- The Washington Times - Tuesday, July 24, 2007


Barack Obama and John Edwards want to get us out of one war and into another. The two Democrats vying for their party’s presidential nomination want to end the war in Iraq and spend at least some of the savings on a new war on poverty.

Last week, Mr. Edwards finished an eight-state tour reminiscent of Bobby Kennedy’s famous visit to poor Appalachian communities during his bid for the presidency in 1968, while Mr. Obama launched his crusade in Anacostia, a District of Columbia neighborhood historically been one of D.C.’s poorest.

Ending poverty is certainly a noble goal — but from the policy proposals Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards offered, it appears neither has a clue how to go about it. Both men want more government spending, as if adding a few billion more to the $11 trillion spent on poverty programs since President Lyndon Johnson first initiated the War on Poverty in 1964 would finally produce the desired results. Worse, some proposals they offered would likely harm, not help, poor families.

Mr. Obama wants to tie the minimum wage to the Consumer Price Index, which would price the lowest-skilled workers, especially young blacks, out of the job market, not to mention increase inflationary pressure on wages.

Mr. Edwards would have the government create 1 million new temporary jobs for the chronically unemployed, despite abundant research that shows these programs have no lasting impact in reducing poverty or increasing long-term employment among the poor.

Poverty among families has remained amazingly constant over the last 40 years. In 2005, the percentage of all families who lived below the government- defined poverty level was 9.9 percent; 15 percent of families lived below the poverty line in 1964, but the rate dropped to 10 percent by 1968 and has remained at roughly that level, with minor fluctuations, ever since.

In a nation as rich as ours, argue Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards, 1 in 10 American families living in poverty is simply unacceptable. I agree, but the numbers reveal a lot more complexity than either is willing to acknowledge.

First, many of those living below poverty today are new immigrants, both legal and illegal. They are newcomers who lack the education and skills to attain a middle-class life, at least initially. The poverty rate for noncitizens, 20 percent, is twice the national average, but it has declined substantially since 1993, when it was almost 30 percent; this even though there are many more immigrants here now, including substantially more illegal aliens.

A government anti-poverty program isn’t the answer for this group — and would be politically impossible given the prevailing sentiments toward immigrants today. But most of these poor families will improve their economic status the longer they are here, especially as they learn English and gain work experience. Studies show the children of immigrants earn substantially more than their parents, frequently outperforming their native-born co-ethnics. And naturalized citizens have a somewhat lower poverty rate than native-born Americans.

Second, neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Edwards addresses the issue of family breakdown and its relationship to poverty. The poor are disproportionately made up of women and their children. Poverty rates for families headed by a single white woman with children under 18 were 25.3 percent in 2005; for similarly constituted black families, the rate was a shocking 42 percent. But for married couple families, the comparable rate for whites was just 6.1 percent, and for black families only 8.3 percent.

So why don’t Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards talk more about marriage as an antidote to poverty? From all accounts, both have wonderful, even inspirational, marriages of their own. But many Democrats are worried they might not seem inclusive or might even be viewed as intolerant if they talk up marriage.

It’s much easier to offer to increase government spending. My suspicion is, however, that most Americans understand that the War on Poverty won’t be won by throwing their tax dollars behind more failed programs.

Linda Chavez is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of “An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal.”

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide