Compassionate Conservatism And The War On Poverty
By Michael Nevin (01/27/04)
President Lyndon Johnson’s State of the Union address forty years ago declared an unconditional war on poverty. It’s critical to take a look back in the rear view mirror of history to determine if we should continue on this chosen path. Liberal and conservative approaches to government assistance, or welfare, have conspicuous differences and those differences need to be exposed.
The liberal maxim holds that taxing the rich and subsidizing the poor will end poverty and result in Johnson’s ''Great Society.'' Liberals have demanded that government should focus on humanitarian endeavors, and they are the biggest promoters of class warfare. Among liberal elites is the sense of noblesse oblige: the French term meaning the obligation of high rank to be honorable and generous. Congressman Patrick Kennedy, a Rhode Island Democrat, lamented, ''I don’t need Bush’s tax cut. I have never worked a [bleeping] day in my life.'' While Patrick Kennedy hasn’t had a shortage of silver spoons in his life, most Americans who become wealthy actually earn their way up the economic ladder. High income tax rates affect people currently earning high incomes which is good news to blue bloods, like Kennedy, who are born into wealth.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proposed budget offers a glimpse into the ideological battle taking place in government. Schwarzenegger wants to change the current welfare practices in the state that is home to about a quarter of the families on welfare nationwide. By proposing stricter work mandates and penalizing those who have been ''sanctioned,'' the new governor has invited a firestorm of protest. State Senate Democratic leader John Burton stated, ''I see despair there. I see a state that is turning its back on the most vulnerable in our society in order to pay for a tax cut.'' Burton has proposed raising taxes on the rich apparently unaware that recent tax cuts have lead to dramatic economic growth. I would recommend that every California legislator read ''Basic Economics'' by Thomas Sowell. Columnist Jill Stewart, an expert on California politics, opines: ''Unfortunately, this particular legislature keeps offering all sorts of open-ended taxpayer-funded help and goodies to people who are not close to being poor, such as those who make 250 percent of the poverty rate--even though California is broke.''
How best do we as a society assist those among us who are less fortunate and in need of help? Should we continue to reward those that malinger with greater governmental largesse or do we promote policy encouraging people bootstrap their way up and out of poverty? The 1996 welfare reform bill may have answered both questions. The bill ended legal entitlement while emphasizing responsibility and work requirements. It also gave states control over structuring and implementing welfare reform. The results: welfare rolls shrank and according to the Census Bureau, 3.5 million fewer people now live in poverty today than in 1995. A study by the Cato Institute concluded ''that economic growth had little impact on reducing welfare rolls.'' The study goes on to say, ''Instead, states with the strongest sanctions and lowest benefit levels had the most success in reducing their caseloads.'' Americans willing to work will find that poverty is a surmountable obstacle.
Barbara Alby, current representative to the Republican National Committee and former member of the California State Assembly, was involved in a debate several years ago regarding welfare reform. A Democrat said that Republicans didn’t know what it was like to be poor. Alby stood up and told the legislators something that they didn’t know—Alby was once a welfare mother. She told the story about former Governor Ronald Reagan who passed legislation cutting her benefits many years ago. Alby recalled looking at her little girl and saying, ''Mommy’s got to make some choices.'' Barbara Alby credits those welfare cuts and the former conservative governor with taking her ''from the poor house to the state house.'' She explained to legislators, ''Compassion does not equal a bigger handout.''
The greatest motivator for both a solid economy and a solid citizen is incentive. The redistribution of wealth is the liberal idea of a cure for poverty but it fails to address underlying symptoms. Welfare dehumanizes and creates dependency on the nanny state. A welfare check arrives every month with unforeseen repercussions, namely the loss of self-respect. It is too high a price to pay for both society and the individual, and that has been the hidden cost of the War on Poverty. Certain types of temporary assistance may have valuable features but de-emphasizing the welfare state would have far lasting effects and be closer to the dream of a Great Society. An important lesson has been learned since President Lyndon Johnson’s address forty years ago: unchecked governmental handouts create a permanent class of indigents. And make no mistake, compassion it is not.
First published on www.ChronWatch.com
(Printer friendly version) Email: Michael Nevin
