
          The Rising Tide of Poverty
          By Suitts, SteveSteve Suitts
          Vol. 7, No. 1, 1985, pp. 5-8
          
          "A rising tide lifts all boats," President Reagan explained four
years ago when asked how his administration's policies would affect
the poor. l hose were the days when Admini-

stration officials declared
poverty no longer existed in the United States. Today, Census Bureau
data and independent reports tell that since 1980 the number of poor
has increased by nine million in the nation and 2 1/2 million in the
South. And, in February of this year, the Physician Task Force on
Hunger concluded that hunger is now a national epidemic.
          From their sinking perspective, the poor may rightfully conclude,
as did the defeated Walter Mondale, that in the Reagan Administration
a "rising tide lifts only yachts."
          Abandoning its attempt to abolish poverty by declaration, the
Administration now argues that poverty is the result of past programs
of big government which have maintained the poor in a state of
dependency and wiped away their incentive to work. "We tried to
provide more for the poor and produced more poor instead," writes
Charles Murray, the author of the Reaganites' new bible on the
subject, Losing Ground: American Social Policy,
1950-1980. "We tried to remove the barriers to escape from
poverty and inadvertently build a trap."
          These curious words rely especially upon the fact that in the late
1970s budgets for poverty programs expanded, but the number of poor in
the nation began to increase. Their analysis of this event does not
look at developments since 1980, nor does it recognize that government
assistance to the poor is only one of three major areas of policy
which fundamentally change the status and numbers of poor. Poverty has
been influenced largely in past decades by three factors: changes in
government assistance, the rates and duration of unemployment, and
underemployment (low wages and short work weeks).
          No matter how much it tries to ignore the present, the Reagan
Administration must share much of the responsibility for influencing
each of these and should take the blame for the unparalleled rise in
poverty and hunger since 1980. With the rise in the rate and number of
poor have come unprecedented reductions of people from poverty
programs in the South and the nation.
          Reviewing, in 1981, President Reagan's proposed changes in
assistance to the poor, a report of the Southern Regional Council
concluded that, if adopted, the policies would "transform the war on
poverty to a war on the poor." Our most recent report analyzing the
actual developments of the last four years, Public Assistance and
Poverty (March, 1985), documents this horrific conclusion. Since 1980
almost 1 1/2) million recipients of four major poverty programs have
been removed in the eleven Southern states. The substantial majority
of these recipients were cut from the food stamp program although
reductions occurred in each of the three other programs, Medicaid, Aid
to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), and Supplemental Social
Security (SSI).
          The elimination of more than a million recipients from the food
stamp program in the South probably has affected the working poor more
than any other group. Yet, the study clearly indicates that a majority
of the 1.4 million Southerners losing assistance in all four programs
are children. It is those who are too young to work, to protect
themselves, who may be denied food, clothing, or decent shelter due to
these reductions.
          The people--primarily the children--who've been denied further
assistance are only part of those severely affected. In the last four
years the levels of government benefits to those receiving aid have
been reduced or have stagnated. For example, the level of AFDC
assistance given to recipients in Arkansas decreased by eight percent
from 1980 to 1984. In Louisiana, the increase in AFDC payments was a
mere two percent. When compared with the increasing cost of purchasing
non-food items, the real benefits of AFDC recipients were cut by
almost one-third in the South. In other words, due to the flatened
benefits and increasing costs of buying non-food items, "real" AFDC
payments in 1984 were thirty percent less than in 1980.
          The families and individuals who receive both AFDC and food stamps
are primarily the poor who do not work. For these poor, the combined
real value of AFDC payments and food stamps for food, clothing, and
shelter has been cut more than twenty percent during the last four
years. In Tennessee the combined benefits of food stamps and AFDC
payments dropped by two dollars a year from 1980 to 1984. With an
increase in the cost of living during the last four years, food stamps
and AFDC benefits dropped thirty percent.
          The decreased levels of assistance in the last four years have
pushed families deeper into poverty and contributed to increased
hunger. In North Carolina, a family of four depending upon AFDC with
an income that was twenty-five percent below poverty in 1980, now find
that their income has dropped to fifty percent below the poverty
level.
          The immediate effect of these changes in budgets and policies is
tragic, but the consequences over time may come to be devastating. The
past is ample evidence that government assistance has had an important
role in reducing poverty. At times, however, such as in the late
1970s, increases in government assistance alone were not enough to
override changes in unemployment and underemployment. Yet, at no time
in the last twenty years have we had policies of the federal
government in public assistance that pushed substantial numbers of
people deeper into poverty. If public assistance has not always
reduced poverty over time, the policies have at least maintained the
general status quo of the poor. Today, and over the last four years,
the Reagan Administration has pushed millions of Southerners and poor
across the nation deeper into poverty.

          A clear recognition of the failures of the Administration should
not obscure the importance of government policies that affect
unemployment and underemployment. Most people, ranging from bleeding
heart liberals to heartless conservatives, carry around misconceptions
about the poor and the role of poverty programs. These mistaken
notions often limit our view of what causes poverty and what are
remedies that reduce it.
          In Patterns of Poverty, released in December of
1984, the Southern Regional Council found that most of the benefits of
AFDC, Food Stamps, Medicaid, and other government assistance go to
families headed by the elderly or by one female parent with children
at home. On average, almost eight out of ten of all families receiving
benefits in the South in 1982 were confined to households headed by
someone sixty-five years or older or by single, female parents with
children.
          These statistics tell us that public assistance in the South is
going largely to people who need it and who are least able to
work. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to understand the
criticism that government benefits are offering the poor an
opportunity to evade work. In fact, the benefits are going largely to
households headed by persons who cannot work, should not work, or are
least able to work by circumstances.
          Despite the myths, the fact is that a majority of the poor families
are working. In 1982, almost two out of three of all poor families
across the nation had at least one person who worked part-time or
full-time. When families headed by females with children or persons
sixty-four years or older are excluded, approximately three out of
four of all poor families in the United States probably had someone
working part-time or full-time in the 1980's. The data suggests
strongly that poor families in our society today, like most American
families, are working families.
          These facts tell us that the influences on poverty go beyond the
level of public assistance and reach to government and private
policies concerning wages and the workplace. Policies that shape
peoples' wages and the available jobs also determine whether the
government is conducting a war on poverty or a war on the poor.
          Although the Council has not finished its analysis of the recent
effects of unemployment and underemployment on poverty in the South,
the US Conference of Catholic Bishops is one important group who has
come to understand the 

inextricable link between economic policies and
levels of poverty. Last November, in a draft pastoral letter, the
Catholic bishops stated that government has an obligation to its
people to assure that its economy does not maintain high rates of
unemployment and low earnings. The bishops raise the proper concern,
especially as the economies of the South and the nation radically
change the nature and duration of jobs. Yet, they have not-nor has
anyone else--marshalled enough public debate on the economic policies
that can attack poverty.
          The war on poverty, begun twenty years ago, was not an unblemished
success. In its best times, the poverty programs helped to reduce the
number of people whose incomes and benefits did not offer a decent
life. In its worst moments, until 1980, the programs usually offered
the poor enough to sustain their economic status, if not their hope
for better opportunities. Since 1980, policies governing public
assistance have cut hundreds of thousands off and have deepened the
poverty of millions who continue to receive aid. In a prosperous
nation, a prosperous region, these policies have a bankrupt spirit.
          Yet, until we realize that policies governing our economy also
determine, in large part, our poverty rates, we will be unable to
replace harsh criticism of the Reagan Administration with a working
vision of how this prosperous country can undo poverty and how it can
enfl the enlarging economic and spiritual separation between the poor
and the non-poor. In the worst of times, we must begin to chart the
course out of the rising tide of poverty to the best of times.
          
            The Reagan Response
          
          The head of the Reagan Administration's food stamp program, Robert
Leard, responded to the recent SRC report, Public Assistance and
Poverty, by telling the Associated Press that the welfare rolls
shortened during the last four years because employment
increased. "The big reason for your change is quite frankly the
unemployment rate going down," Leard stated. No one has informed the
unemployed or the US Department of Labor of this progress in reducing
unemployment, however. In most Southern states, the unemployment rates
in late 1984 continued to be higher than rates in 1980 or 1981. In
Alabama the 11.5% rate of unemployment in November 1984 was
considerably larger than the 8.8% unemployment rate in 1980. In
Tennessee, where 186,000 food stamp recipients were removed as of late
1984, the rate of unemployment in 1980 was 7.2%. In November 1984 it
was 8.7%. While unemployment rates did not decline in most Southern
states, the number of recipients of public assistance fell by almost 1
1/2 million. Since there was no general decline in rates of
unemployment in the South from 1980 to the end of 1984, this could
hardly cause the reductions in public assistance to the poor. The
Administration has not given up its old practice of proclaiming
problems away.
          
             Steve Suitts is executive director of the Southern
Regional Council. He is the author of the two reports discussed in
this essay. Both are available from the SRC: Patterns of
Poverty (Dec. 1984. $5.00) and Public Assistance and
Poverty (March 1985. $7.50). When ordering these reports,
please add $2.OO for postage and handling. Minimum order$15. Quantity
rates available.
          
        