Jonathan Gruber on abortion as a poverty tool

http://www.nber.org/papers/w6034.pdf

The 1996 welfare reform, signed by Clinton, pushed by Republicans, and decried by the liberal media, sort of coincides with falling abortion rates.  Gruber speculated in 1997 that an aborted child was better off than a child living in poverty—at least for the taxpayer.  I think improving the lives of single moms is a better plan.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41917.pdf  This report is a good summary of pre- and post-welfare reform programs.

A dramatic transformation in single mothers’ welfare, work, and poverty status has occurred over
the 27-year period examined in this report. The period has seen a marked structural change in the
provision of benefits under a number of programs that contribute to the fabric of the nation’s
“income safety net.” In turn, single mothers’ behavior has changed markedly over the period, in
part a response to structural changes to income “safety net” programs, with more mothers
working and fewer relying on cash welfare to support themselves and their children in the postwelfare
reform era.

The President is just wrong about the poor

Americans are not poor due to an income gap or rising  income inequality—that rate has been fairly stable over the years (also the poverty stats don’t count all the 79 means tested programs).

Here's the research, Mr. President. It's behavior and choice. People aren't poor because others are rich.

"If you do these [four] things, it’s almost impossible to remain poor:
1. Finish high school,
2. Get a job,
3. Don’t have children until you get married.

Those who do these things have only a 2 percent probability of remaining in poverty and a 75 percent probability of joining the middle class." John Goodman

The only new idea the left seems to have is universal preschool. (They don’t know how to reform any existing programs, so why not throw money after one more?) But the more common tactic (e.g., Paul Krugman) is to use inequality as an excuse for enacting the traditional liberal agenda — deficit spending, minimum wage increase, more unemployment compensation. If you think any of that is going to solve the fundamental problem, I know a bridge in Brooklyn that is for sale.

Remember welfare reform of the mid-90s? Even a job, any job, reduces the poverty rate. Wealth transfer doesn’t solve poverty.

"The poverty rate among full time workers is 2.9 percent as compared with a poverty rate of 16.6 percent among those working less than full time and about 24 percent for those who don’t work. Unfortunately, the percentage of adult males working has been declining for decades. The work rate among young black males is below 50 percent. By contrast, when single mothers substantially increased their work rates in the mid-1990s, the poverty rate among mother-headed families reached its lowest level ever.. .

We already spend more than enough money on means-tested programs for poor and low-income people to bring them all out of poverty. There were about 46.5 million people in poverty in 2012, a year in which spending on means-tested programs was around $1 trillion. If that money were divided up among the poor, we could spend about $22,000 per person. For a single mother and two children, that would be over $65,000. The poverty level in 2013 for a mother and two children is less than $20,000. So this strategy would work, but giving so much money to young, able-bodied adults would not be tolerated by the public. Besides, if government gave this much cash to non-workers, many low-wage workers would quit work so they too could collect welfare.”

Ron Haskins, http://www.brookings.edu/.../19-war-on-poverty-what-went...

The expensive War on Poverty

When the War on Poverty was launched in the early 60s, the goal was to make people self-sufficient, not government dependent. Now we've spent $19 trillion and what do we have to show for it? A very well paid bureaucracy with fat pensions and excellent health benefits that keep people poor and dependent.

"The federal government runs over 80 means-tested programs providing cash, food, housing, medical care and social services to around 100 million Americans.  That’s a third of the U.S. population.  Combined federal and state expenditures on these programs come to roughly $9,000 per recipient per year." 

http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2012/10/welfare-is-at-an-all-time-high

Not that I care much for Newt, but truth is truth

no matter where you find it.

Two womanizers, two excellent politicians, in the worst sense of the word. And both are Christians!

Clinton's legacy--welfare reform of 1996

The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 was more successful than anyone hoped. Even Democrats acknowledged it while in the next breath noting it didn't end poverty or illegitimacy or hang the moon. The new Obama plan will undo most of what's left of it. The old programs and expenses crept back over the years under new names and acronyms without the stigma of welfare--SCHIP, EITC, TANF expanded child care, more money for school feeding programs. I think even food stamps got a new name.

We "imported" more poor people through the sieve of our borders and broadened the definition of poverty. Too many well paid jobs depend on the poor--poverty will never go away. Although the welfare case loads went down, it's still really tough for a single mom with limited education and few skills to compete economically with two income, college educated married couples. Do the math. It's easy for her children to slip back into "let the government take care of me" mentality ala Henrietta the Homeless in Florida. Even so, my 1996 letter to Ellen Goodman, the columnist, who was extremely negative then about the Act, shows Democrats differed. At that time I was still a Democrat, therefore my criticism of her column is a criticism of the programs I myself had supported and even then viewed as failures. (I supported the PRWORA, however, with reservations about where former welfare recipients would work.)

You may have a point, childhood or children, have indeed become expendable. But wasn't it we, the Democrats, who put that all in place long before the welfare reform? Who is it that first made unborn children less than human--when we undercut (chopped up might be a better term) the weakest and most vulnerable in our society at the rate of a million a year? We made an inconvenient pregnancy a tragedy and labeled it the "right to choose." Did we really think that this concept wouldn't start creeping up the age charts? And remember when we liberals thought the mentally ill and retarded should be out on the streets enjoying all those civil rights the rest of us have and we closed all their safe havens? And what about the tax structure that clobbers families with children and makes it more advantageous for men and women to just live together? And who was it that made it more financially viable for a woman to be married to Uncle Sam than to a man? Who was it that made being totally unproductive an entitlement? Wasn't it you and me?

I'm older than you, Ms. Goodman, and I remember when the "War on Poverty" began. I've seen 30+ years of billions of dollars being thrown at a problem, dollars that often go to pay the salaries of social workers, government bureaucrats and careerist do-gooders just so we can feel like we're doing something. I myself once worked for the JTPA--and I worked very hard, but I fear most of the money didn't really make it to the people who needed the help. Many have left poverty behind and for that I am grateful--but I doubt that public assistance helped as much as their families' assistance, or their churches' assistance, or the tremendous economic growth of the 1980s, the years we Democrats love to lie about. The problem with poverty graph lines and figures is it doesn't show what happens to individuals. Even with the horrors of welfare, my guess is the chances of moving up are still far better in the USA than anywhere else in the world.

Frankly, I'm concerned about where these folks currently on welfare are going to find this "work opportunity." Do I really want someone who has never had a parental example of working for a living serving my food, plumbing my pipes or inserting my IVs? Can you think of any jobs for someone trained in a 6 or 8 week program who dropped out of high school or doesn't have transportation? We all know that initially it will be more expensive to put people to work than to let them live on subsistence.

We encouraged women to get abortions; we encouraged them to go to work leaving the childcare to poor women; we encouraged them to ignore marriage vows. We shouldn't be surprised if the children are "sold and eaten."

And to think I remained a Democrat for another four years! The Democrats are now Socialists and the Republicans are now what the Democrats were in the 1970s and 1980s. Anyone for a new party?