‘War on Poverty’ Wastes a Lot of Ammo to Little Effect

When President Lyndon Johnson declared an “unconditional war on poverty in America” in January 1964, the country’s poverty rate was around 19 percent and falling.

Since then, the federal government has spent more than $13 trillion fighting poverty. But a recent report showed that the poverty rate this year is about 15 percent and climbing, and in all the years since “war” was declared, the rate has never fallen below 10.5 percent.

“Welfare spending could arguably be justified if we were actually reducing poverty. But as the recent numbers make clear, we’re not,” Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, writes in an editorial for Investor’s Business Daily.

“Clearly we are doing something wrong. Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient.”

The federal government now has 122 separate anti-poverty programs, with Medicaid the largest. These programs spent more than $590 billion last year — roughly $14,850 for every poor person in the country.

Given that the poverty line is $10,830, it would have been cheaper just to mail every poor person a check for $11,000, according to Tanner, author of “The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society.”

President George W. Bush boosted welfare spending by about $80 billion over his entire second term, while in just two years President Obama’s administration has increased spending on welfare programs by more than $120 billion, in part by easing eligibility and expanding caseloads. One out of every six Americans now receives some form of government assistance.

“The whole theory underlying our welfare programs is wrong-headed,” Tanner concludes. “We focus far too much on making poverty more comfortable and not enough on creating the prosperity that will get people out of poverty.”