As poverty and income inequality worsen, economic-security advocates are presenting a wide variety of proposals to reduce or eliminate poverty. These proposals usually rely on indirect measures, such as economic growth, job training, or neighborhood-based community development. As discussed in Chapters Thirteen and Fourteen, these indirect measures, however valuable in and of themselves, will never be sufficient to guarantee economic security for all.
Some antipoverty proposals, however, do affirm direct federal action to increase personal incomes and/or expand economic opportunity. This chapter considers some of these proposals and contrasts them to the National Economic Security Program (NESP), which is also based on the affirmation of federal responsibility. These proposals are divided into two categories: those that propose ending poverty, and those that propose reducing poverty. The list of proposals considered here is not complete, but should suffice to clarify how NESP is distinctive.
First of all, it is instructive to analyze an element shared by many antipoverty proposals in both categories - that is, the recommendation that antipoverty programs should be only for poor people. This approach may not be as warranted as it first appears to be.
In 1993, the National General Assistance Working Group, for example, released a National Jobs and Income Support Platform endorsed by the National Coalition for the Homeless and 22 other local, state and national groups. This statement affirmed:
This group also called on the federal government to:
Though this proposal affirms many of the same principles that underlie NESP, it differs from NESP in that it is less specific, it excludes retired persons and the farming community, and it fails to identify funding sources. More germane to the subject of this section, however, the jobs proposal in this platform is specifically designed for "low and no income" people.
This approach is not unusual; it has often been adopted by antipoverty programs that establish eligibility criteria so that only members of special populations qualify. The Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) program, for example, "targeted" the long-term unemployed. And President Clinton's proposed guaranteed community-service job for welfare clients is another example: only welfare recipients would qualify.
But targeted programs pose a number of difficulties. Partly because they are reserved for relatively less skilled workers, targeted programs tend to offer substandard wages. This approach encourages local governments to use these new positions to cut back on existing, more costly positions. In addition to contributing to a general lowering of wages and consumer purchasing power, this practice provokes opposition from unions, which makes them less viable politically.
In addition, members of the general public are less likely to support targeted programs than they are to support universal programs for which all or most people qualify, like Social Security. Programs that are "for the poor" or any other identified minority tend to be stigmatized as "welfare," which weakens their ability to garner political support.
Establishing special qualifications also imposes costs, both financial and social. Screening applicants adds costly bureaucratic red-tape. Moreover, the screening process tends to be demeaning and stigmatizing to applicants, who must prove that they are sufficiently disadvantaged to qualify for special treatment.
Rather than directly targeting disadvantaged populations, antipoverty programs can instead benefit those individuals indirectly. A federal economic-security program, such as NESP, can fund entry-level jobs at standard wages that will attract qualified lower-income applicants, but generally will not attract more affluent applicants. Most middle- and upper-income people do not apply for entry-level jobs that pay only seven or eight dollars an hour plus benefits. In addition, most middle-income people are not qualified for certain jobs for which many low-income people are particularly well-qualified, such as peer-counseling positions in drug-rehabilitation programs. A new federal-jobs program can emphasize jobs of this sort: entry-level jobs and the provision of services to lower-income communities. This approach will thus benefit primarily low-income job seekers.
Some middle-income people will seek new community-service jobs, partly because they offer more personal satisfaction that is typically the case with private-sector employment. Moreover, the new jobs program will also finance some jobs that pay more, perhaps as much as ten dollars an hour. These jobs will likely provide relatively more opportunities for middle-income people. In any case, everyone will know that the jobs safety-net affords universal protection and provides an option for everyone, including parents who want to work part-time or young adults who want to leave home. In this way, a jobs program can expand the potential base of political support by providing opportunities for a majority of the general population.
To some degree, this universal approach can still target certain populations by the nature of the public services that are funded. By funding peer-support programs for recently homeless people seeking employment, for example, formerly homeless people will most likely qualify for positions that require specialized skills. Nevertheless, under this scenario, to some extent, the "cream-of-the crop" will be the first hired, whereas a targeted program can theoretically reach less skilled people more quickly. But even during the first stage of implementation, many low-income people will get public-service jobs. And a large jobs program will open up jobs for less skilled people in the private sector as already employed individuals leave jobs open when they transfer to public-service work. Most importantly, however, as progress is made toward full employment with the steady increase in funding for public-service jobs, soon there will be a good job for everyone. The key is to build compelling support for the principle of guaranteed employment opportunity, and then to move toward that goal as quickly as is feasible.
A new jobs program with entry-level jobs at or near seven dollars an hour, as proposed by NESP, will thus directly benefit disadvantaged people by offering them entry-level jobs, with the opportunity for future advancement as they establish a work record. And federal funding for local jobs will also benefit disadvantaged communities by improving needed public services, such as park and recreation staff in lower-income neighborhoods.
Taking all these factors into consideration, it seems that a jobs program open to all holds more potential than do traditional targeted programs, if only because universal programs can more easily be sustained politically. If we start with advocating targeted programs, we are limiting our prospects. By adopting a universal approach, we can more effectively and more quickly build political support for guaranteeing the human right to living-wage employment. The federal government should steadily make available to state and local governments more money for ordinary, traditional public-service jobs.
Most federal antipoverty proposals only call for reducing poverty. But some of these share with NESP support for an active role for the federal government in the direct enhancement of economic well-being.
For a brief period in 1993, Clinton addressed the issue of economic insecurity with eloquence. On one occasion, he promised his audience, "I have got to lay a foundation of personal security for the working people of this country and their families in order to succeed as your president." In the days following that speech, the administration stepped up its planning for what The Washington Post called
As summarized by the Post, the outline of his new system involved four elements:
Making pensions and health care portable would constitute direct federal action to expand economic opportunity. But despite his ambitious rhetoric concerning "a foundation of economic security," Clinton's specific proposals fall short of any significant change. Most notably missing is direct job creation. Clinton instead perpetuates the myth that improved education is the key to the future (see Chapter Thirteen). Moreover, his emphasis on taking care of "working Americans" (thus excluding "non-working Americans") is standard divide-and-conquer rhetoric, gaining the allegiance of the middle-class and the working poor while turning them against those who are not working. Clinton frequently appeals to the "middle class." In one mid-1995 speech, he used the phrase twenty-four times. But he seldom talks about the poor or poverty. In early 1996, while confronting the Republicans on budget issues, Clinton indicated some interest in adopting a new tactic when he said, "We want to grow the middle-class and strengthen the underclass." If pursued consistently, this approach could help unite lower- and middle-income people, rather than divide them.
A bias against the unemployed poor is also revealed in Clinton's plan to "end welfare as we know it." He basically assumes that the real problem with welfare is personal, for his proposal relies primarily on extensive job training. With no clear indication that he would fight for it, Clinton did initially propose to guarantee a job to welfare clients who "play by the rules" and engage in two years of job training. But the jobs proposed by Clinton would have paid no more than $4.25 an hour and former welfare recipients would have lost free child care after one year. This approach would thus fail to "make work pay" as an alternative to welfare. This workfare approach amounts to involuntary servitude and is clearly unacceptable. (Ironically, if welfare actually succeeded in helping clients get living-wage jobs, it would encourage people to go onto welfare to get jobs.)
During the 1995 negotiations over welfare reform,
Clinton reportedly insisted that "states
provide either employment or continued assistance for people who
comply with program rules and still cannot find jobs." But
he failed to build support on the issue by taking the battle to
the public, even though polls showed strong opposition to terminating
welfare for poor families unable to find employment. True to
his image of "Slick Willie," Clinton continued to waffle
by also indicating support for the Democratic Senate leadership
proposal, which would have automatically terminated benefits after
five years. And when the Senate passed a bill in mid-September
ending the sixty-year-old federal guarantee of aid to all children
who need it, Clinton embraced this legislation, even though it
contained no provision for community-service jobs for those unable
to find employment. Ignoring the reality that the country is
already horribly divided between the super-rich and the poor,
Clinton excused his posture by saying, "I thought that welfare
reform had become a symbol for the country and I didn't want it
to become a symbol of division."
As suggested by this record, Clinton eventually signed the "welfare
reform" bill passed by Congress, though most of his Cabinet and about
half of the Democrats in Congress urged him to veto it. With this act,
which provided no job guarantee for those forced off welfare, the
federal government threw millions of Americans more deeply into lives of
poverty. At the same time, Clinton quickened the process of reversing
the New Deal -- a "devolution" he embraced in his 1996 State of the
Union Address when he proclaimed, "the era of big government is over.
During his 1998 State of the Union message, Clinton claimed credit for
moving two million Americans off welfare over the course of the previous
year. He did call for some mild measures to assist former welfare
recipients when he declared:
But concerning his promise to guarantee parents denied welfare
publicly-funded jobs, Clinton was silent.
Kinsley recounts, sympathetically, that George McGovern's 1972 proposal along this line would have replaced both welfare and personal income-tax exemptions with a tax credit. Adjusted for inflation, McGovern's guaranteed annual income would be $3,200 for a single person or almost $10,000 annually for a three-person family. An income of this scale would barely suffice to buy enough food to stay alive, which presumably is why Kinsley only claimed that it would "alleviate poverty."
But the more serious problem with this strategy is that there is so little support for it among the general public. Kinsley seems to believe that his proposal is more viable politically than trying to guarantee the right to employment. Kinsley pointed out that adding work requirements is more expensive than just giving welfare and asked, "Would taxpayers who complain about welfare bums be happy to pay more for welfare, provided that those bums were put to work?" He answered, "Work requirement enthusiasts like President Clinton thought so. Apparently, they were wrong." But Kinsley offered no evidence in support of that conclusion.
Most public opinion polls consistently show strong support for providing publicly funded job opportunities to welfare recipients. Especially if the issue were framed in terms of taxing the super-rich in order to hire the unemployed to meet pressing needs, all indications are that the alternative approach adopted by NESP is more promising politically than are proposals for a guaranteed income free of any work requirement.
This proposal would greatly expand economic opportunity and would be a major step toward establishing economic security for all. But it does not affirm this principle as a fundamental human right; so it does not educate the public on this issue and thereby build momentum in that direction. The first page of their proposal does touch on the issue of guaranteed employment when it asks: "What would life in the U.S. be like if we had ... Good jobs for everyone." But this affirmation is indirect and weak. Neither does it explicitly address the economic needs of the retired and disabled. In these ways, it differs from NESP in certain fundamental respects.
Thus, this campaign, like so many others, is sensible but presents an unfocused "laundry list" of needs without prioritizing the expansion of economic opportunity for low- and middle-income Americans. Moreover, it falls into the trap of emphasizing education and training, without addressing the unyielding issue: training for what jobs? The only reference to job creation is within the framework of building housing and rebuilding the infrastructure - both of which tend to employ relatively high-skilled workers. And there is no affirmation of reducing poverty, abolishing poverty, or establishing the human right to economic security.
In a February, 1994 op-ed column in The New York Times, Theda Skocpol and William Julius Wilson argued:
Demands for full employment are rooted in a movement with a rich history. Following Word War Two, in particular, popular pressure led to the introduction of the Employment Act of 1946 that initially affirmed the "right to a useful and remunerative job." But this key phrase was deleted before this federal legislation was finally adopted. In the 1970s, the Humphrey-Hawkins bill was the focus of a renewed, broad-based full-employment coalition.
Based in New York, New Initiatives for Full Employment (NIFE) emerged in 1993 to revive these efforts. Their initial call for action declared:
Another full-employment proposal under current consideration is H.R. 1050, "A Living Wage, Jobs for All Act." The purpose of this bill, introduced by Congressperson Ron Dellums and co-sponsored by more than 20 representatives, is "to establish a living wage, jobs for all, policy for the United States in order to reduce poverty, inequality, and the undue concentration of wealth and power."
Primarily written by Professor Bertram Gross, this bill affirms the right to:
As a policy bill, this legislation requires that each federal agency conduct its work in a manner that establishes the rights enumerated in the bill. H.R. 1050 also stipulates a number of detailed requirements concerning the nature of federal budgets and requires the President to submit budgets to Congress that adhere to the principles established by this legislation. The Congressional Joint Economic Committee would then be directed to submit an annual plan to fully implement the goals of H.R. 1050 and Congress would be bound to allocate the necessary funds.
H.R. 1050 thus differs from the National Economic Security Program in that it affirms general principles but does not propose a specific program for how to achieve those objectives. In addition, it embraces a number of proposals that are not directly necessary in order to establish economic security for all. And its focus on "full employment" constitutes a strategy that is not quite the same as concentrating on "ending poverty" or "establishing economic security for all."
Except for the unqualified endorsement of a "balanced budget," this program is sensible, as far as it goes. But it does not affirm that the federal government should guarantee the human right to employment, much less living-wage employment. And the reference to "ending poverty" apparently refers only to welfare recipients, since the program only says that "ending poverty ... should be the goal of any welfare reform legislation." Abolishing poverty, however, will require much more than reforming welfare legislation. Increasing income-support payments for the retired and disabled, for example, as addressed by the National Economic Security Program (NESP), are necessary measures not included in the Common Agenda Program. But perhaps the most significant difference between the two proposals is that NESP is both more concise and more concrete. The Common Agenda approach is common in progressive circles: the laundry list. By including twenty-eight points in its program, the result is a long proposal that lacks a clear theme and is hard to digest. And by including only general principles, the result is often broad platitudes that are virtually meaningless, such as "raising the minimum wage above poverty standards." Whose poverty standard? These ambiguities weaken this proposal.
In the August 14/21, 1995 issue of The Nation,
Ronnie Dugger, founding editor of The
Texas Observer, called for a meeting on November 10-13 of
that year to organize a broad national coalition "to end
corporate rule" and build a broad progressive coalition similar
to the People's Party of the 1890s. Dugger's
article elicited an enthusiastic response. At the November meeting,
the group of respondents adopted the provisional name of "The
Alliance." Along with his invitation, Dugger presented seventeen
proposals for consideration by that new coalition. The following
dealt with expanding economic opportunity:
These proposals also fail to constitute a call for establishing economic security or abolishing poverty. Moreover, the use of the "3 percent" formula for defining full employment is grossly inadequate, for the government only counts as unemployed those people who are actively looking for work. This book is based on the assumption that calling for "economic security for all" is morally required and offers the potential of rallying a broad coalition. From this perspective, Dugger's approach needs to be strengthened.
At the same time, the National League of Cities put forth a ten billion dollar proposal relying on reductions in military spending to finance public-works projects, community-development block grants, and summer youth employment.
On a smaller scale, the National Urban League regularly calls on the federal government to create jobs directly, especially through restoring the nation's physical infrastructure. In 1993, the organization promoted a "Marshall Plan for America" that proposed fifty billion dollars over ten years for job creation, education and training.
Also, the House Progressive Caucus, led by Congressman Bernie Sanders, introduced two pieces of legislation that would reduce poverty. The first would raise the minimum wage to $5.50 an hour, and the second would establish a federal jobs program. As described by Sanders:
The Progressive Caucus bill is less top-heavy with construction jobs. This bill is a positive sign and indicates the kind of bill that the economic-security movement could focus on to build membership and educate the general public. This approach aims to generate momentum for economic justice by demanding one-shot expenditures of federal funds to create public-sector jobs.
By June, 1994, however, the pendulum had swung. Increasing numbers of people with a voice that could be heard were asserting that the wealthiest country in history can provide everyone with basic necessities.
These developments indicate that the cynicism of the Reagan era is fading. There is growing interest in the notion that the United States can provide basic necessities for all of its people. These affirmations share the same spirit that inspired the National Economic Security Program (NESP), which was presented in Chapter Nine. NESP differs from these broad affirmations primarily in that it is more specific.
In one of many position papers on specific issues, however, the Citizens Budget Campaign does explicitly call for "ending poverty" and presents some fairly specific ideas for how to achieve this goal. For "working-poor families," the campaign proposes:
The Center's proposal does not make this distinction, however; it merely argues for more welfare. Moreover, the center's program does not truly envision the end of poverty, as expressed in its title, for its proposals are largely limited to people receiving AFDC or General Assistance. And its proposed public-service jobs are temporary jobs, of no more than 24 months in duration. Nevertheless, this program illustrates interest in the idea of ending poverty and presents a number of valuable specifics for improving the current welfare system.
In conclusion, this review of other proposals for
direct federal action to reduce or eliminate poverty illustrates
how the National Economic Security Program
(NESP) varies from other approaches. NESP is specific and comprehensive,
but it focuses exclusively on what it necessary to establish economic
security for all. Surely NESP can be improved. But it does seem
that this general approach offers advantages worthy of serious
attention by those who are concerned about these issues.
Michael Lind, "What Bill Wrought," The New Republic, 5 December 1994, 19-22.
Frank Swoboda, "As Fears of Job Loss Grow, So Do Calls for a Safety Net," The Washington Post, Compuserve on-line edition, 17 October 1993.
Frank Rich, "The Middle Ground," The New York Times, 8 July 1995, 15.
Alison Mitchell, "Clinton Cast the Budget Battle As a Test of the Nation's Equity," The New York Times, 13 January 1996, A1.
Robert Pear, "A Welfare Revolution Hits Home, But Quietly," The New York Times, 13 August 1995, Week in Review, 1/5
Richard L. Berke, "Dole and Gramm Clash on Revising Laws on Welfare," The New York Times, 16 July 1995, A1/A10.
Todd S. Purdum, "Clinton Plans To Lift Public Out of 'Funk,'" The New York Times, 24 September 1995, A1/A16.
Michael Kinsley, "The Ultimate Block Grant," The New Yorker, 29 May 1995, 36-40.
"A Federal Budget to Rebuild Our Communities," National Priorities Project.
"It's Time to Reinvest in America," The Campaign for New Priorities.
Theda Skocpol and William Julius Wilson, "Welfare As We Need It," The New York Times, 9 February 1994, A19.
Bertram Gross, "Rethinking Full Employment," The Nation, 17 January 1987, 45.
"Full Employment Network Forms," CAP News, August 1993, 2.
Creating a Common Agenda: Strategies for our Communities - Executive Summary, Common Agenda Coalition and the National Priorities Project, May 1995, 10/11.
Ronnie Dugger, "Real Populists Please Stand Up," The Nation, 14/21 August 1995, 159-164.
Martin Tolchin, "Mayors Press Clinton on Promise to Rebuild Nation," The New York Times, 25 January 1993, A9.
"Rescue Plan for Cities Presented to Clinton Team," San Francisco Chronicle, 30 November 1992, A4.
"Urban Leaguer Sees Hope for Cities Under Clinton," San Francisco Chronicle, 27 January 1993, A4.
"Sanders Scoop," Sanders for Congress, July 1994, 1/2.
Economic Justice for All: Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1986, xii.
"Welfare Proposals Protested," The Star-Ledger, 29 April 1994.
Joseph C. Sommer, The Columbus Dispatch, 11 June 1994.
M. David Goodwin, "Growing Up Poor, Advocates For Poor Pushing Legislature to End Poverty," The Courier-Journal, 26 December 1993.
"Going for the Gold; Create Wealth, Don't Stifle It," The Seattle Times, Letters, 24 November 1993.
"Fraser, Scheibel Will Be Honored," Star Tribune, 13 November 1993.
Robert Rector, "Don't Exaggerate Poverty," USA Today, 12 October 1993, 12A.
"Deadline for Washington Rally Near," The Courier Journal, 18 August 1993, 5B
Douglas J. Besharov, "Welfare As We Don't Know It," The Washington Post, 4 July 1993, 4.
Joseph Perkins, "Handouts Don't Work," San Diego Union-Tribune, 12 February 1993, B13
Mike Royko, "City Murder Rate Begs for Solutions," Chicago Tribune, 2 February 1993, 3.
Shane Wilkes, "Talk Back," St. Petersburg Times, 21 January 1993, 7.
"Promise That Tax Credit Will End Poverty for All Working Families Disputed," Star Tribune," 20 February 1993, 9A.
John Mashek, "Gang Members Vow to Fight Urban Ills," The Boston Globe, 5 February 1993, 3.
Leo Rennert, "President Vows for Push For Reform of Welfare," Sacramento Bee, 20 February 1993, A1.
Andrew Gottesman, "End to CHA Poverty Needed, Author Says," Chicago Tribune, 19 January 1993, 4.
Michael Shuman letter, December 1993.
"Take Back the Future: A Call for Progressive Renewal (Draft 2.1)," Institute for Policy Studies, April, 1995.
Marc Breslow, "Can We Still Win the War on Poverty?", Dollars and Sense, July/August 1995, 8-11/40.
Holly Sklar, "We Need a New Economic Bill of Rights," San Francisco Examiner, 4 September 1995, A17.
"Social Principles of the United Methodist Church," General Board of Church and Society.
"Who We Are," Citizens Budget Campaign.
"Still Poor After All These Years," Citizens Budget Campaign, December 1992.
Handsnet Weekly Digest.
"True Welfare Reform¾A Program To End Poverty," Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law, 12 April 1994.