Home Blog: Editor's Cut Barbara Lee's War on Poverty




BLOG | Posted 03/24/2008 @ 1:42pm
Barbara Lee's War on Poverty

PERMALINK SEE ALL POSTS
EMAIL THIS POST COMMENTS (34)
SHARE ARTICLE Buzzflash del.icio.us Digg Facebook Newsvine Reddit What is this?


Recently, Congresswoman Barbara Lee said to me, "This is a moment when people are suffering. They are one paycheck -- if they have a paycheck -- away from poverty."

That's why Lee has maintained a laser-like focus on addressing poverty. One in eight Americans -- approximately 37 million people -- now live below the federal poverty line of $19,971 for a family of four. (A woefully inadequate measure that is 42 years old and fails to account for basic necessities.) That's 4.9 million more people than in 2000 and the poverty rate for children is the highest of all age groups. Nearly 60 million people live just above the poverty line. Using the British standard of measurement, approximately 30 percent of Americans -- and 40 percent of American children -- are living in poverty.

In January, Lee introduced House Concurrent Resolution 198 to get her colleagues on record saying that the US should set a national goal of cutting poverty in half over the next 10 years. The resolution stated that "policy initiatives addressing poverty have not kept pace with the needs of millions of Americans" and that "the United States has a moral responsibility to meet the needs of those persons, groups, and communities that are impoverished, disadvantaged or otherwise in poverty."

"That resolution passed on a bipartisan basis," Lee told me. "No opposition. And so we're looking now at the specific recommendations of many groups that have come together to talk about what makes sense to begin to reduce and eliminate poverty. And so, that's the mission of the Out of Poverty Caucus which I co-chair. And it's moving. The Speaker has taken note, the Leadership has taken note."

Lee said that a real test of Democratic priorities occurred in the budget debate earlier this month. The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), which she co-chairs along with Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, introduced its Progressive Caucus Budget which included an Anti-Poverty and Opportunity Initiative. The CPC budget spent $468.3 billion on defense, $68.7 billion less than President Bush's request of World War II-proportions.

It called for $73 billion in FY 2009, increasing to $129 billion in FY 2018, to fund a comprehensive strategy to cut poverty in half in a decade, including: expanding child care and increasing Head Start funding; making the Child Tax Credit fully refundable and expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit for larger families; increasing funding for Food Stamps programs; increasing housing vouchers by 200,000 annually; lifting restrictions on TANF, Food Stamps, SSI and Medicaid for documented immigrant families; fully funding block grants to states with broad anti-poverty strategies and distributing targeted grants to states for families where a parent or child has a disability; increasing funding for Indian Health Services, education, housing and infrastructure, natural resources management, and other areas impacting Native American poverty; and reversing the 20 percent cut in child support enforcement.

The CPC budget also offered a second economic stimulus package -- to pump $118.9 billion into the economy -- with funding increases for unemployment insurance, food stamps, foreclosure relief and housing assistance, and Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) payments to states; and also job creation through repair of schools, transportation infrastructure and public housing, and building new wastewater treatment plants. Over the next decade its sustained Rebuild and Reinvest in America Initiative would create green jobs and overhaul our nation's crumbling infrastructure.

In the end, the budget was defeated by a 98-322 vote. But it received 17 more votes than last year, and the Democratic vote was 98-131(during an election year when too many Democrats still fear criticism from Republicans on domestic spending). Clearly, the progressive movement in Congress is growing. Lee and her CPC colleagues will introduce the Anti-Poverty and Opportunity Initiative and also the Rebuild and Reinvest in America Initiative as their own freestanding bills in coming months. She also continues to work on a second economic stimulus package.

"I'm cautiously optimistic," Lee said. "We heard while negotiating the first stimulus that there would be a second -- and that the reasons why we couldn't get the food stamps, and unemployment insurance, and those efforts -- in the first stimulus, it just wouldn't pass and we needed to get money in the hands of people right away. But that we'd come back and work on the second piece, and so that's what we're working on."

Lee is disappointed that Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton aren't addressing poverty more aggressively in their respective presidential campaigns.

"Every now and then they'll say a little bit but for the most part I don't think any of them have made this a bold initiative like Senator Edwards did," she said. "Of course, I'm an Obama person. Every chance I get I'm pushing [his campaign] to talk about poverty in a direct way. And I assume the Clinton people are talking to their candidate about this.... We've always talked about the middle-class -- which is fine, we want to make sure the middle-class stays [strong]. But we never seem to fix our mouths to talk about the poor and low-income individuals. And, of course, when you talk about poor people there may be some negative connotations about that. You know, maybe there's a messaging issue. But when people are poor, they're poor. When they don't have any money, they don't have any money."

As for Lee, she will continue to strengthen the anti-poverty coalition and fight for strategies that work. Within the halls of Congress, she's part of the Faith Working Group -- united in its view that the budget is a moral document and that there is a moral imperative to fight poverty. She works closely with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Center for American Progress Task Force on Poverty who urged her to push the resolution setting a national goal to cut poverty in half in a decade. She and the CPC have reached out to work with Martin Luther King III's Realizing the Dream initiative. And the Economic Policy Institute and Campaign for America's Future are very involved in the second economic stimulus package. Labor, health care, and affordable housing advocates are also on board in helping to move progressive legislation.

"A major coalition could develop from this effort," Lee said.

With the poor getting poorer, and the middle-class shrinking, Lee's steadfast commitment to fighting poverty -- and building a coalition to win that fight -- is needed now in new and urgent ways.


Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 75 cents a week!




COMMENTS


Posting a comment requires registration. Click here to register.


Gleaned out the important part...

"In the end, the budget was defeated by a 98-322 vote."

Why? Because hardly anybody wants to blow the budget and ABSOLUTELY nobody wants to raise the taxes to pay for it in an election year, when the Dems stand a good shot at the White House and holding Congress (probably picking up seats).

Non-binding "concurrent resolutions"...will get passed all day long.

But sorry, Ms vanden Heuvel "17 votes more" is not "clearly" the progressive movement in Congress growing. Unless you're willing to wait until sometime in the 2020s when 17 votes every Congressional term will start to ADD up to something like what you want getting passed.

First job of the next Congress and hopefully Dem President...get the fiscal house in order by letting the Bush cuts lapse and getting us on a glide path to getting out of Iraq.

That's it.

Posted by MASK 03/24/2008 @ 2:18pm | ignore this person


Even workers who traditionally vote Democratic will have difficulty supporting programs targeted at 'poverty' - rather than education or health care. That's because families living in poverty are working, taxpaying families who are descending into poverty due to the Republican attack on America's industry.

So a comprehensive 'War on Poverty' will have to include fair trade policy - and fewer ameliorative programs that the Republicans can single out as 'welfare'. Incredible as it seems, the Republicans still have support among workers below the poverty line - ignorant white workers who are easily swayed by appeals to racism.

Posted by SAMCROSSETT 03/24/2008 @ 2:29pm | ignore this person


Please, please stop it. Government cannot end poverty. In countless cases Government is the CAUSE of poverty. Poverty has been used forever as a dependency tool for politicians, a sure-fired method of BUYING votes and redistributing wealth. (Yes, just like Bush's war on terror!)

I suggest Ms Lee reads "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell before she adds more of our tax money to the $trillions wasted on the War on Poverty. I applaud Lee's desire to help those in need and am fully on board to the power of giving others a helping hand.

But the private sector and investment is the only way to end poverty. Not more government entitlement schemes and hand-outs.

Because politicians like Barbara Lee understand that the majority of Americans have no fundamental understanding of the root causes of poverty, they feel free to exploit that ignorance to ensure an expanded role of Government in our lives.

Has the War on Poverty been successful? If you still feel poverty is a problem (it is) then why does anyone here think a continuation of the same strategy we've had since Lyndon Johnson is going to be successful now?

Hint: Barbara Lee riding around in her Escalade caravan is more interested in expanded government than actually ending poverty.


Posted by FREIHEIT 03/24/2008 @ 2:39pm | ignore this person


mask, there is a distinct difference between what you do, and what ms. van den heuvel does:

you make forecasts

she has principles

let me say this once, and once and for all: the ONLY way the united states is going to get out of the mess we are in is if we significantly raise taxes, starting with the wealthiest on down.

if you look at any other western country, all of them have a higher standard of living. why? higher taxes. trust me.

if we only had principles (nobody without health care, education, food, clothing, shelter)......alas. everyone is SO afraid of higher taxes.

Posted by DARLADOON 03/24/2008 @ 2:41pm | ignore this person


Please, please stop it. Government cannot end poverty. In countless cases Government is the CAUSE of poverty. Poverty has been used forever as a dependency tool for politicians, a sure-fired method of BUYING votes and redistributing wealth

how can you explain, then, the significantly higher standard of living in canada, sweden, iceland, france, spain, etc, etc?

they have much, much higher taxes, but the people live well, considering.

more sick pay, more vacation time, paid pregnancy leave, 35 hour work weeks, pension, health care, education (through university), etc, etc.

is anyone in this forum opposed to paying higher taxes for these benefits? not me!

Posted by DARLADOON 03/24/2008 @ 2:43pm | ignore this person


Posted by SNTAURI 03/24/2008 @ 4:12pm

There is a difference between equal and equitable. Can we dispense with the Harrison Bergeron fantasies? You don't live in his world, and you never will.

Posted by SRJENKINS 03/24/2008 @ 5:11pm | ignore this person


But the private sector and investment is the only way to end poverty. Not more government entitlement schemes and hand-outs

but clearly (!), the private sector has interests which fundamentally contradict the principle of compassion. namely, if the investment doesn't pay off, then is it less likely the rich will help.

the likeliness of a profit, or even the likeliness of breaking even, must be eliminated from the equation. we're talking about people's lives here.

a voluntary approach to ending poverty cannot sustain. it must be compulsory. we all have a stake in ending poverty, and it begins with higher taxes.

Posted by DARLADOON 03/24/2008 @ 2:48pm | ignore this person


i have an honest question for the forum:

would you be interested in higher taxes (even just slightly) if it meant lifting us out of debt?

then,

would you be interested in even higher taxes (even just slightly) if it meant lifting 37 million of people above the poverty line?

i would even go a step further: i would have my "salary" cut by 40% to pay for health care, education, and pension for ALL americans.


Posted by DARLADOON 03/24/2008 @ 2:55pm | ignore this person


Darladoon, our government has no incentive whatsoever to erase the national debt. Clearly you don't comprehend the situation at all. No problem, we're not alone.

Here's something to chew on: All of the money currently in circulation is debt. Think about that, and then see if you can comprehend the effect of "lifting us out of debt."

Furthermore, instead of giving 40% of your salary to politicians so they can cater to special interests in providing you with healthcare, etc., why not keep the 40% and ask your politicians to oversee a fair freemarket environment that gives you the freedom to choose your healthcare at the best price and convenience to you.

Haha, that's not going to happen though is it? because the politicians you trust so amazingly to me, will never relinquish their power. Politicians like barbara Lee believe they know better than you how your healthcare should be provided. Why you so adamantly put your faith in the unbridaled power of politicians will never cease to amaze me. You act as if politicains were somehow different than businessmen and women...

Posted by FREIHEIT 03/24/2008 @ 3:18pm | ignore this person


Darladoon, sometimes I think you would be happy to give all of your money to the government and have it provide for you. That idea just weirds me out. I can't comprehend of a more horrible reality, but people like you just never cease in your vision that that would be best. Do you ever consider how dangerous your vision for our future really is?

Posted by FREIHEIT 03/24/2008 @ 3:24pm | ignore this person

Read all of the comments and post a reply.


OLDER << Follow Bernie Sanders's Lead


Katrina vanden Heuvel



Welcome to Editor's Cut, a running journal recording thoughts on politics, reporting on events, and offering riffs and reflections on what's in the news and what's not (but should be).

Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini







Copyright © 2008 The Nation

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=301907