Rubio on Poverty and the Welfare State

[Valin]

NRO/The Corner:

Yuval Levin

January 8, 2014

 

This speech, which Senator Marco Rubio delivered today, is well worth your while.

 

Rubio offers a great example of how conservatives should be thinking about poverty in America, and about the conceptual perversity and (resulting) practical inadequacy of our vast array of anti-poverty programs. And he helps us also to see how the Democrats’ misguided emphasis on inequality as the core of that problem opens up real opportunities for Republicans to lay out for the country their vision of the American Dream, and their agenda for helping more Americans achieve it.

 

Rubio also essentially endorses (and apparently plans to propose in legislative form) the two elements of the superb proposal Oren Cass first offered in NR in October. That proposal introduces a promising organizing principle for public anti-poverty efforts: A clear distinction between help for working people below the poverty line (which should consist of making that work pay more so that working people can become more independent) and help for people who cannot work (which should consist of the provision of goods and services to meet some key necessities). And it shows how this distinction can also translate into a more logical distinction between the state and federal roles in helping the poor.

 

(Snip)

 

 

[Valin]

What Rubio’s big anti-poverty plan gets right
James Pethokoukis
January 9, 2014

 

Declaring peace on the US safety net differs greatly from accepting the status quo. Senator Marco Rubio’s new anti-poverty plan offers a dramatic, even radical revamp of the American welfare state. The Florida Republican’s proposal accepts government’s role in helping raise incomes at the bottom, but utterly rejects the “big government” manner in which that help is now delivered.

 

The Rubio plan’s core policies flow from three central insights. First, getting more low-income Americans working is critical to social mobility. Second, the income gap between work and non-work is too narrow or even non-existent in some cases. The higher that society defines a basic standard of living, the more rewarding entry level jobs need be. Third, the safety net would be more efficiently and creatively run and designed by Austin or Topeka or Madison rather than Washington.

 

Rubio’s “Flex Fund” would replace federal anti-poverty programs with a single funding stream back to the states at current dollar levels eventually adjusted for population, poverty rates, and inflation. The senator has yet to define exactly which programs would be folded into this mega-grant. But the idea’s author, former Romney policy adviser Oren Cass, tells me that “in principle, all of them” would be included — including Medicaid, SNAP (food stamps), SSI (disability), jobless benefits, and TANF (temporary assistance). States already manage much of the federal anti-poverty effort, Rubio just wants to stop ”beltway bureaucrats picking and choosing rigid nationwide programs.” Cass puts it this way: “If you want to get effective reform you have to have the same people who make the implementation decisions be the people who have the accountability and the funding authority.”

 

(Snip)

[Valin]

From Marco Rubio, a new approach to ending poverty

Reihan Salam

January 10, 2014

 

* I realize that I ought to be writing about Chris Christie, the recently re-elected Republican governor of New Jersey, who has just had a brush with political death. But though I wish Christie well, and though I continue to believe that he is one of the most promising elected conservatives to have emerged in my lifetime, the Republican future rests less on the fate of individuals and more on the fate of ideas. And this week, one of Christie’s fellow presidential aspirants, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, introduced a genuinely new idea for helping tens of millions of Americans escape poverty.

 

(Snip)

 

Recognizing the complexity of the problems facing poor Americans, Rubio doesn’t propose a single silver bullet for fighting poverty. Rather, he calls for a two-pronged approach that rewards those who step on the first rungs of the economic ladder by taking low-wage jobs, and gives state and local governments more flexibility in meeting the needs of their most vulnerable citizens.

 

(Snip)

 

Not everyone is taken with Rubio’s call for a Flex Fund. Robert Rector, an expert on anti-poverty programs at the Heritage Foundation, condemned the proposal in an interview with McKay Coppins of Buzzfeed on the grounds that it isn’t likely to produce conservative policies, particularly in liberal states. Rector’s skepticism about granting states autonomy in running federally-funded safety net programs runs deep. But it must be said that if Rubio’s proposal mirrors Cass’s, the availability of the federal wage enhancement, with its promise of a substantial effective increase in disposable income, will be a powerful inducement for people to enter the labor force.

 

(Snip)

 

 

* Why should you?

[Valin]

And now presenting for your "pleasure" that Nobel Prize winner snappy dresser and certified smart guy the NY Times own Paul Krugman!

It’s almost as if Paul Krugman doesn’t want his readers to know what Marco Rubio’s anti-poverty ideas are …
James Pethokoukis
January 13, 2014

 

I wouldn’t all mind knowing what economist Paul Krugman thinks of the anti-poverty speech Senator Marco Rubio gave last week. The address had some interesting ideas including (a) giving states wide latitude over running safety net programs fully funded by the feds, and ( replacing the Earning Income Tax Credit with a straight-out wage subsidy. I don’t think it will be the last policy speech Rubio gives on the matter, but in my opinion a strong first step.

 

Instead what I was got was a columnist Paul Krugman and his backward-looking, nuance-free analysis of all the stuff he thinks Republicans get wrong on anti-poverty policy. Oh, and this: “For now, however, Republicans are in a deep sense enemies of America’s poor. And that will remain true no matter how hard the likes of Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio try to convince us otherwise.”

 

Wow. How amazingly uninsightful and unhelpful, though perhaps not to Krugman’s web traffic. Krugman knocks the GOP for being all talk on helping the poor and then completely ignores the substance of a GOP policy speech on helping the poor. Here is what I wrote about the Rubio plan:

 

(Snip)

[Valin]

Rubio’s Poverty Pitch What the GOP Needs
Jonathan S. Tobin
1/13/14

Marco Rubio’s 2013 was as bad as Chris Christie’s was good. The Florida senator’s annus horribillis began with his goofy water bottle problem as he delivered the Republican response to President Obama’s State of the Union message. It continued when a month later he appeared equally ridiculous rushing to the floor of the Senate to support Rand Paul’s drone filibuster in order to avoid letting a rival hog all the attention, even though he actually disagreed with the libertarian. But Rubio, who began the year at the top of everyone’s list of Republican presidential hopefuls, didn’t hit bottom until he became the target of widespread conservative animus for his high-minded decision to back a bipartisan immigration reform bill. By the summer, many of his erstwhile fans on the right had buried him as a RINO and talk about his candidacy in 2016 seemed to be on hold. Even the senator began backing away from his own bill.

 

But if Christie has gone from GOP frontrunner to possible has-been in the wake of his Bridgegate scandal, Rubio has a chance to start over in 2014. Though it’s unlikely that many anti-immigration die-hards will forgive him for speaking common sense about the issue, Rubio’s address at the Capitol last week on the 50th anniversary of Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” gave his year a promising beginning. As James Pethokoukis rightly noted at the AEI Ideas blog, his “new anti-poverty plan offers a dramatic, even radical revamp of the American welfare state” that attempts to raise the incomes of the poor without falling into the trap of big government.

 

(Snip)

 

Rubio’s approach is based on two accurate assumptions. One is that Republicans cannot hope to win national elections by playing the role of the mean party that likes the rich and considers the poor to be an incorrigible “47 percent” of takers, to quote Mitt Romney’s unfortunate gaffe. Conservatives must demonstrate that they care about people who aren’t rich or well off lest they be written off as the party of ruthless plutocrats who want to take away benefits from the poor. Though the Tea Party movement has raised important points about the dangers of uncontrolled tax and spend policies, the results of the 2012 election should have reminded Republicans that they must do more than say “no” to Democratic ideas; they must offer voters their own plans for helping the disadvantaged.

 

(Snip)

[Draggingtree]

Handouts Aren’t Enough

Eli Lehrer

Conservatives, for the first time in quite a while, are beginning to take the issue of poverty seriously. TEA Party figures like Marco Rubio and Mike Lee have given thoughtful speeches on income mobility. Liberals, surprisingly, don't like a lot of what they see. Writing in the Washington Post, Washington Monthly's Ryan Cooper (who has also done work for R Street) argues that "a keystone part of any anti-poverty agenda must be the transfer of resources...without that it will accomplish little." I think he's wrong about this. While some sort of "resource transfer" should be part of an anti-poverty agenda, it's not the only (or even the most) important thing. Let's start with the resource transfer part. Yes, it's important.snip

http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/11329

[Valin]

Handouts Arent Enough

Eli Lehrer

Conservatives, for the first time in quite a while, are beginning to take the issue of poverty seriously. TEA Party figures like Marco Rubio and Mike Lee have given thoughtful speeches on income mobility. Liberals, surprisingly, don't like a lot of what they see. Writing in the Washington Post, Washington Monthly's Ryan Cooper (who has also done work for R Street) argues that "a keystone part of any anti-poverty agenda must be the transfer of resources...without that it will accomplish little." I think he's wrong about this. While some sort of "resource transfer" should be part of an anti-poverty agenda, it's not the only (or even the most) important thing. Let's start with the resource transfer part. Yes, it's important.snip

http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/11329

Such a system could take the form of a "negative income tax" or "basic guaranteed income" that would replace almost all current social assistance with a simple cash grant.

 

Oh yeah....what could possibly go wrong with that!

 

 

Assistance to the poor is a worthy and important function of the state.

Is It?

[Draggingtree]

 

 

Handouts Arent Enough

Eli Lehrer

Conservatives, for the first time in quite a while, are beginning to take the issue of poverty seriously. TEA Party figures like Marco Rubio and Mike Lee have given thoughtful speeches on income mobility. Liberals, surprisingly, don't like a lot of what they see. Writing in the Washington Post, Washington Monthly's Ryan Cooper (who has also done work for R Street) argues that "a keystone part of any anti-poverty agenda must be the transfer of resources...without that it will accomplish little." I think he's wrong about this. While some sort of "resource transfer" should be part of an anti-poverty agenda, it's not the only (or even the most) important thing. Let's start with the resource transfer part. Yes, it's important.snip

http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/11329

Such a system could take the form of a "negative income tax" or "basic guaranteed income" that would replace almost all current social assistance with a simple cash grant.

 

Oh yeah....what could possibly go wrong with that!

 

 

Assistance to the poor is a worthy and important function of the state.

Is It?

 

no not in my eyes

[Valin]

 

 

Handouts Arent Enough

Eli Lehrer

Conservatives, for the first time in quite a while, are beginning to take the issue of poverty seriously. TEA Party figures like Marco Rubio and Mike Lee have given thoughtful speeches on income mobility. Liberals, surprisingly, don't like a lot of what they see. Writing in the Washington Post, Washington Monthly's Ryan Cooper (who has also done work for R Street) argues that "a keystone part of any anti-poverty agenda must be the transfer of resources...without that it will accomplish little." I think he's wrong about this. While some sort of "resource transfer" should be part of an anti-poverty agenda, it's not the only (or even the most) important thing. Let's start with the resource transfer part. Yes, it's important.snip

http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/11329

Such a system could take the form of a "negative income tax" or "basic guaranteed income" that would replace almost all current social assistance with a simple cash grant.

 

Oh yeah....what could possibly go wrong with that!

 

 

Assistance to the poor is a worthy and important function of the state.

Is It?

 

no not in my eyes

 

 

Well you're a racist, so that is to be expected.

[Draggingtree]

 

 

 

Handouts Arent Enough

Eli Lehrer

Conservatives, for the first time in quite a while, are beginning to take the issue of poverty seriously. TEA Party figures like Marco Rubio and Mike Lee have given thoughtful speeches on income mobility. Liberals, surprisingly, don't like a lot of what they see. Writing in the Washington Post, Washington Monthly's Ryan Cooper (who has also done work for R Street) argues that "a keystone part of any anti-poverty agenda must be the transfer of resources...without that it will accomplish little." I think he's wrong about this. While some sort of "resource transfer" should be part of an anti-poverty agenda, it's not the only (or even the most) important thing. Let's start with the resource transfer part. Yes, it's important.snip

http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/11329

Such a system could take the form of a "negative income tax" or "basic guaranteed income" that would replace almost all current social assistance with a simple cash grant.

 

Oh yeah....what could possibly go wrong with that!

 

 

Assistance to the poor is a worthy and important function of the state.

Is It?

 

no not in my eyes

 

 

Well you're a racist, so that is to be expected.

 

Well thank you for the Honor you have Bestowed on this redneck

[Valin]

 

 

 

 

Handouts Arent Enough

Eli Lehrer

Conservatives, for the first time in quite a while, are beginning to take the issue of poverty seriously. TEA Party figures like Marco Rubio and Mike Lee have given thoughtful speeches on income mobility. Liberals, surprisingly, don't like a lot of what they see. Writing in the Washington Post, Washington Monthly's Ryan Cooper (who has also done work for R Street) argues that "a keystone part of any anti-poverty agenda must be the transfer of resources...without that it will accomplish little." I think he's wrong about this. While some sort of "resource transfer" should be part of an anti-poverty agenda, it's not the only (or even the most) important thing. Let's start with the resource transfer part. Yes, it's important.snip

http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/11329

Such a system could take the form of a "negative income tax" or "basic guaranteed income" that would replace almost all current social assistance with a simple cash grant.

 

Oh yeah....what could possibly go wrong with that!

 

 

Assistance to the poor is a worthy and important function of the state.

Is It?

 

no not in my eyes

 

 

Well you're a racist, so that is to be expected.

 

Well thank you for the Honor you have Bestowed on this redneck