The Post Gets It Wrong: Edwards' Poverty Policy is Just What’s Needed
The Washington Post really got it wrong this AM on John Edwards and poverty.
The article criticizes Edwards for not bringing any new ideas to his signature issue: a plan to focus much more energy and resources on poverty reduction. But as someone who has studied this issue for decades, I can assure you of two things. First, there simply is no amazingly effective silver-bullet idea out there that we’ve somehow overlooked. And second, we know that some, not all, of the “old” ideas work.
The trick is to a) get the right combination of ideas working together, and b) build the political will to implement them. Edwards understands both.(Full disclosure: I’m not working with his campaign in any capacity, but I did write a chapter for a new book on these issues that Edwards edited.)
What’s particularly upsetting about the Post article is that they ignore a new, important report by the Center for American Progress (CAP) Task Force on Poverty that emphasizes many of the same ideas Edwards has been promoting, ideas that meet both the “right combination” and political criteria just noted (and for the record, the CAP report was covered in the Post itself!).Re political will, both the Edwards anti-poverty campaign and the CAP report support a poverty-reduction target, a tangible goal that will focus policy makers on the steps that need to be taken to get from here—37 million people in poverty—to there: a stated amount of poverty reduction by a particular time. This strategy of setting a poverty target has been highly effective in the UK.
Then there are the policies. Among others, Edwards stresses higher minimum wages, expanding the Earned Income Credit (a wage subsidy for low-income workers), second chance educational opportunities, an ambitious housing policy, and direct job creation for those whose boats don’t get a lift even in a strong economy.That’s right, these are old ideas, but they work (and Edwards has some new ones too, like the poverty target and some asset-building ideas). In the 1990s, amidst truly tight job markets, a big EITC expansion, higher minimum wages, and welfare reform that spent more, not less, on training and work supports, we made huge progress against poverty. CAP did a careful analysis of the impact of their ideas, and found that they would reduce poverty by half, at a cost of $90 billion per year (hey, you don’t get something for nothin’ and, anyway, that’s about the value of Bush tax cuts to the top 1%).
Granted, given his message, Edwards house and haircuts are all wrong. But, perhaps because he’s lived in both Americas, he gets the extent to which our gaping income divide will undermine our future.
Here’s what he gets. It’s not just that those baking the pie ought to get fair slices. It’s not even the simple fact that too many poor people are playing by the rules yet still struggling to make ends meet with terribly insufficient incomes. Nor is it the glaringly obvious fact that kids who grow up poor have tremendous disadvantages that it is in all of our interests to avoid.
All those are true and important. But what Edwards gets—and you really want a president who feels this in his or her bones—is that these inequities undermine America. They quietly, slowly, and perniciously erode people’s support for our system of democracy and free markets. Untreated, they lead to distrust and defunding of government, diminished participation in the political system, protectionism and nativism, and a means-spiritedness that is as divisive as it is pessimistic. And I’d argue strongly that this is exactly where we’re headed.
So, don’t be moved be this critique of Edwards poverty policy. To the contrary, when it comes to this issue, he’s the guy to watch.
Comments (18)
Untreated, they lead to distrust and defunding of government, diminished participation in the political system, protectionism and nativism, and a means-spiritedness that is as divisive as it is pessimistic.
wow! what a list! maybe you should create a big elephant (like a bottle with a picture of an elephant on it) and put your warning label on it. ;-)
To boldly go where no man has gone before...
May 7, 2007 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe...might be a little too subtle.
May 7, 2007 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
His problem is that any interest in poverty, especially one that involves government and has the potential to ally the poor with the middle class, is introducing a disturbing force into politics. And one time-tested way of dismissing ideas, new and old, is to say they bring nothing new. The first step is to ignore an idea, and the second is then to point out that it's old. Hey, it worked for a long time with complaints about alleged WMD, spurious Iraq / Al Qaeda links, and Bush manipulations of intelligence.
Interesting mix of contributors, including someone I associate with, well, the other side, Jack Kemp. I give Edwards credit for pulling together a substantive volume like this, not just another campaign biography with its assertion of values. Clinton's is packaged, whereas Obama's is well written and insightful, but still this is a whole other dimension.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
May 7, 2007 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is that not the point of harping on them? Ralph Nader hasn't done noticeably better at electoral politics.
Best, Terry
May 7, 2007 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
And why, when Milton Friedman recycles Darwinian/Spencer economic cliches, does the press fall all over itself to declare this guy was a 'revolutionary' free marketeer? What did he really say that was 'new'? His monetarism wasn't much different from the gold standard, and when tried by Volker, caused a massive recession and was quickly abandoned so the Fed could again toy with rates.
I was listening to "wait wait" on NPR saturday and Peter Segel mentioned a John Edwards response to one of those (super stupid) written questionaires to candidates.
As his 'dream job' Edwards lised "Mill Supervisor" - does it get more patronizing, condescending and hyper-disingenuous than that?
To be charitable, he might have meant that was what he thought when he was a kid or something. Obviously every candidate should have offered Tom Tancredo's answer: "President of the US." While I was dismissive of haircut-gate, this gave me more pause. I don't doubt he really wants to help people - the response was just so...false.
I largely agree with Edwards' plan and sympathize with him, although I think it's going to be tougher to sell helping people whom many voters consider incapable, ignorant, immoral, threatening, crass, fat, dirty, ugly and embarrassing.
An economic plan that would revive some of the better aspects of New Deal - like building infrastructure that would produce long term productivity gains (expand rural internet access - more highways) as well as near term unemployment relief and stimulus might be better political sell, because it wouldn't pit working poor/lower middle class against the hardcore poor.
Also, Edwards was a big ol' dud in 2004. Maybe he didn't have his heart in playing second bannana. Kerry couldn't be both statesman and attack dog at the same time. Cheney and Bush had a far superior division of labor then.
May 7, 2007 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The Post Gets It Wrong: Edwards' Poverty Policy is Just What’s Needed" I did not believe it was possible. They have been accurate on everything else.
May 7, 2007 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Geez, fellow, the Republicans have been enormously successful helping such billionaires and even millionaires. What exactly is impolitic with helping working folks too?
Best, Terry
May 7, 2007 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know that he was a dud ... it was the rural counties in Ohio where he was sent to campaign that tended to have margins shifting toward the Democratic side compared to 2000.
Admittedly, it may not have been the smartest decision in the world to put all your eggs in that basket when it was being carried around by Ken Blackwell, but that was not Edward's call.
May 7, 2007 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Cheney and Bush had a far superior division of labor then."
Let's see....shooting people in the face: Cheney's job.
Being a dumb fuck: Bush's job.
Stealing the election(s) and profiting from war: BOTH of them.
May 7, 2007 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why? who says a rich man can't care about poor people?
Oh, yeah, republicans do. lets them off the hook I guess.
funny how no one says the gates foundation shouldn't fight poverty. you know, given his house and all.
May 7, 2007 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be charitable, it was a lame question, unworthy of a half-decent student newspaper.
And Tancredo's answer would just ring oh-so-true, especially if they all responded the same way?
I think anyone who would honestly describe being President of the United States these days as a "dream job" is bat-shit insane and should under no circumstances be allowed near the job. At best, the job might be worth living through the nightmare.
May 7, 2007 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not saying they were good - but Bush was able to pretend to be 'statesmanlike' while Cheney was the attack dog - is that all that controversial a statement?
Kerry was stuck being statesman and it seemed Edwards just wasn't able or willing to play the role of dirty fighter.
I'm for Edward's agenda - mostly. It's just that we don't want anothe Adlai Stevenson figure
May 7, 2007 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm speaking in terms of strategy and realism. Still, there's not much sympathy for the poverty stricken in the US - and then they don't vote and/or their vote means less because they live in big cities where the state will go Dem anyway. Here again we see the rural bias in representation.
I'm just saying you might make more political hay by couching your programs as benefiting everyone, not just the class of people held in the most contempt in the US.
May 7, 2007 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
My thoughts exactly, jrcjr.
If the only people helping the underprivileged were the underprivileged, they wouldn't get very far.
The effort of those who are able to help those who need it is called philanthropy.
Did people criticize FDR for being a rich guy trying to help those less privileged than himself?
May 7, 2007 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...given his message, Edwards house and haircuts are all wrong.
Why? who says a rich man can't care about poor people?"
FDR wasn't a "man of the people" by a long shot and, yet, he did more for working Americans than anyone elected before or since.
The way it works in this country, the rich and connected run for high office. Period. Making an issue out of it is disingenuous.
May 7, 2007 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE the househ and haricuts, I take those good points. The attacks are total ad hominem.
But, jeez, why play into the hands of the opposition, who will hit on this incessently?
May 7, 2007 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Margy Waller, quoted in the piece, is basically saying that it is politically inept to focus on poverty as if economic growth doesn't matter. She's right and I hope the Edwards people understand this if they hope to win the center.
Edwards should simply agree.
I imagine a positive talking point being something like: "Ending poverty as a fact of life for millions of Americans is IMPOSSIBLE without a rapidly growing economy. For the past four years we've had economic growth without any policy to attack poverty or reduce the racial and economic segregation that goes along with it. The Republican administration has instead chosen to wage war in Iraq, while ignoring the war that poverty has waged on Americans in places like New Orleans. As president I want to change that. I want to wage war on poverty. To do that I believe you have to have a strong, growing economy but you also need policies in place that help those at the bottom rise up. Getting us out of this disastrous war in Iraq, which is costing us a fortune in American lives and dollars, is the first step in that plan. I plan to use the savings from that to help make our workforce more productive, make college tuition more affordable and expand tax incentives so those at the bottom get back more at the end of the day for their labor..."
May 8, 2007 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a great program, and well framed.
BTW, both Edwards and the CAP plan contain some aspects of most of those ideas: college tuition, expanded tax credits for low-income workers.
May 8, 2007 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink