Debate Desk
Is Bigger Government the Best Way to Help Poor Americans Move Up?
Aid relieves hardship, but programs with steep benefit cliffs can trap people; growth, work and marriage lift most families out of poverty.
The claim
Supporters of larger government programs say that markets leave many behind, that food assistance, housing aid and health coverage keep families from destitution and that more generous programs are the way to reduce poverty.
The answer in three points
- Relief of hardship is a good and a duty, and conservatives support a safety net. The question is whether a program raises people up or holds them where they are. A program that ends when a person earns more can make a raise cost money.
- Benefit cliffs show the problem. A single mother who earns more may lose food, housing, child care and health benefits together, and the combined loss can exceed the raise. A system with that design discourages the steps that lead out of poverty.
- What works is work, education, stable families and a growing economy. The welfare reform of 1996, which required work and time limits, was followed by large gains in employment for single mothers and a fall in welfare caseloads. Programs should reward work and help people build skills.
Those who fought poverty most effectively, from the earned income tax credit to the reforms of the 1990s, did so by tying help to work and by trusting people to improve their lives. The record rewards that approach, and it deserves more weight in the debate than the size of the budget.
The numbers
- The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 replaced the federal entitlement to cash welfare with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which has work requirements, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.
- The Department of Health and Human Services reports that welfare caseloads fell by more than half in the years after 1996.
- The Congressional Budget Office has documented high effective marginal tax rates for low-income households because benefits phase out as income rises, according to its 2012 report.
What they will say next
"Poverty fell because of aid." Some measures show that, and the reduction in hardship is real. The question is about mobility and independence over time.
"The poor work already." Many do, in jobs that pay little, which is why raising skills and removing barriers to work matter.
"Private markets will not provide for them." Charities, churches and local groups do much, and the combination with public help can work.
"Cutting aid hurts children." Reforms can protect children while encouraging parents to work. The goal is to keep them from being poor in the first place.
Compassion is judged by results, not intentions.
"Safety-net programs lift millions above the poverty line." The counts depend on how benefits are measured, and they show that cash and in-kind aid reduce hardship. The test of mobility is whether people move up and stay up, and that depends on work, education and family stability.