More Commentary

• Commentary: Bill aims to help American Indians in urban areas
• Commentary: Albuquerque Public Schools just can't admit they let down the children of Navajo Elementary
• Commentary: Volunteer vets provide animal care to New Mexico's pueblos and reservations

MOST RECENT TRIB STORIES

• ABQTrib.com to remain available
  08:48 a.m., February 25, 2008
• Congressman is indicted
  08:37 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Series of attacks target Green Zone
  08:36 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Iran is defying U.N., agency says
  08:35 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Waterboarding approval probed
  08:34 a.m., February 23, 2008

TRIB IN THE BLOGOSPHERE*

• Ty Murray Invitational thrills fans in Albuquerque
• Is Rome Burning?
• Ominous Skies
• The Road to Invalidation
• Albuquerque company participates in “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition”

*Note: The Tribune does not create and is not responsible for the blogosphere's headlines and stories. These links to blogs talking about ABQTrib.com are automatically generated. Use them at your own risk.

STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• Comments
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

SHARE THIS STORY [?]

Barack Obama and John Edwards want to get us out of one war and into another. The two Democrats vying for their party's presidential nomination want to end the war in Iraq and spend at least some of the savings on a new war on poverty.

Last week, Edwards finished an eight-state tour reminiscent of Bobby Kennedy's famous visit to poor Appalachian communities during his bid for the presidency in 1968, while Obama launched his crusade in Anacostia, a District of Columbia neighborhood that has historically been one of Washington's poorest.

Ending poverty is certainly a noble goal - but from the policy proposals Obama and Edwards offered, it appears neither has a clue about how to go about it. Both want more government spending, as if adding a few billion more to the $11 trillion spent on poverty programs since President Johnson first initiated the war on poverty in 1964 would finally produce the desired results. Worse, some of the proposals would likely harm poor families, not help them.

Obama wants to tie the minimum wage to the Consumer Price Index, which would price the lowest-skilled workers, especially young blacks, out of the job market, not to mention increase inflationary pressure on wages. Edwards would have the government create 1 million new temporary jobs for the chronically unemployed, despite abundant research that shows these programs have no lasting impact in reducing poverty or increasing long-term employment among the poor.

Poverty among families has remained amazingly constant over the last 40 years. In 2005, the percentage of all families who lived below the government-defined poverty level was 9.9 percent. In 1964, 15 percent of families lived below the poverty line, but the rate dropped to 10 percent by 1968 and has remained at that level, with minor fluctuations, ever since.

In a nation as rich as ours, Obama and Edwards argue, one in 10 American families living in poverty is unacceptable. I agree, but the numbers reveal more complexity than either man is willing to acknowledge.

First, many of those living below poverty today are new immigrants, legal and illegal. They are newcomers who lack the education and skills to attain a middle-class life, at least initially. The poverty rate for noncitizens, 20 percent, is twice the national average, but it has declined substantially since 1993, when it was almost 30 percent - this, despite that many more immigrants are here now.

A government anti-poverty program isn't the answer for this group and would be politically impossible, given the prevailing sentiments toward immigrants today. But most of these poor families will improve their economic status the longer they are here, especially as they learn English and gain work experience. Studies show that the children of immigrants earn substantially more than their parents. And naturalized citizens have a somewhat lower poverty rate than native-born Americans.

Second, neither Obama nor Edwards addresses family breakdown and its relationship to poverty. The poor are disproportionately made up of women and their children. Poverty rates for families headed by a single white woman with children under 18 were 25.3 percent in 2005. For similarly constituted black families, the rate was a shocking 42 percent. But for married-couple families, the comparable rate for whites was 6.1 percent and 8.3 percent for black families.

So why aren't Obama and Edwards talking more about marriage as an antidote to poverty? From all accounts, both candidates have wonderful, even inspirational, marriages.

But many Democrats are worried they might not seem inclusive if they talk up marriage. It's a lot easier to offer to increase government spending. My suspicion is, however, that most Americans understand the war on poverty won't be won by throwing tax dollars behind more failed programs.

Chavez, an Albuquerque native, is head of the Center for Equal Opportunity in Washington, D.C.