War on Poverty hits 50

posted at 1:21 pm on January 8, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Fifty years ago today, President Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty — a war that has lasted longer than the War on Drugs (declared by Richard Nixon), and several real wars, including the Kennedy/Johnson Vietnam War and the Bush/Obama Afghanistan war. On this date in 1964, LBJ called on Congress to deliver activist programs designed to alleviate and eventually eliminate poverty in the US in his State of the Union speech. Fifty years later, we are about to get another SOTU speech on income inequality and poverty from an American President intent on expanding transfer programs (welfare, primarily) in order to reinvigorate the fight.

Does this tell us anything about the success of LBJ’s war? NRO’s symposium calls it a failure, one easily predicted from the forms it took, but Hoover Institution fellow Chester E. Finn recalls that it didn’t have to take the form of transfer programs:

Lyndon Johnson’s oft-stated conviction that education was the surest route to vanquishing poverty engaged both the do-gooder inclinations of a 20-year-old and reflected what I was seeing among children in poor neighborhoods of Cambridge and Boston and the miserable schools they attended.

Between LBJ and Pat Moynihan, I now had a sense of mission. So I applied to the ed school instead of the law school. And on it went from there.

In retrospect, I have no career regrets, but I’ve also learned a ton about the limits of formal education (which makes up a relatively small part of a person’s life); about the difficulty of changing our major institutions; about the hazards of inflating what Uncle Sam, in particular, can do to bring about such changes; about the predilection of our politics to place adult interests ahead of children’s; and about poverty’s dogged capacity to defeat just about every intervention that a free society can devise.

Peter Wehner also recalls Moynihan, and his early defection from the big-government approach:

In his biography of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, The Gentleman from New York, Godfrey Hodgson offers this summary of one of the men deeply involved in building what Johnson called The Great Society. While never abandoning his faith in the capacity and the duty of government to make society better, Hodgson argues, Moynihan “acquired a profound doubt about the central paradigm of liberal government: the assumption that social scientists should identify a need, devise a program of government action to meet that need and supervise the application of public money to the sore place through the ministrations of enlightened bureaucracy.”

By 1969, in a memorandum to President Nixon on the rise of welfare in New York and elsewhere, Moynihan wrote, “I believe the time has come for a President to state what increasingly is understood: that welfare as we know it is a bankrupt and destructive system…. It is also necessary to state that no one really understands why and how all this has happened.” And Moynihan’s great friend, the eminent social scientist James Q. Wilson, when asked about Moynihan’s increasing skepticism of the efficacy of government intervention in almost all circumstances, said this:

He always believes that the job of politics is to help those who can’t help themselves. But he has a scholar’s reluctance to accept the proposition that the government knows very much about how to help people who can’t help themselves.

When all that is required is to transfer money from person A to person B, as in the social security system, it works very well, and Pat has been a staunch defender of social security. But when it has to alter their character, when it has to alter whether men marry women with whom they begat a child, or when it has to reduce the crime rate, or has to deal with student radicalism, the fact of the matter is that government doesn’t know much what to do.

Heritage’s Robert Rector echoes Moynihan, with updated statistics:

Fifteen percent of Americans still live in poverty, according to the official census poverty report for 2012, unchanged since the mid-1960s. Liberals argue that we aren’t spending enough money on poverty-fighting programs, but that’s not the problem. In reality, we’re losing the war on poverty because we have forgotten the original goal, as LBJ stated it half a century ago: “to give our fellow citizens a fair chance to develop their own capacities.”

The federal government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing, medical care and targeted social services to poor and low-income Americans. Government spent $916 billion on these programs in 2012 alone, and roughly 100 million Americans received aid from at least one of them, at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient. (That figure doesn’t include Social Security or Medicare benefits.) Federal and state welfare spending, adjusted for inflation, is 16 times greater than it was in 1964. If converted to cash, current means-tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all official poverty in the U.S.

LBJ promised that the war on poverty would be an “investment” that would “return its cost manifold to the entire economy.” But the country has invested $20.7 trillion in 2011 dollars over the past 50 years. What does America have to show for its investment? Apparently, almost nothing: The official poverty rate persists with little improvement.

To some extent, though, that’s true because our standard of poverty has changed as well. In fact, Rector himself pointed this out a couple of years ago:

In 2005, the typical poor household, as defined by the federal government, had air conditioning and a car. For entertainment, the household had two color TVs, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player and a VCR. In the kitchen, it had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker. The family was able to obtain medical care when needed. Their home was not overcrowded and was in good repair. By its own report, the family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.

The overwhelming majority of Americans do not regard a family living in these conditions as poor. For example, a poll conducted in June 2009 asked a nationally representative sample of the public whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: “A family in the U.S. that has a decent, un-crowded house or apartment to live in, ample food to eat, access to medical care, a car, cable TV, air conditioning and a microwave at home should not be considered poor.” A full 80 percent of Republicans and 77 percent of Democrats agreed that a family living in those living conditions should not be considered poor.

With this in mind, it’s actually apparent that we largely won the war on poverty — while wasting trillions of dollars on counter-effectual government programs and larding up the federal bureaucracy.

What government proposes now isn’t poverty any longer, but fighting unequal distribution. That’s not to say that true poverty has vanished from the scene in America, but it does call into question the damage being done to the American economy by government redistribution, both through seizure and through corrosive debt, to service an ever-wider target. If we stopped the massive borrowing and narrowed spending to those truly living in poverty based on living standards, we could redirect those resources back into private sector investment, create more jobs, and see poverty reduced through natural economic means.

That would allow us to declare victory without really retreating from the actual front — and it would incentivize the able to put their energy and creativity to work while safeguarding the truly needy. In the parlance of the original analogy, we need to find ways to use smart targeting rather than carpet bombing, and find ways to save the village that doesn’t involve destroying it.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

That was the same LBJ, right verbaluce?

rogerb on January 8, 2014 at 1:59 PM

It’s been reported he said that in a conversation on Air Force one.
There’s also actual tapes of him using the slur.

verbaluce on January 8, 2014 at 2:32 PM

This nugget from the Washington Times pretty much sums up the success of the War on Poverty.

Fifty years after President Johnson started a $20 trillion taxpayer-funded war on poverty, the overall percentage of impoverished people in the U.S. has declined only slightly and the poor have lost ground under President Obama.

Happy Nomad on January 8, 2014 at 2:33 PM

Marco Rubio’s big poverty gamble

Gee… that bandwagon is starting to fill up already.

“The new right in America is going to be a force that fights for people as opposed to a force that fights against things.” ~ Arthur Brooks President American Enterprise Institute

Brooks and et al have decided that we’re going to ‘be for the people’. Someone should mention to Mr. Brooks and his pals that we’ve been for the people all along… American citizens and legal immigrants. It’s only Mr. Brooks and his pals, all suffering from the dizzying heights of their elitism, who failed to understand that we ARE ‘the people’. Nothing could confirm that they view us as rubes and rabble any more clearly than this statement from Brooks.

thatsafactjack on January 8, 2014 at 2:33 PM

“For the poor you have with you always, but Me you do not have always.”

-Jesus

Our focus should not be on the unattainable goal of eliminating poverty.

Our focus should be on Jesus Christ, and on telling the world about Him in order to reduce poverty.

If we focused on Jesus Christ and sharing His Good News with them, we would be dealing with global poverty in the way Jesus instructed us:

Jesus answered and said to them, “Go and tell John the things which you hear and see: The blind see and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me.”

Matthew 11:4-6

The blind…see
the lame…walk
the lepers…are cleansed
the deaf…hear
the dead…are raised up
–and–
the poor…have the gospel preached to them.

Socialists/Communists try to use the government to take money away from you and give it to the poor. Historically, that money ends up in the hands of dictators, not the poor. A case study is the United Nations’ Oil-for-food program, which resulted in money going to corrupt bureaucrats and Saddam Hussein, not poor people.

Jesus’ plan is to preach the gospel to the poor.

Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

That is the answer to global poverty.

ITguy on January 8, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Happy Late Christmas to you too Canopfor.

hawkdriver on January 8, 2014 at 2:07 PM

hawkdriver: Great to see ya Hawk:)

canopfor on January 8, 2014 at 2:34 PM

how to help people who can’t help themselves

More like WON’T help themselves.

GarandFan on January 8, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Why did Jesus say, “the poor you have with you always”?

Because there will always be people who reject Jesus Christ, even though He is the way, the truth and the life.

ITguy on January 8, 2014 at 2:35 PM

I’ll call it like I see it. We now are on the PATH to POVERTY. Thank you AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. From my INBOX:

Our quoted premium increase for 2014 was over 8%. This includes the Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax of $17.61 per Employee and $51.64 per Family per month.

seesalrun2 on January 8, 2014 at 2:37 PM

I’m sure it’s been said in this thread a couple times already but it still bears repeating

“This war is lost.”

alchemist19 on January 8, 2014 at 2:39 PM

The federal government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing, medical care and targeted social services to poor and low-income Americans.

That is the money quote. “Means-tested” Who decides people qualify? Who decides how much money they are qualified for? Who follows up to ensure the money is spent the way it is supposed to be? Who supervises the people who make those decisions? Who writes the policies? Who supervises the supervisors?

As long as one person’s job depends on servicing the poor, the poor will never go away.

catsandbooks on January 8, 2014 at 2:40 PM

“I’ll have those n%$$@#s voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

 
That was the same LBJ, right verbaluce?
 
rogerb on January 8, 2014 at 1:59 PM

 
It’s been reported he said that in a conversation on Air Force one.
There’s also actual tapes of him using the slur.
 
verbaluce on January 8, 2014 at 2:32 PM

 
The word isn’t the problem.
 
What do you think he meant?

rogerb on January 8, 2014 at 2:42 PM

This nugget from the Washington Times pretty much sums up the success of the War on Poverty.

Fifty years after President Johnson started a $20 trillion taxpayer-funded war on poverty, the overall percentage of impoverished people in the U.S. has declined only slightly and the poor have lost ground under President Obama.

Happy Nomad on January 8, 2014 at 2:33 PM

What the Washington Times should have said was

the poor have lost ground under President Obama Democrat majorities over the last 7 years.

Pick any economic measure you like, and compare December 2006 (the last of 144 straight months of Republican majority control) to December 2013 (after 84 straight months of Democrat majority control).

Democrats inherited a GOOD economy on 1/3/2007.

Democrats drove the economy into the ditch and have left it sitting there for over 4 years.

Far too many people on both the left and right look to Obama’s 1st inauguration as a turning point. But the truth is that the real turning point, the real tipping point in the balance of power, was 1/3/2007, when Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and then-Senators Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, etc. took majority control of the House and Senate, and overall majority control of Washington, D.C.

ITguy on January 8, 2014 at 2:43 PM

Marco Rubio
6m

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., on poverty: ‘America is still the land of opportunity for most, but it is not a land of opportunity for all’ – @AP_Ken_Thomas

canopfor on January 8, 2014 at 2:50 PM

If you want a real “war on poverty” you need to expand Christian missionary work in the impoverished areas.

Let’s look at likely the best success story of people coming out of poverty in the US: The Mormon pioneers.

They were driven out of Illinois literally at the point of a gun, in the middle of winter and had to cross the Mississippi river that had frozen over (when does THAT happen?) They made the trek to Utah, a place no one else wanted–not even the Indians. A land of barren land with no real trees, vegetation, and the biggest body of water is the saltiest body of water in the entire hemisphere. They had nothing, and the active enmity of the federal government.

Utah was built up into a functioning system by whom? Hundreds of thousands of people immigrated to Utah with very little. Sometimes with only the clothes on their back.

Yet less than 15 years after the Mormons arrived in Utah, they had developed–literally from scratch!–an economy and political system powerful enough to fight the United States to a standstill. The Mormons colonized a vast swath of the West. Las Vegas, San Bernardino–all Mormon towns in the beginning.

How? How could they create a civilization from nothing in less than 20 years, and with active governmental antagonism (including sending a quarter of the US Army after them?)

It wasn’t welfare, I guarantee you. There were no jobs to be had in Utah before the Mormons got here. They rolled up their sleeves and created everything. They didn’t sit and wait for Uncle Sam to save them.

Today, we don’t have pioneer days anymore. But the same principles apply.

1) A strong emphasis on self-reliance, with the necessity of work.
2) A strong emphasis on charity to everyone else. The LDS church has the worlds best charity system, as acknowledged by almost everyone.
3) A realization that Utah was a barren wasteland, and therefore importing things was necessary. But the more local business the better. The LDS church developed the sugar beet industry, cotton, and other industries to reduce dependance on imports. Sure, the climate isn’t the best, but it could be done.
There’s other reasons it succeeded, but those same principles would end poverty in the inner cities too. Most fundamentally, inner city culture is responsible for poverty, no matter how many trillions you pour into that hole. They will NEVER get out of poverty, until the people themselves change. And that’s not a black thing. Poor whites on welfare who depend on others–i.e. the gubmint–will always be poor. Even if they get handed a million dollars, in a year or two it’s gone. Lottery winners prove that over and over again.

Those principles above are anathema to the liberal philosophy, because there’s no room for them to have power in those scenarios. It’s why liberalism is designed to enslave people to the state.

Vanceone on January 8, 2014 at 2:51 PM

B: there’s an easy test to your claim. Locate a place where welfare benefits increased, but employers did not leave en masse. If poverty still increased, then clearly welfare is the key factor in expanding black poverty after the 1960s.

libfreeordie on January 8, 2014 at 1:51 PM

New Orleans.

It was never a “manufacturing city” compared to those in the Rust Belt, because it was founded for its Port, and also became famous for tourism and oil. And so you’ll find many employers in New Orleans never left. But LBJ’s Great Society devastated much of the inner city. Tell us again which Political Party has run that city for decades.

F-

Del Dolemonte on January 8, 2014 at 2:51 PM

New Orleans.

It was never a “manufacturing city” compared to those in the Rust Belt, because it was founded for its Port, and also became famous for tourism and oil. And so you’ll find many employers in New Orleans never left. But LBJ’s Great Society devastated much of the inner city. Tell us again which Political Party has run that city for decades.

F-

Del Dolemonte on January 8, 2014 at 2:51 PM

Well, poverty was about to be eliminated in the chocolate city but the Haliburton White Privilege Weather Machine destroyed all that with Katrina.

gwelf on January 8, 2014 at 2:55 PM

I’ll have those n%$$@#s voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

That was the same LBJ, right verbaluce?

rogerb on January 8, 2014 at 1:59 PM

It’s been reported he said that in a conversation on Air Force one.
There’s also actual tapes of him using the slur.

verbaluce on January 8, 2014 at 2:32 PM

Childs play….years ago I worked with an guy who was
ex military..Army and in the mid sixties he was on guard duty
for a year and a half at Camp David. he said LBJ was the
crudest Emm Effer he’s ever been around…especially
toward women..also said the Daughters (twins) were Sl*ts.
Said his language made all the Military guys there blush.
Yes, it was that bad.

ToddPA on January 8, 2014 at 2:56 PM

The War on Poverty has been an amazing success, one exceeded only by the passage of the 19th Amendment. In honor of this 50th anniversary of the former, the two together shall henceforth be called “the War on White Men.” Ultimate victory is within reach! Excelsior!

Nomennovum on January 8, 2014 at 2:56 PM

Del Dolemonte on January 8, 2014 at 2:51 PM

Well done.

Tell us again which Political Party has run that city for decades.

One in particular stands out to me: “Chocolate City” Mayor Ray Nagin.

ITguy on January 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM

verbaluce on January 8, 2014 at 1:50 PM

I tried to put the actual quote but it got moderated you-

^&#^$*#^#*&#$*&$^#*#)@)@*@#^$%*(@@*

bite me quote Nazi!

-Wastland Man.

WastelandMan on January 8, 2014 at 3:08 PM


From Tean WH Propaganda:
————————

Mark Knoller ‏@markknoller 3h

Council of Economic Advisors Report on progress in the War on Poverty now posted at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/50th_anniversary_cea_report_-_final_post_embargo.pdf
=============================================================

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/50th_anniversary_cea_report_-_final_post_embargo.pdf

canopfor on January 8, 2014 at 3:08 PM

Mark Knoller ‏@markknoller 5h

50 years ago today, LBJ announces launch of “unconditional war on poverty” in Address to Joint Session of Congress. http://www.lbjlibrary.net/collections/selected-speeches/november-1963-1964/01-08-1964.html
===========================

Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union
January 8, 1964
****************

http://www.lbjlibrary.net/collections/selected-speeches/november-1963-1964/01-08-1964.html

canopfor on January 8, 2014 at 3:12 PM

how to help people who can’t help themselves

More like WON’T help themselves.

GarandFan on January 8, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Even more like the DON’T NEED to help themselves. As long as they have government “helping” them through practically endless benefits of all sorts, why would one want to bother putting any effort into helping themselves? That’s hard work, man!

/SNARK

hawkeye54 on January 8, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Epic Fail. LBJ was a corrupt mental midget, who squandered trillions of dollars for nothing. His Democrat stupidity created the environment of racism based on low expectations that ushered in an 80% out of wedlock birth rate and culture of dependence and criminality that are the hallmarks of black America today.

Jaibones on January 8, 2014 at 3:55 PM

LBJ was a corrupt mental midget, who squandered trillions of dollars for nothing. His Democrat stupidity created the environment of racism based on low expectations that ushered in an 80% out of wedlock birth rate and culture of dependence and criminality that are the hallmarks of black America today.

Wasn’t all for naught, he did help lock up 80-90% of the black vote for his party. Which was his primary intention in providing just enough entitlements to buy the vast majority of the black vote.

hawkeye54 on January 8, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Lets try again.

LBJ was a corrupt mental midget, who squandered trillions of dollars for nothing. His Democrat stupidity created the environment of racism based on low expectations that ushered in an 80% out of wedlock birth rate and culture of dependence and criminality that are the hallmarks of black America today.

Wasn’t all for naught, he did help lock up 80-90% of the black vote for his party. Which was his primary intention in providing just enough entitlements, no matter the cost to taxpayers and the black community, to buy the vast majority of the black vote.

hawkeye54 on January 8, 2014 at 4:17 PM

“…….black urban residents……….”libfreeordie on January 8, 2014 at 1:32 PM

AMAZING! Topic of welfare comes up and one of the first words out of a progressive-marxist’s mouth is “blacks”. But we conservatives are the raaacists!

“…black urban residents in the sixties worked at factory jobs that rapidly disappeared in the 70s and 80s….” libfreeordie on January 8, 2014 at 1:32 PM

So a black (or a white, red, brown, green, etc.) urban resident loses his job because democrat party progressive-marxist policies compelled said factories to close so he and his descendants should receive welfare in perpetuity???? Is that what you’re saying?? Welfare is supposed to be for helping someone get on their feet not a way of life. Losing your job is tough (I’ve also lost jobs), but you pick yourself up and find another.

Talon29 on January 8, 2014 at 4:18 PM

MrBlog THE PEOPLE ‏@MrBlog1 1m

Dems Economy 47 million living in poverty in 2012,

WAS Only 37.3 million people in poverty in 2007.

#OutInTheCold #nhpolitics #obamacare #NH
================

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23outinthecold&src=typd

canopfor on January 8, 2014 at 4:23 PM

Of course not. But do conservatives blame welfare for poverty and crime in white communities? Of course not, they blame government policies which “drove jobs away.” So for one group their poverty is their own fault, but the other group are victims of political economy. Even though the sources of unemployment are exactly the same. One wonders why the right had never noticed this obvious intellectual inconsistency.

libfreeordie on January 8, 2014 at 1:43 PM

The majority of people on welfare are white, so, yes.

Ward Cleaver on January 8, 2014 at 4:36 PM

I wonder how that war looks from the golf course in Hawaii??

KMC1 on January 8, 2014 at 4:39 PM

For a person to not be poor, he must first want to not be poor.

~Bobmbx
circa 2014

BobMbx on January 8, 2014 at 4:55 PM

LBJ was a corrupt mental midget, who squandered trillions of dollars for nothing. His Democrat stupidity created the environment of racism based on low expectations that ushered in an 80% out of wedlock birth rate and culture of dependence and criminality that are the hallmarks of black America today.

He also picked up dogs by their ears. 0% approval rating from PETA.

BobMbx on January 8, 2014 at 4:57 PM

The War on Poverty is the longest quagmire in this nation’s history

J_Crater on January 8, 2014 at 4:58 PM

Kennedy was in office for just under three years.

LBJ was in office for just over five years.

Guess which one the lefties talk about the most, and which one they rarely mention?

jangle12 on January 8, 2014 at 4:59 PM

Wasn’t all for naught, he did help lock up 80-90% of the black vote for his party. Which was his primary intention in providing just enough entitlements, no matter the cost to taxpayers and the black community, to buy the vast majority of the black vote.

hawkeye54 on January 8, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Do you have a similarly patronizing and inane argument for Repubs efforts to lock up the white vote?
Didn’t think so.

After signing the Civil Rights Act, LBJ remarked ‘we’ve lost the south for a generation’. Not the most desired result for any party.
He understood and levied political realities as well as he understanding the need for progress…an imperfect man.

‘What you have is a thoroughly American president, who was American from day one: his birth in South Central Texas. This is a man who reflected American moods and attitudes and contradictions and trends. And when he failed, it was America’s failure.’
(Robert Dallek, LBJ Biographer)

verbaluce on January 8, 2014 at 5:03 PM

Do you have a similarly patronizing and inane argument for Repubs efforts to lock up the white vote?
Didn’t think so.
verbaluce on January 8, 2014 at 5:03 PM

No – because they haven’t.
Do 90% of white voters always vote Republican?
Carter, Clinton and 0barky could not have won without the white vote.

dentarthurdent on January 8, 2014 at 5:10 PM

He understood and levied political realities as well as he understanding the need for progress…an imperfect man.
verbaluce on January 8, 2014 at 5:03 PM

Progress, huh?
So, after 50 years and some $21 TRILLION, is the poverty rate significantly less than it was?
If not, how do you define that as PROGRESS?

dentarthurdent on January 8, 2014 at 5:12 PM

Carter, Clinton and 0barky could not have won without the white vote.

dentarthurdent on January 8, 2014 at 5:10 PM

Right.
But Bush won without the black vote.
And Repub election strategy is now based around bogus ‘voter fraud’ efforts.
So who’s writing who off here?

verbaluce on January 8, 2014 at 5:19 PM

So… the answer is capitalism. Well Land-O’-Goshen!

Mojave Mark on January 8, 2014 at 5:28 PM

And Repub election strategy is now based around bogus ‘voter fraud’ efforts.
So who’s writing who off here?

verbaluce on January 8, 2014 at 5:19 PM

Actually, I think the strategy here is running against the dismal record the Donks have chalked up over the last 5-6 years. I’ll take that.

Obamacare is going to bury your party.

hawkdriver on January 8, 2014 at 5:31 PM

verbaluce on January 8, 2014 at 5:19 PM

Do Republicans regularly get 90% of the white vote? Yes or no?

dentarthurdent on January 8, 2014 at 5:36 PM

Repub election strategy is now based around bogus ‘voter fraud’ efforts.

verbaloon on January 8, 2014 at 5:19 PM

Prove the voter fraud charges are “bogus”, and maybe we’ll finally stop laughing at your posts.

2013:

Ohio poll worker Melowese Richardson convicted of felony voter fraud

Long-time Hamilton County poll worker Melowese Richardson was convicted Monday of illegal voting and could go to prison for up to six years for it.

Richardson, 58, of Madisonville, pleaded no contest to four counts of illegal voting – including voting three times for a relative who has been in a coma since 2003 – in exchange for prosecutors dropping four other illegal voting charges. Common Pleas Court Judge Robert Ruehlman immediately convicted her, making her a felon.

A Hamilton County poll worker since 1998, Richardson admitted she voted illegally in the 2008, 2011 and 2012 elections.

Recall Richardson’s original on-camera statement that the multiple votes she cast “for Mister Obama and for Mister Obama’s right to sit as President of the United States” were “absolutely legal votes.”

Thanks for playing!

F-

Del Dolemonte on January 8, 2014 at 5:38 PM

Bush won without the black vote.

verbaloon on January 8, 2014 at 5:19 PM

Fun fact: Bush in reality got more of the black vote in 2004 than he did in 2000.

Must have been the “quality” of that “candidate” you Low-IQs ran in ’04.

Del Dolemonte on January 8, 2014 at 5:41 PM

New Orleans.

It was never a “manufacturing city” compared to those in the Rust Belt, because it was founded for its Port, and also became famous for tourism and oil. And so you’ll find many employers in New Orleans never left. But LBJ’s Great Society devastated much of the inner city. Tell us again which Political Party has run that city for decades.

F-

Del Dolemonte on January 8, 2014 at 2:51 PM

Well, poverty was about to be eliminated in the chocolate city but the Haliburton White Privilege Weather Machine destroyed all that with Katrina.

gwelf on January 8, 2014 at 2:55 PM

No, that poverty was there long before Katrina. I spent a week down there in 1988 at JazzFest and got around by riding the RTA busses around the city. Since JazzFest is held at the Fairgrounds race track, which isn’t exactly in the best part of the Crescent City, the RTA busses had to go thru some very seedy sections of town.

My friends and I were instantly reminded of Third World countries we’d been to. No difference.

Del Dolemonte on January 8, 2014 at 5:45 PM

Never have understood what was so freaking wrong with being poor in the first place.

Bmore on January 8, 2014 at 5:56 PM

Furthermore, on my PATH TO POVERTY:
On top of the 9% and ACA taxes,

The Out of Pocket Limit was increased by $3,500 from $1,500 to $5,000 per Employee. For a family, the Out of Pocket Limit increased by $5,500 from $4,500 to $10,000. This looks like a major change – It’s not.

seesalrun2 on January 8, 2014 at 6:01 PM

Locate a place where welfare benefits increased, but employers did not leave en masse. If poverty still increased, then clearly welfare is the key factor in expanding black poverty after the 1960s.

libfreeordie on January 8, 2014 at 1:51 PM

Another example for ya, Teaching Assistant!

Los Angeles.

Los Angeles County is widely recognized as one of the major centers of manufacturing in the United States, and its manufacturers for the most part have stayed, except for the car plants. But 2 of those car plants in the LA area closed in 1959, and the other in 1971.

But according to studies in 2013, LA’s also got the highest poverty rate in the nation.

‘Splain, please.

Del Dolemonte on January 8, 2014 at 6:03 PM

Well, Democrats love to change the meaning of words.
In this case, “on” means “for”, as in

War for Poverty as in “let’s make more poverty!!”

ProfShadow on January 8, 2014 at 6:17 PM

Locate a place where welfare benefits increased, but employers did not leave en masse. If poverty still increased, then clearly welfare is the key factor in expanding black poverty after the 1960s.

libfreeordie on January 8, 2014 at 1:51 PM

This is fun! Another one…

Hawai’i.

Again, a place that relies more on tourists and the military than manufacturing, but still a place where employers have not left en masse. Most “manufacturing” in the state is done by small businesses, because the Democrat State Government ran the big pineapple growers and sugar cane growers out of the state with high taxes, and over-regulations.

Hawai’i now has the 7th-highest poverty rate in the US. ‘Splain, please.

Del Dolemonte on January 8, 2014 at 6:22 PM

20.7 trillion spent since 1964 to wipe out poverty.

diogenes on January 8, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Childs play….years ago I worked with an guy who was
ex military..Army and in the mid sixties he was on guard duty
for a year and a half at Camp David. he said LBJ was the
crudest Emm Effer he’s ever been around…especially
toward women..also said the Daughters (twins) were Sl*ts.
Said his language made all the Military guys there blush.
Yes, it was that bad.

ToddPA on January 8, 2014 at 2:56 PM

My parents were stationed with one of LBJ’s nurses. I won’t go into details of LBJ’s attitude when his pants were off but it pretty much affirms Johnson’s reputation as a crude bastard.

Happy Nomad on January 8, 2014 at 6:29 PM

“testing”

cdog0613 on January 8, 2014 at 6:36 PM

Locate a place where welfare benefits increased, but employers did not leave en masse. If poverty still increased, then clearly welfare is the key factor in expanding black poverty after the 1960s.

libfreeordie on January 8, 2014 at 1:51 PM

wasn’t it the locals who pass a “living minimum wage” law for DC specifically targeted at Walmart, that keep out several Walmarts and the jobs they would have created.

RonK on January 8, 2014 at 6:47 PM

and about poverty’s dogged capacity to defeat just about every intervention that a free society can devise.

Except jobs…

98ZJUSMC on January 8, 2014 at 6:51 PM

Was it LBJ or Truman that would hold press conferences while receiving an enema?

BobMbx on January 8, 2014 at 6:51 PM

One has to wonder if Republicans will ever acknowledge that the majority of employed black urban residents in the sixties worked at factory jobs that rapidly disappeared in the 70s and 80s. Acknowledging this undeniable fact does ugly things to the mythos that “welfare” increased unemployment in the inner city. As if black workers voluntarily took themselves out of the formal economy, rather than they were victims of globalizations impact on domestic manufacturing. Then again, since we know conservatives are unable to draw a connection between MNCs and American unemployment, it seems unlikely that the nonsensical claims that welfare “created” poverty will be challenged in their bedraggled minds.

libfreeordie on January 8, 2014 at 1:32 PM

If subsidizing green energy results in the production of more green energy, subsidizing unemployment results in… ?

You do realize that it was liberal regulations, unions and taxes that pushed manufacturing jobs out of the country, right?

You use a lot of words to express dumb ideas with no foundation in reality. Perhaps you should revisit elementary school. You might make more sense.

dominigan on January 8, 2014 at 6:55 PM

wasn’t it the locals who pass a “living minimum wage” law for DC specifically targeted at Walmart, that keep out several Walmarts and the jobs they would have created.

RonK on January 8, 2014 at 6:47 PM

Oh, and aren’t these the same liberals that are stopping a pipeline that would safely and efficiently transport oil to the US and create 20,000 jobs. And also the ones that stop drilling on our shorelines, and on federal land, and on state land, and on…

Shall we go on?

dominigan on January 8, 2014 at 6:56 PM

And Repub election strategy is now based around bogus ‘voter fraud’ efforts.
So who’s writing who off here?

verbaluce on January 8, 2014 at 5:19 PM

If it’s so bogus, why do dumb liberals squeal like stuck pigs over the issue? Wouldn’t they just let it go through to prove how dumb the Repubs are?

dominigan on January 8, 2014 at 6:59 PM

The Democrat party has NO interest in eliminating their base, hence there will be a war on poverty until every last working American is on the dole.

Utopia.

Key West Reader on January 8, 2014 at 7:01 PM

The War on Poverty is the longest quagmire in this nation’s history

J_Crater on January 8, 2014 at 4:58 PM

Every time liberals drone on and on about the cost of the Iraq war, we need to throw it in their faces…

“But at least its not as expensive or badly run or unproductive as the liberal dumbocrat war on poverty! So when are we going to win this war? Where are the WMDs? Why are we sunk in a quagmire?”

dominigan on January 8, 2014 at 7:02 PM

welfare “created” poverty will be challenged in their bedraggled minds.

libfreeordie on January 8, 2014 at 1:32 PM

Welfare was designed to be utilized as temporary assistance during an unforeseen financial crisis. The democrats saw this as an opportunity to create a permanent underclass, forever aggrieved, forever impoverished… In other words, they created a program that would deliver them a permanent voting base.

Key West Reader on January 8, 2014 at 7:06 PM

Thomas Sowell from 2004 on the 40th anniversary of LBJ and his “War on Poverty.”

War On Poverty Revisited

…The War on Poverty represented the crowning triumph of the liberal vision of society — and of government programs as the solution to social problems. The disastrous consequences that followed have made the word “liberal” so much of a political liability that today even candidates with long left-wing track records have evaded or denied that designation.

In the liberal vision, slums bred crime. But brand-new government housing projects almost immediately became new centers of crime and quickly degenerated into new slums. Many of these projects later had to be demolished. Unfortunately, the assumptions behind those projects were not demolished, but live on in other disastrous programs, such as Section 8 housing.

Rates of teenage pregnancy and venereal disease had been going down for years before the new 1960s attitudes toward sex spread rapidly through the schools, helped by War on Poverty money. These downward trends suddenly reversed and skyrocketed.

The murder rate had also been going down, for decades, and in 1960 was just under half of what it had been in 1934. Then the new 1960s policies toward curing the “root causes” of crime and creating new “rights” for criminals began. Rates of violent crime, including murder, skyrocketed.

The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.

Government social programs such as the War on Poverty were considered a way to reduce urban riots. Such programs increased sharply during the 1960s. So did urban riots. Later, during the Reagan administration, which was denounced for not promoting social programs, there were far fewer urban riots….

INC on January 8, 2014 at 7:32 PM

The war on poverty was never intended to cure poverty.

The war on poverty never gave its recipients a way out of poverty.

The war on poverty never intended to anything but subsidized poverty.

Lesson to be learned. Subsidize something, you get more of it.

Once again, the Democrats have been successful in creating a class of voters that are dependent on… Democrats’ ability to tax and spend.

WestTexasBirdDog on January 8, 2014 at 7:37 PM

HUD built hundreds if high rise low income housing that just provided a breeding ground for crime and poverty. Please tell me how spending all that money did anything but make things worse. Paying unwed women to have more children without responsible fathers. Liberals bear a responsibility for 3 generations of Americans with no future other than more dependence.

jaywemm on January 8, 2014 at 7:56 PM

bedraggled mind!

libfreeorgan on January 8, 2014 at all hours!

KOOLAID2 on January 8, 2014 at 8:14 PM

Hawai’i.

Again, a place that relies more on tourists and the military than manufacturing, but still a place where employers have not left en masse. Most “manufacturing” in the state is done by small businesses, because the Democrat State Government ran the big pineapple growers and sugar cane growers out of the state with high taxes, and over-regulations.

Hawai’i now has the 7th-highest poverty rate in the US. ‘Splain, please.

Del Dolemonte on January 8, 2014 at 6:22 PM

Don’t try and argue with the Del Monte man on fruit! Although you could point out that the pineapple crop isn’t subsidized, exposing it to low cost, third world producers unless trade restrictions are enacted.

It’s amazing to hear the same overly simplistic dogma repeated for over 30 years- if the US just tweaked its regulatory and tax policies, jobs would magically appear out of the ether! News flash- the US has lost more jobs and experienced higher unemployment than developed countries with higher taxes and more burdensome regulations. All the data bears out this reality.

The US manufacturing base has been decimated by low cost competition from China, yet some on the right continue to pretend that lower taxes or regulatory reform will magically alter the massive upheavals driven by globalization and technology. Those manufacturing jobs are gone for good, while corporate America continues to implement new IT and automation that will kill millions of more jobs. It’s a painful reality, but once worth confronting because it will force people to accept the hard truth that simple reforms or policy adjustments will not lead to greater prosperity.

bayam on January 8, 2014 at 9:03 PM

Spot on ITguy…..

crosshugger on January 8, 2014 at 9:09 PM

Hey liberals you own it….embrace the suck

crosshugger on January 8, 2014 at 9:10 PM

News flash- the US has lost more jobs and experienced higher unemployment than developed countries with higher taxes and more burdensome regulations. All the data bears out this reality.

We had more jobs to lose. Those other countries you speak of also have flat growth and very little resources to do much with. One might also find they have very restrictive trade regulations and “buy at home” policies, and heavily subsidized economies. Small countries with small populations are also mostly homogeneous culturally and racially. In other words, they are stable and work hard to stay that way. Imagine Sweden with an unlimited immigration policy like ours. They’d be destroyed within a few months.

The US manufacturing base has been decimated by low cost competition from China, yet some on the right continue to pretend that lower taxes or regulatory reform will magically alter the massive upheavals driven by globalization and technology.

I notice you leave out the regulatory policies that shut down industry’s by making them more expensive to run by levying steep fines for non-compliance with arbitrary regulations.

““So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted,”

Messiah, 2008

Those manufacturing jobs are gone for good, while corporate America continues to implement new IT and automation that will kill millions of more jobs. It’s a painful reality, but once worth confronting because it will force people to accept the hard truth that simple reforms or policy adjustments will not lead to greater prosperity.

bayam on January 8, 2014 at 9:03 PM

And this can be resolved by government intervention and making sure everyone gets their fair share from the government. We don’t need jobs or income. We’ll just expand welfare, unemployment benefits, and implement a single payer healthcare system. And soon the government will be handing out healthy, government-approved food in equitable quantities.

Utopia.

BobMbx on January 8, 2014 at 9:55 PM

Haven’t seen the OFA brayam troll in awhile.
It hasn’t gotten any smarter…..

dentarthurdent on January 8, 2014 at 10:12 PM

We’re never going to win the war on poverty until all those poor people give up.

BDaddyLiberator on January 8, 2014 at 11:41 PM

As GOVERNMENT expands, Liberty contracts.

Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Obama, Nixon, Bush 41, Bush 43

The biggest Individual liberty thieves this nation has ever seen.

They are Salesmen of the Ruling Class designed to get us to trade our freedoms for a promise of some great new benefit or government program that will right some wrong.

PappyD61 on January 9, 2014 at 6:58 AM

…..and our traitorous media helps them sell their product.

PappyD61 on January 9, 2014 at 6:59 AM

“The War on Poverty (a.k.a. ‘Socialism’) Turns 50.”

…How’s that workin’ for ya?!

easyt65 on January 9, 2014 at 7:36 AM

“The War on Poverty”

….this may be the only war Obama has waged and actually believed in HIMSELF!

easyt65 on January 9, 2014 at 7:37 AM

It’s amazing to hear the same overly simplistic dogma repeated for over 30 years- if the US just tweaked its regulatory and tax policies, jobs would magically appear out of the ether! News flash- the US has lost more jobs and experienced higher unemployment than developed countries with higher taxes and more burdensome regulations. All the data bears out this reality.

bayam on January 8, 2014 at 9:03 PM

The U.S. is at 7.3%

France: 10.9%
Italy: 12.5%
Portugal: 15.7%
UK: 7.5%
Germany: 5.2%
Greece: 27.3%
Spain: 26.6%
Canada 6.9%
Belgium: 9%
Sweden: 7.9

Most nations with taxes higher than the U.S. have significantly higher unemployment rates.

the funniest thing here is that you complain about “oversimplification” and “the same argument for 30 years”. when has the left had a new argument or not used oversimplification?

Your argument is the same as it always is – more taxes, more wealth re-distribution. Neither of which has ever worked.

It’s not like you are honest or smart here.

Monkeytoe on January 9, 2014 at 7:49 AM

40% of infants born in this country are illegitimate…

Cultural rot…

workingclass artist on January 9, 2014 at 8:53 AM

Del Dolemonte on January 8, 2014 at 6:22 PM

Don’t try and argue with the Del Monte man on fruit! Although you could point out that the pineapple crop isn’t subsidized, exposing it to low cost, third world producers unless trade restrictions are enacted. Of course, I am totally ignoring Del’s cite about most manufacturing business in Hawai’i being done by small companies, because that Inconvenient Truth doesn’t jibe with what my other God Paulie Krugman tells me.

brayam on January 8, 2014 at 9:03 PM

Fixed.

We’ve missed you on the O’bamacare threads, by the way. Proof enough that you can’t defend it.

A+

Del Dolemonte on January 9, 2014 at 9:43 AM

SEE WHAY YOUVE STARTED, YOU JERK!!!!

RdLake on January 9, 2014 at 9:55 AM

t’s amazing to hear the same overly simplistic dogma repeated for over 30 years-

brayam on January 8, 2014 at 9:03 PM

PS, nowhere in any of my comments did I cite any “dogma”…all I did was recite facts.

In addition, my comments on the pineapple and sugar cane industries in Hawai’i were simply intended to illustrate what happens when Democrats in charge of government over-regulate things. After all, pineapples and sugar cane aren’t “manufacturing”, they’re “agriculture”.

But even if one did call those industries “manufacturing”, here’s another Inconvenient Truth I left out. The pineapple “manufacturing” industry still has a presence on the island of Mau’i. The poverty rate there is still over 10%, and has been for many years.

And on the island of Kaua’i, which I visited a few years ago, the sugar cane “manufacturing” industry was still running until a couple of years ago. Even when they were still there, that island’s poverty rate was the Aloha State’s second highest.

PS…I notice you were afraid to challenge my other two examples, LA and New Orleans. I wonder why that was?

Del Dolemonte on January 9, 2014 at 9:59 AM

It’s amazing to hear the same overly simplistic dogma repeated for over 30 years-

brayam on January 8, 2014 at 9:03 PM

Steven Hayward at Power Line:

Nothing so surely signals that liberalism has lost its mind than the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Great Society under way this week. Has there been a greater self-evident social policy failure in American history? More importantly, are today’s young liberal journalists completely ignorant of the fact that even liberals despaired of the Great Society by the end of the 1960s—that it completely shattered liberal optimism? (Don’t bother answering—that was a rhetorical question.)*

Conveniently forgotten is the fact that Johnson’s poverty warriors confidently proclaimed that they would completely eliminate all poverty in American in ten years. (Sargent Shriver told this to a congressional committee.) Gone down the memory hole in this week’s retrospectives.

There’s an obvious political purpose in trying to rehabilitate the Great Society: it forms the predicate for Obama’s desire to wage class warfare and ramp up redistributive policies to the maximum extent possible, though, in an irony lost on today’s liberals, LBJ disdained straight out redistribution, favoring instead a “services” strategy that only served to build a self-interested welfare bureaucracy that has become one enormous dependency machine. It’s back to the future time for the Left.

Del Dolemonte on January 9, 2014 at 3:22 PM

One has to wonder if Republicans will ever acknowledge that…

libfreeordie on January 8, 2014 at 1:32 PM

One has to wonder if Democrats will ever acknowledge that they support the historic party of slavery, segregation and racism, that their party members funded the KKK, that their politicians resisted Civil Rights and Equal Rights, and their party supporters burned crosses in yards, and that their abortion rights grew from one racist’s desire to bring genocide down upon a race.

One wonders when Democrats will start judging people by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin. Perhaps they should start by fixing their “character” who said…

“If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it”
– Politico’s 2013 LIE OF THE YEAR

dominigan on January 9, 2014 at 6:46 PM

Could some politician please redistribute income my way to get me an 80 inch 4K LED television? My 70 inch 1080-p just isn’t cutting it.

NoPain on January 13, 2014 at 9:42 AM

Comment pages: 1 2