As President Barack Obama prepares to deliver his fifth State of the Union address, we are reminded of the recent celebration of the 50th anniversary of Lyndon B. Johnson’s announcement of his anti-poverty program – called the War on Poverty.
So, 50 years ago, on January 8th in 1964, Lyndon B. Johnson delivers his first State of the Union speech – barely six weeks after the Kennedy assassination. President Johnson used the moment to outline not only his desire to push for what many considered “Kennedy” initiatives such as civil rights and a tax cut – but the one issue that was not on the public’s radar – poverty. Looking ahead ten months or so to the 1964 presidential election, potentially going up against Republican Barry Goldwater, addressing poverty can help, particularly in the areas of the country where he is weakest –“liberal urban areas.” During the morning press briefing before delivering the State of the Union, President Johnson told reporters, “…so I would suspect that the poverty program itself would run in excess of one billion dollars. But there is specifically $500 million in new obligation authority in this budget.”[1] Johnson now had one billion dollars for his anti-poverty efforts that amounted to 1% of the nation’s spending to help 20% of the population. This was in contrast to the New Deal’s work relief appropriation bill was more than $4 billion, plus nearly $880 million in previously authorized funds.
Johnson told the nation, “Unfortunately, many Americans live on the outskirts of hope--some because of their poverty, and some because of their color, and all too many because of both. Our task is to help replace their despair with opportunity. This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America. I urge this Congress and all Americans to join with me in that effort. It will not be a short or easy struggle, no single weapon or strategy will suffice, but we shall not rest until that war is won.” Johnson went on to say, “Poverty is a national problem, requiring improved national organization and support. But this attack, to be effective, must also be organized at the State and the local level and must be supported and directed by State and local efforts.” The president went on to talk about the need for a bigger food stamp program, to create a National Service Corps, to modernize the unemployment insurance, extend the coverage of minimum wage laws as well as more aid for schools, build more libraries, hospitals and nursing homes, and providing hospital insurance for the elderly. Within two years after that speech, President Johnson signed the Economic Opportunity Act (1964);Food Stamp Act (1964);Social Security Amendments (1965);and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965). The result – programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, Job Corp, VISTA, Headstart, Title I program, food stamps, and Community Action Programs (CAPs) to name a few.
The day after Johnson’s State of the Union address, the New York Times wrote, “…and it was obvious that there was strong opposition on the Republican side precisely because his poverty program was so reminiscent of the New Deal the GOP fought (against) for so many years.”
While Johnson’s plan was quite ambitious and unprecedented, within months his proposals nevertheless came under heavy criticism from Republicans who dismissed anti-poverty plans as “an election year gimmick” and “big government” - and that was before the program was operational. Michael Gillette, author of Launching the War on Poverty; An Oral History, wrote, “Once the program was up and running, opponents charged that it was wasteful, mismanaged, counterproductive and a cause of the social and racial turmoil. In later years, the war on poverty was blamed for expanding the cycle of welfare dependency and creating an urban underclass.”
Consider the following remarks by Senator Barry Goldwater, “The present administration, as have the Democratic administration that most immediately preceded it says that bureaucracy in Washington can solve all our problems, end poverty and create prosperity. The Republican alternative is that men and women working and investing in thousands of industries, freed from bureaucratic interference can build the wealth that best beats poverty.” Sound familiar? Senator Goldwater went on to talk about the dangers that minimum wages presents, “The fact, nationally, is that if we push up wage levels, by law or by contract to a level which is higher than the productive capacity of large numbers of people, then those people will not only lose their jobs but will be unable to find others.”[2] Interestingly, sounds a lot like today’s Republican arguments against the minimum wage. See Part II of Johnson's War on Poverty here.
Notes:
[1]“Text of Johnson’s State of the Union message and his earlier Press Briefing.” New York Times. New York Times, 9 January 1964. Web. 27 January 2014.
[2] “Excerpts from address here by Senator Goldwater.” New York Times. New York Times, 16 January 1964. Web 27 January 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment