
          The Poverty of Policy
          By Suitts, SteveSteve Suitts
          Vol. 8, No. 3, 1986, pp. 1-3
          
          In late August the casualty list for 1986 in America's half-hearted
war on poverty revealed that fourteen percent of Americans were living
in "official" poverty (an annual income of below $10,989 for a family
of four). As this year's Census Bureau statistics stood four-tenths of
a percent lower than a year egg, the White_House proclaimed a victory
for its style of free enterprise. If the numbers had increased,
leading Democrats and others (with whom I have joined in the past)
would have bitterly indicted the Administration's cruel
policies. Either way, the announcement has come to signify a passing
moment of political theater and the continuance of very poor public
policy.
          The annual procession of poverty statistics each summer is becoming
a ritual without meaning, something like those troop counts for the
Vietnam War fifteen years ago. The harsh debate about slight changes
in each set of new figures obscures the continuing tragedy of our
national policies. And like the Washington officials in that war, both
Republicans and Democrats in the national debate over poverty today
find it is easier to count the poor than to address the policies
attacking poverty. Behind the war of words, we really have a standoff
in the war on poverty.
          Beginning with the assumption in 1980 that poverty in America was a
myth, the Reagan Administration has now stopped its direct attacks on
the programs of the poor-after six years of budget cutting. In part,
the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Act constitutes a liveable,
temporary compromise for the Administration. Although programs such as
food stamps and AFDC are exempt from semi-automatic reductions, the
pressure to reduce the deficit at a pre-fixed rate gives the
Administration plenty of opportunity to shrink further these and other
poverty programs. The Democratic House of Representatives also has
decided 

to live with this arrangement, apparently believing it is
better than the higher cuts on poverty programs in previous years.
          A temporary truce is also in effect on the debate over government
policies concerning the poor. Overshadowed at the moment by
discussions on budget deficits and tax policies, poverty as an issue
does not now exist at the White_House. It will not be an issue until
the Administration's special commission on welfare reform is ready to
release its newest arguments and recommendations. On this front, too,
the Democrats appear to welcome the hiatus; certainly in this election
year very few members of Congress have been asking the Administration
what it has done for the poor lately. And to all who oppose the
President's policies on poverty, Reagan's current posture of benign
neglect seems like a vast improvement.
          The momentary neglect, however, is not so very benign. Whatever the
August figures show, we know that we have lost substantial ground over
the last six years in reducing poverty. The effect of our neglect is
becoming frightening. One child out of every five is poor. Every other
black child under the age of six lives in poverty. Women now
constitute the largest segment of the adult population in
poverty-sixty percent of all poor over the age of eighteen. One out of
every three blacks is poor; Hispanics have equally high rates of
poverty. Three of four poor persons are women and children.
          For Southerners the most recent economic trends offer further bad
news which neglect won't help. The two Southern_states that have
enjoyed a boom economy since 1980 have now gone bust. In Texas and
Louisiana unemployment has reached record high levels since late
spring, and food banks across these states may soon be incapable of
handling the rising need-a trend already seen in many other parts of
the South. While these problems in the oil states will not show up in
the poverty surveys until 1987, they are real and will not be solved
by official neglect in Washington.
          Of course, the Administration's silence is not forever. Within the
next twelve months the White_House will announce its new poverty
policies when it releases a report from the presidential commission on
welfare reform. While others will be busy keeping food banks and
shelters open during the winter, the commission will be assembling its
arsenal of facts, figures and interpretations on poverty. Once more,
the public discussion on poverty will be framed and limited by the
Administration's own perspective, probably concentrating on fraud and
abuse. Once more, the debate will focus on the failures of the past
rather than its successes and potential. And the people of the South
and the nation will have to struggle with themselves once more if they
are to resist blaming the victims of poverty for its presence.
          Rather than debate over the latest count on poverty, we need to
construct a framework for future debates on policies. Although America
seems to hold few truths to be self-evident nowadays, the trends of
poverty over the last several years already tell us the direction that
we can take in developing new policies. At this point there are
several major propositions: First, the federal_government must
increase the minimum wage for all workers in the United_States. Today
the head of a family of three persons earning the federal minimum wage
and working full-time lives $1,300 below the threshold of poverty. The
current minimum wage is a subminimum wage. A fair change could remove
as many as four and one-half million people from poverty and would
require no additional administrative costs to the government. This is
a vital anti-poverty measure that could do more than any other single,
simple, act to 

reduce poverty.
          Second, the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws in the job
market must be strengthened. In part, the extraordinary poverty among
blacks, Hispanics ant women tells of the missed opportunities in the
workplace too often still caused by discriminatory hiring and
promotion. Fair employment practices for minorities and women mean a
reduction in poverty.
          Third, affordable child care must be provided for poor women who
work. With so many women and children among the poor, and with the
rise of single-parent families, nothing very realistic will be done in
the private or public arena to reduce poverty without affordable child
care. Five million children under the age of six are poor and almost
six million poor are of grammar school age. Without child care, the
want ads for many jobs will not and should not be answered by poor
mothers with infants and young children who find working a losing
proposition.
          Fourth, jobs should be available to all adults who can
work. Providing a job to an adult in poverty must not be a vindictive
act, a punishment for being poor. A job must help the individual with
income and work experience. Full employment at decent wages is the
most sensible way of virtually eliminating poverty.
          Fifth, non-institutional care must be available to those adults
incapable of caring for themselves. A small part of the general
poverty population and a large segment of street people are struggling
desperately, but fruitlessly, to help themselves. Non-institutional
care must be provided.
          These are simple principles; they do not trespass human dignity nor
propose to bankrupt the government. They suggest that personal
initiative and work should be seen for the poor not as punishment but
as opportunity. They are not the only principles on which a practical,
compassionate poverty program can be constructed, but they go a long
way in shifting the debate.
          The South and the nation must summon the will and resources to
arrest the current trends of poverty. We surely need to know where the
poverty statistics stand, this year and in future years. But more than
anything else right now, we need to enact policies that will bring
people out of poverty. Among all the numbers, that is whet really
courts.
          
            Steve Suitts is executive director of the Southern
Regional Council.
          
        
