Liberal War on Poverty versus the Conservative War on the Impoverished

I saw an interesting segment in an interview on current events programming which suggested that not only were 30 to 40% of the voters for McCain in 2008, and for Romney in 2012, from the lower incomes that were derided by Romney for not paying income taxes as losers, moochers, 'getters' and takers who could never be persuaded to stop thinking of themselves as victims, to take responsibility for themselves, or to stop being lazy by relying on the government to feed, house, and care for their medical needs and minimal education.

In reality, those in the lower income brackets who are black tend not to be swing voters.  Those who are white male voters, especially older white males, tend to vote consistently conservative but are more likely than their minority counterparts to vote differently from their usual affiliation. 

In other words, those older low income white males are actually, contrary to what Mitt Romney said, a significant part of those who he needs to vote for him.  This makes the failure of Romney to know who his voters are, in his statements, either an enormous mistake of fact on his part, or a deliberate misrepresentation of those facts to play on the right wing fantasy of contempt conservative wealthy people like Ryan for low income people, including those in their own political base.

If the nearly half of the 47% who WOULD have voted for Romney, who tend to be aspirational voters who want identify with people like Romney in an unrealistic hope they will someday be wealthy too. In contrast, the black voters who are not aspirational voters in the sense of having more modest and realistic goals rather than lottery winning fantasies.  Instead of voting because of their identification with how they would like to be, they vote more with a fear of which politician is more likely to harm their current lives and aspirations as the candidate they vote AGAINST.  This is significantly different from the characterization of people who vote because they are bought off by liberals with government services.

In January 1964, President Johnson in his State of the Union address launched a war on poverty, which at the time in the U.S. was at 19%.  In the U.S. in 2012 it is at an estimated 15%, after the economic disaster that began in 2007.  There is a difference of opinion as to how successful that war on poverty was at getting people out of poverty and into the workforce.

This article on Poverty and Inequality from Bloomberg adds to the accumulation of fact that refutes the ugly and inaccurate stereotype promoted by Romney, Ryan and the majority of the GOP. There is a difference, a significant difference between war on the impoverished and war on poverty.

From Bloomberg:

Poverty, Inequality Aren’t as Bad as You Think

By the Editors Sep 20, 2012 5:30 PM CT

 

Poverty statistics can be used to prove almost anything.

When the U.S. Census Bureau reported last week that 46 million Americans, or 15 percent of the population, live in poverty, conservatives said that five decades of the welfare state have had virtually no effect. Liberals answered that laissez-faire economics have kept poverty rates stubbornly high.

This debate is based on a false premise: Poverty isn’t as high as the U.S. government says it is. The reason is that federal programs, supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, have dramatically reduced poverty and, by extension, income inequality.

To understand why, let’s look at what the numbers don’t show. The Census Bureau doesn’t count safety-net benefits, including food stamps, housing aid, school lunches and other noncash transfers. Adding the cash value of food stamps alone would lower the poverty population by 3.9 million people. Census data also overcompensate for inflation by ignoring discount prices at big-box outlets such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc., where many low-income families shop. The figures don’t even factor in Medicare and Medicaid benefits.

 Most Overlooked

But tax credits are the most overlooked numbers of all. One, the Earned Income Tax Credit, is refundable, meaning that some low-income breadwinners get a check from the Internal Revenue Service even if their earnings are so small that they owe no income tax. Counting that tax credit would decrease the number of people living in poverty by another 5.7 million.
The Census Bureau defines a family of four with income less than $23,021 as impoverished. But a better portrait of poverty in America would count all government benefits and tax credits, raising many households’ income considerably. An even truer picture of deprivation would measure consumption (how much a household spends on rent, autos, food and other items) rather than income (how much a household admits to bringing home in earnings). Incomes are unreliable because people are reluctant to reveal how much they make. They are less reticent when asked if they have television sets, cars and air conditioning, or if they eat out and go to movies.
When adjusted for these flaws, the level of poverty is much lower, says a new paper by economists Bruce D. Meyer at theUniversity of Chicago and James X. Sullivan at the University ofNotre Dame. Instead of 15 percent, it is only 4 percent to 5 percent. And instead of being higher than it was in 1980, poverty has declined by two-thirds.
In other words, the war on poverty hasn’t been won, but it’s making inroads. The lion’s share of the credit, the professors conclude, goes to the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit and Social Security.
This may not jibe with Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s quip about the “culture of dependency,” a trait he ascribed to a remarkable 47 percent of voters. The opposite is true: Anti-poverty programs have reduced dependency and encouraged work -- and can be fashioned to work even better.
One option is to strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit. It began under one Republican president (Gerald Ford), was improved by another (Ronald Reagan), and was made refundable by a Democrat (Bill Clinton) -- in each case with the support of congressional Republicans. Studies show the tax credit was the most important factor in reducing welfare rolls, even more so than the 1996 welfare-reform law. Now geared toward single-parent families, the credit could be expanded to help two-parent families and parents without custody of their children.

Important Stabilizers

Automatic stabilizers are also important and shouldn’t be undermined, as the budget blueprint by U.S. Representative Paul Ryan, Romney’s running mate, would do. As Bloomberg View columnist Peter Orszag has written, eligibility for food stamps,unemployment insurance and relief to state governments should expand automatically, without waiting for Congress to act, when the economy is weak.
The implications of all this go beyond politics. Poverty statistics are one of the U.S.’s most closely watched indicators of economic well-being. They can help tell us if poverty-fighting programs are working, or if our taxes are being wasted. They can also steer policy-setters toward more productive solutions and away from popular yet misguided ideas.
If poverty figures are overstated, for example, then so is income inequality. The most-cited studies don’t count government benefits or employer-provided health insurance. There is little doubt that the chasm between the top 1 percent and the 99 percenters is narrower than we have been led to believe. That shouldn’t depress liberals or cheer conservatives: The inequality gap is closing because of government programs, not the stagnant incomes of the private sector.