« Liberalism run-amuck? Obama's HHS: 'Children Are Sexual Beings' | Main | Meet Obama's first deportation waiver winners »

August 23, 2011

Rasmussen: 'Only 20% Think Government Anti-Poverty Programs Really Work'

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that Americans increasingly believe government anti-poverty programs cause more poverty in this country, with 49% of American Adults now believing that government programs increase the level of poverty in the United States, while just 20% say they decrease the problem. Nearly as many (19%) say the programs have no impact. Twelve percent (12%) are not sure. (Read more here)

The single real surprise here is that only 49% of American Adults realize that government programs do not work and actually increase the level of poverty in the United States. Way back in 1985 James Gwartney and Thomas S. McCaleb reported in the Cato journal (with tables) that while the intentions of the architects of the War on Poverty were noble, their approach to reducing the incidence of poverty has proven counterproductive. The current system of income transfers confronts the poor with perverse incentives that discourage self-help efforts in the short run and induces recipients to make decisions that retard their ability to escape poverty in the long run. The system unwittingly encourages behavior that leads to and perpetuates poverty.

They went on to nail exactly what remains wrong with our government programs to this very day - suggesting that in order for public policy to alleviate poverty it must be consistent with four basic principles - all of which run counter to and are anathema to liberal-progressive's (i.e. Barack Obama's) wealth-redistribution agenda:

1. Except for the handicapped and the elderly, all adults must be required to work in order to be eligible for long-term (say, more than 3 months) welfare benefits. The concept of providing long-term public assistance to those who do not work was developed during a different environment. For men, it arose during the massive unemployment of the Great Depression; for women, it originated prior to the movement of large numbers of married women, even those with small children, into the labor market. A work requirement will substantially alleviate the negative long-term impact on the poor of both the skill-depreciation effect and the moral hazard effect.

2. The welfare system must recognize the importance of the family, church, private charity, and community action in the alleviation of poverty. In contrast with the government, private voluntary donors have the capacity to structure help for the poor in ways that minimize moral hazard and avoid the perverse incentive effects.. ... Apart from temporary assistance such as short-term unemployment compensation, government transfer programs should be directed only at the hardcore poor -- handicapped adults and disadvantaged children -- for whom perverse incentives and moral hazard are much less relevant.

3. The welfare system should be structured to reenforce certain traditional values that encourage individual, parental, and family responsibility. Throughout history, certain social values have played an important role in meeting the needs that accompany economic hardship. It is indeed appropriate for a free society to seek to establish
institutional arrangements that will make individuals accountable for their actions. The idea that society should pay for individual irresponsibility is counterproductive. It has undermined progress against poverty in the past and, unless rejected, it will continue to do so in the future.

4. Transfer recipients should not be allowed to use children as hostages in order to blackmail society. No disadvantaged child is undeserving. However, we must find ways of helping children that will not be used and abused by undeserving, irresponsible adults. Transfer programs targeted directly at children and a work requirement associated with receipt of AFDC would reduce the misuse of children by adults seeking income transfers for themselves. The problem of poverty continues to fester not because we are failing to do enough, but rather because we are doing so much that is counterproductive. We must not continue to cast the issue in terms of the compassion of tax-transfer proponents versus the callousness of their critics. If we want to do something effective, the issue must be redrawn between those who would continue the government programs of the past and those who seek new approaches with long-lasting benefits and fewer harmful side-effects. The current approach treats the symptoms, but it also unwittingly promotes the disease. In contrast, while still providing for the welfare of those who truly cannot help themselves, the principles we have enunciated would encourage self-help and discourage long-term dependency and personal irresponsibility. The future welfare of the poor and the vitality of our economy may well depend on how we resolve this important issue.

As one can easily see, virtually none of Gwartney's and McCaleb's suggestions have been implemented ... and our government's anti-poverty programs continue to be a dismal failure because liberal-progressives are fixed on wealth-redistribution and the nanny state - and continue to block every effort to correct the problems so many of us recognize and that Gwartney and McCaleb detailed.