The storm that crushed the poor in New Orleans began gathering power long before the Labor Day weekend of 2005.
What many people still don't quite understand, and what some refuse to acknowledge, are the forces that were at work in New Orleans that helped create a large and expanding underclass in the city prior to the long-dreaded "perfect storm."
Tourists seldom saw this side of the Crescent City. The "city that care forgot" had become the city that forgot to care, at least for its weakest, most vulnerable residents. It is as if the Katrina "blew the cover" on one of our most pressing national problems in a city where everyone loved to go for a good time.
Corruption at about every level in political processes affecting the city, twenty-five years of radically conservative federal public policy, class segregation, unchecked economic forces that drove the widening gap between rich and poor and a fatal resignation on the part of the poor themselves combined to doom the city to a full-scale disaster upon the arrival of Katrina.
I expect the city will come back, at least to some extent, even if not completely. Those with material resources, personal and social options and the connections guaranteed by education, status and privilege will rebound as well.
The poor are another matter altogether.
Cities across the nation have moved through similar dynamics since the late 1970s. The poor have been the biggest losers in terms of outcomes.
Cutbacks in spending for programs that lift and benefit the poor have had major impact on urban areas. The number and percentage of poor people in America have continued to increase steadily year by year--with the exception of a brief rebound during the mid to late 1990s.
Since this time last year, over 1 million additional Americans dropped below the poverty line, most live in urban areas, with the end of this tragic and needless slide nowhere in sight.
Take your pick.
Housing? Funds directed to assist the poorest of our neighbors continue to be cut back. In Dallas there is an over supply of housing whose owners are willing to accept vouchers as payment for rent. The continuing problem is that there are no vouchers available to our poorest residents.
Education? The rhetoric sounds nice, but many federal mandates remain unfunded. The middle-class continues to exit the city. The poor are left to fend for themselves. Teachers teach to standardized tests. Urban students drop out, fall further behind and simply give up. Our state legislature cannot come up with a workable school finance bill. Pell grant awards are smaller these days for college students who need financial assistance. Tuition is up across the nation in public universities. If education is a key to moving out of poverty, the poor are having a harder time than ever before obtaining the instruction and training they need.
Health care? Analyze the federal cutbacks and you will see who suffers the most. Surprise: the poor--along with that shrinking number of physicians willing to care for them.
Mental health services? Funding cuts have been steady and continuing with no end in sight. Persons suffering with bi-polar disorders, dual diagnosis challengens or schizophrenia and who are poor, basically find themselves on their own.
Basic human services, including case management, employment training, food supplements, child care? Cut, cut, cut.
It would be downright funny, if it weren't so tragic, to contrast the on-going complaints about "welfare" spending with the reality that such spending is almost gone compared to 1995 levels.
Almost 1 in 3 residents of New Orleans lived below the poverty level when the storm stuck the city. Fully half of the citizens were either poor by the federal definition or just above the line.
No doubt, some of these folks had made mistakes and decisions that contributed to their impoverishment. But bad decisions cannot possibly explain the depth of the city's poverty.
Now tens of thousands of former New Orleans residents are scattered across the nation. Over a quarter million now live in Texas. This exported poverty will challenge other American cities like Dallas that already have many of the same problems at work on and among the poor.
The time has come for change.
Public and private sectors must come together to restore hope. New doors of opportunity must be opened to the urban poor. Our failure to respond to the increasing burden of the poor will only continue and intensify the storm that we've witnessed in the past several days.
13 comments:
New Orleans isn't an example of failed federal policy, it's an example of what happens when citizens feel entitled to and are dependent upon the government solving their problems.
Blaming New Orleans' problems on conservatism is ludicrous. The problems are bigger than government, bigger than politics and bigger than partisan policies. We have to look beyond the government if we're truly going to achieve social and economic justice.
Bigger government and more spending aren't the solutions to our problems. We, as individuals and Christians, are the solution.
I just don't get the argument that "we, as individuals and Christians, are the solution." As a society, we must look at both what individuals do to bring about poverty in their lives as well as how the society contributes to poverty. It cannot be an either/or situation. Perhaps I'm just cynical (okay, there's no perhaps about it), but when I hear someone say that it is up to individuals themselves and churches to address poverty, I hear that as an excuse and clever way of saying "it's not my problem."
As to the responsibilities of the church to fight poverty, I would like it if Todd could share some ideas on how he thinks this should be done. I've heard many people share this argument, but have not heard many ideas about how it should be done. I know Larry is doing an excellent, church-based ministry that is fighting the poor. The sad truth, however, is that the vast majority of our churches do very little to help the poor other than having a small benevolence ministry (and such a ministry may, actually, not be helpful at all).
I have heard many people say that churches should be addressing the problem of poverty, as opposed to the government. Yet, I rarely, if ever, see churches actually doing such things. When I do see churches doing such things like Larry is doing, I see them fighting poverty in conjunction with the government.
If fighting poverty were left merely up to churches, I fear things would be far worse than they already are.
Larry, I just want to thank you for keep reminding me of the reality of the poor. Just recently, we have adopted a shelter here in Salt Lake City are are partnering with them on an ongoing basis. Its not much - buts its something our little mission church can do! Thanks for reminding me that the poor are here. Keep speaking!
Saying that individuals and churches need to fix it is
taking on even more responsibility than by simply paying taxes and then leaving it up to bureaucrats. If we sit on the sidelines and wait for legislation to turn people's lives around, we'll never get into the game!
I believe that CDM is a great example of church-based ministry reaching out to the poor. Impact in Houston is another great example. Of course, initiatives don't have to be that large. My church in Wichita is starting a new program where we adopt low income (those slightly above the poverty line who are incapable of receiving aid, but are still poor) families and help them to turn their lives around (job skills, housing assistance, tutoring for their kids, etc.) No, that program isn't going to wipe out poverty in Wichita, but it is going to make a difference in those families' lives.
"If fighting poverty were left merely up to churches, I fear things would be far worse than they already are." I'm afraid I both agree and disagree with you. I agree that churches have been largely ineffective or, more accurately, inactive, when it comes to reaching out to the poor. But I don't believe that the government has taken great strides to ease poverty. Most people point to Republicans as being the ones who are holding people down, but the Democrats haven't done much to erase poverty. New social programs and more money aren't going to get rid of poverty. Independence and motivation will rid our nation of poverty. Democrats don't want people to be independent, or else they're out of a job!
"Democrats don't want people to be independent, or else they're out of a job!"
Well, now, that's a generalization if I've ever read one. I'm a democrat and I would love for people to be independent of the system. But, I also (being that just this morning I applied for Medicaid for my wife and unborn child) see the benefit of having a government on which I can be dependent when I need them. If I didn't have governmental assistance right now, I fear my wife and I could not get the medical assistance we need for our pregnancy.
But, I do think you are right, Todd. Both the church and the government have done very little to help with poverty. Katrina has proven that, as Larry has brought to our attention. Perhaps we can find ways for the church to work better with the government to help. Old, dead Christians like Augustine thought that both the church and the government could be used by God to bring about justice in the world. Both were understood to be “swords” of God, tools or arms of the Lord in the world. Many Christians have no problem seeing the work of God exerted through wars (such as bringing about a democratic society in Iraq), yet we fail to see the government being used by God to establish domestic justice. Could not God use both the government and the church to establish justice and mercy in our country? Can the church not praise God for programs like welfare, Medicaid, and social security, and do what they can to fill in the gaps that these programs leave?
So the government contributes to the poverty problem, but we can't look to it for solutions, too?
I'm on staff at a church and I totally believe churches SHOULD go all out to help the poor and hurting and be the first line of defense against poverty. Churches should help people because their hearts won't let them neglect needs, but at this point many churches don't even support their own ministers well enough to keep them above the poverty line. Growing numbers of professional clergy are turning to medicaid to cover their healthcare costs. Sure, the church should have a hand in ending the plight of the poor, but are they ready to step up? Not by a long shot.
Thanks for the conversation here today! Certainly, the church should become more engaged and aggressive in its responsiveness to the issues of poverty and injustice in our communities and nation.
However, aside from the fact that most churches don't really do much at all or even consider such concerns to be central to their mission, there are many issues of such a scale that only a national collective response will achieve much at all.
Two points here.
First, the nation did achieve remarkable success in driving the poverty level down in the mid-1960s--historically irrefutable. The problem was that we quit too soon due to Vietnam.
Second, take higher education funding for low-income students. If we desire to see low-income students across the nation go on to college and higher education, there is absolutely no way the church in America can provide for that very just need either from a financial standpoint or from an administrative standpoint. There is no way to go to scale--there is no way to achieve equity.
The same is true for healthcare, housing and many other issues.
We need a combination approach, I agree. But we need to stop opposing just funding for national efforts that could affect and lift millions of people in a positive manner.
todd ramsey: "Independence and motivation will rid our nation of poverty."
What is this supposed to say? That the poor are unmotivated? That they can simply choose independence?
Try talking to a poor person. Sit down with them for a meal and have them tell you about their goals, dreams and motivations. I promise you that they will have a much stronger drive and a clearer vision than the average kid in the rich college down the street. Their problem is that they lack the ability to capitalize on that motivation. They are too busy trying to pull themselves up to a basic level of sustainability, and they are slipping deeper.
It seems like I drop this link every few weeks or so, but you really need to take "The Poverty Tour":
Either Google that term, or go here:
http://www.nccbuscc.org/cchd/povertyusa/tour2.htm
Not to be argumentative, Owldog, but your facts don't add up. Are you sure that the students your helped were at the poverty line or below? Pell grant funding has been cut. The amount students can receive has been reduced. In addition, the admissions policy for students in the top 10% of their classes has been changed or will be shortly, thus cutting out another block of low income students. The student loan scenario you describe doesn't work for most students that come from very poor families because the credit rating of parents won't allow for a loan. We had to co-sign on a loan last week here at CDM for this reason. My illustration was about Pell grants. Of course, students from impoverished families face all sorts of other issues unrelated to finance, but that is a whole other story.
Owldog, I agree it is hard for middleclass students these days as well. It is just that most of these students have so much more help in other areas that enable them to get on with education. Again, the Pell grant situation was just one illustration of roadblocks to low-income students.
Owldog, it sounds like you are working with kids who have little income as well. Here are some of the things I have found with the kids I work with:
Kids with little or no income or support from home are very leery about taking out loans. They haven't had a parent with a stable job that would help them realize that with that stability they will be able to pay it back. They are smart enough to know that they don't want to be in a situation where they owe a lot of money that they can't pay back.
As Larry mentioned, their credit does not allow them to sign a loan. Often, it is not just their parent who has bad credit. Parents often have unpaid bills in their child's name. Therefore, a 19 year old has terrible credit as well--from nothing they ever did.
Middle class kids have often have the support and know-how to back them if they fail after college. Poor kids without family support or capability cannot offer that safeguard. They often don't even understand what they are getting into when signing all of this strangely worded paperwork.
Entering...and staying in...college is a daunting process for many of our kids. It takes a lot of encouragement and support to see them through. Unfortunately, many of them quit because of the pressure to contribute to bills...of their parents, their grandparents, and other family members. It's hard to for them to tell a family member they need to keep their money to themselves for the next 4-5 years and not help someone else in the family.
Those are just some of my experiences and why I would say that there is definitely not enough money out there for education...and even that seems to keep getting smaller every year.
Larry, thanks for your blog. I don't agree with you on everything, but you have made me think, so good going. I don't think anyone would mind any organization spending funds collected from anywhere (public, private) if it were to truly help the poor get out of their circumstances. Obviously, the differences we all have is what people think works and what we think does not. If increasing social programs of the government was all that was needed to be done would cure our problem of poverty, then I would say do it now! I am just not confident in that. Help me understand how this works. From my standpoint (albeit sitting on the sidelines), I see your ministry being effective, I see Habitat for Humanity being able to get working poor into a house they actually own and out of the rent cycle (what government program does that?), I see other non governmental organizations being more successful in accomplishing things in their niches than just the government writing a check. What if the government contracted more of this stuff out to the local community level instead of from an office in Washington. I think you made a good point about the issue of scale needed to confront this problem. I just think that the governments taking responsibility of this issue has left many people to assume it is no longer their problem, and they become disengaged to their community, assuming that by paying taxes, they are doing their part. Whereas people used to lean on each other, now they lean on a program, and the rest of society really does not understand the progams or the plight of the people in our own community. All we are left to do is wonder why they cant get out of their situation. Tell me how I am wrong.
Anonymous, thanks for your thoughtful words. Actually, the government does work just as you have described. Much of the funding beyond areas like public education, health care and programs for the aging--like Medicare--is done through contracts with organizations like mine. The problem is there is just not enough funding to get the job done.
Habitat is great, to a point. Economic viability in a community depends on many factors, among those is diversity of incomes and mixed uses. If all you build in a community is Habitat housing, you consign that community to low-income status for a long time. Scale kicks in here and public-private partnerships are needed.
The problem today is we are on a tax cut binge at every level and the health and well-being of the community suffers.
Just as most military expenses beyond troop costs and deployment, etc. are contracts to corporations like Haliburton, so the government can partner with communities to bring renewal. That has not been happening to the extent that it should and could.
The government cannot be left out of the process if we want to be successful.
Post a Comment