September 14, 2007
POVERTY POW-WOW
 |
Greenberg says we can cut U.S. poverty in half (and have the rich pay for it!) |
Last April veteran anti-poverty advocates linked to the Center for American Progress (CAP) released a twelve-point plan to cut poverty in the United States in half in the next ten years. To pump up the proposal, Mark Greenberg, Executive Director of CAP's Poverty Task Force and one of the authors of the report, came to New York City on Wednesday to speak to the Welfare Reform Network (of which we're a member!).
Greenberg said response to the report "From Poverty to Prosperity: A National Strategy to Cut Poverty in Half," has been mixed. Conservatives have criticized the $90-billion-per-year price tag as too high and attacked the plan for failing to include marriage incentives.
But Greenberg said the cost of the proposal could be funded simply by scaling back just a few of the massive tax cuts Republicans have given to the richest Americans during the Bush administration. And he says that CAP's plan isn't radical, but rather expands on existing anti-poverty programs that have been proven to work. Key goals of the plan: promote a living wage, increase job opportunities, ensure economic security and help low-income families build up wealth. Specific recommendations include an expansion of the earned income tax credit (EITC), guaranteed child care assistance for low-income families, stable employment for former prisoners and—drum roll, please—two million new housing vouchers to help people move to and stay in opportunity-rich areas.
"There's great doubt about what can be accomplished—but it's not that we don't know what to do," Greenberg said, noting that poverty fell by 42 percent between 1964 and 1973 and dropped 25 percent from 1993 to 2000, periods when the federal government made fighting poverty a top national goal. "We just need to commit the resources to do it."
But the some 40 anti-poverty advocates who attended Greenberg's talk on Tuesday weren't among the nonbelievers. In fact, most who commented felt that the plan didn't go far enough to address those who earn incomes above the poverty line, but still don't make enough to sustain a decent quality of life. Greenberg agreed with this assessment, and said that the way poverty is calculated needs to be revamped (although his study didn't tackle that question). He worried that raising the number of people in poverty, even if accurate, would be unwise politically. "Most people in poverty don't want to think of themselves as being poor," he said. "We need something like a 'Make Ends Meet' measure'."
Bloomberg booed
Some aspects of the CAP anti-poverty plan have been backed by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, including a large-scale expansion of the EITC, although Bloomberg would deny EITC payment to noncustodial fathers who are late on their child support and to anyone working less than 26 months a year.
But it was Bloomberg's "innovative" anti-poverty experiment that really got the crowd going.
Particular venom was directed towards the pilot program to give cash incentives for low-income parents to be more involved in their children's education and medical care which audience members derided as "paternalistic." Others argued that Bloomberg's focus on young men ignores the disabled, elderly and those unable to work.
"Focusing on young people is a way to talk about the working poor and get around talking about the welfare," said Brooke Richie of the Resilience Law and Advocacy Project. "It's only contributing to the invisibility of certain groups of people."
Others in the majority-female crowd worried that women were being ignored. "It's not just about race, it's about gender, and it is women who are overwhelmingly still in poverty," said Maureen Lane, a former public assistance recipient active with the Welfare Rights Initiative.
A representative for Bloomberg in attendance said, "I understand the cynicism, but it's a concern we're trying to address."
Greenberg didn't comment directly on Bloomberg's plan, but agreed that a comprehensive poverty strategy needs to focus both on getting people good, long-term employment and assisting those that can't work. "The goal is: how do we both let people lead a decent life, and not leave behind everyone else in the process?" he said. "If you ask people if they think poverty is because of social conditions or it's an individual's fault, people are almost evenly divided. However, it's not either/or, and an overall strategy needs to recognize that it's some of both."
Greenberg doesn't expect significant change in anti-poverty policy until 2009, when a new President moves into the White House. And he said he was excited about the number of candidates from both parties who have talked about the need to fight poverty in America.
"We now have an incredible opportunity, with presidential candidates who are talking about poverty," he said. "It might not be the number one priority, but if it's among their top priorities, that's all we need."