Anti-poverty plans present similar diagnosis but offer different paths forward

Both plans acknowledge too few Americans are getting ahead. Both recognize government has a role in helping poor families.

At first glance, the anti-poverty plans released today by House Republicans and separately the Center for American Progress (a progressive think tank with ties to the Democrats) may seem like more of the same. Two opposing parties present vastly different accounts of American poverty and what to do about it. But once you get past the typical rhetoric, there are surprising parallels – parallels that could be used as starting place to get real results. And that will require both parties to face some hard truths about poverty and government’s ability to address it.

Both plans acknowledge too few Americans are getting ahead. Both recognize government has a role in helping poor families. In terms of solutions, they largely agree on the areas of focus. A robust economy, work, strong families, and education are the pillars of each report. In a hyper-polarized political environment, agreement on these fundamental areas seems like a major step forward. Unfortunately, when it comes to specific policy proposals the two are still far apart.

The House Republican plan makes an important contribution by arguing that the current system of anti-poverty programs gets incentives all wrong. It’s easy to see how in the current system, low-income families are incentivized to work at low levels, avoid marriage, and pursue training that may not lead to marketable credentials. The House Republicans offer a series of proposals to “right-size” these incentives, such as work requirements in benefit programs, reducing marriage penalties, and holding states more accountable for actually providing services that lead to better outcomes.

The House Republican plan also recognizes that government should do a better job for poor families. It funds too many efforts that have limited evidence of success and continues ineffective programs. They propose that public dollars be spent on programs with evidence of effectiveness — something that seems relatively easy to get behind.

The House Republican plan places a great deal of emphasis on returning programs to states and localities to design their own solutions. Appropriately, the plan calls for accountability to accompany these efforts. In theory this makes sense. States and localities should be in a better position to serve their residents than the federal government. But in reality, placing too much control with states and localities without the necessary oversight could create disparate outcomes depending on where one lives.
Cuts to programs without considering how families will be affected are ill-advised.
In terms of education, both plans emphasize the importance of it. But the CAP plan seems to double down on the current system (with limited evidence of success), while the House plan calls for more accountability and more linkages to the labor market. Data show that while progress has been made on high school (or equivalent) completion over the past two decades, this has not necessarily translated into increased employment or increased college completion, suggesting that proposals to place more students in the current system (like CAPs call for universal access to college) miss the point.

And finally, the CAP plan appropriately acknowledges that the federal government’s efforts to provide basic needs to low-income families have been largely effective. Food assistance, the earned income tax credit, and housing assistance, for example have lifted millions of families out of poverty and increased well-being. Cuts to these programs without considering how families will be affected are ill-advised.

In the end, today’s reports reflect agreement that work, family, and education are the surest ways out of poverty. Hopefully, both sides are willing to consider various proposals on how to positively affect these domains. Only then will poverty reduction, opportunity, and upward mobility be a reality for more American families.