Quantcast
Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
Johnson’s ‘War on Poverty’ still a political battlefront
SOCIAL WELFARE » 5 decades later, President Johnson’s programs are still a political battlefront, and, while poverty has not disappeared, supporters say it might have been worse without initiatives.
First Published Jan 20 2014 01:01 am • Last Updated Jan 21 2014 11:11 am

The War on Poverty is, as much as ever, a hot political topic 50 years after President Lyndon B. Johnson launched an array of social programs aimed at eradicating destitution and its attendant ills.

Last fall, Congress rolled back food stamp benefits to 2008 levels as applicants had surged during the Great Recession. In Utah, they had more than doubled. Utah also is among 23 states that have yet to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. And this week, the U.S. Senate killed an extension of unemployment benefits affecting more than 1 million people nationwide.

At a glance

LBJ’s War on Poverty goals:

Accelerate economic growth, maintain high employment, fight discrimination, improve regional economies, rehabilitate urban and rural communities, improve labor markets, expand educational opportunities, enlarge opportunities for youth, improve the nation’s health, promote adult education and training, and assist the aged and disabled.

Source: “Legacies of the War on Poverty,” the Russell Sage Foundation.

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

"Some would argue the safety net has unraveled in recent years," said Pam Perlich, research economist at the University of Utah’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research. "I can’t imagine any humane society with the affluence we have that wouldn’t have the same programs."

But conservatives deride the War on Poverty as an expensive failure. They point to poverty rates that are as high now as they were in the mid-1970s and contend that government programs, like food stamps, Medicaid and unemployment insurance are disincentives for the poor to get out and work.

By contrast, supporters maintain the War on Poverty has had successes and emphasize the low poverty rates for seniors — 9.5 percent in 2012 compared with 35 percent in 1959 — better access to health care for most Americans, falling infant mortality rates and rising numbers of college graduates as clear evidence that Johnson’s initiatives are working.

Certainly poverty has not disappeared. Since 2008, poverty rates are up. About 46 million Americans, including some 360,000 Utahns, live below the poverty line, defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as a family of four with a household income below $23,050. Since the last census, the unemployment rate has increased, according to federal and state estimates.

Children • Without LBJ’s initiatives, poverty in this country would be much worse, supporters say. The biggest segment of the impoverished population is children — nationally, about one in five youngsters 17 and under live in poverty. But through food stamps and school-lunch programs, there is considerably less malnutrition today than 50 years ago.

"We haven’t seen a significant drop in the poverty rates since the mid-1970s," said Thomas Maloney, chairman of the U. of U.’s Department of Economics. "When poverty is concentrated among children, it will have ill effects down the line."

Among the challenges, according to experts on both sides, is providing those youth with education and training that would allow them to break the cycle of poverty. The Utah Department of Workforce Services is tracking "intergenerational poverty" in an effort to find answers to the phenomenon.


story continues below
story continues below

The national poverty rate in 1959 — before Johnson’s initiatives — was 22.1 percent. Utah’s poverty rate for that year was 15.4 percent, according to the Department of Workforce Services. But by 1969 — five years into the poverty war — the national poverty rate had dropped to 13.7 percent and Utah’s was down to 11.4 percent.

The Beehive State has fared better than the national average because of its continued economic growth, said John Krantz, research economist for Workforce Services.

From 1969 to 2008, poverty rates remained more or less the same, with fluctuations that reflected the general health of the economy. But by 2012, after four years of deep recession, the national poverty rate had grown to 15.9 percent. Utah’s poverty rate went up to 13 percent.

"Clearly there is a deficiency in demand [for jobs] in the labor market," Maloney said. "In those kinds of conditions, you need this [War on Poverty programs’] kind of support."

Measuring the success of LBJ’s social-welfare initiative is difficult because of the wide array of programs and the fact that the nation and its economy have changed. Many manufacturing jobs are gone. But high-tech jobs are on the rise. And family dynamics differ, too, with many more single-parent households, according to "Legacies of the War on Poverty" by the Russell Sage Foundation.

"Many of these shifts have tended to increase poverty, even as antipoverty programs have tended to reduce it," the foundation reports. "These offsetting forces render misleading simple comparisons of today’s poverty rate with the one in 1964."

Among Johnson’s landmark initiatives are the Food Stamp Act, the Economic Opportunity Act, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Medicare and Medicaid also were created. And although Social Security was a New Deal program initiated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, benefits doubled under Johnson.

Pockets • Overall, the War on Poverty has had successes, said Jeff Steagall, a Weber State University economist and dean of the Goddard School of Business & Economics. However, he said, pockets of America have been left behind.

LBJ’s war sought to alleviate the immediate needs of poverty — food, housing and health care — and then provide training and education that would allow the impoverished to gain employment and work themselves out of poverty. The second part of that equation hasn’t succeeded in inner cities, American-Indian reservations and some other rural locales.

One big reason, Steagall said, is a lack of economic opportunities in those areas where new jobs are rare. Blight in the inner cities dissuades new business and investment. Rural reservations, on the other hand, are remote from markets and potential customers, making economic gains difficult.

Next Page >


Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment


About Reader Comments


Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Videos
Jobs
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Access your e-Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.