This question flips the old GOP talking point, that the poor are lazy and reap what they sow. Ronald Reagan was perhaps most effective purveyor of the myth of "welfare queens" and the undeserving poor. Since the 1980s disucssion of poverty has been off the table until Katrina. But Obama frames the question properly by stating that poverty is s moral, which we have failed to address. How does Obama answer Kennedy's question?
"We can't"
Well that's a great start, but how do we do it? Answers on the flip side.
Here are the five elements of Obama's plan:
First part, of Obama plan begins with replicating the Harlem's Children's Zone (http://www.hcz.org/) across 20 American cities. Basically this approach means tackling poverty in its entirety in one community. The focus is not one particular program but a slew of programs from pre-k education, free medical services, and job training all targeted in one area. The federal government will pay for half of the funding and philanthropies and business will cover the rest. I think this approach, which has already proven effectiv, could really begin to reverse the spread of poverty in America. Check out articles on it here http://www.usnews.co... and for a more comprehensive explanation go here http://query.nytimes...
Second, Obama's plan will provide support to families with young children through Nurse-Family Partnership. Again this is another program that has proven successful on a small scale. Obama would like "to expand the program to all low income, first time mothers," about 570,000 mothers.
Here is some evidence of local success of these programs. http://www.evidenceb...
Third, Obama's plan will invest in job training and transitional programs. These programs will ensure that anyone looking meaningful work will have help in finding it. Next, this plan calls for tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit. More on the success of President Clinton's initiative here http://www3.brooking.... He also belives in making the minimum wage a living wage by indexing it to inflation. While I think this would be great thing, I don't think it quite represents a living wage. I think it needs to be at least $9 an hour to be a living wage. On second thought, maybe Obama is right a few localities have passed "living wages" as low as $6.25 an hour http://www.epinet.or.... Then Obama wants to invest in public transportation to make sure workers can get to work without spending a third of their income.
Fourth, Obama's plan to bring businesses back to the cities. He will create a position of new Director of Urban Policy to coordinate government programs and work with private firms to attact and focus investment. In addition, he wants to encourage Business Incubators, which are services that help entrepreneurs get started. http://www.nbia.org/...
Fianlly, Obama's plan will strive toward affordable housing for all. To do this he wants to establish an Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Obviously I think this will be incredibly difficult in the Washington DC area among others, but that doesn't mean we should shy away from it. Next he would crack down on predatory lending. And increase funding for Community Development Block Grants.
Despite his vision and call for a plethora of programs, Obama knows that this will be the work of a generation. And yes while government can do all these things, ordinary citizens need to stand up and take responsiblity. Obama quotes Dr King, that our approach "is not either-or, it is both-and." Poverty is both a personal and governmental responsibility.
While I strongly credit Obama with a bold yet pragrmatic vision, John Edwards claerly claimed this issue first http://johnedwards.c... (Hillary has yet to put forward a plan on this). But I am a 1000 times happier arguing about plans to end poverty than Edwards's haircuts or Obama's blackness. And I care much more about which plan might work better than which came first.
To that end I am curious what everyone thinks of Obama's plan and how it compares to Edwards's?