The first half of President Paul Ryan's farewell address to Congress is primarily intended for his attempt to convince that a deficit-funded tax rebate for the wealthy represents not only an idea he benefits but a substantial legacy. It is a worthy career-long work . Then it went off the rails. In the back half of his speech, Ryan challenged the Congress to address the needs of the poor, claiming that he was trying in public service. This statement is contrary to his many attempts to remove the health care for America's most vulnerable, his abandonment of tax incentives for the lowest officials and his commitment to dubious anti-poverty programs. "You all know finding solutions to help people lift themselves from poverty is a personal mission for me," he says, echoing a line he has been dealing with many journalists over the years, but there is no evidence of his record. He then proceeded to say a lot of things that are not true about the social security network, the American poor, and his own record on either. It's a perfect starting point for Ryan's career: rich people get tax cuts. poor people receive pious words and misleading rhetoric. Paul Ryan is wrong with the war on poverty Ryan's entire thinking about poverty is shaped by his deep commitment to a fundamentally false premise: the idea that the poverty programs have failed. "Four years ago, when our nation marked the 50th anniversary of the war of poverty, we revealed some…
The first half of President Paul Ryan’s farewell address to Congress is primarily intended for his attempt to convince that a deficit-funded tax rebate for the wealthy represents not only an idea he benefits but a substantial legacy. It is a worthy career-long work . Then it went off the rails.
In the back half of his speech, Ryan challenged the Congress to address the needs of the poor, claiming that he was trying in public service. This statement is contrary to his many attempts to remove the health care for America’s most vulnerable, his abandonment of tax incentives for the lowest officials and his commitment to dubious anti-poverty programs.
“You all know finding solutions to help people lift themselves from poverty is a personal mission for me,” he says, echoing a line he has been dealing with many journalists over the years, but there is no evidence of his record. He then proceeded to say a lot of things that are not true about the social security network, the American poor, and his own record on either.
It’s a perfect starting point for Ryan’s career: rich people get tax cuts. poor people receive pious words and misleading rhetoric.
Ryan’s entire thinking about poverty is shaped by his deep commitment to a fundamentally false premise: the idea that the poverty programs have failed.
“Four years ago, when our nation marked the 50th anniversary of the war of poverty, we revealed some hard truths,” he said. “For all the billions spent, and all bureaucracy and programs created, the needle had barely moved.”
The association that poverty programs do not reduce poverty is, however, largely an artifact of statistical methods. The official poverty survey was developed before these programs were created, thus excluding by definition things like SNAP and Medicaid from human wellbeing measurements. The measurements show data as if a family of 1
8,000 dollars a year in income and no health insurance was in exactly the same form as a family of 18,000 dollars a year in income and Medicaid coverage.
If you instead look at the actual amount of goods and services that low-income households can consume, you see that poverty has diminished dramatically as a result of the Great Society and subsequent expansion of the social security network.  Ryan does not need to take my word for it. Check out the annual report on poverty consumption in the United States, composed of Bruce Meyer and James Sullivan of the Conservative American Enterprise Institute.
In response, Ryan would say that while social security networks can help to improve the lives of the worst people in concrete ways, it does not really help because the real goal should be a policy that makes people earn more by themselves.
“It’s not just about creating jobs,” he said in his farewell address. “It’s about restoring the importance of a job, the importance of the work.”
Unfortunately, in his career as an actual legislative leader, Ryan performed a massive bite and switch on the issue of paying the job.
Back in 2014, Ryan was somewhat surprised by the political world by approving an expanded income tax credit (EITC) expansion, much like a Barack Obama had proposed.
The EITC is not a perfect policy, but by subsidizing low-wage earners’ income, it squares the political circle between liberals who want to use public resources to help the poor and conservative who want to insist that poor people need to work for an accommodation.
To get EITC money you have to work for it. A sufficiently generous EITC ensures that when you work for your accommodation, you earn real living instead of poverty wages.
The problem that Vox Dylan Matthews explained at the time was a disagreement about budget compensation:
Obama’s plan costs $ 59.7 billion over ten years. It’s a pittance in the big budget for the federal budget, and what we really should do is just add $ 6 billion a year to the deficit and leave it there. But both parties have accepted a norm in recent years, where all budget proposals must be at least deficit-neutral, so both Obama and Ryan include actions to pay for the idea.
And neither set of pay-shots is far acceptable for the other side. Obama would pay for expansion by raising hedge fund managers and wealthy self-employed workers, while Ryan would cut other security grid programs and “corporate welfare”, which in this case specifically means energy subsidies that the Obama administration likes. Ryan has explicitly rejected Obama’s financing mechanism, and it is hard to imagine Obama accepting Ryan.
After speaking, Ryan completely neglected the issue of offsets and pay-offs.
He appealed a tax rebate that provided $ 1.5 billion to the deficit through the Congress, and as soon as it passed, he began to legislate that would increase the trillion more to the deficit. He also pushed Donald Trump’s plan to add hundreds of billions of spending – both military and non-military – as part of a larger Republican face on whether deficits are inadvertent or not.
Back in 2014, Ryan was keen to help the poor with an EITC expansion but worried about how to pay for it. But as soon as Ryan stopped worrying about paying for things, he also stopped worrying about EITC expansion – and it did not happen. Instead of helping poor people to help themselves by subsidizing their wages through the tax code, he tried to help poor people to help themselves by subsidizing wealthy people’s investment income through the tax code.
The only concrete measure Ryan can point to his duty to help the poor to brag that “new opportunities zones, part of the tax reform, will bring more Investments in Emergency Societies. “
One thing to note here is that Ryan is a speaker in the House, and in the house’s first version of the tax reforms, even those potential zones did not even include. They came because of the enthusiasm of the Senate republics, and the Ryan team joined them. But this is not even an idea that he believed strong enough to drive for when he had the chance.
In addition, Ryan was almost certainly entitled to be leery of opportunity zones.
Basically, these zones work by offering a special tax disruption to people who make investments in low income areas. It’s a big blessing for property developers, and Trumps son-in-law, Jared Kushner, seems to earn money on the opportunity zonk concept. The theory is then that by giving rich people financial incentives to locate investments in poor areas, some of the profits will filter down to actual poor people.
It may or may not be the case, but it’s extremely hard to see why you would think it will get you more for the money when it comes to poverty reduction than to directly give money to low-income earners.
It is also not clear that these programs work at all. Jim Pethokoukis – again, by the Conservative American Enterprise Institute – made a brief literary review in 2015 of what was then called Enterprise Zones, and found that they wanted it.
He quoted research from San Francisco Fed who concluded that this form of subsidy primarily helps investors and, secondarily, helps tenant owners while doing little to alleviate poverty: add
Firstly, though Some Research on Federal Authorization Zones find some evidence of positive employment effects; other studies fail to find evidence of reduced poverty and point to some increases in the proportion of households that fall below other low income limits. Secondly, there is consistent evidence of housing price increases, which means that benefits are received by accidental recipients. Other results not included in the table sometimes indicate negative spillover effects in nearby areas, suggesting that corporate zones largely rearrange the place of work instead of creating more of them.
Our overall view of the evidence is that the state-owned enterprise programs have generally not been effective in creating jobs. The jury is still out on federal programs – especially Empowerment Zones – and we need more research to understand what features in business areas that help create job creation. Although there is job creation, it is difficult to assume that business zones have deepened distribution targets to reduce poverty in the area and it is likely that they have generated benefits for property owners who are not intended beneficiaries.
Having misunderstood the facts about the safety net, abandoned his own good idea of reducing poverty and spoke a bad perception that he did not even favor, then Ryan moved the discussion to his true passion in life: sharpen the security
. Ryan has deepened her poverty debate. He pivoted the need for long-term fiscal balance – balance as he says should be achieved by reducing spending rather than by raising taxes. And while admitting that his congress did not achieve this goal, he said that republicans in the house proposed a framework for how to achieve it:
In this congress, we came within a voice for the reform of real health law.
Federal health care spending is still the main driver of rights spending. Our bill would have reformed two of our major health care programs to make them sustainable and meet the needs of healthcare providers.
So we’ve come a long way, and we’re closer than people realize.
In the end, the solution of this problem will require a greater degree of political will than exists today. I regret it. But when time will do this – and it will come – the way forward will be based on the framework we presented to solve this problem.
The two “reforms” that Ryan adds to, makes them less affordable for generations, so few people get health insurance and make Medicaid a series of inadequately funded block contributions so few people get health insurance.
In other words, if you’re poor now, then in Ryan utopia you get even worse because the government takes away your health insurance. This is consistent with Ryan’s view that programs to provide poor people’s health insurance do not help combat poverty. But it is inconsistent with the reality that a poor family health insurance is much better than a poor family without health insurance.
In their story of Paul Ryan’s legacy, Robert Costa and Mike DeBonis reflect that not only “the red ink of the nation … grown since Ryan became a speaker”, it is also the case that “Ryan’s concern for immigration and poverty comes remain for future legislators to resolve. “
However, it is important to correctly understand the hierarchy of Ryan’s priorities. Ideas to help the poor, like the EITC, must take a backside to underestimate concerns. However, tax savings for the rich are worth doing even when they increase the deficit. And when it’s time to reduce the deficit, it’s the best way to do away with poor people’s health insurance.
Under these circumstances, America’s fighting families should feel lucky that Ryan never really came around to carry out his vision for her future.