Kentucky showcases Paul Ryan's wrong-way war on poverty
by Jon Perr
That Paul Ryan's one-man crusade against poverty has gotten off to a laughably bad start should have surprised no one. After all, his various "roadmaps" and GOP budgets have called for giving massive tax cuts for the rich, slashing non-defense discretionary spending to its lowest share of the U.S. economy in generations, privatizing Social Security and turning Medicare into an underfunded voucher scheme, all measures certain to make poverty in America worse. Ryan's claim that LBJ's War on Poverty exacerbated the problem was thoroughly debunked and mocked by many of the same experts whose research he cited. And with his jeremiads about "makers and takers" and turning "the safety net into a hammock," Congressman Ryan displayed his disdain for the very people he pretends to want to help.
But with his "inarticulate" comment this week about lazy men "in our inner cities," Paul Ryan tried to put a face—a black face—on American poverty. As it turns out, Ryan's dog-whistle to the GOP's right-wing base wasn't merely cynical, it was also wrong.
After all, about two-thirds of the nation's 46.5 million people living in poverty are white. The U.S. Census Bureau also informs us that the 17.7 percent poverty rate in rural areas is almost three points higher than the national average. (Poverty is highest in the South, which in 2012 was the only part of the country where it increased.) In many cities and across the countryside, tectonic structural changes in regional economies, and not Paul Ryan's "tailspin of culture," are wiping out good paying jobs. The result is that many communities are sustained by a patchwork of federal and state programs helping to provide food assistance, income support, unemployment benefits, health care and more.
To put it another way, the faces of American poverty can be found in Rust Belt cities, in the Mississippi Delta and in Appalachia. And now—just as it did when LBJ launched his War on Poverty 50 years ago—Kentucky shows why.
<...>
At 19.4 percent (823,000 people), the Bluegrass State has the fifth highest poverty rate in the nation. But as dismal as those numbers are, there has been real improvement since President Johnson made Martin County ground zero in his War on Poverty in 1964. There, as NPR recently documented, a poverty rate double the national average represents progress:
"In this south-central mountain country, over a third of the population is faced with chronic unemployment," says a government film on Johnson's visit. "Typical of this group is Tom Fletcher, his wife and eight children. Fletcher, an unemployed sawmill operator, earned only $400 last year and has been able to find little employment in the last two years."
At the time, the poverty rate in this coal-mining area was more than 60 percent...Today, the roads here are well-paved. People say the schools and hospitals are much better than they used to be. Still, Martin County remains one of the poorest counties in the country. Its poverty rate is 35 percent, more than twice the national average. Unemployment remains high. Only 9 percent of the adults have a college degree.
And for many in this part of the state, federal poverty-fighting measures make all the difference. For Norma Moore and her ill 8-year-old grandson, food stamps, energy assistance to heat her home and his Supplemental Security Income (SSI) means a roof over their heads:
"I would be homeless. I would be the one living on the street if it wasn't for that," she says. She looks down at her grandson on the floor. "He would probably be in a home somewhere."
Thousands of her neighbors in eastern Kentucky doubtless share Moore's sentiment. By almost every measure, but for the LBJ-era federal safety net including Medicaid, Medicare, Head Start, food stamps, more spending on education, and tax cuts to help create jobs, Kentucky would be facing a human catastrophe of mammoth proportions.
Consider, for example, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), otherwise known as food stamps. Last fall, all five Republican House members voted for steep cuts to SNAP, despite the fact that 800,000 Kentuckians are enrolled in the program, 60 percent of whom live below the federal poverty line—an income of $22,000 for a family of four. Despite representing the second-poorest district in America, GOP Congressman Hal Roger (KY-5) nevertheless claimed, "I didn't think it will have an adverse impact on my district." In Owsley County, half of the 4,700 residents—98.5 percent of them white—received food stamps in 2011.
<...>
Paul Ryan should try to explain that to the good men and women of eastern Kentucky. As the Lexington Herald-Ledger pointed out in November 2013, "As an austerity-minded Congress continues to cut food stamps, Head Start and other anti-poverty measures, it's not clear what will sustain them." Certainly not Paul Ryan's Republican Party:
Martin County nonetheless voted for Romney by a nearly 6-to-1 ratio over Democratic President Barack Obama.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/16/1284613/-Kentucky-showcases-Paul-Ryan-s-wrong-way-war-on-poverty
Yes! Oregon becomes fourth state to block food stamp cuts and restore all funding (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024656119
Note:
= new reply since forum marked as read
"tax cuts to help create jobs"
Are we talking about Johnson or Reagan-Clinton-Obama?
Yep, there are our weapons to fight poverty
medicaid
medicare
head start
food stamps
more spending on education
tax cuts for the rich
"I could quote Bush from 2003 making those claims for his tax cut proposal, but what would be the point?"
The only point you would make is an attempt to justify nonsensical spin, not only about Reaganomics, but also about tax cuts.
Increasing taxes on low-income Americans (Reaganomics) is not stimulative. Cutting taxes on the rich (Reaganomics) is not stimulative.
Tax cuts for low-income Americans is stimulative.
"The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to reduce the growth of government spending, reduce the federal income tax and capital gains tax, reduce government regulation, and tighten the money supply in order to reduce inflation."
"reduce the federal income tax and capital gains tax"
"reduce the federal income tax and capital gains tax"
"reduce the federal income tax and capital gains tax"
(Maybe if I copy/paste it three times, it will sink in. "What I tell you three times, is true."
Note well what is NOT said
Anything about "increasing taxes on the poor". Which you insist, for some reason, is fundamental to Reaganomics.
I have no idea, eh? So ERTA was NOT part of Reaganomics? 1986 was more TRUE Reaganomics than the victory of 1981. The compromise of 1986 (although I really have to wonder what Democrats thought THEY were getting from this 'compromise' (other than more corporate campaign cash, that is))
are the ultimate rebuttal.
Good luck pushing your RW talking point.
"I get a voice in "the debate" too, irregardless of my inabilty to even be heard over Obama's bullsh*t and that of his cheerleaders."
...you are entitled to your opinion, even though it doesn't resemble a single actual policy debate by anyone.
Even when you tried to use the Citzens for Tax Justice to support your claims, it produced a chart rebutting the spin. The chart shows that the top one percent got 2. 8 percent vs. 97.1 percent for the 99 percent. The top 5 pecent got 13.5 percent vs. 86.4 percent for the bottom 80 percent. Also notice that the max benefit was $2,691? You know why? It's friggin capped at income of about $113,000.
Do you think $2,691 is significant for someone earning more than $1.6 million dollars? You can best believe that by comparison, $1,000 dollars mean a lot more to someone earning $50,000.
While you're at it, who was responsible for the Making Work Pay Credit?
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/payrolltaxholiday.pdf
it's not really all about the 1%.
That was one of their big mistakes.
Try comparing the top 10% to the bottom 40%.
Oh, but of course, those people in the top 10% are NOT really rich. 
So because the "policy debate" in controlled by the rich, then everybody else should just shut up and ride along with their own screwing? And join in the great debate - should the top 20% get 40% of the benefits or 60% of the benefits? Those are, after all, the only real choices.
Who was responsible for the Making Work Pay Credit.
That would be Campaign Obama - before he sold out or was threatened or something.
Make it viral! 
