The Storm Over Poverty

[Bonnie]

The storm over poverty
Paul Jacob
September 18, 2005

Hurricane Katrina was so powerful it brought LBJ back from the grave.

Well, actually not President Lyndon Baines Johnson himself; it's his "War on Poverty" that's back on top of the talk heap. TV's talking heads, a slew of politicians, and a bevy of social welfare organizations now push for a renewed effort against poverty.

But their own poverty of sense is showing.

Hurricane Katrina didn't illuminate a need for a new War on Poverty. It's the spectacular failure of the last such misnamed "war" that's in the bright light of day. Forty years after a myriad of Great Society programs, the fact is that many people are still poor — about the same percentage as back in 1968. Unfortunately, those who see government as the solution for every problem, especially those caused by their last attempted solution, have never let results, inconvenient facts, or common sense get in their way.
NAACP President Bruce Gordon praised Bush's speech to the nation this week, but pushed for government to go further, to usher in utopia: "Now what we need to see is whether he will use the George Bush-style conviction to eliminate poverty."

Eliminate poverty . . . with a stroke of the pen? Is it really that easy?

Bishop T.D. Jakes, the leader of a 30,000-person congregation in Dallas, called on Americans to help the poor, saying we should "love them enough to pay the bill."

Does the commandment to love one's neighbors really mean paying all their bills? In my book, sometimes love means not paying another's bills.

Senator Ted Kennedy intoned that "we cannot be an America of haves and have-nots." Look for his check in your mailbox.

We're even told that Hurricane Katrina — by breaching the levees, flooding New Orleans, and breaking down the framework of civil society — may have been a blessing in disguise. That's a heckuva disguise.

New Orleans ranks 12th in the percentage of residents below the poverty line. The rank tracks something, but poverty line statistics mislead more than enlighten. For example, these statistics rarely differentiate between the temporarily poor and more permanently impoverished individuals. Nor do they help explain why some folks living in so-called poverty are the envy of others around the globe.

Most poverty isn't caused by storms. Or even bad luck. Most poverty is caused by poor decision-making. Having children out of wedlock, abusing drugs and alcohol, or putting personal pleasure above responsible action are problems much too personal to be cured by politicians and bureaucrats. Or by more money, either.

Many of us have been poor at one time or another. But those truly stuck in poverty are usually suffering from a lack of character, something no government can provide.

Except perhaps by tough love. What's that? It's the love that dares not reward or excuse bad behavior, that does not blame productive people for the poverty of those who refuse to produce, and that steps back and lets human nature do its work. People have survived on the planet a long time, even before government programs to battle poverty.
One of America's biggest causes of poverty is fatherlessness. It is a problem that our society can discourage, but government can do little to solve. A government check certainly doesn't create a father.

Even conservatives have some trouble with this logic. Rich Lowry wrote an otherwise cogent column for National Review Online that concluded with hopes for action from the federal government, suggesting "a grand right-left bargain that includes greater attention to out-of-wedlock births from the Left in exchange for the Right's support for more urban spending" because "anything is worth addressing the problem of fatherlessness."

Two problems: I can't afford more "urban spending" — nor rural, nor suburban spending, come to think of it — and government may "address" fatherlessness and Leftists can even pay "attention" to it, but only individual fathers and mothers can stop it.

These are personal choices. People's actions can be subsidized or taxed, they can preached at or ignored, but these choices cannot be legislated and the consequences of poor choices — namely poverty — cannot be solved by bureaucrats or politicians.

Government can defend the country and even clean up after hurricanes . . . with varying results. But it cannot be our minister, our parents, our friend. That's what the rest of us are here for.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/pauljacob/printpj20050918.shtml

 

[William Joyce]

Lower standards of living are also caused by inherent differences in intelligence. "Poor decision-making" is a start, but who makes poor decisions but those who are less intelligent?

 

[Annie]

Lower standards of living are also caused by inherent differences in intelligence. "Poor decision-making" is a start, but who makes poor decisions but those who are less intelligent?

Hmmm, Clinton has intelligence and income, yet he is still a dolt:

http://large-regular.blogspot.com/2005/09/clinton-criticizes-bush-on-abcs-this.html

Clinton Criticizes Bush on ABC's This Week (Yawn!)- AKA More Harm than Good

Much of the blogosphere is abuzz today because of what former President Bill Clinton said on ABC's Sunday morning politcal program This Week.

Betsy's Page links to the Anchoress who looks at the motivation behind Clinton's comments and what she sees isn't flattering to Clinton.

Powerline also looks into the This Week comments by Clinton and comes to this scathing conclusion:

Again and again, President Bush has tried to work with the Democrats as if they were loyal Americans first, and partisans second. He has treated Bill Clinton with a friendship and respect that, candidly, is disproportionate to Clinton's meager accomplishments. Again and again, the Democrats have rebuffed Bush's overtures and taken advantage of his patriotism and good faith. Clinton's politically-motivated tissue of lies and distortions is just the latest example out of many. But it is unprecedented, coming from a former President. That is a sad thing: the latest wound inflicted on the body politic by the Democratic Party.

Lorie Byrd at PoliPundit calls Clinton's performance "shameless".

Personally, I'm not surprised that Clinton is taking the path blazed by Jimmy Carter (sorry Powerline guys - this act is nothing new). What does interest me is the "old media vs. new media" aspect of this story.

George Stephanopolous hasn't exactly been a ratings darling Let's say the This Week show was slightly better than its normal ratings and had 2.5 million viewers. Who were those viewers? Some were sure to be hardcore Democrats but Clinton was preaching to the choir with them. Others like Lorie Byrd, John Hinderaker and the Anchoress were obviously listening and listening closely.

How many people do you think read what that trio had to say about Clinton's comments (plus Betsy's traffic and the other blogs who commented but I didn't name)? I'll SWAG and say maybe 200,000. That's just today. Unlike This Week (which for all intents and purposes exists just for those precious few moments of Sunday morning airtime) - there will be more people reading what the bloggers wrote about Clinton tomorrow and the next day. In the future when people Google "Clinton This Week appearence" - they won't get George Stephanopolous' show - they'll get the blogs that commented on Clinton's comments.

When all's said and done - I'd bet that the number of people who learned of Clinton's comments with the added context of the blogger analysis will far outweigh the original audience of the original This Week show.

All this without the benefit of an Instalanche from Glenn Reynolds on the subject.

Clinton did himself (and his wife) more harm than good with his comments. I wonder if he's new media savvy enough to realize it.

 

[William Joyce]

Income? Has he paid off his legal bills yet? Who bought "My Life," anyway? People trying to save on sleeping pills?

 

[Bonnie]

Hmmm, Clinton has intelligence and income, yet he is still a dolt:

http://large-regular.blogspot.com/2005/09/clinton-criticizes-bush-on-abcs-this.html

I have to keep wondering why on earth Bush senior keeps hanging around with Bubba and his negative rhetoric against Bush junior...Is it dementia??

 

[dilloduck]

I have to keep wondering why on earth Bush senior keeps hanging around with Bubba and his negative rhetoric against Bush junior...Is it dementia??

Creepy isn't it---seeing all 3 of em standing together by a podium is just wrong. Makes me wanna run for some foil.

 

[Annie]

Hmmm, Clinton has intelligence and income, yet he is still a dolt:

http://large-regular.blogspot.com/2005/09/clinton-criticizes-bush-on-abcs-this.html

A bit more:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/09/bill_clinton_lo.html

Bill Clinton Loses Mind, Memory

Bill Clinton chatted with former staffer George Stephanopoulos about Bush, Iarq, and Katrina; as they discussed the evacuation plan for New Orleans, it appeared that Mr. Clinton forgot that at one time he had been President himself:

PRESIDENT CLINTON: ...But I think the fundamental problem there was, it's like when they issued the evacuation order: that affects poor people differently. A lot of them in New Orleans didn't have cars. A lot of them who had cars had kinfolk they had to take care of. They didn't have cars, so they couldn't take them out.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: And they couldn't get gas.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: And they couldn't get gas.

Then, you had another thing nobody's talked about: a lot of these people never had any home insurance, didn't have any flood insurance. Everything they owned was in their little home. And if we really wanted it to do it right, we would have had lots of buses lined up to take them out and also lots of empty vans so that everybody with no kind of home or flood insurance could have been given a little bit--

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: The Mayor probably should have had those buses.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: A little bit of it.

Maybe the Mayor, maybe the Governor, but all I can tell you is that when James Lee Witt ran FEMA, because he had been both a local official and a Federal official, he was always there early, and we always thought about that. But both of us came out of environments with a disproportionate number of poor people.

I think that we were sensitive to the racial issue, but I think we were sensitive to the economic issue. And you can't have an emergency plan that works if it only affects middle class people up, and when you tell people to go do something they don't have the means to do, you're going to leave the poor out.

First of all, what kind of cut-rate plan is Clinton proposing - buses and moving vans? In *my* fantasy plan, we will have buses, and right behind them will be moving vans, and right behind them will be vans staffed with physical therapists, manicurists, and a masseuse, and right behind that will be a van with some grief counselors, separation counselors, and, well, counselors. Because these evacuees will have unmet needs.

But set aside Clinton's lack of compassion. Does he seriously think that Mr. DeWitt would show up 72 hours before the Big Blow and arrange all this?

Or is Mr. Clinton seriously suggesting that back in the day when Mr. DeWitt was running FEMA, the evacuation plan for New Orleans included buses and moving vans for the poor? When was that dropped from the plan?

Or (third choice), is Mr. Clinton just running his mouth?

YOU make the call!

MORE: I'll copy this, even though it clearly could not have happened while Messrs. Clinton and DeWitt were in charge:

On September 27, 1998: Hurricane Georges forced large scale evacuation of the City of New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf coast as Georges approaches the mouth of the Mississippi River, ultimately making landfall at Biloxi, MS. That evacuation effort was the largest effort in US history at the time, overwhelming the infrastructure of the region for several hundred miles. The Louisiana Superdome was used as a last resort evacuation shelter for the first time.

 

[kurtsprincess]

Lower standards of living are also caused by inherent differences in intelligence. "Poor decision-making" is a start, but who makes poor decisions but those who are less intelligent?

Or perhaps less educated?

 

[Nuc]

Lower standards of living are also caused by inherent differences in intelligence. "Poor decision-making" is a start, but who makes poor decisions but those who are less intelligent?

Intelligence and wisdom are not synonymous.

 

[Trigg]

The only people who can be helped out of poverty are the ones willing to also help themselves.

A great example of the gov. actually helping the poor was during the Depression when the gov. had work programs. They didn't just give out money the people worked for it. They could still be proud of themselves since it wasn't a handout.

There are people who will grip about being poor yet do nothing to help themselves out of the situation. They'll keep spending money on drugs, or designer clothes, instead of an education for themselves or their children. Many are perfectly happy to stand around with their hands out waiting for the gov. to "help" them. They've become dependent on that help.

 

[ProudDem]

My poor Billy Willy--gettin' beat up in this thread. *sigh*

I think W wants Clinton as part of the fundraising because it should be bipartisan. Clinton and Bush senior did a great job raising money for the tsunami, and they have raised something like $10 Million for the hurricane victims. W is smart enough (did I really say that? ) to know that they will get a higher amount of donations if both parties are represented. Clinton is still loved by the dems (including this one). He was on Meet the Press on Sunday, and he looked awful. Those bags under his eyes--eek!

 

[Abbey Normal]

I predict that poverty will be Cindy Sheehan's next protest issue.

 

[Bonnie]

Creepy isn't it---seeing all 3 of em standing together by a podium is just wrong. Makes me wanna run for some foil.

It is kind of creepy, I realize Bush Senior is trying to take the high road for the sake of doing something positive, but at this point YUK

 

[Trigg]

I agree with Bush calling on both parties in order to get more people involved in raising money.

I haven't heard anything Clinton has said about Bush's or the federal gov.'s slow response to Katrina. I would hope however that he includes the incompetance shown by the Democratic Mayor and Democratic Governor in his comments.

 

[ProudDem]

I agree with Bush calling on both parties in order to get more people involved in raising money.

I haven't heard anything Clinton has said about Bush's or the federal gov.'s slow response to Katrina. I would hope however that he includes the incompetance shown by the Democratic Mayor and Democratic Governor in his comments.

Trigg, I believe he did not address the incompetence of the Mayor and the Governor. I was disappointed that he even addressed that. Come on, you're helping raise money for the victims, why beat this issue over the head? (Maybe Hillary made him do it.)

Here's an article in the New York Times that addressed Clinton's words:

September 19, 2005
Clinton Levels Sharp Criticism at the President's Relief Effort
By PHILIP SHENON

WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 - Former President Bill Clinton, asked by President Bush to help raise money for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, offered harsh criticism of the administration's disaster-relief effort on Sunday, saying "you can't have an emergency plan that works if it only affects middle-class people up."

Mr. Clinton's comments in an interview on the ABC News program "This Week" could prove awkward for the White House, given President Bush's eagerness to involve his Democratic predecessor in a high-profile role to raise money for the hurricane's victims. His remarks came days after the president gave a televised speech from New Orleans, trying to seize the momentum amid other attacks on the administration's performance.

The White House has been under siege from critics, assailed first for the effectiveness of its response to the storm, and challenged more recently by questions about the long-term fiscal implications of its plans for rebuilding in the Gulf states.

Mr. Clinton argued that lower-income Americans had done better under the economic policies of his administration than they are doing now, saying the storm highlighted class divisions in the country that often played out along racial lines.

"It's like when they issued the evacuation order," he said. "That affects poor people differently. A lot of them in New Orleans didn't have cars. A lot of them who had cars had kinfolk they had to take care of. They didn't have cars, so they couldn't take them out."

"This is a matter of public policy," he said. "And whether it's race-based or not, if you give your tax cuts to the rich and hope everything works out all right, and poverty goes up and it disproportionately affects black and brown people, that's a consequence of the action made. That's what they did in the 80's; that's what they've done in this decade. In the middle, we had a different policy."

The White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, did not respond directly to Mr. Clinton's remarks about the hurricane-relief effort or mention the former president by name. But in a statement on Sunday, Mr. McClellan suggested it was unfair to link the plight of low-income victims of the hurricane to the economic policies of the Bush administration.

"There is a deep history of injustice that has led to poverty and inequality, and it will not be overcome instantly," he said, adding that President Bush "from Day 1 has been acting boldly to achieve real results for all Americans."

He added, "Do we think in new and bold ways by focusing on innovative programs that work for all Americans, or do we embrace failed policies of the past which have resulted in too many being left behind?"

Throughout Mr. Bush's presidency, Mr. Clinton has often been critical of his successor, and he repeated many of those criticisms in the Sunday interview in discussing the invasion of Iraq, the growing federal deficit and other issues. But it was the directness of his criticism of President Bush's policies related to domestic disaster relief that appeared most likely to cause aggravation at the White House.

Noting statistics that showed a significant drop in poverty during his presidency, Mr. Clinton said, "You can't have an emergency plan that works if it only affects middle-class people up, and when you tell people to go do something they don't have the means to do, you're going to leave the poor out."

Mr. Clinton has reunited with President Bush's father, former President George H. W. Bush, in a fund-raising campaign for Katrina victims, much as they worked together to raise millions of dollars for relief efforts after the Asian tsunami last year. Mr. Clinton said the two had raised $90 million to $100 million so far for hurricane victims.

Mr. Clinton drew a sharp distinction between the performance of the government's disaster-relief agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in his administration and today. "I think we did a good job of disaster management," he said.

While not using the name of Michael D. Brown, the FEMA director who resigned last Monday after criticism of his performance in the Katrina disaster, Mr. Clinton praised the performance of his FEMA director, James Lee Witt, and said Mr. Witt had been especially sensitive to the needs of low-income people because "both of us came out of environments with a disproportionate number of poor people."

Mr. Clinton said he was especially disturbed that many of the people who lost homes in the hurricane had no property insurance.

"Everything they owned was in their little home," he said. "And if we really wanted to do it right, we would have had lots of buses lined up to take them out and also lots of empty vans" to save the belongings of those with no home or flood insurance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/19/national/nationalspecial/19clinton.html

 

[Bonnie]

ProudDem...Trigg, I believe he did not address the incompetence of the Mayor and the Governor. I was disappointed that he even addressed that. Come on, you're helping raise money for the victims, why beat this issue over the head? (Maybe Hillary made him do it.)

I agree here, Clinton should be above politics, and leave that for the pundits to battle out. It makes him look petty.

 

[Trigg]

"It's like when they issued the evacuation order," he said. "That affects poor people differently. A lot of them in New Orleans didn't have cars. A lot of them who had cars had kinfolk they had to take care of. They didn't have cars, so they couldn't take them out."

Who are "they" here? He's trying to lay blaim at Bush when clearly the blaim lay with the mayor of the city. It's the mayors job to have an evacuation plan that works for everyone.

"This is a matter of public policy," he said. "And whether it's race-based or not, if you give your tax cuts to the rich and hope everything works out all right, and poverty goes up and it disproportionately affects black and brown people, that's a consequence of the action made. That's what they did in the 80's; that's what they've done in this decade. In the middle, we had a different policy."

He added, "Do we think in new and bold ways by focusing on innovative programs that work for all Americans, or do we embrace failed policies of the past which have resulted in too many being left behind?"

Noting statistics that showed a significant drop in poverty during his presidency, Mr. Clinton said, "You can't have an emergency plan that works if it only affects middle-class people up, and when you tell people to go do something they don't have the means to do, you're going to leave the poor out."

Bill O'Reilly had a good piece about this, it's in another thread right now. Where he stated that poverty is lower now than it was during Clinton's presidency.


Mr. Clinton said he was especially disturbed that many of the people who lost homes in the hurricane had no property insurance.

Doesn't everyone have to have property insurance on their homes? He may be talking about renters insurance which alot of people don't carry but should since it doesn't cost much.

"Everything they owned was in their little home," he said. "And if we really wanted to do it right, we would have had lots of buses lined up to take them out and also lots of empty vans" to save the belongings of those with no home or flood insurance.

I agree with Clinton on this last part "if things have been done right" there would have been busses lined up. Apparently the dem. mayor didn't care to do things right. He even told the people who made their way to the superdome to bring their own food and water. He knew the levees might not hold. Even now he had told people to come back to the city knowing there was another hurricane brewing in the caribbean, he finally backed down on this after numerous people criticized him.

I'm not saying FEMA wasn't slow. But I'm getting tired of the media ignoring that fact that the Mayor is in charge of the City and should be held responsible.

 

[Trigg]

I agree here, Clinton should be above politics, and leave that for the pundits to battle out. It makes him look petty.

He should be above it, but since his wifey is thinking of running for president it doesn't surprise me that he's trying to get some points out of this.

 

[Bonnie]

He should be above it, but since his wifey is thinking of running for president it doesn't surprise me that he's trying to get some points out of this.

Payback to Hillary for sticking it out after all the affairs, :spank3: plus I hear she still carries his unmentionable parts in her purse...

 

[manu1959]

Payback to Hillary for sticking it out after all the affairs, :spank3: plus I hear she still carries his unmentionable parts in her purse...

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....strange she would carry his brain in her purse....explains a lot though.