RESPONSIBILITY AND
THE WAR ON POVERTY
NOAH MCCOY
WAR ON POVERTY
Part of Great Society (LBJ)
Wanted to reduce dependency on federal aid
Economic Opportunity Act 1964
Social Security Act (Medicare/Medicaid)
Food Stamp Act
Community Action Programs and Volunteers in Service
to America
• Creation of the American welfare state
• Oddly, major focus of Great Society was education
(Elementary and Secondary Education Act 1965, fed aid
to public education/community education programs)
•
•
•
•
•
•
WAR ON POVERTY: SUCCESS OR
FAILURE?
• Objectively: Yes
• Mission statement: “…not only to relieve the symptom of
poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it.” Poverty
still exists; the war was lost
• But are we without hope?
• Poverty levels dropped after application of Economic
Opportunity Act (1964) and leveled out until the late 1980s
and yet have once again begun to rise, reaching 1960s
levels again (parallels post-modern Kuznet’s
curve/inequality increase/Gini increase)
• Indicates reform/welfare programs helped?
RESULTS
• Poverty did drop (some more significantly than
others)
• 1960s to Present
• Under 18: 23% -> 17%
• 18-64: 10.5% -> 10.1%
• Over 65: 28.5% -> 10.1%
Over 65 increase most likely attributed to SS (being left alone
for the most part) and Medicare
WHAT HAPPENED?
• Vietnam War and perception of government
“throwing money” at social problems lead to
dissent
• Nixon and Ford both made cuts to welfare
programs, felt they made people too ready to fall
on government support and that gov was spending
too much (federal aid : $9.9 bil (1960) $30 bil (1968)
• Critics claim that when government sponsored
welfare is enacted, it creates the need for social
welfare (Ouroboros)
• Reagan dissolves EOA in 1981, repurposed certain
legislative bodies
RESPONSIBILITY?
• Johnson administration spent too much, only
reinforced poverty problem/willingness to accept
federal aid?
• Cuts/dissolution of aid programs by Nixon and Ford
stopped progress before it could get underway?
OFFICIAL VS SUPPLEMENTAL POVERTY
MEASURE
• OPM outdated, doesn’t take into consideration
different types of individuals or resources at disposal
• SPM: measures those sharing resources (includes
unmarried partners and non-biological children)
and pool resources used by said members
• SPM includes SNAP/food stamps, School lunch
programs, Women Infants & Children, Housing
Assistance, Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program and Taxes/Tax Credits and excludes
MOOP expenses
OPM VS. SPM (CONT.)
• Results in higher income assets, but also indicates a
higher overall poverty level: 16% SPM vs. 15.1% OPM
in 2012
• Under OPM: 14% (1967) -> 15% (2012)
• Under SPM: 26% (1967) -> 16% (2012)
• Colombia study suggests that poverty would be at
29% in 2012 without social safety net
• Highlights importance of government welfare
programs
QUESTIONS/SOLUTIONS?
• Re-instate previous welfare programs/strengthen
current welfare system?
• Economic reform over social/federal welfare aid?
REFERENCES
• https://courseworks.columbia.edu/access/content/
group/c5a1ef92-c03c-4d88-0018ea43dd3cc5db/Working%20Papers%20for%20websit
e/Anchored%20SPM.December7.pdf