[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1367]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           THE UNFINISHED WAR

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. RUSH D. HOLT

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 31, 2012

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleague a 
recent article by my good friend Richard Leone, the former President of 
the Century Foundation. In his article ``The Unfinished War'' Leon 
reminds us all that ``by ignoring the poor we undermine the welfare of 
everyone in the 99 percent living from pay check to pay check.'' As 
Congress debates taxes, government investments, and countless other 
issues, I hope all of my colleagues will keep his sage words in mind.

                [From the Huffington Post, July 6, 2012]

                           The Unfinished War

       Nearly 50 years ago President Lyndon Johnson rallied the 
     nation in support of a ``War on Poverty.'' It was a goal 
     widely accepted as necessary and realistic. While total 
     ``victory'' might not have been unachievable, the effort was 
     embraced and pursued by many leaders of both parties. The 
     Nixon administration, for example, played a key role in 
     advancement of the earned income tax credit and Ronald Reagan 
     reached an agreement with the then Democratic Speaker of the 
     House, Tip O'Neill, to strengthen Social Security's finances 
     for another generation (today, about half of the nation's 
     elderly would fall below the poverty line without Social 
     Security).
       While Johnson's initiatives and subsequent policies didn't 
     end poverty, they sure made a dent in it. Americans began the 
     1960s with 22.4 percent of the population living in poverty, 
     but by the early 1970s that percentage had been cut in half. 
     Not unconditional victory, but a major policy triumph 
     nonetheless. Since that time the poverty rate has fluctuated 
     between about 11 percent and 15 percent, reaching the upward 
     proportion during the Reagan years and the lower end of the 
     range during the administration of Bill Clinton. This may 
     seem like a fairly narrow band --unless you're one of the 
     millions who fall into poverty as the nation moves from the 
     bottom of the range to the top. Right now, as we struggle to 
     recover from the financial crisis of 2008-2009, the share of 
     Americans living in poverty is back to levels not seen since 
     1993.
       So is a renewal of the war against poverty in the offing? 
     The current balance of political forces suggests that, rather 
     than muster all the weapons we have to fight for the poor, 
     many are willing to settle for uneasy neutrality. This is one 
     ``war of choice'' we choose not to wage. Austerity is the 
     watchword of the day defined somewhat differently but 
     accepted by the mainstream of both parties as the bedrock of 
     policy for the foreseeable future.
       With lower expectations of growth projected for the next 
     several years and continuing competitive pressures from 
     abroad it is hard for most observers to see an optimistic 
     scenario in which recovery accelerates to the point of 
     leading to a new 1990s style period of prosperity. While this 
     clearly sets limits on what is possible, it also opens up 
     opportunities for those who wish to use the current 
     difficulties as a lever to win arguments that are geared to 
     their core values. Deregulation, weakening of unions, and 
     further cuts in taxes for the wealthy and corporate America 
     are all part of an ideological agenda that seems practical 
     only because of the shifts of political forces and the 
     imperatives of the financial weakness. To be sure there will 
     be resistance to cuts in education, reductions in 
     infrastructure spending, the weakening of Medicaid, and other 
     radical departures from previous policies. But the defenders 
     of the social contract seem at a distinct disadvantage. And 
     what is not present in the debate, indeed has become 
     virtually invisible in the media, is the issue of poverty.
       In fact, the United States has proven over several decades 
     to be more tolerant of poverty and of homelessness and other 
     associated ills than is the case in other industrialized 
     countries. One can only conclude from the current reality 
     that even discussing the issue of reducing poverty is a 
     luxury. Like support for the arts, it is off the table during 
     these difficult times. Workers have largely lost their past 
     generous instincts about social programs after a generation 
     of stagnant wages. Slightly further up the ladder, families 
     who were until recently considered themselves solidly middle 
     class now are scrambling to maintain their standard of 
     living--and even their jobs.
       Yet, the United States is still a wealthy country, by all 
     measures among the wealthiest in the world. And it clearly 
     has the resources to provide a decent standard of living for 
     its workers and citizens, its children and elderly. Other 
     countries do so without much fuss. We, on the other hand, 
     have rationalized increasing concentrations of wealth and 
     income as somehow producing results that will be better for 
     everyone. At the same time, our expenditures on the things 
     that might change the circumstances of average Americans are 
     meager by international standards. Elementary and secondary 
     education, an historical strength, is being squeezed by 
     budgetary problems at the state and local level. College aid 
     and support for public higher education is shrinking. And, 
     retraining programs for those who have lost their jobs due to 
     the globalization of manufacturing and markets are nowhere 
     close to what is available, for example, within the European 
     Union.
       Overall, the United States has achieved levels of 
     inequality not seen for generations and now ranks near the 
     top among industrial nations in inequality. These are not 
     trivial statistics for they reflect very different 
     perceptions of what is important in the world of politics and 
     government. Perhaps it's not a coincidence that those who can 
     afford it pay for our campaigns and reap the rewards while 
     average citizens, frustrated and angry, turn against their 
     government because they don't see it helping them. Facts seem 
     irrelevant; the U.S. has lower tax rates than almost all of 
     the other industrialized countries and government employment 
     has dropped sharply in the past few years, yet the 
     explanation for hard times is that the government is taxing 
     too much and spending too much. In this hostile environment 
     it may be no wonder that new programs to help the poor get 
     short shrift. In this Darwinian environment, we simply can't 
     afford to help them.
       It's past time to connect the dots and see that by ignoring 
     the poor we undermine the welfare of everyone in the 99 
     percent living from pay check to pay check. We must revive 
     our generous national nature. And more selfishly come to see 
     that we might find ourselves in their shoes. It may be that 
     the poor will always be with us, but that doesn't mean it's 
     OK to ignore them.

                          ____________________