The Democrat's Shameful War On Poverty

President Johnson professed to declare war on poverty in the United States. He promised the less fortunate an Government issued check to lift them out of poverty. Medicaid was also supposed to help alleviate the scourge of those who lacked health care.

I believe this was perhaps one of the most cynical political plays of the 20th century.

Our population is much larger now. Three trillion dollars have gone into this effort in the forty plus years since adopted. Is there less poverty? As a percentage of our population it is lower. However, in raw numbers, there are in fact more Americans living below the poverty level now, then when the program began. How could this be?

The Democrats gave the poor a check, under the guise of helping them. The greatest number of poor, tend to be the least educated of our nation. These people saw the Democrats as caring for and about their plight. It did not take long for these recipients to come to believe this paltry sum was their worth as a people. The poor repaid the Democrats by becoming a loyal voting block. In their eyes it was quid pro quo. Something for something.

Did the Democrats really help them? No. Had the Democrats cared about them, they would not merely sustained them in poverty. The Democrats would have given these recipients a way out of this pit. Where were the accompanying educational opportunities for school age children, meaningful college assistance, parenting classes, nutrition classes? Any attempts at addressing child care issues? How about birth control or abstinence? Not to mention a mentoring program to help these people navigate their way through the myriad of nonexistent, truly helpful programs. Had these extra steps been taken at the time that the 'free money' began flowing, then we would be closer to seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.

The Democrats are tethered to the NEA, and teachers unions. They approach education accordingly. We shackle the poor to failing schools. We continue to pay our teachers meager wages. We need to pay our teachers a sum that is commensurate and reflective of the task we give them. There needs to be enough incentive in teaching to attract and retain the quality of teachers needed to prepare our children to compete in a global economy. We have some excellent teachers, and I applaud them. We also have some teachers who are biding their time until their retirement or they find something 'better'. We need to untie school administrators hands and end tenure for all educators.

The Democrats beholden to the unions refuse to seriously consider providing our children the opportunity to escape the schools that are failing. Merely throwing good money after bad has not helped. Our children's test scores, when compared to other developed countries are lagging way behind.

Serious options that the Democrats refuse to consider are vouchers, charter schools, home schooling, etc. We know that there is a direct correlation between quality and competition. School funding is tied to an per-pupil ratio. If the schools have to compete for students and the related dollars, they will clean up their act. This increase in education quality will be reflective in test scores. I do believe we need to also explore additional new metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of the transfer of knowledge being imparted upon our children.

The Democrats cynically left these provisions out of the mix, because winning the war on poverty was not their goal. Sustaining and expanding the war was the goal. They now have a loyal, uneducated voting block that they can continue to take for granted.

I support helping those who need help. If they have the physical and mental capacity to become productive contributors to society, than we need to provide some of the provisions outlined above. If a person has physical or mental limitations, they can be evaluated on case by case basis. Merely sustaining poverty is not an option. Not if we really care.

The more people we have contributing to the economy, the better for all of us. Think where our country would be today had this been fully funded and resolved in 60's dollars versus just "helping" the poor get by. We would have largely moved beyond this as an issue and been reaping the return-on-investment.