(Originally published as an op-ed in the Philadelphia Daily News)
By MARGY WALLER
LONG before the onset of the current economic slide, some Washington
insiders called on government to set a goal of reducing poverty. While
recognizing the good intentions, we must acknowledge what the recent
election proves: Changes in our nation in the years since citizens
heard a similar plea – more than 40 years ago – require a new vision
for the economy.
Any effort to revive a policy and political focus targeted specifically
on the poor will demand significant energy and resources and,
unfortunately, can’t yield the desired policy results.
Instead, we should adopt goals that establish what Robert F. Kennedy
called our desired “bond of common fate” in a new national framework
for advancing economic and social policy.
We’ve already reached everyone persuadable by describing policy
proposals as “anti-poverty” initiatives. Yet that level of support
still hasn’t been enough to overcome the opponents.
While many people will say they want government to do something about
poverty, it isn’t a high priority. In October, when the Gallup Poll
asked voters to name “the most important problem facing the country,”
only 1 percent named poverty, hunger or homelessness. (The percentage
has actually declined from 2 percent since early 2008.)
This means policymakers don’t have the political space they need to
take on opponents. Talking about poverty more loudly and more often
won’t change this fact. Indeed, continuing to use the poverty banner
will lead to failure. There are a few reasons for this:
* The federal definition of poverty (based strictly on income, it’s
currently about $21,000 for a family of four) is out of date and
flawed, allowing opponents to limit policy solutions to a narrow and
very low-income group.
* Widespread impressions of poverty’s causes (irresponsible and immoral
behavior) and remedies (responsible personal behavior) hinder adoption
of the policy solutions we seek to address it.
* Defining the problem as “poverty” opens the door to a losing scenario in a legislative debate.
For example, critics have responded to Sen. Obama’s concession to John
Edwards late in the primary season that Democrats adopt a goal to halve
poverty in 10 years. In November, in an interview about Obama’s policy
proposals, Bill Cunningham, ranked by Talkers Magazine as one of the 100 most important talk radio hosts in the U.S., said:
“You know, people are poor in America . . . not because they lack
money; they’re poor because they lack values, morals, and ethics. And
if government can’t teach and instill that, we’re wasting our time
simply giving poor people money.”
See the problem?
It would be a much better use of the good will and support generally
accorded a new president to focus on setting a higher standard for our
nation.
A better goal would go well beyond income deprivation, or even a
standard that assesses what is necessary to “make ends meet.” Our real
goals are higher than this, and our policy proposals already reflect a
desire to do more.
Unless we want to narrow the list of solutions at the outset, the new
president should focus instead on how to establish goals that measure
our progress toward an inclusive economy that works for all of us.
Other nations have taken up this effort. Every European Union member
has a plan for an inclusive society, a multidimensional concept that
incorporates not only notions of adequate income (using a relative
measure designed to assess whether the gap is getting too big for a
strong nation), but also neighborhood quality, access to the arts,
education, health care, participation in civic events, housing,
pensions and other factors.
IT WILL take hard work and high-level attention to develop a framework
for this concept in the U.S. We need consensus on targets to measure
progress and assess the effectiveness of new initiatives.
Establishing a new wide effort to develop and focus on such goals is worthy of presidential attention and Cabinet status.
In contrast, renewed attention to the limited target of income poverty
is not. Even eliminating poverty sets the bar too low and, as a
national goal, it simply will not work to achieve our shared hopes for
a strong nation