Paul Ryan Has Answer for Ferguson

Economist Milton Friedman said “The economic race should not be arranged so everyone arrives at the finish line at the same time but so that everyone starts at the starting line at the same time.”

Those on the left and the right have always contended whether economic outcomes for any given set of individuals is the business of government. But few, on the left or right, dispute that government should work to assure that every American starts the game under fair conditions.

It’s the latter point, fairness at the beginning of the game, that defines the motivation behind Republican Congressman Paul Ryan’s vast and sweeping new set of ideas for taking on poverty in our nation.

According to the Census Bureau, there are almost 50 million Americans living under the poverty line.

Since President Johnson’s “War on Poverty” half century ago, government has spent $15 trillion dollars fighting poverty. The federal government now spends $800 billion per year on means-tested anti-poverty programs.

Yet, we see no change. The incidence of poverty has remained constantly at around 15 percent of the population. And the racial component has been constant, with black poverty rates consistently at three times the rate of white poverty.

Paul Ryan’s important contribution here is to show that not only are these vast government anti-poverty programs not working, but also they themselves contribute to the persistence of the problem.

Because these programs are means-tested – they’re tied to how much money you earn – they perversely discourage work and advancement because earning more means losing a huge array of benefits.

Beyond creating a universe of disincentives to work and advancement, many of these individual programs create their own unique perversities.

HUD housing vouchers, for instance, simply subsidize slumlords and build ghettos because they can’t be used freely anywhere, but only with landlords authorized by HUD.

The end of it all is we wind up with entrenched areas of poverty, which foster crime, drugs, unemployment, frustrated youth, and then, inevitably, tragic incidents like we just witnessed in Ferguson, Missouri.

The left yells racism and calls for more government, more money, even though this is most often the source of the problem, not the solution.

If we are going to spend the money, says Congressman Ryan, let’s try to do it in a way that will lead people out of poverty, rather than perpetuate it.

Ryan is proposing experimental programs – Opportunity Grants – that consolidates 11 distinct government anti-poverty programs into one cash grant to states, allowing states flexibility to propose new and creative ways to use these funds.

I am currently working with state legislators in Oklahoma, led by Senator Rob Standridge, to show how government assistance for the poor can encourage, rather than discourage, work, marriage and family, education, and savings.

Low-income families with children would get matching grants from the state up to an annual income of $30,000. So as a married couple earns more, government grants kick in – up to $30,000. For every year the couple stays married, $2500 is deposited in a household retirement account, $2500 in a housing down payment account, and $5000 in an education savings account. A monthly housing grant of $500 is provided while household income is under $50,000.

Ten hours of monthly volunteer service at a community non-profit would create eligibility for prizes at monthly raffles.

Beyond this, minimum wage laws that discourage employment should be addressed, as well as taxes and regulations that discourage opening businesses in low-income neighborhoods.

Low wage workers and America’s poor need freedom to labor, not laws that penalize businesses that come to their communities or laws that keep them from moving to the second or third rung of the economic ladder. They need freedom from policies that keep their kids trapped in government subsidized, union controlled schools, and government housing policies that keep them trapped in ghettos.

Nope. It has to be much simpler. First, EBT cards will not have money automatically deposited each month. Recipients will have to physically and personally report to the welfare office, show ID and pass a drug test before getting funds. Only drug free U.S. citizens get money. Next, an announcement should be made that benefits for having children will stop in 10 months. Everyone that is already born or born in the next 10 months will remain covered (with the stipulation of drug tests once again) but after that nothing. Last, offer a reward for turning in people who misuse the system for profit. 10% of what the government had been paying to the lawbreaker will go to the whistleblower. Fixed.

Yes, and courts would have to get involved, as peoples’ rights to define marriage or a state’s right to define it would attack any attempt to limit it. At first the feds would include straight or gay marriage between two people but even they would be forced expand it. Is there any doubt it would include gay marriage from the get-go? It would expand from there.

And illegals would be eligible for the program too.

Just watch and see.

Society and its institutions have gone off the deep end.

Ryan lives in another world.

Anyone who teams up with Luis Gutierrez on “immigration reform” has lost his mind.

“And illegals would be eligible for the program too.”

I realize some illegals are actually working, but it seems like a lot of them are already receiving our welfare. Obama’s Aunt is a good example. She is an illegal and no one questions why she has been on our tax payer funded welfare programs all these years.

Ryan’s program envisions people working.

It tries to incentivize them towards work by giving them more assistance at the same time they are trying to better their work situation.

I just think it is a fantasy. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare.

Illegals would be eligible for it, I’m willing to bet, when all is said and done, was the point I was making.

That chapter wasn’t run well. I have worked on 7 habitat homes and often met other new homeowners. All of the home owners I built for were employed and only one probably wasn’t ready to own a home. Home repair courses were mandatory as well as build time on the house. The hard part with that was working with the new homeowners that normally worked on Saturdays. Although we mostly had single mothers, we built for a forty something women who cared for two elderly relatives. That house was neat because it’s the first time I really learned about disability modifications. One house was for a sister and a brother. I met some married couples. Two builds that were a few years apart happened to be in the same neighborhood. The houses from the first build still looked great and a few of my group visited the sister/brother house and the interior looked great. They worked hard to keep up the house.

HOWEVER, a friend that works with the homeless will back up everything you say once a homeless person gets a place to live. Having to find a new place to do laundry, grocery shopping and meal prep, buying clothes, paying bills and finding ways to socialize all require serious adjusting and some homeless find it easier just to be on the streets.
Wow that was long.

I think it was the fact that they had started taking people with 100% “government income” that created the problems at that Habitat chapter. And then, of course, once those people were in the program, it was impossible to get them to make any effort and difficult to get them out, although some did end up having their houses repossessed.

Sadly, a lot of the people Ryan’s plan is directed at aren’t people who’ve ended up unemployed or are employed at some low-income job that qualifies them for welfare assistance; they’re people who have never worked and never had to be responsible for themselves. It’s hard to think of a solution for this or some way of “rewiring” them to completely change their lives when, as you say, they don’t see any reason to bother since they’re used to things as they are.

Yes, getting the feds out would be a step in the right direction. If there are any solutions, they’re local ones, and the local governments would probably be a lot better at spending that money than the feds and probably with less corruption, too.

One thing never mentioned is how corruption-riddled many federal anti-poverty programs are. The only family they bring out of poverty is that of the politically connected person “running” the program.

***************

Wrong. I started the race somewhat ahead of others because I had good parents and accepted their teachings. It’s not government’s business to deprive me of this advantage, and any attempt to do this throughout our society will turn-out wrong.

“It tries to incentivize them towards work by giving them more assistance at the same time they are trying to better their work situation.”

So does the bill already in place, but it was gutted by granting waivers. If Ryan wants to see people working, he should try to strengthen the bill already in place.

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.