|
|
 |
Conservatives Blame the Poor for Being Poor
By Marjorie Valbrun
America's Wire
When the U.S. Census Bureau recently released its annual report on
the economic status of American households, few people were
surprised that black and Hispanic households showed the highest
increase in poverty rates. The two groups were hit harder by the
economic recession and had higher rates of unemployment than white
and Asian households, so news that poverty rates for them surpassed
25 percent in 2009, though troubling, was not entirely unexpected.
A surprise was that political conservatives continued to blame poor
African-Americans and Hispanics for the very act of being poor even
as 43.6 million Americans of all racial stripes, 12.3 percent of
them white, are living in poverty and collectively struggling to
survive the fallout of an economic downturn—widespread layoffs,
massive home foreclosures and loss of retirement savings and other
assets.
The new poverty figures are the largest recorded by the Census
Bureau in 51 years and reflect a consecutive increase in U.S.
poverty over the past three years. They are an indication of the
powerful economic, political and structural forces that play a role
in the financial well-being of American households and that tend to
have a more significant and negative impact on already poor and
struggling families.
President Barack Obama acknowledged as much during a recent speech
at the annual legislative conference of the Congressional Black
Caucus.
“This historic recession, the worst since the Great Depression, has
taken a devastating toll on all sectors of our economy,” Obama said.
“It's hit Americans of all races and all regions and all walks of
life. But as has been true often in our history and as has been true
in other recessions, this one came down with a particular vengeance
on the African-American community.”
He reminded the audience, though he probably didn’t have to, that
African-Americans were at an economic disadvantage before the
economic downturn.
“Long before this recession, there were black men and women
throughout our cities and towns who’d given up looking for a job,
kids standing around on the corners without any prospects for the
future,” he said. “Long before this recession, there were blocks
full of shuttered stores that hadn’t been open in generations. So,
yes, this recession made matters much worse, but the
African-American community has been struggling for quite some time.”
Yet almost as soon as the census numbers were released, conservative
politicians, commentators and researchers at public policy think
thanks were commenting on the role of behavior and personal
responsibility, or lack thereof, as factors contributing to the high
poverty rate. They also cited the purportedly pernicious affects of
government-funded anti-poverty programs, the very ones that kept
more people from falling below the poverty line.
A report by the conservative Heritage Foundation on the same day as
the census report cited millions of children living in poverty in
single-parent households and asserted that the “principal cause is
the absence of married fathers in the home.” The foundation report
contends that government entitlement programs such as welfare, food
stamps and income tax credits that mostly benefit unwed mothers and
their children, keep families—especially those with black and
Hispanic children—in poverty and are “disincentives to marriage
because benefits are reduced as a family’s income rises.”
The foundation also separately asserts that the average poor
American is not as bad off as liberal activists, media and some
politicians would have the public believe.
According to the census report, about 15.5 million children under
18, the majority of them black, were living in poverty in 2009
compared with 14.1 million in 2008. The poverty rate increased
across all types of families. For married-couple families, it grew
to 5.8 percent from 5.5 percent and for female-headed families to
29.9 percent from 28.7 percent.
Not all poor families qualify for all of the various assistance
programs, and amounts they receive are relatively modest, enough to
keep some from falling below the official poverty line of $21,954
for a family of four but not enough to move them far above it.
The foundation report concludes that government intervention could
reduce childhood poverty by promoting and supporting policies that
encourage marriage among low-income couples. The Urban Institute and
other nonpartisan research organizations offer other practical
approaches that rely less on value judgments and more on proven
government interventions and increased support for struggling
two-parent homes. They also call for larger tax subsidies for poor
families similar to those that help middle-income families buy a
home, save for retirement and pay for their children's education.
The overly simplistic theory of “marriage as an antidote to poverty”
overlooks many important factors that contribute to poverty, and
poverty experts do not unanimously accept it. While children raised
in two-parent families tend to have better life outcomes, marriage
by unwed parents does not guarantee lifting families out of poverty.
That’s true especially if couples are not compatible or in love, or
committed to making a marriage work; if husband, wife or both lack
necessary education or professional skills to secure a well-paying
job and enhance the household’s income; and if financial or other
stress in the marriage leads to domestic discord or violence.
Marriage would not automatically improve the dismal unemployment
rate among black men, some of it the result of racial discrimination
in hiring practices, or erase other structural barriers to economic
well-being, nor would it suddenly end negative behaviors that
conservatives say inhibit economic advancement.
“Certainly there some individuals for whom behavior is an important
issue, but the bigger problems are a series of factors that affect
African-Americans more than they do other groups,” said Margaret
Simms, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute and an expert on the
economic well-being of African-Americans.
The conservative commentary conveniently overlooks many of these
contributing factors, among them that African-Americans, and to a
lesser extent Hispanics, are more racially and geographically
segregated than other groups and less likely to live in areas with
ample economic opportunities. They often have no access to good
public schools that are economically and racially diverse and
adequately prepare them for college, selective training programs or
skilled jobs. They also generally have no access to good health
care, which can mean health problems prevent them from getting and
keeping good jobs and seriously drain limited incomes.
“They are also less likely to be in social networks where they have
access to the jobs out there,” Simms said. “Most people don’t find
jobs through want-ads but through friends, family or neighbors who
know about a job opening at their workplace or know about a place
that is hiring.”
If they live in large urban areas, as many do, and don’t own cars,
as many don’t, they have difficulty getting to jobs in outer
suburbs.
“Geographic isolation in neighborhoods where there are few job
opportunities make it difficult to have access to where the jobs are
and to get to them,” Simms said. “Low-income African-Americans are
farther away from the jobs they would be qualified for.
Transportation systems are not typically set up to move people from
cities to residential suburbs where jobs are.”
Conservatives say the Obama administration should spend less on
public assistance programs even though they have proven to be an
important safety net for struggling families. Many also oppose
extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed and
a temporary program that created 250,000 mostly private-sector jobs
for low-income parents and youth.
Robert Greenstein, executive director of the liberal Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities and an expert on anti-poverty, said
cutting back such programs would be a mistake.
“If Congress fails to extend these measures and unemployment remains
high, poverty and hardship almost certainly will climb still higher
next year,” he said in a statement.
|
