"New Ideas"

A terrible Washington Post article criticizes John Edwards' anti-poverty agenda on the grounds that "Critics Say He Brings Few Fresh Ideas to Signature Issue." Well, um, okay. But as Jared Bernstein argues, the virtue of Edwards' plan isn't that it's fresh it's that it's a good plan. No, Edwards hasn't uncovered the Magical New Idea To End Poverty -- rather he's assembled some old-but-not-implemented good ideas, is pushing for increased efforts on some old-and-effective ideas, etc., all in recognition of the fact that despite some difficulties the country has consistently shown itself capable of significantly reducing poverty whenever we're really cared to try.

Recall Jon Chait's "case against new ideas" in this context. What liberals need to do on poverty is win an election in a manner that provides some kind of plausible mandate for implementing anti-poverty policies, and then implement some good policies -- not necessarily the freshest ones -- and Edwards represents the best shot at that we've seen in decades.

Comments

"No, Edwards hasn't uncovered the Magical New Idea To End Poverty"

Actually, I think he has. It's just that the Magical New Idea To End Poverty is a political idea, not a policy idea.

He's repeatedly telling folks the neo war on poverty will take 30 years. Considering the original war on poverty was producing excellent results before it was abandoned, telling the truth about the necessary commitment is a Magical New Idea.

------

"What liberals need to do on poverty is win an election in a manner that provides some kind of plausible mandate for implementing anti-poverty policies"

When this idea is considered writ large, it explains why I think that it's such a no-brainer to push forward a candidate like John Edwards precisely because he is running as a proud progressive.

How you run matters.

If you win an election running from the left, you can move the whole political zeitgeist.

Posted by Petey | May 7, 2007 12:19 PM

Actually, the article doesn't seem all that terrible to me. I was expecting the usual "Red Vs Blue" boilerplate when I clicked the link, and what I got was a fairly concise assessment of the various Dem candidates' anti-poverty plans.

I'd really like to see a detailed study of the "giving poor people housing vouchers" thing--i.e, why the existing federal plan mentioned in the article didn't work, and how Edwards' plan might compare and contrast with it--but maybe someone else will write that story soon.

Posted by James Gary | May 7, 2007 12:28 PM

The simplest (and cheapest) way to end poverty is to give the poor financial incentives not to have children. For example, give poor young women a few thousand dollars cash in return for agreeing to temporary sterilization, like the 5-year Norplant (I think Clinton may have done something like this as governor of Arkansas).

At the same time, give the wealthy and educated a financial incentive to have more children. A good financial incentive might be a progressive child tax credit -- say, knocking two percentage points off a filing couple's top marginal income tax rate for every kid they have (this wouldn't favor the educated explicitly, but might in practice). For a successful couple, this could mean an additional $5k-$10k per year in their pockets.

Affluent and educated people are more likely to have children who contribute to society than poor and uneducated people are. By encouraging the affluent to have more children and the poor to have fewer children you could accomplish some liberal goals: Lower inequality (affluent estates would be shared by a greater number of children), fewer poor people, and proportionally more resources to spend on the remaining poor.

Posted by Dave | May 7, 2007 12:56 PM

Two questions for my liberal friends:

1) The last war on poverty helped increase the black illegitimacy rate from about 27% (which Moynihan considered a crisis) to about 67%. What do you suppose the effect on the black family will be this time?

2) How can you sustain a war on poverty while encouraging the immigration of millions of more poor people from Mexico? More poor immigrants will lower wages for poor blacks and other current American citizens and will dilute the amount of resources that can be spent per each poor person.

Posted by Fred | May 7, 2007 1:12 PM

Dave brings up a good point. One of the reasons Ireland is now one of Europe's richest countries is that birth control use became widespread, thus creating a more favorable workers-to-dependents ratio. From what I've been told about Chile, one of the reasons that they are richer than most other Latin American nations is that the very Catholic Chilean upper class has many kids while the underclass have fewer kids. Clinton addressed this point a bit with some of his better aspects of welfare reform, which is one of the reasons single moms and African-American women saw some of the biggest economic gains of any group in America under Clinton.

It also is refreshing to move the conversation from Edwards's supposed liberal approach to foreign policy, which lags behind Obama, to his real domestic/economic policy liberalism, which is in front of both Clinton and Obama.

Posted by Reality Man | May 7, 2007 1:17 PM

"The last war on poverty helped increase the black illegitimacy rate from about 27% (which Moynihan considered a crisis) to about 67%."

The perverse policies that created incentives for poor single mothers of both races not to get married were discredited throughout the left quite a while ago.

One of the advantages of being reality based is that you get to do course corrections.

Posted by Petey | May 7, 2007 1:21 PM

I liked the part of the article that said that the centerpiece of Edwards' program is a voucher idea that has already proven to be a failure. Let's throw more money at that idea then, I guess. In which case, we have proof that Petey's right - Edwards IS a progressive!

Posted by Al | May 7, 2007 1:28 PM

"1) The last war on poverty helped increase the black illegitimacy rate from about 27% (which Moynihan considered a crisis) to about 67%. What do you suppose the effect on the black family will be this time?"

"Families with Dependent Children" was abandoned during the Clinton years. It is the type of welfare policy that those Americans who advocate a stronger welfare state tend to run away from the most. I'm guessing Edwards isn't in a rush to reinstate it.

"2) How can you sustain a war on poverty while encouraging the immigration of millions of more poor people from Mexico? More poor immigrants will lower wages for poor blacks and other current American citizens and will dilute the amount of resources that can be spent per each poor person.

Posted by Fred | May 7, 2007 1:12 PM"

This immigration is going to happen no matter what as long as the incentives are there. The differences in income on the US-Mexico border are the largest in the world, which is what (combined with too-strict immigration laws) drives illegal Mexican immigration to the US. Drum has posted studies over at his blog that showed the net effect of illegal immigration tends to be a wash. The benefits tend to equal IIRC +4% of GDP and the costs -4% of GDP or so. If you really want to significantly slow Mexican immigration to the US, work with the Mexican government and help Mexican businesses to develop Mexico like how we helped to develop Korea and Taiwan and helped re-build Europe and Japan. Also, Democrats are not actively encouraging more immigration. There hasn't been a big increase in illegal immigration as of late (while their has been a net outflow of legal, educated and trained immigrants back to their countries of origin to take advantage of new opportunities and escape American racism), despite all of the recent controversy. In fact, states like Arizona are (according to economic models I've seen) actually underpopulated. The US economy is developed enough that simplistic cause-and-effect analysis like "more labor = lower wages" don't hold. The feedback effects are too great and since the illegal immigration rate (with many going back home. After all, many illegal immigratns don't come to stay, but to send money back home) has been pretty much steady for a while now, its effects are too subtle to be this clean. It would be different if this occured as an external shock of a whole bunch of illegal immigrants showing up when in the past there had been almost none.

The best critique you can really offer of Edwards's economic policy is his protectionism, which does worry me. However, that is not the same thing as the welfare state.

Posted by Reality Man | May 7, 2007 1:29 PM

Reality Man:

"This immigration is going to happen no matter what as long as the incentives are there."

You could take away the incentives for illegal immigration by requiring employers to check their applicants for real government-issued photo IDs. The government could easily create an ID like this for job applicants who don't have photo ID driver's licenses, passports, military IDs, etc.

"Drum has posted studies over at his blog that showed the net effect of illegal immigration tends to be a wash. The benefits tend to equal IIRC +4% of GDP and the costs -4% of GDP or so."

If the GDP costs are a wash (debatable), then per-capita GDP still suffers as illegal aliens increase the population by millions.

"If you really want to significantly slow Mexican immigration to the US, work with the Mexican government and help Mexican businesses to develop Mexico like how we helped to develop Korea and Taiwan and helped re-build Europe and Japan."

Like how we're helping Iraq now? Some cultures are resistant to this sort of help. Mexicans and Arabs aren't Germans and Japanese.

"The US economy is developed enough that simplistic cause-and-effect analysis like "more labor = lower wages" don't hold."

Really? The law of supply and demand has been repealed for low-wage work? National studies by economists such as George Borjas of Harvard show otherwise. The best advocates of low-skilled immigration can do is so higher income in cities with high percentages of low-skilled immigrants, while ignoring the broader, national effects (e.g., of these immigrants economically cleansing cities of native poor workers, some of whom move out of the cities but stay within the U.S.).

Posted by Fred | May 7, 2007 1:59 PM

"I liked the part of the article that said that the centerpiece of Edwards' program is a voucher idea that has already proven to be a failure."

Greg Anrig's response.

Posted by Petey | May 7, 2007 2:01 PM

Hmmm, 'new' liberal ideas. I wonder if they have anything to do with spending huge quantites of other people's money.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | May 7, 2007 2:20 PM

"The last war on poverty helped increase the black illegitimacy rate from about 27% (which Moynihan considered a crisis) to about 67%"

Post hoc ergo propter hoc . . .

Posted by rea | May 7, 2007 2:20 PM

Reality Man,

"If you really want to significantly slow Mexican immigration to the US, work with the Mexican government and help Mexican businesses to develop Mexico like how we helped to develop Korea and Taiwan and helped re-build Europe and Japan."

This is an interesting point, but in the case of Mexico, its government and business oligarchs like Carlos Slim have been a big part of the problem. Fortunately, Mexico is a democracy, so there is a chance for political reform -- but the best way to encourage that reform is to cut off illegal immigration. When enterprising Mexicans can't immigrate here, they will be more motivated to put pressure on their government to liberalize the Mexican economy.

Posted by Julio | May 7, 2007 2:22 PM

""We've got 37 million people who wake up every day in poverty," he declared moments later to residents gathered outside a local church, under the shade of a giant live oak. "This is not okay, not in the richest country on the planet.""

With rhetoric like that Edwards truly doesn't know what he's talking about. Or is obfuscating for political reasons, your choice.

The number of peoplebelow the Federal Poverty Line (which that is) is the number BEFORE they get whatever help and aid it is that is on offer. Before the EITC, before housing vouchers, before Medicaid, before food stamps etc etc.

His suggestion is that we raise the EITC (damn good idea) and more housing vouchers (ditto).....but from the method he's using to measure poverty they'll make no damn difference.

Now, if he wants to start by measuring how much poverty there is AFTER whatever help is currently on offer, and then asks, well, how much more should we do? Then, I'm all ears.

Posted by Tim Worstall | May 7, 2007 2:43 PM

but the best way to encourage that reform is to cut off illegal immigration. When enterprising Mexicans can't immigrate here, they will be more motivated to put pressure on their government to liberalize the Mexican economy.

Alternatively, if illegal immigrants from Mexico could still vote in Mexican elections... Oh, wait, they can.

Of course, until they're stopped from making a living in this country, they won't vote for policies that make things better for their family members back home, or that allow them to find decent work without being shipped to packing plants in the Midwest. Because they prefer the status quo to an improved Mexico. Well, someone prefers it, but you'd have to check the ranks of the Mexican oligarchs and the multinational corporations for the real enthusiasts.

Posted by mds | May 7, 2007 2:55 PM

"Well, someone prefers it, but you'd have to check the ranks of the Mexican oligarchs and the multinational corporations for the real enthusiasts."

Wouldn't be a liberal website without someone blaming multinational corporations. Of course, the reality is quite different. Mexico's economy lags because, for the most part, efficient, meritocratic multinationals are kept out (an exception is Wal-Mex in retailing). That's why Mexicans pay some of the highest telecom rates in the world.

Business interests in the U.S. are supporters of low-skilled immigration, but these businesses tend to be restaurants, landscapers, ranchers, etc. -- not multinational corporations for the most part.

Posted by Fred | May 7, 2007 3:20 PM

"You could take away the incentives for illegal immigration by requiring employers to check their applicants for real government-issued photo IDs. The government could easily create an ID like this for job applicants who don't have photo ID driver's licenses, passports, military IDs, etc."

They used to do something like this in China under the hukou system to keep rural peasants out of the cities. All it did was make a cottage industry of fake ID's for work. The successes it did have relied on operating within the framework of a totalitarian state (you couldn't receive food from the state without having the right papers and ID, so unemployed peasants didn't have access to food). The incentives will still be there as long as there is a major difference in wages. Conservatives are supposed to understand incentives.

"Like how we're helping Iraq now? Some cultures are resistant to this sort of help. Mexicans and Arabs aren't Germans and Japanese."

We're not helping Iraq. We're occupying Iraq. Look at how we ignored, for instance, certain useful subsidies that the Korean state gave to key industries that helped in industrialization. Mexico has been reforming for the past 20 years. It would never have joined the OECD if there wasn't a decent base. This, to me, just smacks of anti-Mexican racism.

"If the GDP costs are a wash (debatable), then per-capita GDP still suffers as illegal aliens increase the population by millions."

This assumes that economic growth doesn't happen. Immigration does have positive effects on national income that aid economic growth. The data on why real wages are stagnant are tied more to how the Fed has been run and the rise of neoliberal boardroom policies (paying executives more for no actual increase in productivity) and low minimum wages. It's not like we didn't have illegal immigration in the 1940's-1960's. A lot of the costs are due to illegality, much like in the drug trade, not immigration itself.

"Really? The law of supply and demand has been repealed for low-wage work? National studies by economists such as George Borjas of Harvard show otherwise. The best advocates of low-skilled immigration can do is so higher income in cities with high percentages of low-skilled immigrants, while ignoring the broader, national effects (e.g., of these immigrants economically cleansing cities of native poor workers, some of whom move out of the cities but stay within the U.S.)."

It's not so much that supply-and-demand have been repealed as that that's not the whole story. It's not like one day 11 million illegals crossed the border and economic growth stopped. Illegal immigration has come into this country in a steady stream. We're only hearing about it now more because Southern states that never really had non-white immigration before suddenly do. The benefits from immigration create feedback effects. Similarly, econ 101 tells you that raising the minimum wage causes more unemployment and hurts the economy, but the American experience as a whole has been the opposite due to feedback effects. It's not like the US is Somalia.

Really, a lot of these critiques about immigration were raised about the Irish and the Italians and they turned out to be bullshit. Under such thinking, criminalizing drugs would have ended all drug use.

Posted by Reality Man | May 7, 2007 3:46 PM

Mexico's economy lags because, for the most part, efficient, meritocratic multinationals are kept out (an exception is Wal-Mex in retailing).

Oddly enough, this means that Fred and I agree that Archer Daniels Midland, major drug manufacturers, other chemical manufacturers, etc., etc., etc., aren't efficient meritocratic multinationals. Yet somehow, ADM and the others have risen to great heights in the global economy. In fact, some of their soaring appears to be based on, e.g., dumping cheap corn on the Mexican market to destroy small-scale local agriculture, paying the lowest wages possible, being able to pollute with impunity, etc, etc. Or has Fred never ventured across the Rio Grande to look at all the big names on the factories? Yet none of them have a problem with the corrupt Mexican governmental oligarchy that treats its own people like disposable peons. Why on earth could that be, I wonder? And is there any connection to the focus here on the immigrants, rather than the companies that employ them? Or the enthusiasm of the corporate wing of the GOP for "guest worker" programs?

Posted by mds | May 7, 2007 4:34 PM

Edwards' firm stance on poverty and inequality is exactly why I support his presidency
campaign. He is someone who understands that plight of the world population and American citizens who live in poverty. The poverty in America alone is astounding, but when viewed in a global perspective, something really needs to be done. Our leaders need to support the UN Millennium Development Goals to end poverty, and the fact that Edwards is trying to address poverty is commendable. It is one of the toughest topics to tackle when in a presidential camaign.

Imagine how different this world would be without poverty. Would we be fighting a war on terror? Would there be so many instances of genocide? Would people all over the world continue to live on less than $1 a day? On the Borgen Project Website, it states that it costs $19 billion annually to relieve starvation and malnutrition, which is peanuts considering our $522 billion military budget this year

Posted by elc | May 7, 2007 7:57 PM

elc:

"Imagine how different this world would be without poverty. Would we be fighting a war on terror?"

Sure, considering that poverty isn't the cause of Islamic terrorism. After all, the perpetrators of 9/11 were middle class, Osama is worth $100 million+, Saudi Arabia isn't a poor country, and Haiti isn't a hotbed of terrorism.

"Would there be so many instances of genocide?"

Again, considering that poverty isn't the cause of genocide, probably.

Posted by Fred | May 7, 2007 10:16 PM