Print
Let’s give Mitt Romney the benefit of the doubt: He didn’t really mean it when he said, “I’m not concerned about the very poor.” Or, let’s just say he cares about them no less than he cares about the rest of us. Only 41 percent of respondents in a recent poll said that Romney “cares about people like me,” so if the wisdom of crowds is any guide, the very poor are hardly unique as objects of his indifference.
Let’s look instead at Romney’s follow-up: That there’s a “safety net” for the very poor, and “if there are holes in it, I’ll fix them.” This isn’t just a walk-back of the “not concerned” comment. It represents a very real element of an emerging conservative argument, one that deserves to be taken seriously. In this antiquated vision of the economy, everything is fine for most people, but there is a slice of the “very poor” who might need some help. Poverty, in this vision, is the exception; prosperity and opportunity without government aid is the norm. (Jonathan Cohn noted yesterday that Romney and his party aren’t serious about repairing the safety net, but for our purposes, let’s take him at his word.)
In some ways, Romney’s poverty-exceptionalism is an old postwar liberal vision. John Kenneth Galbraith, in The Affluent Society, wrote about “islands” of poverty in the midst of plenty. Michael Harrington’s breakthrough in The Other America, which will celebrate its fiftieth anniversary this year, was to show that poverty was whiter and more widespread than Galbraith had assumed, touching perhaps 40 million people, which was still just one fifth of the country. (Today we’d call it “the 20%”.) William Julius Wilson, in his 1987 book The Truly Disadvantaged, called for a focus not so much on the breadth of poverty, but on its depth and intractability in one of Galbraith’s “islands,” the black inner-city. Much liberal philanthropy and social services are still driven by a vision not of the economy as a whole, but of poverty as a distinct and identifiable exception within an otherwise functioning system.
Often, it was conservatives and Republicans who challenged the poverty-exceptionalism of liberals. Ronald Reagan, for example, was a supporter of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which benefited not the very poor, but those who had low incomes even though they worked. Over the course of the 1980s and 1990s, both Republicans and Democrats gradually built out programs like Medicaid to extend beyond the poverty line, a long trend that culminated in the mandatory expansion of Medicaid by an estimated 16 million people in the Affordable Care Act, as well as the subsidies for people earning up to four times the poverty line. To the extent that the 1996 welfare reform “worked,” it was in part because of these expansions: They ensured that people wouldn’t automatically lose all their other supports if they moved from the ranks of welfare recipients to the working poor. The idea that the safety net could be a trap, unless some of its benefits were extended to the working poor and even beyond, was not purely a conservative idea, but it was a point of significant bipartisan agreement.
Romney, and a new group of conservative thinkers, have aggressively rejected this consensus. Romney attacks our current “entitlement society” as “a fundamental corruption of American society” because it provides benefits to a large swath of society. The “entitlement society,” Romney has said, “makes us all poor,” because it encourages so many of us to rely on the government for services. William Voegeli of the Claremont Institute has made a similar argument in his book, Never Enough: America’s Limitless Welfare State. The extension of benefits and supports to the working poor and beyond, Voegeli argues, knows no natural boundaries and will eventually consume all our resources. This new-ish argument is an extension of the claim made by deficit hawks such as David Walker of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation that an “entitlement crisis” is the cause of long-term budget deficits. But Romney, like Voegeli, takes it much, much further: “The battle we face today is more than a fight over our budget. It is a battle for America’s soul.” Government programs for the non-poor, in other words, are not just expensive, but actually detrimental to the vast majority of their beneficiaries.
Voegeli, like Romney, claims to support a strong safety net—as long as it’s exclusively for the very poor. So does Representative Paul Ryan, who argued in the Wall Street Journal last April that “the safety net for the poor is coming apart at the seams” and promised “a secure safety net” as part of his budget proposal. Like Romney, Ryan’s proposals don’t actually reflect this vision (his proposal to convert Medicaid to a block grant to the states, for example, would destroy that system for the very poor as well as the working poor), but what they claim to be doing is reducing government spending by focusing benefits on the “truly disadvantaged.” Meanwhile, those who aren’t truly disadvantaged are expected to somehow benefit from being left on their own.
In taking up this new conservative line, Romney and others are trashing an important part of Reagan’s legacy and a significant bipartisan innovation over the past few decades. The idea of supporting and rewarding work and responsibility met up with the recognition that people need supports—health care, child care, income security—in order to take full advantage of opportunities after they leave the ranks of the “very poor.” And in the current economy, the working poor and near-poor need every bit of help they can get to avoid slipping further down. That’s probably much more true than when Harrington wrote, at a time when Americans above the poverty line were far more likely to belong to a union, have some job security, and have little debt. Today’s low-income workers bear far more risk of unemployment, health costs, and debt. Without protections such as Medicaid and job training, the proverbial “safety net” will be pitched so low that by the time people reach it, they will already have slipped off the main track of the economy. The need to look at the economy as a whole, in which poverty is not an exception but both the working poor and the very poor, along with a large portion of the rest of the 99%, are similarly struggling, is greater than ever.
Romney deserves mockery for his clumsy language. He deserves to be called out for the fact that he wouldn’t actually “repair” the safety net. But we should also recognize that there is an underlying vision to his mangled words, and that that vision marks a dramatic break from the conservative tradition. It’s also far out of step with what people need in order to participate in the modern American economy.
Mark Schmitt is a senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and former editor of The American Prospect.
Great article. Oh, and lets not forget Republican President Nixon's failed-but-telling Family Assistance Plan, which would have instituted a mandatory national income and provided government incentives to encourage work. Shows just how far the Republican Party has fallen.
Great article. Oh, and lets not forget Republican President Nixon's failed-but-telling Family Assistance Plan, which would have instituted a mandatory national income and provided government incentives to encourage work. Shows just how far the Republican Party has fallen.
It all goes back to the notion that lazy undeserving people are looking to take something away from us. What is lost in that notion is the over riding need to have a civil society with a minimum of discontent. I don't want to live in a society where I will need high walls and private guards to protect my hacienda. No wonder envy is so troubling to Mitt Romney..
It all goes back to the notion that lazy undeserving people are looking to take something away from us. What is lost in that notion is the over riding need to have a civil society with a minimum of discontent. I don't want to live in a society where I will need high walls and private guards to protect my hacienda. No wonder envy is so troubling to Mitt Romney..
"To the extent that the 1996 welfare reform “worked,” it was in part because of these expansions: They ensured that people wouldn’t automatically lose all their other supports if they moved from the ranks of welfare recipients to the working poor."
Sorry, but that isn't true. Welfare reform worked because it's basic idea--that the small portion of the total welfare population (the 20% who consumed 80% of the program's costs)were in fact welfare-dependent--was correct. They could have gotten off the program but didn't want to. Taking "punitive" action (i.e., cutting off benefits) against any welfare recipient, not matter how recalcitrant and irresponsible, was, and is, anathema to paleo- ... view full comment
"To the extent that the 1996 welfare reform “worked,” it was in part because of these expansions: They ensured that people wouldn’t automatically lose all their other supports if they moved from the ranks of welfare recipients to the working poor."
Sorry, but that isn't true. Welfare reform worked because it's basic idea--that the small portion of the total welfare population (the 20% who consumed 80% of the program's costs)were in fact welfare-dependent--was correct. They could have gotten off the program but didn't want to. Taking "punitive" action (i.e., cutting off benefits) against any welfare recipient, not matter how recalcitrant and irresponsible, was, and is, anathema to paleo-liberals like Schmitt, but it benefits everyone, even those who would prefer not to be benefited.
Excellent piece--very informative.
Excellent piece--very informative.
Truly excellent piece Mr. Schmitt. Romney is an economic royalist and his recent comments just cement that. No more "hand up." Instead, it's "thumbs down."
Truly excellent piece Mr. Schmitt. Romney is an economic royalist and his recent comments just cement that. No more "hand up." Instead, it's "thumbs down."
Excellent article. Yes, conservatism is not very compassionate any more. It supports an economy where corporations are making record profits, because they fired American workers and replaced them with foreign workers, computers, and robots. And then it blames the unemployed for not having jobs. How can you get a job, if there are none to be had? Gingrich has been especially idiotic on this issue. He's telling us that, if somebody changes his or her work ethic, jobs can be plucked off trees. Well, I lived for 10 years on one of Galbraith's "islands," the inner city of Detroit, and, as I saw Americans slowly begin to stop buying cars, jobs began to disappear, and so did the work ethic. ... view full comment
Excellent article. Yes, conservatism is not very compassionate any more. It supports an economy where corporations are making record profits, because they fired American workers and replaced them with foreign workers, computers, and robots. And then it blames the unemployed for not having jobs. How can you get a job, if there are none to be had? Gingrich has been especially idiotic on this issue. He's telling us that, if somebody changes his or her work ethic, jobs can be plucked off trees. Well, I lived for 10 years on one of Galbraith's "islands," the inner city of Detroit, and, as I saw Americans slowly begin to stop buying cars, jobs began to disappear, and so did the work ethic. When Detroit was booming, I knew blacks who worked 2 full-time jobs. But how were they to work 2 jobs, when even one wasn't available? So the working poor and the unemployed manufactured their own jobs, drug dealing and pimping. The gunfire never stopped in my neighborhood. I could hear guns popping either close-by or in the distance 24 hours a day. It's ugly, but, hey, a job is a job. Everyone has to eat.
Until corporate America and conservatives grow some guts and realize that they prosper because others don't, they'll still be blaming the working poor and the unemployed for the sad condition of Galbraith's "islands." These cold-blooded creatures are even against Obama's American Jobs Act, because it would raise taxes slightly on the rich. But, I guarantee you, there are a lot of people in the inner city who would love to get to work repairing the infrastructure in some of their own neighborhoods. Maybe Romney should go on a Mormon mission in the inner city. Maybe he'd find out something about real Americans there. And it would certainly help his street cred.
Mark Schmidt, it's a shame you didn't dig more on the topic of marginal tax rate for the very poor. This safety net isn't a net to catch you on the way down. It's a net over the roof to make sure you never get out.
If someone who is completely dependent on the government earns $1000 by doing some job, then they lose $800 in benefits, and thus paid an effective 80% tax on their earnings of $1000. It gets worse. There are spots in the welfare program where you lose MORE than a $1 for every dollar you earn. Thus your effective tax rate is over 100%.
It is this welfare hole that is impossible to dig out of.
It is this hole that creates generations of dependents. If you've never seen your mom and ... view full comment
Mark Schmidt, it's a shame you didn't dig more on the topic of marginal tax rate for the very poor. This safety net isn't a net to catch you on the way down. It's a net over the roof to make sure you never get out.
If someone who is completely dependent on the government earns $1000 by doing some job, then they lose $800 in benefits, and thus paid an effective 80% tax on their earnings of $1000. It gets worse. There are spots in the welfare program where you lose MORE than a $1 for every dollar you earn. Thus your effective tax rate is over 100%.
It is this welfare hole that is impossible to dig out of.
It is this hole that creates generations of dependents. If you've never seen your mom and dad come home from work tired, or if you've never seen your parents buy a brand new car because of a raise your dad got..... And instead you see your parents watch TV all day waiting for the welfare check...then Newt was right. You will not understand that work is something you do in exchange for money. In fact, work would seem an outright silly concept: You go to some place for a long time, get yelled at my a manager, and do a job that isn't very much fun, and you get money. When you could get almost as much money for watching TV?
Today, an EBT card is used as supplementary income. Not to buy necessities. I stood behind someone in line at Safeway the other day, and their cart was loaded with a lot of not very good food. And 3 6 packs of red bull. And they paid with their EBT card + some cash. Now, you can argue they bought the junk and redbull with their own money. And technically they did. But the more proper way of thinking about this is: If they have money left over at the end of the month to buy redbull, then probably their benefits could be reduced.
How many would be happy with EBT if it consisted of stuff that was healthy and good for you? (Side note, it's amazing that our government is so intent on controlling diets of the general population, but oblivious to the diets of those that use actual government money for their meals).
Romney screwed this entire question up because he failed to note that welfare is the cruelest of life sentences. It's like putting a spectacular creature--a tiger--into a cage. A creature with the ability to hunt, live and thrive. And in turn making that creature dependent on a zoo keeper for their daily food . It is denying people the greatest pleasure in this world, which is the ability to create, produce and grow.
AlanVann, bullseye.
and lets get rid of Public schools for all but the very poor, after all if Private schools were good enough for Mitt Romney, then damn well they should be good enough for everyone else. And if they can't afford them, let them get second jobs...
Romney is a total ahole. The reason why China stays so poor is because there are no safety supports for the middle class. My in laws save 50% of their take home pay because of anxiety over the future, no health care, no secure retirement, etc. Romney wants to turn America into China, a small elite of super rich and the masses toiling to serve them.
and lets get rid of Public schools for all but the very poor, after all if Private schools were good enough for Mitt Romney, then damn well they should be good enough for everyone else. And if they can't afford them, let them get second jobs...
Romney is a total ahole. The reason why China stays so poor is because there are no safety supports for the middle class. My in laws save 50% of their take home pay because of anxiety over the future, no health care, no secure retirement, etc. Romney wants to turn America into China, a small elite of super rich and the masses toiling to serve them.
seattle, and what do you propose to do with people who simply can't get jobs, any job? I am talking about the millions of ex-cons. When unemployment is high like now, why would anyone hire them?
And your solution is to throw millions of people who can't find jobs out on the street to turn them into "tigers" or something. you would make a great Chinese peasant, slaving for the rich.
And I say horseshit to your make believe experience at the check out counter. Programs like WIC only allow people to buy raw staples, like lima beans. If WIC didn't require that most healthy food would not be bought since junk food is high in calories. If people have little money they will buy the thing ... view full comment
seattle, and what do you propose to do with people who simply can't get jobs, any job? I am talking about the millions of ex-cons. When unemployment is high like now, why would anyone hire them?
And your solution is to throw millions of people who can't find jobs out on the street to turn them into "tigers" or something. you would make a great Chinese peasant, slaving for the rich.
And I say horseshit to your make believe experience at the check out counter. Programs like WIC only allow people to buy raw staples, like lima beans. If WIC didn't require that most healthy food would not be bought since junk food is high in calories. If people have little money they will buy the thing that fills them up, this is why inner cities are nutrition deserts. Or do you imagine they will travel to the suburbs to shop at whole foods?
And your notion that working poor deserve nothing in the way of pleasure foods is also nuts. Here is a thought, how about paying the working poor a decent wage?
Oh no, you can't do that, how else will you lord your superiority over them?
Maybe the working poor are doing so badly, and in such need of safety-net programs like the EITC and expanded Medicare, because job creators like Mitt Romney pay them such shitty salaries and offer such poor benefits.
Maybe the working poor are doing so badly, and in such need of safety-net programs like the EITC and expanded Medicare, because job creators like Mitt Romney pay them such shitty salaries and offer such poor benefits.
"How many would be happy with EBT if it consisted of stuff that was healthy and good for you? (Side note, it's amazing that our government is so intent on controlling diets of the general population, but oblivious to the diets of those that use actual government money for their meals)."
Seattle, this suggests that you really don't know much about how EBT works (nor should you, if your principal interaction with people who use EBT is at Safeway). State health departments are allowed by the Federal Department of Agriculture to set guidelines for what kinds of food and other goods can be used for EBT. The eligibility guidelines vary, but EBT doesn't apply anywhere to things like alcohol, cigar ... view full comment
"How many would be happy with EBT if it consisted of stuff that was healthy and good for you? (Side note, it's amazing that our government is so intent on controlling diets of the general population, but oblivious to the diets of those that use actual government money for their meals)."
Seattle, this suggests that you really don't know much about how EBT works (nor should you, if your principal interaction with people who use EBT is at Safeway). State health departments are allowed by the Federal Department of Agriculture to set guidelines for what kinds of food and other goods can be used for EBT. The eligibility guidelines vary, but EBT doesn't apply anywhere to things like alcohol, cigarettes or pet foods and many states have made efforts to exclude junk food items or carbonated drinks from EBT eligibility. To the extent that states haven't been able to limit EBT eligibility solely to items that are "healthy and good for you" is due to the fierce lobbying of manufacturers of said junk food -- you know, icons of American capitalism like PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Frito Lay, Nabisco and others. Who are generally speaking backed to the hilt by Republican legislators at both the state and Federal levels.
@Blackton: I was going to say something to seattle like, "Hey jackass, if you were a single parent going on 4 hours sleep a night thanks to working 3 jobs just to put food on the table and a roof over your family's head, you'd be drinking red bull too." But I like yours better. :)
@Blackton: I was going to say something to seattle like, "Hey jackass, if you were a single parent going on 4 hours sleep a night thanks to working 3 jobs just to put food on the table and a roof over your family's head, you'd be drinking red bull too." But I like yours better. :)
SeattleEng, I think it's amazing how you doggedly persist with these memes, no matter how often you are refuted. Having said that...
It's interesting that you don't know that WIC typically does restrict people to buying more or less healthy foods.
It's interesting how you bemoan big gummint's efforts to regulate nutrition, and in the same sentence propose your own regulations on nutrition (if you buy red bull, we'll reduce your WIC benefits).
You bemoan welfare as if the benefits will last forever, and a lazy person will never have to work again. Except the only person who can receive welfare benefits indefinitely is someone who can never again experience the ... view full comment
SeattleEng, I think it's amazing how you doggedly persist with these memes, no matter how often you are refuted. Having said that...
It's interesting that you don't know that WIC typically does restrict people to buying more or less healthy foods.
It's interesting how you bemoan big gummint's efforts to regulate nutrition, and in the same sentence propose your own regulations on nutrition (if you buy red bull, we'll reduce your WIC benefits).
You bemoan welfare as if the benefits will last forever, and a lazy person will never have to work again. Except the only person who can receive welfare benefits indefinitely is someone who can never again experience the joy of earning a living and thereby qualifies for SSD.
You charge liberals with class warfare, and yet you wage the filthiest of wars against legions of straw men in your petulant pursuit of resentment politics against the welfare queens.
This article is very strange. It's written as if Romney had said he isn't going to focus on the middle class and is only going to focus on the poor. Of course, that's the opposite of what Romney said. By the way, Obama in 2008 took the same rhetorical approach as Romney: focusing on the middle class. (Obama didn't even deign to mention the poor.)
This article is very strange. It's written as if Romney had said he isn't going to focus on the middle class and is only going to focus on the poor. Of course, that's the opposite of what Romney said. By the way, Obama in 2008 took the same rhetorical approach as Romney: focusing on the middle class. (Obama didn't even deign to mention the poor.)
Wildboy writes: "State health departments are allowed by the Federal Department of Agriculture to set guidelines for what kinds of food and other goods can be used for EBT. "
GSpinks writes: "It's interesting that you don't know that WIC typically does restrict people to buying more or less healthy foods."
USDA says the only limit is that you cannot buy: alcohol, cigs, hot foods, foods eaten at the store, vitamins/medicine/pet food, non-food items (soap, etc).
So twinkies, chips are redbull are fair game. Not healthy, GSpinks. At all.
www.fns ... view full comment
Wildboy writes: "State health departments are allowed by the Federal Department of Agriculture to set guidelines for what kinds of food and other goods can be used for EBT. "
GSpinks writes: "It's interesting that you don't know that WIC typically does restrict people to buying more or less healthy foods."
USDA says the only limit is that you cannot buy: alcohol, cigs, hot foods, foods eaten at the store, vitamins/medicine/pet food, non-food items (soap, etc).
So twinkies, chips are redbull are fair game. Not healthy, GSpinks. At all.
www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailers/pdfs/Retailer_Training_Guide.pdf
And you are right about the soft drink industries and EBT. But that doesn't make it right. Our government should outright ban the purchase of empty calories of all kinds with EBT.
NY City estimates that $100M is spent on soft drinks each year via EBT cards. Bloomberg wants to shut it down. At least he says he does.
When someone does buy cola with EBT, then they are denying someone else an entire filling meal, if you believe that in fact the food stamps program is cash constrained. And it is.
EBT is a $65B a year program, adn now we have fast food joints fighting for eligibility.
What a wonderful program.
GSpinks writes: "You bemoan welfare as if the benefits will last forever"
If food stamps were there to cover a 2 month shortage here and there, then I get it. Unfortunately, the median duration is 8 months. And as of 2006, 20% are on food stamps for 24 months or longer. I suspect today it is much longer.
myfoodstamps.org/pdf_files/Lengthbenefits06.pdf
Outrageous
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-03/goldman-s-blankfein-awarded-7m-...
Results of bailout wall street, screw main street.
Outrageous
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-03/goldman-s-blankfein-awarded-7m-...
Results of bailout wall street, screw main street.
Improvements.
And the banks cheated on foreclosures. They are being sued .
http://online.wsj.com/article/AP49a5ae2893f744cf99dc2f4fe9a52137.html
Slowly but sure. Republicans are not to be in power .
Improvements.
And the banks cheated on foreclosures. They are being sued .
http://online.wsj.com/article/AP49a5ae2893f744cf99dc2f4fe9a52137.html
Slowly but sure. Republicans are not to be in power .
"It is this welfare hole that is impossible to dig out of."
Then why do some people in fact dig out of it? Perhaps there are spots where earning an extra $1 costs more than $1 in benefits. But the difference between having a job and not having one is not incremental. It's obviously better to have a job that earns $30k than to be living off of the government safety net. So yes, there are still incentives to have a job and earn more, even if one is getting government benefits.
"It is this hole that creates generations of dependents. If you've never seen your mom and dad come home from work tired..."
Many families on food assistance have at least one working parent. Minimum wage at 40 hours a week ... view full comment
"It is this welfare hole that is impossible to dig out of."
Then why do some people in fact dig out of it? Perhaps there are spots where earning an extra $1 costs more than $1 in benefits. But the difference between having a job and not having one is not incremental. It's obviously better to have a job that earns $30k than to be living off of the government safety net. So yes, there are still incentives to have a job and earn more, even if one is getting government benefits.
"It is this hole that creates generations of dependents. If you've never seen your mom and dad come home from work tired..."
Many families on food assistance have at least one working parent. Minimum wage at 40 hours a week for a full year brings in about $15k (before payroll taxes). So there are lots of families getting assistance who see a parent, or two, come home from work.
"I stood behind someone in line at Safeway the other day, and their cart was loaded with a lot of not very good food...If they have money left over at the end of the month to buy redbull, then probably their benefits could be reduced."
Sure, there may be examples where the eligibility requirements include people who should be excluded. And there will be people who use their benefits badly. But any system will have dead-weight loss, and one has to ask whether tightening the requirements for a possibly small number who don't need them would also cut off significant numbers of people who are truly in need. We need data, not anecdotes.
"If food stamps were there to cover a 2 month shortage here and there, then I get it. Unfortunately, the median duration is 8 months."
Maybe it's because a lot of these people are working but still not earning very much? Benefits in Texas for adults with no children are limited to 3 months in a 3 year period unless the person is working 20 hours a week or in a job training program. http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/help/food/foodstamps/index.html
Moreover, these benefits are hardly overly generous. The maximum for a single person household is $200 per month, or about $6.67 a day. http://www.massresources.org/snap-benefits.html The average benefit is about $4 a day. That's not much to buy "very good food" with, even if one tries to do so (which, admittedly, some may not). Those who are brave can try the SNAP Challenge. http://frac.org/federal-foodnutrition-programs/snapfood-stamps/snapfood-...