Opinion: We are the poor
By Robert Reich
Fifty years ago, when Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty, the poor were different – “other,” as in Michael Harrington’s seminal book of 1962, “The Other America.”
That’s no longer the case.
After the War on Poverty ended, Republicans told working-class whites that their hard-earned tax dollars were being siphoned off to pay for “welfare queens” (as Ronald Reagan decorously dubbed a black single woman on welfare) and other nefarious loafers. The poor were “them” – lazy, dependent on government handouts and overwhelmingly black – in sharp contrast to “us,” working ever harder, proudly independent (even sending wives and mothers to work in order to prop up family incomes dragged down by shrinking male paychecks) and white.
Robert Reich
It was a cunning strategy designed to split the broad coalition that had supported the New Deal and Great Society by using the cleavers of racial prejudice and economic anxiety. It also conveniently fueled resentment of government taxes and spending.
The strategy also served to distract attention from why the paychecks of the working class began shrinking in the 1980s – because of corporations that were busily busting unions, outsourcing abroad and replacing jobs with automated equipment and, subsequently, computers and robotics.
But that divide-and-conquer strategy is no longer convincing because the dividing line between poor and middle class has all but disappeared. “They” are fast becoming “us.”
Poverty is now a condition that almost anyone can fall into. In the first two years of this recovery, according to a report from the Census Bureau, about 1 in 3 Americans dropped into poverty for at least two to six months.
Three decades of flattening wages and declining economic security have taken a broader toll. Nearly 55 percent of Americans between the ages of 25 and 60 have experienced at least a year in poverty or near poverty (the latter defined as below 150 percent of the poverty line), according to author and Washington University Professor Mark R. Rank. Half of all American children have at some point during their childhoods relied on food stamps.
When LBJ declared war on poverty, most of the nation’s chronically poor had little or no connection to the labor force, while most working-class Americans had full-time jobs.
This distinction has broken down, too. Now, a significant percentage of the poor are working but not earning enough to get themselves and their families out of poverty. And a growing portion of the middle class finds itself in the same place – often in part-time or temporary positions or in contract work.
Economic insecurity is endemic. Working-class whites who used to be cushioned against the vagaries of the market are now fully exposed to them. Trade unions that once bargained on behalf of employees and protected their contractual rights have withered. Informal expectations of lifelong employment with a single company are gone. Company loyalty has become a bad joke.
Financial markets are now calling the shots – forcing companies to suddenly uproot, sell out to other companies, transfer whole divisions abroad, liquidate unprofitable units or adopt new software that suddenly renders old skills obsolete.
Because money moves at the speed of an electronic impulse while human beings move at the speed of human beings, the humans – most of them hourly workers but many white collar as well – have been getting shafted.
This means sudden and unexpected poverty has become a real possibility for almost everyone these days. And there’s little margin of safety. With the real median household income continuing to drop, 65 percent of working families are living from paycheck to paycheck.
Race is no longer a dividing line, either. According to Census Bureau numbers, two-thirds of those below the poverty line at any given point identify themselves as white.
This new face of poverty – a face that’s both poor, near-poor and precarious working middle class and simultaneously black, Latino and white – renders the divide-and-conquer strategy obsolete. Most people are now on the same losing side of the divide. Since the start of the recovery, 95 percent of the economy’s gains have gone to the top 1 percent.
This means Republican opposition to extended unemployment insurance, food stamps, jobs programs, expanded Medicaid and a higher minimum wage could potentially backfire on the GOP.
Just look at North Carolina, a bellwether state, where Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan, up for re-election, is doing well by attacking Republicans back home as “irresponsible and cold-hearted” for slashing unemployment benefits and social services. The state Democratic Party is highlighting her Republican opponent’s “long record of demeaning statements against those struggling to make ends meet.” (Tom Tillis, the speaker of the state House, had spoken of the need “to divide and conquer” those receiving public assistance, and he called criticisms of the cuts “whining coming from losers.”)
The new economy has been especially harsh for the bottom two-thirds of Americans. It’s not hard to imagine a new political coalition of America’s poor and working middle class, bent not only on repairing the nation’s frayed safety nets but also on getting a fair share of the economy’s gains.
Robert Reich, former U.S. secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at UC Berkeley.
What happened to the millions of Green jobs promised by the Obama Regime?
Let’s take a look at the Obama Regime by the numbers:
$6.1 Trillion added To The National Debt Since Obama Took Office. (U.S. Treasury Department, 8/8/13)
$74.6 Billion amount The Government Spent On Food Stamps In 2012
$521 Million taxpayer Dollars Wasted On Failed Energy Company Solyndra
100% increase In The Average Price Per Gallon Of Gas Since Obama Took Office
49% increase in Food Stamp Recipients
58% increase in the Federal Debt
6,700,000 additional people in poverty since Obama took office
10.2% real inflation rate
$867,000,000,000 failed stimulus program
1/3 of working age Americans out of work.
The Obama Regime’s record and its painful legacy of debt, unemployment and despair is what plagues our nation.
It’s Bush’s fault. ;-)
It’s amazing how liberals won’t point the finger at Obama and his appointed Federal Reserve! Their Quantitative Easing Program has inflated stock prices for the already rich, but yet also inflated fuel & food prices! Thus, making the rich richer, at the expense of putting the squeeze on the lower incomes!
But when it’s done by one of their own, I guess the Left is all in favor of Trickle Down Economics?!
It didn’t start with Obama, liberalism has been growing the nanny state for decades.
Freedom begins with free enterprise.
South Lake Tahoe is progressives Crony Capitalisms poster child.
A poster child of failure.
From here it gets worse.
CJ, I beg to differ with you – Detroit is the poster child for liberal policies run amok.
Sooner or later, the laws of economics catch up with everyone, including government. There’s no escaping the laws of economics, and when you put your boot squarely on the throat of private enterprise, they’ll leave, or fight back so badly that your government files for bankruptcy (take the City of Mammoth Lakes as an example).
Parker, you’re correct in your analysis.
The underlying problem with the Fed’s QE program is that it has disrupted the natural cycle of the marketplace.
One of the byproducts of recessions, in this case a Depression under Obama, is falling prices. The Fed has prevented deflation, but only temporarily. Deflation enables those with liquidity to come into the market and acquire assets at fair market value.
What we have now is a zombie economy, and the only people who are benefitting are those on Wall Street and in the public sector.
The guy on Main Street is getting screwed, daily, at the grocery store, gas pump, and at tax time.
“100% increase In The Average Price Per Gallon Of Gas Since Obama Took Office”
Really?
That’s a pretty bold lie, considering that we all buy gas and know how to do math.
You are so full of poop.
If anyone understands the economic situation in America today, one of the top tier of individuals has to be Robert Reich.
Every American, including those in the top one percent income levels should read his comments, and look at their individual position in the current America.
Once I believed in the inherent resilience of the American way of life, and the will of Americans to step up to the plate and cooperatively work out problems.
Now I am not optimistic at all, and I fear for my two children who have recently entered the work force as professionals. It is simple greed that runs the US and the world at this time, and this has taken many forms.
It seems to me that many Americans have lost their work ethic, and are seeking to be sheltered from any and all natural and man made problems, even when they do stupid things. This may be from too many years of living beyond our means while constraining the very system that made it possible.
We have systematically dismantled (in the name of profits) the once vibrant and world class manufacturing economy, continued to force much raw material production off shore in the name of environmental protection, and created such a byzantine rule and law structure for business activities throughout the country. We have created a monster that is not understood, much less seems even vaguely controllable.
The only “industry” that seems to be running and wildly profitable is investment banking. The banks and bankers ignore many of the regulations set up to control dishonesty and subterfuge. The crimes are myriad, and international in scale, like under-the-table manipulation of major index interest rates and failure to disclose the frailty or fraud in bad loans when selling them to the unexpected.
When caught, the Banks simply are either bailed out of problems and/or allowed by the governments to pay a few billion (Yes, BILLION) in penalties, and it goes on as business as usual.
Does anyone ever think about how much money these banks are truly making to be able to pay Billions in penalties and still remain viable as a business? Maybe there IS a point where “too big to fail” kicks in.
Our legal system would rather imprison scores of thousands of petty drug offenders than than the men and women in banking who contrive daily to steal billions of dollars from the shareholders and other banks in the banking system. Is this because the govt. really can’t identify specific people who planned the crime and it is equally difficult to identify who lost the money?
I fear we will reach an economic tipping point at some time where sudden swings of such magnitude that major portions of the economy simply shuts down. We are already seeing city, county and even state governments in or on the cusp of bankruptcy. The Federal government can not print money forever to keep patching up the leaks in a basically failing system.
How is it deemed reasonable for supposedly smart leaders to plan to solve their economic and often social problems by planning on infinite economic growth at roughly 3 percent annually. How is it possible to believe this can happen in what is obviously a finite system?
Technology is NOT going to regularly and forever pull rabbits out of a hat to create a favorable economic outcome.
The trillions of dollars the US has spent in the war on terror attempting to control a few tens of thousands of religious fanatics around the globe will be seen to have been all in vain, compared to attempting to control the number of desperate starving people in our own country that have nothing to lose by resorting to upset and violence. Once I didn’t believe this was possible in the US, now I see it as almost inevitable without a major change in direction.
We, the affected citizens need to positively show our unwillingness to tolerate the status quo at the ballot box on every level of government in the United States.
Well said Observer! I will add that capitalism is a self-consuming entity. Controls, and rules are necessary. However the economics will really not make much difference when humans destroy all the ecosystems that keep us alive here on earth. ig
Dogzilla, for once I agree with you
HEY BITTER!
1) Most of the $6.1 Trillion were from Bush Tax cuts in 2000 & 2003 that were never paid for via the failed Iraq War Stimulus program.
2) Food Stamps help American Farmers and Families. Thank Kennedy we have this program to keep people from starvation.
3)Yes, $521 Million was invested in an American Company founded in 2005 in Fremont California to build solar panels that went bankrupt. That is still much better then the $12 Billion in CASH lost in Baghdad in June of 2004!
4)In early 2009 gas was about $2 per gallon, now it is a $3.30; 65% increase NOT 100%. In 2013, America past Saudi Arabia as the Worlds Largest Oil Producer.
5)Again. Recession/Depression hurt people foodstamps are a safety net.
6)Debt as a percent of GDP is dropping quickly.
7)Recessions hurt people on the lower economic range first. We need to raise the minimum wage.
8)Inflation is running about 2%.
9)Again, the Stimulus worked much better then the Iraq War did.
10)Unemployment is running about 7%.
11)Iraq War is over.
12)Housing has rebound.
13)Stock Markets have doubled.
14)American Auto companies sold record number of cars.
If Labor participation was at the same rate as it was before 2008, unemployment would be at about 10%.
And Yes, the stock market has boomed. The Bubble has been re inflated thanks to Quantitative Easing! That has caused the staples of living, food & fuel, to go up far greater than 2% per annum! And it has made the rich, richer. Should we give Kudos to the Pres. for that?
If we’re on such solid ground, then the Fed should stop increasing, in fact should start decreasing, the dangerous expansion of its balance sheet!!
rock4tahoe, while a good many of your counters are well thought out and even researched, the part about the bush tax cuts being the sole reason for the increase national debt is not really completely true. If you look at the last bush budget in 2008 the expenditures was 2.9 trillion and has gone up to 3.9 trillion in 2013 that is a 31% increase in 5 years. This adds up to a 3.5 trillion increased spending over that time. All the while most other goverment(state and city) were cutting their budgets. Some of it were really Necessary (in my opinion) to restart the economy. But certainly not all of it. That 3.5 trillion goes a long way to meeting the 6.1 trillion added to the debt. The other part of the debt can be attributed to the poor economy.
” If you look at the last bush budget in 2008″
Conveniently leaving out the other years, aren’t we?
Cosa, no not really the discussion was about the increase in national debt, but if you want to look at the increase that bush had in 5 years vs Obamas deficit. Bush increase the debt from 2003 to 2008 2.9 Trillion vs Obama 6.1 Trillion over a 5 year period. That is double. I am sure you are very happy that i have now included prior years.
Debit increases from interest.
Still conveniently leaving out some years, eh?
Yes does add to the debt. but only between 200 to 250 billion a year. At no point in bushs administration did did the deficit go over 500 billion are you conveniently forgetting that in the current administration the deficit has been below 1 trillion once and that was last year with increacing revenue and required budget cuts. Even so last years deficit was 900 billion. Please know your facts a little bit. I do agree that with the econoic downturn some of this spending was good. I only used a 5 year comparison between the 2 because that is how long the current president has been in office
Here is a graph of the US budget over time:
http://www.supportingevidence.com/Government/fed_budget_over_time.html
Notice the enormous increase from about 2005 to 2009 then it flattens out. Obama can be criticized for not reducing the budget but not for greatly increasing it.
Obama can’t be responsible for the GW budgets, or the drop in revenue (which the next president was going to deal with). Relo you are being disingenuous.
OK RELO. First. Reagan Trippled the Debt: $800 Billion to $2.4 Trillion and not one of the so-called conservatives cried wolf. Second. Bush Sr tacked on Billions more and the only person that cared was Ross Perot. Clinton left office with a small surplus. Bush Jr Doubled the debt AND he carried the Iraq and Afghan Wars on the balance sheet as ASSETS. Cheney thought that Iraq and Afghan would not cost more then $60 Billion versus reality of $1.3 Trillion (and counting) and the costs from special appropriation would be offset by the assets. The Bush/Cheney creative War accounting did not work and was rightfully thrown in the trash. The Iraq War, Global War on Terror and Afghanistan War are not cheap. Tax Cuts for billionaires are not cheap when the proceeds go to China and India.
President Obama walked into the White House with close to $11 Trillion in debt, start to worry if the debt goes over $22 (as when it doubled under Bush jr) or $33 Trillion (as when it trippled under Reagan.)
Cosa, no one is talking about Obama being responsible for the GW budgets(except maybe you) rather the rather large increase in spending of 31% over the 5 years he has been in office. I know that other state and city goverments would have loved to have increase their spending in that time frame. Esp our own city that had to layoff 30% of their workforce. I believe that we should have a balanced budget amendment, both parties are doing a horrible job of managing our money. There should be no reason that we should spend more than we take in, unless it is in a time of emergency.
I do believe you are the one being disingenuous. The belief that no party can do wrong is completely wrong. Get rid of the pork, and there is a lot of it.
I am worried now, esp what will happen when interest rates raise 4 times and the cost of carring the debt goes up 4 fold. the rates are being kept at an unreasonable rate by the Fed.
reloman,
Can you provide a citation for the 31% increase? I can find no data to support that. Depending on the source the increase is reported to be 0 to 8%.
Reagan had a Cold War to fight (That he won! And others got to cash in the benefits from that victory!). Plus he walked into an 18% inflation, no growth economy! (Also known as stagflation.)
Having stated that, Yes, Republicans have been far from pure in sticking to their principles when in power. That’s when & where they’ve screwed up. Their principles haven’t been the problem, failing to stick to them has been!
The reason the deficit went up on Reagan was plain and simple.
The democrats reneged on their commitment to cut spending.
Reagan and the Democrats agreed to cut taxes and then the congress would cut spending.
They, the democrats in congress, didn’t
FACT: 4 decades of increasing liberalism and an increasing Nanny state where the government now is encroaching on every aspect of our lives.
Liberalism brought this on America and few places are more infected by it then South Lake Tahoe.
Oh cjpubworksbitterclinger, your wisdom and knowledge is always so predictable. Slt is doing better without you…poor bend…
HEY PARKER! Wars, hot or cold, cost money. Reaching into the Federal Banks to pay for War is as old as our Country. It still counts a stimulus spending. Remember spending 120% of GDP during WWII and what happened to the Depression? That’s the end of today’s history lesson.
HEY CJ! The reason Deficits tripled under Reagan was they tripled under Reagan plan and simple.
Hey Rock,
You obviously don’t understand history, or what I was saying. Read your history and understand the circumstances Reagan walked into, left by a Democratic Pres. & Congress! You might actually learn something?
But in a nutshell, world under threat, sky rocketing prices, gas lines, and a no growth economy. And by Reagan’s last year, the annual deficit as a % of the economy was right where it was when he started! Not to mention, he won the Cold War, stopped inflation, and had the economy back in strong growth! And it was all done without the Federal Reserve engaging in any sort of Quantitative Easing!
I understand, you don’t like the facts to get in the way of your arguments!
Hey Parker,
You obviously get your history by living in a wingnutshell. The Soviet Union is widely recognized as being on the verge of collapse because of its flawed economic policies when Reagan took office by scholars that actually have studied the real history of the Cold War. Give me the USA’s platinum credit card with the ability to triple the national debt and I’ll show you how to make the economy look good, until of course the eventual complete failure of supply-side reaganomics comes crashing down destroying the middle class and sending us into the worst recession since the Great Depression under Bush II. Iran-Contra is a hideous betrayal of the American people by some of the worst people to ever hold high office in our republic. It’s easily researched and undeniably an indelibly ugly stain on our history that Reagan finally admitted was a disaster. Too bad nobody was ever held accountable to any degree. Some people in what remains of the GOP establishment claim that he would not have a chance to get elected now because of the party’s move to the hard right, I agree more with Bill Maher who pretty much nails Ronnie Raygun as an original teabagger in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_vP1_XDyBQ
You have no facts, you have fox.
If you read the news clippings of ’82-’85, where did anyone say The Soviet Union was on the verge collapse?
Many were saying we should buckle under to their demands at the SALT negotiating table, and many were saying Reagan was going to end the World with his firm stance, but only after the Soviet Union/Eastern Bloc collapsed did some on the Left go, “it was so obvious” or “would’ve happened anyway”.
And has there ever been a Pres. that didn’t make a mistake? But what people forget about Iran-Contra is that one of the hostages in Lebanon was a CIA agent. Maybe there was some desperation to free him before too many secrets were tortured out of him. But you are correct, Reagan went on TV, and admitted his mistake to the Nation.
And you want to associate what happened in 2008 to Reagan, who left office in ’89? Heck, Clinton left office closer to that time, in ’01.
Rob5 Bushs last budget of expenditures was 2.9 billion dollars in 2008. The 2013 year expenditures was 3.45 Trillion Which was a 18.9% increase over 5 years, not annually(my 31% was incorrect as mistakenly used the 3.8 Trillion requested but not that number was cut down by congress) but this number is still over double the inflation rate. Wouldnt it be great is the goverment could only increase spending by the amount that the inflation goes up.(on discresionary spending)
Bush’s last budget was for 2009 at 3.52T. The 2013 budget was 3.45. That is a negative increase. I must assume that your budget for 2008 was a typo. The budget for 2009 was developed by Bush and cannot be attributed to Obama. The fact is that the growth in government expenses flattened with Obama. The truth is that Obama can be legitimately criticized for not decreasing the budget, but not for increasing it at the rate of his predecessors.
HEY PARKER! I don’t have to read any history books, I lived it. Reagan lambasted President Carter for a $200 billion increase in debt, then went ahead and signed off on tripling it. Classic stimulus spending under Reagan, who learned from FDR. EXCEPT, after WWII Truman and Ike raised taxes to pay for the War stimulus, not Reagan. Chernobyl brought down the Russians; not Reagan. Oh, how about the Beirut truck bombing that killed 241 GI’s and no-one held accountable by Reagan? Space Shuttle Challenger ring a bell? Reagan the actor indeed.
I can’t believe the hours wasted in the comments section of this website. Go do something. Your opinion is just an opinion. For some of you, it’s a second job. Whatever puffed up satisfaction you get after posting your supposedly superior opinion on every single article just proves you are delusional. Parking and plastic bags maybe but national economics genius too? That’s a stretch. New rule: Don’t ever repeat anything you heard on Fox or MSNBC. Must be an original thought.
Plus Tahoe Paul, some people get weird thoughts, like we were better under Carter, no growth, inflation, Communist expansion, than we were under Reagan?! Some ‘experts’ like to create their own reality!
We could create a win win by supporting business to pay higher minimum wages. While supporting smaller business corporations lower tax rates.