(4 votes, average: 4.75 out of 5)
Loading ...Anti-Poverty Strategies for the 21st Century
As the American economy teeters on the edge of recession and the world economy is in a downturn, who can devote their energies to worries about poverty? After all, if the economy tanks, it will tank for everyone. Efforts to fight the war on poverty are greatly diminished (or so one might be inclined to think) if we can not change current trends in the overall economy. So, what do we do? Do we ignore the prevalence of poverty (more than 1 in 10 live in poverty) until times look better? Is conventional wisdom so entrenched that we think we should wait until we can afford to throw more money into the anti-poverty sinkhole? To wait is to merely risk a greater proliferation of poverty.
According to the Heritage Foundation, poverty is a lagging economic indicator that continues to rise for years after a recession has hit. Despite the generally short term pain everyone feels from a recession, those in poverty will increase if we don’t actively pursue ongoing strategies that go to the heart of the conditions that breed poverty. The personal vicious cycle of poverty pays no attention to good times or bad times. So why would we want to wait?
The foresight of Michael Bloomberg is that he is addressing the issue of poverty now. It makes sense to try ameliorate the time frame of this lagging economic indicator during economic slow times so that we are better situated to reduce poverty during economic good times. Michael Bloomberg is not afraid to challenge conventional wisdom when it comes to anti-poverty strategies either. His anti-poverty innovation is to put proven principles of capitalism to work. If a lack of education and dependence on government are hindrances to reducing poverty, then we need strategies that actually reduce the occasion of these obstacles.
The Bloomberg initiated Center for Economic Opportunity (CEO) in NYC successfully implemented thirty-one anti-poverty programs during its first year. The philosophy behind the innovation is to fight poverty through the proven strategy of encouraging personal responsibility. Capitalistic principles replace welfare-state driven principles to solving this pervasive problem. As Bloomberg says,
“We have other options – but only if we’re not afraid of thinking outside the box, even if that means breaking taboos. And let’s face it: If we had been afraid of breaking taboos in the 1990s, requiring mothers to work never would have happened as part of the welfare reform – but now almost everyone accepts that it was a good and necessary thing.”
We need a President with leadership qualities that are pragmatic and clearly demonstrate a willingness to innovate and think outside of the box. Please sign the petition to draft Michael Bloomberg as a candidate for President.
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:18 pm
This is the sort visionary leadership we need in Washington. The current definitions of poverty used by the federal government are 50 years old. Everyone talks about the ills of poverty, but what has anyone done about it? Even John Edwards hasn’t achieved this kind of success in dealing with this complicated issue.
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Good point about definitions of poverty that the government uses. They haven’t been revised since the 60s. MB is taking a solid stance in wanting new definitions, accounting for the money, and determining which programs really work. He recognizes that people do need help and that taxpayers have a right to know that their money is getting the job done.
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Being for what works and delineating the Costs of what CAN work is essential for the accountability and transparency Mike will need to make the sale case to the American people.
January 23rd, 2008 at 3:21 pm
This is exactly the sort of thing that needs to go into Bloomberg on the issues or the Bloomberg basics page.