraud, of course, is that we live in a society where there is
intense and growing income inequality, and that incomes have decreased in real
terms for a growing proportion of the population, and skyrocketing for a few
people who know how to “game” the “system.” There will always be a significant
proportion of the population who will be paid far less than a livable wage, and
no amount of “opportunity” will change that so long as “opportunity” is limited
to those who have the “looks” and the social connections. Ryan and those who
think like him seem completely oblivious of reality.
Still, I think it is only fair to examine the specifics of
Ryan’s “plan” and see if there is any useful crumbs to be found. Let’s see:
On the personal level,
growing up in a two-earner household, completing formal education, and
developing a habit and a store of savings are all significantly associated with
higher rates of upward mobility.
While all of these variables are useful, they don’t necessarily
equate to “upward mobility.” I don’t want to cause trouble here, but back in the
day when a single wage-earner made enough to support a family, children didn’t
learn how to function in society or learn ethical and moral values from equally
immature friends, gangs, violent video games, “reality” television or the
latest vulgar street “rap.” Of course, it would help that any “adult” filling
this requirement not also have been “raised” in this fashion, or is
ill-educated, or sees school merely as a convenient “day care” facility; but
neither does it “help” if either working adult has no time to “tutor” or
support a child in need of assistance. And frankly, this bizarre fixation on
“savings,” especially for low-income people with a home and children to support,
seems to indicate that well-off Republicans like Ryan seem to live in a
different kind of reality.
Conversely, people who live in more
geographically isolated areas, which often suffer from high levels of
concentrated poverty and crime, are more likely to experience lower rates of
upward mobility—even those who are not poor or do not engage in such activities
themselves may be at increased risk of downward mobility.
All quite true. But as we
shall see, Ryan’s program does little to reverse these circumstances—in fact
works to do exactly the opposite of what it claims it is trying to “improve” in
“opportunity” services.
In looking at these issues, there is a tendency
to measure success by how much the government spends on programs or how many
people it spends money on. That should not be the measure of success—because
success goes beyond one’s income quintile. Success ultimately is in the
well-being of people, their happiness. And research indicates that work, faith,
family, and community are critical ingredients to people’s happiness.
What is Ryan trying to say
here? Money is not necessarily the “problem,” because more money doesn’t
necessarily equate to “happiness.” This suggests that well-off people believe
the shibboleth that low-income don’t have any ambition save to make just enough
money to sit on a sofa watching television and guzzling beer. Most people who are
low-income wage labor don’t derive any particular “happiness” from their
jobs—they just feel “lucky” to have a job at all. But Ryan suggests they can
get around this by going to church and hear how they should accept their lot in
life because that is the way God planned it—some people are meant to be rich,
because that is they God “rewards” people with “faith,” while others are meant
to be poor because, well, they just didn’t do enough to earn God’s good graces.
Ryan also seem to have misinterpreted Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol; Bob Cratchet may have found whatever happiness
he had in life from his family, but it was Scrooge supplying a large turkey and
increasing Cratchit’s pay that actually brought his household long-term
happiness.
Ryan then quotes someone from
the far-right American Enterprise Institute:
The right to define our
happiness, work to attain it and support ourselves in the process — to earn our
success — is our birthright. And it is our duty to pass this opportunity on to
our children and grandchildren.
This is the typical right-wing shibboleth of those who had it
“easy” in life from the start. “Opportunity” is what certain people choose to
allow other like people. Where I work there is company that hires people based
on 90 percent surface appearance and 10 percent substance, judging from the
amount of work they actually do. The company deliberately discriminates against
people of a certain “ethnicity”—I don’t need to tell you which one, or why. The
point is that the jobs they do requires no more ability to “earn the right” to
do, but only the opportunity to do, and opportunity is blocked because of
discriminatory hiring. And we are supposed to assume this doesn’t happen all
over? This not to say that educational qualifications are not essential in many
occupations; but in many service occupations, “surface” appearance is the only thing that matters—thus
discrimination opposed to “opportunity” is clearly in play.
The first task is to
determine how we should define progress. There are a number of broad measures
that define the health of society—such as rates of mobility, marriage, or
educational attainment—that one can use to measure success. With respect to
poverty, the most widely available metric remains the Official Poverty Measure
(OPM). By now, it is widely accepted that there are significant flaws in the
federal government’s OPM. Most importantly, it doesn’t account for all the
federal government does to relieve poverty, like the Earned Income Tax Credit,
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and other benefits. By omitting
income from these programs, the OPM may overstate the number of people in
poverty and thereby understate the efficacy of federal aid.
Ryan also overestimates the number of people on such “support.”
“Able-bodied single males” are particularly unlikely to even qualify for these
programs even if they are unemployed. Ryan also neglects to mention that
without these income supplements, people would go back to qualifying as being
“in poverty”—that is why they are receiving it in the first place! The
stupidity of the above claim cannot be
overstated, and is typical of Republican misunderstanding of the problem of
poverty and the government’s role in relieving it.
On the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty,
then, we should reexamine the federal government’s role. For too long, the
federal government has tried to supplant, and not to support, the people
fighting poverty on the front lines—families, neighborhoods, community groups.
In the fight against poverty, the people ultimately are the vanguard, and
government is the rearguard. Government protects the supply lines. But it is
the people themselves who take to the front lines.
That’s funny. Most people on the ground are not complaining
about the “government” telling them what to do, but that they do not have
enough money or resources to do their jobs, and more likely to bemoan mainly
Republican efforts to cut their funding.
Many federal regulations—especially energy
regulations—place a disproportionately large burden on low-income households.
And occupational licensing—most often at the state and local level—too often
protects incumbents instead of the public. This proposal would require Congress
to review any proposed federal regulation that would unduly burden low-income
families. It also calls for states and local governments to revise their
licensing laws.
What can Ryan possibly be talking about here? About polluting
industries placing operations in poor neighborhoods? No, about regulations
meant to safeguard their well-being, but place “undue burdens” on industry. I
can’t get enough of this Orwellian doublethink that Republicans repeatedly
engage in.
Results-Driven Research: This proposal calls for
a commission to examine the best ways to encourage rigorous analysis of our
safety-net programs. Specifically, the commission would consider the
implementation of a new Clearinghouse for Program and Survey Data to enhance
research capabilities and help us policymakers design more effective programs.
Poverty is a very complex
problem, and Washington doesn’t have all the answers. This paper is not meant
to serve as the final word, but to start a conversation all across the country.
Sounds fine in print, but how often have we had these kind of
“commissions” in the past that were useless partisan exercises that led to
nothing? Poverty, after all, isn’t that
complex. It is about massive wage discrepancies, too many people demanding jobs
who then drive down wages for all, the domestic economic effect of buying cheap
foreign-manufactured goods—and not just the lack of opportunity, but the
perception that opportunity is in the hands of the “privileged.” We don’t need
another “conversation” to know that this is true.
The biggest snag in the safety net is that it
discourages work. Many federal programs are means-tested, so as families earn
more money, they get less aid. Any system that concentrates on the most
vulnerable will face this tension. But the current system exacerbates it by
layering on program after program without ensuring any coordination among them.
Don’t you just “love”
right-wing inanity? Ryan just complained that many people who receive aid no
longer “qualify” as being impoverished, and now he is saying that people who
work for a living will be “discouraged” from doing so because they are not
receiving enough aid, so why work at all? Ryan shows a great deal of contempt
for working people in assuming that this is their “ethic.” I’ve never made
enough to have a comfortable living, but I’ve never thought it would be
“better” for me to rely on government programs I would only “qualify” for if I
didn’t work at all. All this “welfare queen” business may be true in some
segments of society, but most people have more pride than what Ryan gives them
credit for.
Or take another example: a single mother with
one child.15 Imagine that she earns $7.25 an hour working full-time year-round
(or $15,080 a year). She will make just below the poverty line, which was
$15,730 in 2014.16 Now imagine she’s offered a raise to $10.35 an hour (or
$21,528 a year). If she accepts, she’ll hit the peak rate on the phase-out of
federal aid. At this point, thanks to higher taxes and lower benefits, she will
effectively keep only 10 cents of every extra dollar she makes.
Isn’t it the “point” of
making more money to get off the dole? Ryan attacks federal anti-poverty
programs as being wasteful, and implies that people don’t necessarily need more
money, but just to be “happy” in their circumstance, with the “help” of their
“faith” and “community.” But here he reverses himself and claims that making
more (considerably) more money in a job is not an“advancement” in “opportunity,
“but to be seen as a “step back” by a person who has become “dependent” on
government assistance. Again, Ryan shows great contempt for the ethic and pride
of working people he clearly does not understand—so typical of Republicans.
Ryan then launches into his
“plan,” which he mendaciously calls the “Opportunity Grant Program.” The
OG would fold the following programs under its purview:
• The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
• The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
• Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV)
• Section 521 Rural Rental Assistance Payments
• Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance
• Public Housing Capital and Operating Funds
• Child Care and Development Fund
• The Weatherization Assistance Program
• The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
• WIA Dislocated Workers
Now, “block grants” are notorious for their misuse by states
and local government, often used not in conjunction with existing state and
local programs, but in fact to cancel them out in pursuit of balanced
budgets—so that their actual effect is to reduce the effectiveness and reach of
anti-poverty programs. Frankly, it seems obvious to me that keeping these
programs separate would insure that they are given the proper attention they
deserve; putting them under the same umbrella would only confuse any caseworker
forced to understand them all and how to utilize them; chaos will be the
result.
To get out of poverty, some people need just
temporary assistance. But to stay out of poverty, many people need to develop
skills and life habits. In administering aid, the federal government has a
major influence on low-income housing, transportation, and child care—all of
which can help or hinder people trying to get ahead. Far too often, federal aid
is fragmented and formulaic; it doesn’t coordinate these services to help
people achieve their goals.
So how does low-income
housing, transportation and child care assistance “hinder” people trying to
“get ahead”? It doesn’t, but Ryan isn’t here to talk about what “works,” but to
imply that everything that the government is doing now “isn’t.”
But there are
organizations that do provide such comprehensive
assistance, such as Catholic Charities. These groups focus on the unique needs
of each family and help people develop their individual strengths. It is their
intimate knowledge of the people they serve—as well as their ability to take
the long view—that makes these groups so successful. They are more effective
than distant federal bureaucracies for a simple reason: They don’t just relieve
the pain of poverty; they give people the means to get out of poverty.
Here we go again: Faith,
community and assorted “volunteer” services do better. I have news for Ryan:
The aid such services provide is short-term, too little and tend to be very
discriminatory about who “qualifies” for assistance. They don’t do any of the
things described here, or at least not for long or enough.
Providers must be held accountable, and so
should recipients. Each beneficiary will sign a contract with consequences for
failing to meet the agreed-upon benchmarks. At the same time, there should also
be incentives for people to go to work. Under each life plan, if the individual
meets the benchmarks ahead of schedule, then he or she could be rewarded. For
example, if the goal of an individual’s plan is to find a job within six
months, and he or she starts working within three months, he or she could
receive a bonus. Bonuses could take a number of creative forms, such as a
savings bond.
Now things are getting really interesting. “Could be rewarded”
for achieving “benchmarks” by receiving a “bonus”? What if the individual
doesn’t meet the “benchmark” of finding employment within the “agreed upon”
time frame in the “contract” they are forced to sign to receive anti-poverty
assistance—particularly if through no fault of effort? Note that Ryan already
spoke of poverty of being a “complex” issue; now he is saying that it is just
as easy as signing a contract stating that you will have a job, or else, in a
set amount of time. There are jobs just waiting for you to take, if you only
get off your lazy fundament. But it gets “better”:
First, each state will approve a list of
certified providers that are held accountable for providing quality service and
achieving results (such as moving people to work, out of poverty, and off of
assistance).
Next, a person will select a provider, and the
provider will conduct a comprehensive assessment of that person’s needs,
abilities, and circumstances.
Then, the two of them will develop a
customized plan to address the recipient’s needs. The plan could take the form
of a contract—with sanctions for failing and bonuses for exceeding
expectations. The plan would offer financial assistance to address immediate
needs, like food, clothing, child care, and housing. But it would also work on
setting goals, learning skills, and developing a broader support system.
At the most basic level, successful completion
of a contract will involve an able-bodied individual obtaining a job and
earning enough to live above the poverty line. Each state may choose to define
success slightly differently insofar as those basic conditions are met.
Unlike formulaic federal programs, case
management can provide a holistic kind of aid—one that takes a fuller view of
each person’s wants and needs.
If this all sounds like
pie-in-sky fantasia, it is. First off, Ryan proposed to establish a whole new bureaucracy
of red tape and confusion by creating the position of “provider”—or “life
coach”—who will sit down with a recipient and propose a “plan” on how to
achieve a sustainable long-term existence. In theory it sounds just great, but
how many providers will there be, and how much time and resources will they be
able to bring to individual cases? I can tell you from experience that the
“help” that such people can “provide” is extremely limited—especially given the
fact that what qualifies as “needy” is subject to the “interpretation” of such
by others not personally involved.
Our current system of formulaic aid is focused
on treating the symptoms of poverty. Case management, however, can see the
potential in its clients and help them get out of poverty. By allowing for
flexibility, the OG could empower state and local providers to give
personalized, customized aid that mitigates the disincentives of high marginal
tax rates and counteracts the federal government’s traditional
one-size-fits-all approach.
The operative word, as we have seen before, is “could.”
States under this plan will not be required to provide “personalized”
assistance that provides a “holistic” approach. Note too the mention of “high
marginal tax rates” which we usually hear in terms of the very wealthy; one
suspects that this is right-wing ploy to twist the lack of sympathy for rich
(as the rich do to the poor) when it is generally believed that the rich don’t
pay enough taxes on their wasteful largesse. After all, Republicans always
complain that the poor don’t pay their “fair share” in taxes, so whose leg is
Ryan trying to pull now?
Childless workers, on the other hand, receive
relatively few benefits from the EITC. In 2011, for example, they received just
3 percent of all EITC funding.34 Under current law, childless workers can
receive a maximum credit of only $496, whereas a single earner with three or
more children can receive as much as $6,143.
What is being referred to
here is the Earned Income Tax Credit, which I never knew I qualified for until
Turbo Tax told me so.
Not surprisingly, the EITC has significantly
reduced poverty among families with children, but it has done relatively little
to reduce poverty among childless workers.
Well, here is something I
can agree with.
As a result, there’s a
growing consensus to expand the EITC for childless workers—for a number of
reasons. Most importantly, labor-force participation among young adults has dropped
precipitously in recent years. In addition, labor-force participation among men
with a high-school degree or less has declined by 14.2 percentage points since
1973 and about 8 percentage points since 1990, though some of this decline may
be the inevitable result of an aging population. The unemployment rate for
those with less than a high-school degree is 9.1 percent—well above the norm.
Given the EITC’s success in boosting work among families with children, a
larger EITC should have a similar effect on childless workers.
Well, alright. Does this mean Ryan is proposing a boost in the
EITC for single workers? But what is the point? Again, people want work not
just because they need money, but out of self-respect and societal
expectations. There is no reason to think that people are factoring the EITC
into the equation; as I just mentioned before, I didn’t even know I qualified
for it, but even if I did that wouldn’t be a disincentive for me from seeking
employment.
This shared responsibility means the federal
government cannot solve all the problems in education. Whenever the federal
government grows too large—too cumbersome and too obtrusive—it becomes less of
a conduit and more of an obstacle. States, local governments, and other
community groups must take the lead in reforming elementary and secondary
education. And, of course, the greatest responsibility for a child’s education
lies with the family. That’s why public policies that encourage work and a
stable home life are key.
Again, Ryan gives state and
local government way too much credit. Both discriminate against such groups as
“able-bodied single males” regardless of their need, affordable housing
availability is years away once you even get on a list, and “volunteer”
organizations are extremely limited in their scope and resources. Perhaps Ryan
suggests that these organization can do better with additional federal funds,
but the truth of the matter is that on the federal level there is much less
“discrimination” involved in who “qualifies” for assistance, especially when
you have, say, female state DSHS workers who only see women with or without
children as being within the purview of their “help.”
But the federal government can do a better job.
Kerry Searle Grannis and Isabel Sawhill argue that direct aid at key moments in
children’s lives can help close the achievement gap. To make the federal aid
intended to close this gap more effective, this proposal focuses on areas of
intervention where the current system is broken and local reforms are not sufficient
to fix it. Aid is concentrated on those who will benefit most from help: the
disadvantaged and vulnerable. Funding is distributed to individuals when
possible, then to local and state governments, to ensure those closest to the
problem are empowered. Reforms are intended to disrupt the status quo’s
shortcomings and encourage innovation while ensuring flexibility for
individuals and states. By engaging in reforms along these principles, the
federal government can help close the achievement gap by expanding access to
education.
Good god, what a bad case
of gibberitis. Now Ryan proposes giving money directly to people, but to what
purpose? Not to worry, here are his “ideas”:
To make sure aid flows to the most vulnerable,
post-secondary institutions must work to ensure federal aid supplements, not
supplants, their own efforts to support low-income students. Stephen Burd says
there is extensive evidence that “many schools are engaged in an elaborate
shell game: using Pell Grants to supplement institutional aid they would have
provided to financially needy students otherwise, and then shifting these funds
to help recruit wealthier students.
What happened? What does
this have to do with closing the “achievement gap” of children when they are
young? I told you there were “holes” in Ryan’s “plan.” Well, anyways, I thought
that Ryan said that state and local sources do “better” with handing out aid
money than on the federal level, where these grants are given directly to the
“needy” person. Here it is suggested exactly what I suggested before: In the
hands of state and local governments, aid money is either misused or not going
to those who need it.
[Enrollment managers try to increase] the
‘yield rate’ for the most desirable prospects―typically academic stars and
those willing to pay more or all of the tuition (‘full pays’). . . . In the
least desirable categories (usually poor students with lower test scores)
accepted students are often ‘gapped’―given a fraction of what they would need
to attend, even after the maximum possible contribution from their families. .
. . Called ‘admit-deny,’ this practice allows a college to keep poor students
out while publically claiming that it doesn’t consider a student’s finances
when making admission decisions.
At least here Ryan
recognizes part of the problem in his “thesis” about increasing “opportunity”
for those on the lower-end of the income and social scale. “Opportunity” is
mostly for those who are on the “privileged” side of the social and economic
scale—mainly white people, and those Asian International students who can
afford to pay astronomical tuition fees, and are even more courted for
admission, thus further reducing “opportunity” for those most in need of
escaping the cycle of poverty.
The federal government has
focused most of its attention on the demand-side of the education market. To
make college more affordable, it should also work on the supply side. Important
changes are already underway: The rise of massive online open courses (MOOCs),
for instance, has the potential to provide convenient, lower-cost educational
opportunities for millions. But for innovative models to succeed, they need
greater credibility. Students who build a customized plan of study need some
sort of credential to show employers they have learned the necessary skills.
And one way to develop these credentials is to reform the accreditation process
As if schools have not become even less focused on the required
skills of a complex society—instead providing kids laptop computers which they
take home to play games and watch videos instead of doing any actual
“learning”—Ryan suggests that people can take a shortcut to learning new skills
without any real proof of practical application. The fact is that “online” or
“correspondence” courses do not really take the place of in-class, hands-on
learning. Arnold Schwarzenegger got a college “degree” through correspondence
courses, but he still was a lousy governor whose English gives the impression
of a moron.
But regulatory costs are baked into every good
and service, and lower-income households have to contribute a larger share of
their income to pay for cost increases resulting from these regulations. As
Diana Thomas, an assistant professor of economics at Utah State University,
points out, “[R]egulation has a regressive effect: It redistributes wealth from
lower-income households to higher-income households by causing lower-income households
to pay for risk reduction worth more to the wealthy.”
What isn’t mentioned here
is that businesses choose to pass on the cost of regulation from themselves to
consumers. And why should we take the word of right-wing economics professors?
They are only trying to “prove” their “point” by conning the poor to look at
things as in their interest, rather than the reality that regulation is much
more opposed by businesses and the wealthy for their own reasons.
.
As a result, regulations come with a hidden but
very real cost that can greatly exceed the benefits to low-income families.
These expensive regulations eat up households’ disposable income and thereby
crowd out their ability to mitigate risks that are far more imminent for them. For example, having less disposable income
makes it harder for families to purchase healthy food, which is more expensive
than junk food and can help mitigate the risk of heart disease and other health
problems, or move their families to a safer, but more expensive neighborhood.
Note that Ryan doesn’t blame industry that maximizes profit
and compensates its executives outrageous amounts as the reason why workers
don’t have enough money. It’s all “government’s” fault, when
deregulation—especially in regard to financial services and Wall Street, which
has been the culprit in the most damaging economic downturns—is the enemy of
the people and the “friend” of the wealthy who are only motivated by greed.
Ryan then goes into an exhaustive exposition about the loss
of “opportunity” due to incarceration. He does suggest that petty, non-violent
criminals—especially in drug-related crimes—should not be subject to onerous
federal sentencing guidelines, and instead be provided a path to useful
citizenry. I don’t have any particular problem with any of this, only that
again, states have proved that they are poor stewards of such programs.
Ryan’s “plan” ends, curiously, by suggesting that low-income
people can really just solve all their problems by “saving” money and putting
it in retirement accounts. I wonder what he is implying by this typical
right-wing suggestion? I mean, why even suggest this when he knows that
low-income people are on relief because they don’t have enough to live on to
begin with? Just more right-wing doubletalk.
The bottom line is that Ryan tries to fake it that he
“empathizes” with and “understands” the problems of the poor, but he doesn’t at
all. He doesn’t take into account the dearth of jobs in the inner city, he
doesn’t take into account the greed of employers, he doesn’t take into account
hiring discrimination, and he doesn’t take into account the issue of
“opportunity” at all. The perception that “opportunity” is out of reach for
millions s because the “privileged” class have decided to put barriers (so-called
“merit-based”) to deny them the ability to achieve “upward mobility.” This
whole exercise is a farce.
No comments:
Post a Comment