Katrina and Beyond: We Need a New War on Poverty or America is a Failure By Any Measure that Matters

I agree that we need a "war on poverty", but we had better use different tactics than we used when LBJ declared his "war on poverty" back in the 1960's. That approach of long-term handouts resulted in waste and degrading dependency.

A "hand out" is just a short term fix. Once immediate needs are addressed we need solutions that work for the long term. That means education and a "willing to work" work ethic for the significant numbers of the poor who can help themselves.

Everyone has heard the saying "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach him to fish,and you feed him for a lifetime."

Some don't have the capacity to learn to "fish", and will always need and deserve our help.

Yes, we all (including myself) need to repent of our self-centeredness and lack of compassion. But I do question whether the federal government is always the best avenue to address the root causes of poverty, especially because many of the causes are rooted in personal decisions and because of the government's demonstrated inefficiencies. If we truly believe that government programs and spending are the best way to address these needs, I wonder how many of us actually sent our tax rebate checks back into the IRS as a donation.

I think we can effectively reduce poverty in our country by reforming our nation's tax code to the Basic Income Guarantee program. The basic idea is simple. Get rid of the morass of tax-exemptions and provide everyone over 18 who maintains a simple citizenship requirement an income transfer and then tax whatever income they make above that level at a constant tax rate.

This would be a more efficient way to reduce poverty than many current welfare programs that have high administration costs and it would maintain strong incentives for everyone to work so long as the transfer amount is reasonable(I'm thinking like 10,000 dollars).

I think it can be made to be family-friendly if couples in civil unions receive a 25% increase on their transfer with serious fines for unions of convenience. And we could set a limit to two such civil unions for each person as a deterrent to divorce and an incentive for longstanding relationships.

dlw

I just want to add that the last innovation is extra important inasmuch as encouraging stable marriages are or ought to be a critical anti-poverty measure.

dlw

The War on Poverty has to include:

1.) Tax fairness, making the wealthy pay their fair share again, as in the very successful and prosperous Clinton years.

2.) Raising the minimum wage, so that all Americans can afford to but a bus ticket and perhaps even a home of their own.

3.) A new public works program to rebuild our infrastructure that has gone to seed over the apst five years.

FP

Do DLW and KSM admit that poverty has gone up substantially during the Bush years? If so, why don't you see the cause and effect here? Do you agree, can we all agree, that it is time to give up on the piggish greed that motivates the efforts to repeal the estate tax for the very wealthy--since there is effectively no estate tax on any middle class person--can't you agree to that? Will you conservatives get behind our efforts to help the poor--or just make the ussual irrelevant and mean-spirited objections to things like an increase in the minimum wage and the earned income credit that have proven effective over many years?

Are we going to move forward together or are we going to hear the same old tired arguments that rationalize the failures of the past five years?

FP

FP:

To this great agenda, I would add: A new environmentalism that embraces the economic benefits of responding to environmetal realities and challenges.
--
Bonnie

1.) Tax fairness, making the wealthy pay their fair share again, as in the very successful and prosperous Clinton years.

2.) Raising the minimum wage, so that all Americans can afford to buy a bus ticket and perhaps even a home of their own.

3.) A new public works program to rebuild the American infrastructure that has gone to seed over the past five years.

4.) Acknowledging that all Americans are entitled to health care and filling in the gaps that poverty and the private sector fail to provide.

5.) Bringing home the troops from Iraq and putting their skills to work here as quickly as possible.

One of the Worst Abandonments of Americans on American Soil Ever”

The president of Jefferson Parish in New Orleans, Aaron Broussard, just issued an emotional appeal on NBC’s Meet the Press. By the end, he was completely broken down, sobbing uncontrollably:

RUSSERT: You just heard the director of homeland security’s explanation of what has happened this last week. What is your reaction?
BROUSSARD: We have been abandoned by our own country. Hurricane Katrina will go down in history as one of the worst storms ever to hit an American coast. But the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina will go down as one of the worst abandonments of Americans on American soil ever in U.S. history. … Whoever is at the top of this totem pole, that totem pole needs to be chainsawed off and we’ve got to start with some new leadership. It’s not just Katrina that caused all these deaths in New Orleans here. Bureaucracy has committed murder here in the greater New Orleans area and bureaucracy has to stand trial before Congress now.
Broussard then discussed the difficulties local authorities had with FEMA, including one case where they actually posted armed guards to keep FEMA from cutting their communications lines:

Three quick examples. We had Wal-Mart deliver three trucks of water. FEMA turned them back. They said we didn’t need them. This was a week ago. FEMA, we had 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel on a Coast Guard vessel docked in my parish. When we got there with our trucks, FEMA says don’t give you the fuel. Yesterday — yesterday — FEMA comes in and cuts all of our emergency communication lines. They cut them without notice. Our sheriff, Harry Lee, goes back in, he reconnects the line. He posts armed guards and said no one is getting near these lines…
Finally, Broussard told the tragic personal story of a colleague, and broke down:

I want to give you one last story and I’ll shut up and let you tell me whatever you want to tell me. The guy who runs this building I’m in, Emergency Management, he’s responsible for everything. His mother was trapped in St. Bernard nursing home and every day she called him and said, “Are you coming, son? Is somebody coming?” and he said, “Yeah, Mama, somebody’s coming to get you.” Somebody’s coming to get you on Tuesday. Somebody’s coming to get you on Wednesday. Somebody’s coming to get you on Thursday. Somebody’s coming to get you on Friday… and she drowned Friday night. She drowned Friday night! [Sobbing] Nobody’s coming to get us. Nobody’s coming to get us…

No matter how much tax money or private sector funding is aimed at the poor, those things can't help unless people acknowledge the value of education and seek it out.

I have a 95-year-old African American friend whose entire family has lived this creed of education. She was the youngest of 9 children who grew up in a mid-size, deeply-segregated Southern city. Her father, born in 1879, had only a fourth grade education. He worked hard to get what was then a "good" job for a "colored man" with the railroad. Both he and my friend's mother insisted that all their children do well in school; there was no excuse for failure. This sentiment was backed up within their community and in their church.

When my friend entered Wilberforce College in the fall of 1929, one of her sisters had already graduated, one was a senior and two of her brothers were in medical school. My friend went on to get a Master's degree from an Ivy League university. In 2000, the mayor held a ceremony in honor of my friend, giving her a key to the city for her lifelong contribution to education.

Granted, this is an exceptional woman from an exceptional family. And granted, too, there are some people who will always need and deserve public assistance. However, access to education and the pursuit of it are the keys for many, many people to get out of poverty.

Cathie:

I agree that education is a key long-term strategy to deliver better lives for those stuck in poverty. Can you agree to raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans to better fund education at all levels? How about job training and jobs for those impacted by Katrina? If not, why not?

FP

I am new here and glad I have found a place and people with like interests. I also appreciate the well informed arguments playing out in here.

I am going to take this argument in a different direction, however.

The basic problem with all the afformentioned arguments is that none of these will ever happen unless we get the leadership of the country to switch allegiance from the wealthy to the average American on the street. Both parties are guilty of pandering to the rich. Wherever the campaign dollars are, that is where their allegiance will lie. Yes....there have been gliimers of hope with some leaders but even they have made horrible decisions based on what was good for their campaign bank. As long as current campaign guidleines are in effect, the politicians will not look out for what is best for the average citizen.

I propose that campaign monies raised should all go to a central bank which will be distributed evenly. It is then up to the architects of each campaign to use these funds wisely. Media outlets will be made to give equal time to the candidates which will be subsidized by the central bank.

I admit, there needs to be much work done to the proposal, but with a little work, it could solve many problems:

1. politicians will not feel the need to pander to special interest groups. The PAC money is flowing so freely in Washington right now it is absolutely disgusting. Eliminating the need to vote for corporate interests just so you can have a big check put into your re-election fund, will give the politician the opportunity to llok out for those who voted them in.

2. Allows for more diverse points of view to be heard. Gone will be the days of the 2 party system. For far too long we have had politicians voting along party lines just so they can stay in good standing within the party and so they get the support they need.

More individuals will have the opportunity to stand up and do what is right for their constituents. Gone will be the days of the career politician. I understand that just because someone has allot of money in ther campaign coffers does not guarantee a victory. But let's face the hard facts. He who has the most money usually wins. And that's not right. Because generally that person will be looking out for their larger campaign contributers and that isn't going to be the little guy.

The main problem is getting something like this proposed. Most voters, I would suspect, would be in favor of a plan like this, but this will never be proposed to the general assembly, because this would certainly shake things up.

I also wanted to post one of the most incredible commentaries I have heard in awhile. Apeaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, demonstrates just why it is important for finance reform. He did not come back to vote on emergency relief for the victims because he was attending a campaign fundraising event. Boo to you Mr. Hastert. Good luck on your re-election

Bob Scheaffer Commentary from Face the Nation Sept. 4th

"SCHIEFFER: Finally, a personal thought. We have come through what may have been one
of the worst weeks in America's history, a week in which government at every level failed the
people it was created to serve. There is no purpose for government except to improve the lives
of its citizens. Yet as scenes of horror that seemed to be coming from some Third World
country flashed before us, official Washington was like a dog watching television. It saw the
lights and images, but did not seem to comprehend their meaning or see any link to reality.
As the floodwaters rose, local officials in New Orleans ordered the city evacuated. They might
as well have told their citizens to fly to the moon. How do you evacuate when you don't have a
car? No hint of intelligent design in any of this. This was just survival of the richest.
By midweek a parade of Washington officials rushed before the cameras to urge patience. What
good is patience to a mother who can't find food and water for a dehydrated child? Washington
was coming out of an August vacation stupor and seemed unable to refocus on business or
even think straight. Why else would Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert question aloud
whether New Orleans should even be rebuilt? And when he was unable to get to Washington
in time to vote on emergency aid funds, Hastert had an excuse only Washington could
understand: He had to attend a fund-raiser back home.
Since 9/11, Washington has spent years and untold billions reorganizing the government to
deal with crises brought on by possible terrorist attacks. If this is the result, we had better start over."

Where are our priorities?!!

An incredible article in the New Orleans Times-Picayne:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2005/09/new_orleanss_hu.html

FP - Yes, I do believe that the rich should pay their fair share in taxes, but I don't think that any "soak the rich" tax increase will help much. If we had the absolute finest schools in the world, they wouldn't be effective unless or until parents and communities demand the very best efforts of the students attending them. I have 2 friends who teach in my city's public schools and 1 friend who teaches in a private, non-religious school. The parents of the private school students expect their children to behave, to study and to excel. Many parents of the public school students expect the schools to do everything for their children. Only the teachers are held accountable when students fail.

And yes, I'm in favor of training and jobs for the victims of Katrina, but what kinds of jobs are available? Thanks to NAFTA and to cheap imports from Asia, the US doesn't have many well-paying jobs for people without very specialized skills. Most new jobs are created in the service sector, which is notorious for low pay and few, if any benefits, like health insurance.

Well, I'm reminded of the old slogan (originated, I believe, in the 60s), "Live simply, so that others may simply live". If you want to drive a conservative into spasms of rage, quote that. There is this concept among most conservatives that if you're rich that means God wanted you to be rich, that God is "rewarding" you with earthly wealth. It's a concept first made popular by the Puritans in this country and, not-surprisingly, never actually died out, even when the Puritans did.

The problem is there is nothing in Jesus' teachings to support this mind-set. Quite the contrary, Jesus rails against those who hoard wealth, reminding us that "It is easier for a camel to travel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven", and also the chilling indictment "Woe to the rich, for they have their reward". Jesus is pretty clear on His position about wealth-hoarders. But, like the Roman Catholic Church before them (in their famous battles with the Franciscan Order over poverty), many people today make up justifications for wealth-hoarding. Interesting that, even outside of Jesus' teachings, we see the early apostles, after Pentecost, living as COMMUNISTS! Yep, they sold all they had, gave most of it to the poor, and what they had left they shared according to the needs of the group. That's something from Acts you NEVER EVER EVER hear conservative ministers talk about.

Ultimately we come back to the old issue of whether you are actually going to follow the directives of Jesus of Nazareth, or whether you want to call yourself a Christian but justify greed and intolerance from sources in the Bible outside of these directives. Can you serve both God and Mammon? Jesus said no. All the piety in the world cannot save one who turns their backs on the Least of These in favour of making the rich richer. Jesus referred to such persons. He said that they would meet Him in the afterlife, and upon seeing Him would yell "Lord, Lord!", and He said He would turn to them and say, "I NEVER knew you".

Peace and Blessings.

Brother Damien, OCCA

I would like to ask a question you hear the Christian right say let the church take care of the down and out. Lets look at Katrina and New Orleans I believe KSM is a big advocate of this, now in the after math Katrina it took up to five days for help to get their, a lot of people died. I would bet you anything that a lot of preacher said lets collect money for the needy and stomped around the lectern and tell how wonderful you are and how wonderful your church is, and how Christian they, your preacher is. We have Bill Clinton and daddy Bush out saying look how wonderful we are we collected millions. This is really Great show offs and false prophets. But how did any of this keep any of the deathly ill alive or feed any one for five days. It didn’t in fact it killed thousands how and why because it took to long to get help. Now you see what politician and preacher will do and say and they will lay a lot of blame on some one, not one will take any blame. A few things that you won’t hear. It was my fault, It would be better if the Government took care of all disasters, you will not hear of Pat Robertson currying the ill bringing the dead back to life, Gods prophets could and did, and none of them will say our Religious cults killed thousands because our faith based programs did not work good enough.

Brother Damien,

As always, what you write is well-said and thought-provoking. I agree that the portion of Acts to which you refer is rarely quoted. However, I have to wonder if the idea of selling everything, giving most to the poor and sharing all of what's left is a product of the early Christian mindset that Jesus was coming back SOON. Didn't first generation Christians expect Jesus to return in their lifetimes? I'm just starting Year One of EFM next week, so please forgive me if I'm misinformed here.

Here's something I've been thinking about for quite a while concerning the idea of divesting oneself of all assets. Suppose I own a successful business wherein I employ 10 people. I pay them well and provide good benefits. I take risks by hiring people who at one time or another were in jail, were addicted to drugs/alcohol and who are now trying to get back on their feet. I am as good a corporate and global citizen as I know how to be. I donate both money and time groups that work toward social justice. Now suppose that I sell my business and join a religious community.

If I do that, I run the risk of the business being mismanaged, my former employees losing their jobs and nobody is the better for what I believed to be a selfless act. Aren't both God and society better served if I keep my business and continue to build it up so that I can offer more people good jobs, continue to donate generously, etc.?

Cathie,

You bring up some excellent points for consideration. As for the disciples expecting Jesus to return after Pentecost, yes, they almost certainly did expect Him to return soon. St. Paul, we know, expected Jesus to return within his lifetime. However, I like to think that Jesus' position of wealth-hoarding influenced them more than their expectation of His return. In any event, since Jesus Himself said to pursue the riches of Heaven and not of this world, they knew they were doing what He would have approved of.

Having said that, does that mean that we all must sell everything we have, give it to the poor, and become Franciscans? No, absolutely not. Your hypothesis about the business is well thought out. Now, while it is true that a very generous and philanthropic business owner such as you give in example is indeed benefitting many, the question is not whether that owner should give up his/her business, but rather just how much they give back to society and how extravagant their lifestyle. Live simply so that others might simply live. Can any Christian in good conscience really question whether Jesus would endorse that philosophy? We have the gospels, and we know what He said. If our hypothetical business owner does indeed truly reach out to The Least of These, then he/she is doing God's work, absolutely, but that still doesn't entitle them to live "lavishly".

The ancient Greeks had this concept of "moderation in all things", and I think that's what we have to strive for, difficult as that may be at times. We can have adequate housing, cars, clothes, possessions, etc., but when we go overboard we have let these things take possession of us, rather than the other way 'round. We must "store up our treasures in Heaven" for those are the ones that the thief cannot steal and those are the ones that will never be eaten by moths, or rust, or decay.

Live simply so that others may simply live.

Peace and Blessings.

Brother Damien, OCCA

Thanks, Brother Damien. I do try to seek moderation in most things. Except books. I'm not an acquisitive person and having a lot of stuff doesn't appeal to me, but turn me loose in a bookstore and I throw all caution to the four winds!

Solo queria expresar mi solidaridad con los afectados por el Katrina y desear mejores tiempos para las gentes de Nueva Orleans.

Three phrases should be among the most common in our daily usage. They are: Thank you, I am grateful and I appreciate.

mrnfuhxc topotgxq http://lhqemobp.com ffrsdudt mcfpyahj [URL=http://abvxddxd.com]awtmccbr[/URL]