Yes, anti-poverty programs do keep some people poorer than they should be
Kudos to the New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof for not only daring to question whether anti-poverty programs might actually harm some people more than they help them, but for doing some on-the-ground reporting about how that happens in specific individuals’ lives. His entire piece from Sunday is well worth reading, but here’s the crux of it:
This is painful for a liberal to admit, but conservatives have a point when they suggest that America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency. Our poverty programs do rescue many people, but other times they backfire.
Some young people here don’t join the military (a traditional escape route for poor, rural Americans) because it’s easier to rely on food stamps and disability payments.
Antipoverty programs also discourage marriage: In a means-tested program like S.S.I., a woman raising a child may receive a bigger check if she refrains from marrying that hard-working guy she likes. Yet marriage is one of the best forces to blunt poverty. In married couple households only one child in 10 grows up in poverty, while almost half do in single-mother households.
Most wrenching of all are the parents who think it’s best if a child stays illiterate, because then the family may be able to claim a disability check each month.
Charles Murray, about whose book “Coming Apart” I wrote earlier this year (I’ve also previously noted the importance of marriage to ending child poverty, as Kristof did), argues the problems Kristof identifies are due to three laws of social programs, which he describes as:
1. The Law of Imperfect Selection. Any objective rule that defines eligibility for a social transfer program will irrationally exclude some persons [leading them to expand constantly]. …
2. The Law of Unintended Rewards. Any social transfer increases the net value of being in the condition that prompted the transfer. …
3. The Law of Net Harm. The less likely it is that the unwanted behavior will change voluntarily, the more likely it is that a program to induce change will cause net harm [by encouraging more people to engage in the bad behavior in the first place, so that they can profit from making the desired change]. …
Read Murray’s entire comment for a fuller explanation of these three laws. And, yes, the proper emphasis here should be on some people being worse off sometimes — the argument made by most conservatives is not that government should provide no safety net, but that it should not catch and even ensnare people who can and should be responsible for their own well-being. Even marginal increases in dependency have long-term consequences because they accumulate over time — most often as generation after generation within particular families grow up seeing nothing but dependency. Kristof is right to focus on the effects of dependency on children.
Taken together, Murray’s post and Kristof’s column give us an important understanding about the fallibility of even well-intentioned government programs for the poor, and some ways that we ought to think about these programs as we try to end unnecessary dependency and get our nation’s finances under control.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
217 comments Add your comment
MarkV
December 11th, 2012
1:25 pm
Dusty @ 12:34 pm
Dusty,
When you write “one half of all Americans depending on the government” as a disparagement, you should have realized what a nonsense that sentence was. Believe it or not, ALL of us are dependent on the government, one way or another.
clem
December 11th, 2012
1:40 pm
they both…sorry, you lost me on your previous comment directed to me i think.
Lexi3
December 11th, 2012
1:42 pm
Set aside the truthiness of the proposition that all of us are “dependent on government, one way or another,” lots of us are learning to take from the government without throwing anything into the pot. And, a sliver of us pay the vast majority of what’s available to distribute. The absurdity is that people who contribute nothing vote, not only on how the pot is distributed, but on the size of the pot others are to create. Sweet.
They BOTH suck
December 11th, 2012
1:46 pm
clem
was responding to your 1:03 post. Was saying that while the “big money” does work to influence elections, I think they influence legislation and regulation via their money and influence much more than they influence elections. The elections just get more PR, but those same folks, directly or indirectly, are working consistently on a local, state and national level to influence laws and regs.
just my opinion
clem
December 11th, 2012
1:50 pm
thanks for refreshing my memory. i need to sharpen my multitasking skills & retention.
Georgia
December 11th, 2012
1:53 pm
The 47% of us who were shamed by Romney, and mocked in that beautiful hotel ballroom, as arrogantly as Antoinette herself could mock, and who now must bear the scars of that bullied slight, so that we may never enter such elite company as the $5000 per plate gathering inferred, are trying to heal. We ask for redstate prayers. I guess Billy Graham was right. There are no atheists when the bus is going over the cliff. (Or in a foxhole during heavy bombardment).
Steve
December 11th, 2012
1:57 pm
When I read most of the tripe that is written on these blogs, the only thing I can be certain of of is that our education system has failed us.
Dusty
December 11th, 2012
1:59 pm
Dear MarkV
If you want to play in the sandbox of semantics, go right ahead. But you need to tell Bill Beach what to write instead of me.
I do depend on the constitutional guarantees of our government but I do not believe nor do I intend to go beyond those if possible.
Americans departed from a kingdom to become a republic and I don’t want to be a serf or a slave to government. I wish for independence to continue.
Hey, doesn’t that sound nice? .I also know the words to the Battle Hymn of the Republic if you would like to read it. But Christmas shopping calls…..see ya later….
MarkV
December 11th, 2012
2:04 pm
Dusty @1:59 pm
Dear Dusty,
You depend on the government for much more than the constitutional guarantees. But I have to leave now too. …see you later
@@
December 11th, 2012
2:26 pm
An interesting site…objective within a variety of topics.
Not right, not left…grounded?
What Happened in Our History Books?
Liberal academia perpetuated bigotry.
While rurality was depicted in a variety of ways in the secondary school history books over time, one perspective remained clear and even gained in force between the years 1956 and 2009: that rural people and ways of life are deficient in comparison to urban and suburban people and ways of life. From this perspective rural people are ignorant and backward and thus in need of education. They are lawless, reckless, and dangerous, thus in need of regulation. And they live in places whose isolation and hardships constrain the development of full human potential.
“History of America”
The 1993 history text shows rural life as dreary and impoverished (without contrasting imagery) and then asks students to describe rural life “in their own words.” Thus, the text presents a negative image of rural life and then provokes students to make that idea “their own.”
In the same vein, the 1993 history text differentiated rural and urban by asserting that rural people adhere to religious fundamentalism — a curious claim, given that by the 1990s Christian fundamentalism, as is well documented, had become a pervasive force nationally.
Based on what I’ve read from liberals here and at other sites, it would appear they’ve fallen victim to to the public school system.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 11th, 2012
2:30 pm
Steve: It really just boils down to “I hate black folks that abuse welfare”!!! (yet that costs you and I practically nothing in taxes)
———–
One of the progs here claimed welfare “only” costs $59 billion a year.
That’s about how much Obozo’s tax increase on small business (I mean, the “rich”) will raise.
Still think $59 billion is “practically nothing”?
getalife
December 11th, 2012
2:36 pm
Yeah, forget the trillions wasted on military and corporate welfare.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 11th, 2012
3:02 pm
Yeah, forget the trillions wasted on military and corporate welfare.
Or the fact that most of the countries debt was racked up under Republican administrations.
Especially Reagan.
Real Athens
December 11th, 2012
3:10 pm
@@:
Super interesting site. Thanks.
Too bad you cherry picked two paragraphs to support your hypothesis “Liberal academia perpetrated bigotry”.
Read the entire essay.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 11th, 2012
3:11 pm
Nonsense. Our President Reagan racked up less than $1trillion in debt. Obozo does more than that every year.
getalife
December 11th, 2012
3:13 pm
kristof spend some time with poor white folks in the country but should spend some time with poor minorities in cities to get the whole picture.
getalife
December 11th, 2012
3:15 pm
We had a balanced budget and a surplus so what happened?
w happened.
So, why balance our budget if the gop will blow it again if they ever win?
George P. Burdell
December 11th, 2012
3:15 pm
If you actually take the time to determine how much debt was accumulated by each party adjusted for inflation, you would see that it is pretty close to even. By the time Obama leaves office, that won’t be the case.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 11th, 2012
3:19 pm
So, why balance our budget if the gop will blow it again if they ever win?
good question.
It took Bush about 17 seconds to blow the surplus. Trickle down fails again.
Whenever a Republican gets in the White House you can bet on two things.
1. The rich are about to get alot richer
2. Lower and Middle class will not
3. Bombs will start falling on brown or black people somewhere within 6 months.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 11th, 2012
3:20 pm
Our President Reagan racked up less than $1trillion in debt. Obozo does more than that every year.
When Reagan took office the debt was 1 trillion.
In 8 years he quadrupled it to 4 Trillion.
Obama wont come close to quadrupling our debt.
Try again.
Real Athens
December 11th, 2012
3:20 pm
“Nor do I wish to act like a total loon when discussing a problem.”
Um, let’s see:
Nonsensical rhyming poetry, rehash of nursery rhymes to insult others, a tendency to turn to puerile gardening and food metaphors when asked to explain a position — nah, no lunacy there.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 11th, 2012
3:20 pm
Meant to say three things.
Yes most days I can count
getalife
December 11th, 2012
3:20 pm
Yes, reagan started blowing out our debt but along came President Clinton.
This is not a new problem, it was solved.
Then along came w to blow it again.
The key to stop it is never vote for a gop President ever again.
Not complicated.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 11th, 2012
3:25 pm
Wrong. The key is to have the Internet boom occur on your watch by accident, and pass the dot com bust occur on the next guy’s watch. It’s also helpful to do nothing about Islamofascist terrorism for eight years and let that hot potato go off on your successor too.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 11th, 2012
3:26 pm
Reagan bankrupted California when he was Governor
Then tried to do it to the US. His trickle down policies were and still are a huge failure.
When terrorist bombed Beirut what did he do ?
He cut and ran like a coward and withdrew all the troops.
Truly a horrible President.
getalife
December 11th, 2012
3:28 pm
I would like to see a “pundit” write how much corporate and military welfare is needed to keep our economy growing.
How many corporations are making it because of government welfare and how much we can cut without sending our economy back to a recession.
Lets get the total picture and not just focus on the poor.
Another audit of the Pentagon is needed ASAP too.
Lets get real and solve this problem for the last time.
Rafe Hollister preparing for an Obamanist America
December 11th, 2012
3:29 pm
Barry wants new spending of 1.2T. He has proposed this be paid for by the 1.6T tax increase on the wealthy.
Can we say Barry has no interest in improving our deficit or our debt, just more of the same, tax and spend.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/75-percent-obamas-proposed-tax-hikes-go-toward-new-spending_666067.html
getalife
December 11th, 2012
3:32 pm
rafe,
How much did your crybaby speaker propose and what are the cuts he failed to provide?
Lets compare plans rafe.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 11th, 2012
3:35 pm
Wrong. The key is to have the Internet boom occur on your watch by accident, and pass the dot com bust occur on the next guy’s watch. It’s also helpful to do nothing about Islamofascist terrorism for eight years and let that hot potato go off on your successor too.
All myths.
Clinton raised taxes on the Rich. Then balancing the books.
W lowered them. Bang recession.
And Clinton tried over and over to kill OBL. Republican said he was just trying to distract the nation from Monica Lewinsky. Boy were they wrong. again.
Bush did nothing about Terrorism after he was elected and so we got Sept 11th
Your welcome.
getalife
December 11th, 2012
3:35 pm
rafe,
Are you there or did you cut and run?
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 11th, 2012
3:36 pm
My memory was off a bit. According to treasurydirect.gov, Our President Reagan added $950 billion in His first term, and $1 trillion in his second.
To date, Obozo has added $5.8 trillion, and he’s not quite through one term.
Obozo: Inferior to Pur President Reagan.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 11th, 2012
3:36 pm
When you quote the weekly standard you dont have a leg to stand on.
Fail
getalife
December 11th, 2012
3:37 pm
Any con want to compare plans to see which party is serious about cuts?
How much did your speaker propose and how much did our President propose?
This will answer the question cons.
Glenn Beck
December 11th, 2012
3:38 pm
Barry
Why no mention of the housing and construction boom on Bush’s watch?
You were going to mention it but you feel off your step stool.
No problem, glad I could help you out. Brush yourself off, get up and start wailing and flailing again.
getalife
December 11th, 2012
3:39 pm
Didn’t think so.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 11th, 2012
3:39 pm
Funny–Clinton raised taxes on everyone (not just the rich) but the budget didn’t come into supposed “balance” until six years later. And even then, it was only balanced through the looting of the SS trust fund.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 11th, 2012
3:39 pm
My memory was off a bit. According to treasurydirect.gov, Our President Reagan added $950 billion in His first term, and $1 trillion in his second.
Its still off.
You aren’t even close.
He quadrupled it
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 11th, 2012
3:40 pm
And even then, it was only balanced through the looting of the SS trust fund.
Not in any way factual
getalife
December 11th, 2012
3:40 pm
“it was only balanced through the looting of the SS trust fund”
BS.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 11th, 2012
3:41 pm
Why no mention of the housing and construction boom on Bush’s watch?
——–
Maybe because we were talking about the Clinton regime.
Please try to keep up.
@@
December 11th, 2012
3:42 pm
Real Athens:
Read the entire essay.
What makes you think I didn’t. I took you directly to….
Did ‘ya see something I didn’t?
Lynnie Gal
December 11th, 2012
3:42 pm
Ack! The audacity of a young person who was born into poverty not chomping at the bit to join the military and getting his limbs blown off (or worse) for a war started by Bush/Cheney! How lazy! Don’t they know that government welfare is only for the rich and deserving? Those job creators must come first!
getalife
December 11th, 2012
3:43 pm
I can’t believe the so called fiscal cons are not screaming about your speaker plan.
It tells me these fiscal cons are liars about the debt.
Where is the tea party?
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
December 11th, 2012
3:43 pm
Please try to keep up.
Keep up
Nobody here even knows what you are talking about.
You are the typical Republican misinformed voter.
You get all of your info inside a small bubble and almost all of it is nowhere near the truth.
Sucks to be you.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 11th, 2012
3:43 pm
Obozo proposes new programs to spend $0.75 of every dollar in new taxes on small business and those with worthwhile careers.
@@
December 11th, 2012
3:45 pm
Real Athens:
On second thought……..take your a$$-ump-shuns and stick ‘em!!!!
getalife
December 11th, 2012
3:46 pm
lil bar,
What about your speaker’s plan?
Your mindless ods and giving your speaker a free pass does not solve the problem.
Glenn Beck
December 11th, 2012
3:47 pm
Cheesy
It is funny to watch the lonely souls who wail and flail.
Pretty cheap amusement.
getalife
December 11th, 2012
3:48 pm
No debate on this blog just mindless ods.
Pitiful.
Shaniqua
December 11th, 2012
4:02 pm
Although it’s not an anti-poverty/social transfer program per se, long-term unemployment insurance is another safety net entitlement that begets dependency.
If you’re near the lower/minimum wage end of the wage scale and you can receive unemployment benefits that exceed minimum wage for up to 99 weeks (and Obama wants to extend that) would you knock yourself out looking for work?