By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Stung by the historic defeat in last year’s presidential election, the GOP has embarked upon a relaunch of its ideology. RNC chair Reince Priebus has approved a strategy paper (click to read) composed by Republican bigwigs Henry Barbour (Haley’s nephew) and Ari Fleischer that makes a remarkable discovery:
The Republican Party must be the champion of those who seek to climb the economic ladder of life. Low-income Americans are hard-working people who want to become hard-working middle-income Americans. Middle-income Americans want to become upper-middle-income, and so on. We need to help everyone make it in America.
Yep, the party who deifies the man who made lots of political hay denigrating mythical “welfare queens,” and whose successors famously referred to President Obama as the “Food Stamp President” has figured out that in this democracy votes still trump principles — even long-held despicable ones. Republicans, it seems, can read a demographic map and, due in large part to the anti-poverty positions they have rammed through Congress (sometimes with the help of Democratic presidents), the Nation is mostly poorer. In 2010, 15.1 percent of all persons lived in poverty. The poverty rate in 2010 was the highest poverty rate since 1993. That’s about 46 million Americans living below the poverty line.
Poverty in America charts remarkably close to the party in power — at least for some population groups. In the 1950s, overall poverty was an astonishing 22.4%. A steady decline through the 1960s was fostered by the much maligned, but factually effective, “War On Poverty” of the Kennedy, Johnson (and yes), the Nixon Administrations. Poverty bottomed out in 1973 with the rate standing at roughly 11%. During the ensuing decade, poverty remained more or less constant at between 11.1 to 12.6%. Then came the right-wing Reagan Revolution in 1980 where being poor was somehow seen as akin to being criminal. Reagan made that connection explicit for any GOP dolt too dull to spew the bile on their own, and the “War To Resume Poverty” was on. During the 80s, the US poverty rate climbed steadily back to 15.2% representing about 35 million Americans. Reagan was an unrelenting slasher of programs such as Aid To Families With Dependent Children (AFDC), and subsidized housing. But, Reagan was careful not to hurt programs for the elderly who formed a core of the Republicans’ voting base. In fact, the poverty rate for US citizens over 65-years-old actually steadily declined from its high point in the 1960s.
Came the 90s and the Clinton Administration. Poverty again made a sea change and began declining. Such factors as the growing economy had its effect, but Clinton was a proponent of Reagan’s policy of “workfare” and his historic reform of welfare undoubtedly hindered that process despite the overall poverty rate decline to 11.3% in 2000. Predictably the poverty rate has increased under succeeding Republican administrations to its 2010 level.
The effects of poverty haven’t hit across the board as many know. Here’s how the National Poverty Center explains the level of poverty for various socio-economic groups:
The poverty rate for all persons masks considerable variation between racial/ethnic subgroups. Poverty rates for blacks and Hispanics greatly exceed the national average. In 2010, 27.4 percent of blacks and 26.6 percent of Hispanics were poor, compared to 9.9 percent of non-Hispanic whites and 12.1 percent of Asians.
Poverty rates are highest for families headed by single women, particularly if they are black or Hispanic. In 2010, 31.6 percent of households headed by single women were poor, while 15.8 percent of households headed by single men and 6.2 percent of married-couple households lived in poverty.
There are also differences between native-born and foreign-born residents. In 2010, 19.9 percent of foreign-born residents lived in poverty, compared to 14.4 percent of residents born in the United States. Foreign-born, non-citizens had an even higher incidence of poverty, at a rate of 26.7 percent.
What the Republicans have discovered — with a cold slap across the face in 2012 election — is that these populations vote. As they become larger segments of the voting class, their impact is made known. How else to explain the plethora of GOP backed voter fraud laws requiring picture id? Republicans know full-well the group least likely to own a car and hence possess a readily obtainable picture id are the poor.
Predictably, the Republicans paint a rosy picture of this sad demographic in the strategy paper:
The nation’s demographic changes add to the urgency of recognizing how precarious [Republicans’] position has become. America is changing demographically, and unless Republicans are able to grow our appeal … the changes tilt the playing field even more in the Democratic direction.
Republican pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson takes the issue head-on: “One of the biggest brand challenges for the GOP is to credibly demonstrate they are a party for everyone, not just the rich.” Take that Gov. Romney and your 47% quip. Here’ s the exiting polling from the 2012 election by income level. Note the disparity:
The old GOP canard about low-income folks not voting has finally been exposed for what it was. One of the reasons the Republicans were so astonished at their loss at the polls was their belief the American people would punish Obama for the bad economy. Central to that tenet was that low-income groups were most affected by the bank-driven recession and would throw the bums out. That political calculation was turned on its head as poor whites joined poor ethnic voters to elect Obama.
Thus the GOP stands at a cross-road between their extreme right-wing, every-man-for-himself ideology and recognizing political reality. Wrought by policies they espoused, the poor have roared back to take away what the Right deems most important of all — an unfettered, perpetual deed to the White House. Some in the GOP haven’t gotten the message yet, like firebrand Paul Ryan. Ryan recently announced his plan to slash $1.4 Million from Medicaid. A paltry amount by Washington standards but hugely important from a symbolic point of view. To add some insult, the staunchly religious Ryan (who claims the budget is closely in line with his Catholic upbringing) proposed 3.3 trillion dollars in budget cuts over a ten-year span with a full 66% of that amount coming from programs specifically designed to aid the poor, all the while reducing taxes on the wealthiest Americans. In addition his plan –passed by the House this week but rejected by the Senate — would severely limit eligibility for most other programs. You can read about the specifics of the plan in the Huff Post article here.
All in all, the GOP has quite the conundrum. Accede to the most radical elements of its party and watch its political power ebb, or embrace the view of more moderate elements and accept a “Big Tent” strategy. The decision hinges mightily on the feelings of the poor — a circumstance that could not be more irritating for the party who helped create them.
Source: Salon; Huff Post; National Poverty Center, and throughout
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
pete,
Excellent.
********
Dredd,
I’ll see your Lyin Eyes and raise you a Witchy Woman . . .
TIMMEH!!!
Timmy 1, March 25, 2013 at 8:54 pm
Dredd
So what if the top 10% income grew more than the other 90%. America was not found on the idea that everyone should be the same.
=======================================================
The problem is not “more,” it is the plutocratic dominion via More, MORE, and M O R E … which at some point jumps over the common decency into the oppression, feudalism, and elitism that we tried to leave behind in England’s darker days.
There are many issues upon which everyone should be the same.
You need to find out what they are.
Ode to the real Ayn Rand:
Timmy,
Why bother? OS has handed you your head on a plate already. All you have are Libertarian talking points based on faulty logic to begin with such as the idea of absolute rights under a social compact (including property rights). There is no such thing. And yes, I was talking about your logical fallacies. However, if you just want to be tied in knots?
I’m your huckleberry.
Gene H.
BTW everything I said is true! Tell me just one item listed above that is inaccurate.
Gene H.
You got logical right but fallacies only apply to your way of thinking.
Are you saying what is yours isn’t actually yours?
You really didn’t pay attention in class. Arguments built on logical fallacies and contrary to fact, oh, what is that word . . . lose.
Ignoratio Elenchi
Otteray Scribe
“The greedy work constantly on ways to keep their stuff”
It’s their stuff!!! I guess you have no problem letting anybody come and take your stuff. That is not stealing under your theory. Why don’t you move to Cyprus and put all of your money into their banks? What you need to learn is about all of the waste that takes place in government programs that would not occur if everything was left up to people helping people. You use the word greedy but fail to realize that a high percentage of people are not greedy. We do help each other and do not worry about those who have more than us.
Secondly, as stated above, FAPE-free and appropriate education is available to all. It is what one does with the opportunity that makes a difference. If a person has a child as a teenager then that is their problem not societies. If one drops out then that is their problem and not societies. If they choose not to study or do their homework then it is their problem and not societies. I have no problem telling people like that no otherwise how will they ever learn?
Timmy,
Your assumptions fall under the category of argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
You ignore more than a hundred years of psychological research into human nature. Not to mention a shifting the burden fallacy. Let churches and individuals volunteer to provide help, while the rich and super rich get to volunteer nothing.
The only psychologist to ever be awarded a Nobel Prize was Dr. Herbert Simon. His research pointed out a number of truths about the behavior of both organizations and individuals when it came to economic decision making. His theories have been summarized as follows:
The greedy work constantly on ways to keep their stuff. The poor tend to contribute money, goods and services at a much larger rate than the rich.
That takes us to the Rich vs. Poor Fallacy:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5450-the-rich-vs-poor-fallacy.html
Dredd
So what if the top 10% income grew more than the other 90%. America was not found on the idea that everyone should be the same. Today, people have opportunities in education and it is their choice with what they do with it. The real problem is a breakdown in the family and family values which no one wants to talk about.
Otteray Scribe
You never addressed my point: Giving someone something doesn’t help them. Of course, there will always be exceptions. Families are obligated to help each other and when there is no one left then churches and non-profit organizations should step in. Government however is not the answer. Simply put, the poor will always be with us but America’s treasury will not keep up. That is a fact.
The true story is even more shocking than Mark’s shocking post reveals:
(HuffPo). A lot of people need to get in touch with reality.
Hubert Cumberdale,
I the Republicans can pony up a candidate like Teddy Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln, maybe so.
By the way, what are your suggestions for what it is going to take to make things right for veterans returning from Bush and Cheney’s elective wars? People like Thomas Young? Then there are those civilians who, through no fault of their own due to disease, old age or accident, are in similar situations. What about them?
The democrats need to demonstrate they can win an election without resorting to voter fraud. It’s becoming more evident each and every time we hear of a voter that voted multiple times for Obama. One guy voted for his wife that passed away before she could vote. Still another made news admitting she voted at least six times for Obama. So the $10,000 question is, can a democrat win the 2016 election without voter fraud.
Now, the Republicans have a problem – with the “low information voters”. These voters blindly voted for Mr. Obama and are completely clueless that the reason why there are poor people is because the democrats oppress voters and keep them in a needy state – dependent on the government, and therefore, they need the votes. So the Republican running in 2016 has the huge task of trying to get out to the low information voters and simply tell the truth about what the democrats have been doing to them for the past several decades.
Now if a Republican can get to the low information voters and combat the voter fraud for the democrats that will without question, be a factor again in the 2016 election, he will have the colossal task of undoing and fixing all the screw-ups from the 8 years of Mr. Obama. If the country can be fixed again, it will take a strong Republican to fix it.
“I would vote for Obama for a third term before I voted for Jeb Bush, 2 of them are enough.”-Bron
Bron, what difference is it when you already voted for 4 terms of GW Bush? Whats another 4 years of Bush going to matter? You really do not think there is any actual difference between Bush and Obama do you?
OS,
Neither Bush or Cheney have the stones to own up.
Interview with Thomas Young. Anyone want to bet on whether George W. Bush and Dick Cheney will watch this? Or if by any chance they did, would they care? Timmy, I am still waiting for some advice on what kind of fishing tackle to send Thomas Young.
@gene h.
I’m glad you like it, copy and paste !