When will we weep?
In the course of history, moments come and go when leaders rise up and they lead. Such moments happen every day in families, churches, and communities across the country. Most times most of us never learn their names, but the world is a better place because they spoke, they set the course for action, and they counted and paid the costs of leadership. On the national stage of history such leaders have not only shaped the course of American life. Their passion, their words, and their actions have shaped America.
Consider this: In January 1964 President Lyndon B. Johnson declared unconditional “War on Poverty” in the United States. Nine years later, after a steady stream of “Great Society” anti-poverty legislation the poverty rate for African-Americans had dropped from 55.1 percent in 1959 (the only figures available from before Johnson’s declaration) to 30.3 percent in 1974. With the necessary resources deployed Black poverty dropped by 25 percentage points in ten years. Ten years—that’s all it took.
Then the recession of the late 1970s hit and the forefingers of middle class Americans turned and wagged in the direction of the poor—particularly the black poor. “They are the reason for our woes,” they reasoned. Dems and Republicans both repented of the just policies and turned their backs on the poor. “We must support the middle class,” became the mantra of mindless political theater and it’s been the mantra ever since.
The poverty rates for both blacks and whites rose sharply and peaked in 1983 when President Ronald Reagan drained funds from Johnson’s Great Society programs. At their pre-2009 zenith black and white poverty rates reached 35 percent and 10.8 percent, respectively in ‘83. On the flip side, both rates fell the sharpest since Johnson’s declaration under President Bill Clinton when he poured funding back into Great Society programs like food stamps, Medicaid, Head Start, and children’s health. Whites basked in the sunshine of a 7.4 percent poverty rate, while Blacks felt the faint glimmer of the light of day with 22.4 percent of its population managing to live below the poverty line. The numbers ticked up again under George W. and have begun to fall again under Obama. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, 25.4 percent of blacks and 11.1 percent of whites are living below poverty today.
Now, here is my question for both parties; especially my own. The question of race and state enforced racism has been solved in America. It took more than 300 years, but leaders led Americans to look full in the face of the horrors of its own practices and face itself. When will the horrors of poverty be seen for what they are in America? When will anyone in either party stand up and say 25.4 percent or one quarter of any community having to decide whether they will eat or pay the rent—having to go without running water or heat in the winter—having to suck the marrow from chicken bones for a week between the last food stamp and the next measly round—when will anyone stand and declare “No more! Poverty is unacceptable!”?
When Democrats and Republicans entered the mid-summer 2011 deficit reduction battle our legislators’ priorities surfaced. Over the past year Republicans have issued budget plans that call for deep cuts in programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—formerly known as the Food Stamp Program). All of these programs were instrumental in keeping the U.S. poverty rate down during the nation’s greatest recession since the Great Depression, yet Democrats were willing to barter. According to a report issued by the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: “The Democratic plan contains $73 billion more in Medicare and Medicaid cuts ($475 billion) than Bowles-Simpson ($402 billion), and the same or a greater amount of cuts in this area than the Gang of Six plan.” Despite the long-standing impression that Democrats always protect the poor, the report goes on to explain the Democratic plan to cut the deficit actually had a higher ratio of discretionary cuts to revenue increases—6:1—than the bi-partisan Bowles-Simpson or Gang of Six plans, both of which had cuts to revenue ratios of about 2:1.
Now let’s talk taxes. If we’re really serious about cutting America’s deficit, there’s no way to do it without increasing revenues. In 2001 and 2003 President George W. Bush instituted temporary tax cuts to benefit the richest Americans. Those cuts were set to expire on January 1, 2012. They have been extended. By the year 2021 the Bush era tax cuts will account for nearly half of America’s deficit. If America wants to balance the budget, we the people have a choice to make about our moral priorities. Will we cut SNAP benefits and take food out of the hands of vulnerable mothers and children? Or will we let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire? This is not hyperbole. This is our choice.
Nehemiah heard that Jerusalem’s wall had been decimated. He heard of the great poverty of his people and he wept. He prayed. He fasted and he owned his culpability in the suffering of his people. His fault was that he had done nothing. He had lived in prosperity serving the king’s court while the king’s subjects—his own people—were in shambles.
I want to know when American politicians of this age will weep over poverty in America. When will they face God’s truth about the degrading effects of poverty on human souls? When will they own their culpability and when will a Democrat or a Republican count the cost of leadership as Lincoln and Humphrey and Johnson did and, this time, lead America out of poverty’s perverting clutch. It’s not like we don’t know how. We do. We’ve done it before. We’ve just lost the will and I fear we may have lost the metal—the stuff leaders are made of.
Lisa Sharon Harper is the director of mobilizing at Sojourners and co-author of Left, Right and Christ: Evangelical Faith in Politics. She is also author of Evangelical Does Not Equal Republican…or Democat.
A version of this article originally appeared as part of a feature in RELEVANT magazine. Visit RELEVANTMagazine.com to subscribe.
Excellent post. Before we take action, we need to weep–or else we will not truly feel the need to take action. The problem is that unlike in Nehemiah's time, we do not seem to realize the walls have fallen down. We have been ransacked from within and sold a false bill of goods from rich, corporate interests. Before tears can flow from our eyes, we need to first open them.
Excellent post. Before we take action, we need to weep–or else we will not truly feel the need to take action. The problem is that unlike in Nehemiah's time, we do not seem to realize the walls have fallen down. We have been ransacked from within and sold a false bill of goods from rich, corporate interests. Before tears can flow from our eyes, we need to first open them.
Excellent post. Before we take action, we need to weep–or else we will not truly feel the need to take action. The problem is that unlike in Nehemiah's time, we do not seem to realize the walls have fallen down. We have been ransacked from within and sold a false bill of goods from rich, corporate interests. Before tears can flow from our eyes, we need to first open them.
Lisa,
It seems that the programs you mentioned, such as, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc. are relief programs with varying degrees of effectiveness, but they don’t “lift” people out of poverty. To what extent can we attribute the 25% reduction in poverty for blacks from 1959 – 1974 to these and other “Great Society” relief programs? All sorts of other factors must be considered for potential impact on the black poverty rate during that 15 year period. And programs that help people cope with poverty, which is what these programs aim to do, don’t help to propel people out of it. That, it seems to me, is the work of family members, churches, training organizations, and a sound economy.
You rightfully challenge us when you say, “When will anyone in either party stand up and say 25.4 percent or one quarter of any community having to decide whether they will eat or pay the rent—having to go without running water or heat in the winter—having to suck the marrow from chicken bones for a week between the last food stamp and the next measly round—when will anyone stand and declare “No more! Poverty is unacceptable!”?”
But lifting a quarter of the U.S. population out of poverty is not within the government’s capacity or responsibility. And, while I fully agree that 1 in 4 in poverty is unacceptable, we must also ask what percentage of this 25% is “immobile” and what percentage is constantly changing. I don’t pose this question disingenuously. My sense is that there is a growing number in the “permanent” underclass in the U.S., but I haven’t read any studies on the subject.
Would you articulate what your “limiting” principle is for government action on behalf of the poor? And I don’t mean this in the Constitutional sense, which is important, but in a moral/political sense. The upper-middle class and the rich pay the vast majority of taxes so the tax system is very progressive. Why should it be more progressive (e.g., ending the Bush tax cuts)? Even if we stipulate that the current tax system is not progressive enough, how high should the rates be; how might we go about reasoning, Christianly, what the limit should be? Regarding social welfare discretionary spending, I ask the same question. It seems that whenever any kind of cut is proposed to a program like SNAP or one of the big three entitlements, it is characterized as unjustly taking food out of the mouths of children or assistance away from the elderly. This may be true, but implicit in this constant opposition is that the funding for these programs was either barely adequate or already too low but never that it was too high. So, how might we go about reasoning, Christianly, what the limit should be regarding social welfare spending?
Since political deliberation is most often about prioritizing among multiple goods and not just advocating against harms and evils (politics is certainly about these, too), how do you think Christianly about this prioritization considering the reality that government shouldn’t do nothing but it can’t do everything and that American society is populated by a multifarious array of institutions with their own responsibilities to address poverty and promote human flourishing.
Thank you for your challenging essay.
Nathan
Lisa,
It seems that the programs you mentioned, such as, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc. are relief programs with varying degrees of effectiveness, but they don’t “lift” people out of poverty. To what extent can we attribute the 25% reduction in poverty for blacks from 1959 – 1974 to these and other “Great Society” relief programs? All sorts of other factors must be considered for potential impact on the black poverty rate during that 15 year period. And programs that help people cope with poverty, which is what these programs aim to do, don’t help to propel people out of it. That, it seems to me, is the work of family members, churches, training organizations, and a sound economy.
You rightfully challenge us when you say, “When will anyone in either party stand up and say 25.4 percent or one quarter of any community having to decide whether they will eat or pay the rent—having to go without running water or heat in the winter—having to suck the marrow from chicken bones for a week between the last food stamp and the next measly round—when will anyone stand and declare “No more! Poverty is unacceptable!”?”
But lifting a quarter of the U.S. population out of poverty is not within the government’s capacity or responsibility. And, while I fully agree that 1 in 4 in poverty is unacceptable, we must also ask what percentage of this 25% is “immobile” and what percentage is constantly changing. I don’t pose this question disingenuously. My sense is that there is a growing number in the “permanent” underclass in the U.S., but I haven’t read any studies on the subject.
Would you articulate what your “limiting” principle is for government action on behalf of the poor? And I don’t mean this in the Constitutional sense, which is important, but in a moral/political sense. The upper-middle class and the rich pay the vast majority of taxes so the tax system is very progressive. Why should it be more progressive (e.g., ending the Bush tax cuts)? Even if we stipulate that the current tax system is not progressive enough, how high should the rates be; how might we go about reasoning, Christianly, what the limit should be? Regarding social welfare discretionary spending, I ask the same question. It seems that whenever any kind of cut is proposed to a program like SNAP or one of the big three entitlements, it is characterized as unjustly taking food out of the mouths of children or assistance away from the elderly. This may be true, but implicit in this constant opposition is that the funding for these programs was either barely adequate or already too low but never that it was too high. So, how might we go about reasoning, Christianly, what the limit should be regarding social welfare spending?
Since political deliberation is most often about prioritizing among multiple goods and not just advocating against harms and evils (politics is certainly about these, too), how do you think Christianly about this prioritization considering the reality that government shouldn’t do nothing but it can’t do everything and that American society is populated by a multifarious array of institutions with their own responsibilities to address poverty and promote human flourishing.
Thank you for your challenging essay.
Nathan
Lisa,
It seems that the programs you mentioned, such as, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc. are relief programs with varying degrees of effectiveness, but they don’t “lift” people out of poverty. To what extent can we attribute the 25% reduction in poverty for blacks from 1959 – 1974 to these and other “Great Society” relief programs? All sorts of other factors must be considered for potential impact on the black poverty rate during that 15 year period. And programs that help people cope with poverty, which is what these programs aim to do, don’t help to propel people out of it. That, it seems to me, is the work of family members, churches, training organizations, and a sound economy.
You rightfully challenge us when you say, “When will anyone in either party stand up and say 25.4 percent or one quarter of any community having to decide whether they will eat or pay the rent—having to go without running water or heat in the winter—having to suck the marrow from chicken bones for a week between the last food stamp and the next measly round—when will anyone stand and declare “No more! Poverty is unacceptable!”?”
But lifting a quarter of the U.S. population out of poverty is not within the government’s capacity or responsibility. And, while I fully agree that 1 in 4 in poverty is unacceptable, we must also ask what percentage of this 25% is “immobile” and what percentage is constantly changing. I don’t pose this question disingenuously. My sense is that there is a growing number in the “permanent” underclass in the U.S., but I haven’t read any studies on the subject.
Would you articulate what your “limiting” principle is for government action on behalf of the poor? And I don’t mean this in the Constitutional sense, which is important, but in a moral/political sense. The upper-middle class and the rich pay the vast majority of taxes so the tax system is very progressive. Why should it be more progressive (e.g., ending the Bush tax cuts)? Even if we stipulate that the current tax system is not progressive enough, how high should the rates be; how might we go about reasoning, Christianly, what the limit should be? Regarding social welfare discretionary spending, I ask the same question. It seems that whenever any kind of cut is proposed to a program like SNAP or one of the big three entitlements, it is characterized as unjustly taking food out of the mouths of children or assistance away from the elderly. This may be true, but implicit in this constant opposition is that the funding for these programs was either barely adequate or already too low but never that it was too high. So, how might we go about reasoning, Christianly, what the limit should be regarding social welfare spending?
Since political deliberation is most often about prioritizing among multiple goods and not just advocating against harms and evils (politics is certainly about these, too), how do you think Christianly about this prioritization considering the reality that government shouldn’t do nothing but it can’t do everything and that American society is populated by a multifarious array of institutions with their own responsibilities to address poverty and promote human flourishing.
Thank you for your challenging essay.
Nathan