Dear editor:
I appreciate the rebuttal by Barbara Butler titled "Good paying jobs needed." She clearly and succinctly states the current conventional wisdom. She also graciously grants me the opportunity to make a few more comments, on the 5oth anniversary of the release of what is generally referred to as The Moynihan Report (http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/moynchapter1.htm).
We no longer have to rely on our gut instincts. We can look at what was planned, what the intended outcomes were and the current metrics as to how we did. It is also about 11 months shy of the 5oth anniversary of Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward's first article in The Nation, marking their first attempt to outline what is currently called the Cloward-Piven Strategy (http://www.thenation.com/article/weight-poor-strategy-end-poverty).
Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a hard-core social liberal. He was able to devote full time to help shape what is now called LBJ's war on poverty. Even though, in 1965, more black fathers were married to the mothers of their children, than are white fathers today, it was still something of concern. He commissioned this study in an effort to keep the federal government from making things worse. After many man hours and tax dollars spent, the report was met with general derision.
Enter the Cloward-Piven strategy subtitled "A mass strategy to recruit the poor onto welfare rolls would create a political crisis that could result in legislation that brings an end to poverty."
Both of the above documents should be required high school reading. Both are at least as important to today's events as The Declaration of Independence. They are certainly more contemporary.
In 1965-1966 the country had not yet experienced The Summer of Love or seen an episode of "All in the Family." The first Cloward-Piven article was written so as to not be too scary. Democrats held a solid lock on all three branches of government. They could do as they wished, including push through constitutional amendments. Cloward and Piven hoped the government would take their advice.
There were two paths to take, Moynihan vs. Cloward-Piven. After reading the two above documents, you will understand that the government clearly went for maximal disruption.
As for the current metrics, they are hot off the press (http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF15E09.pdf).
As I already stated, 16 percent of Baltimore youths ages 15-17 grow up in a home where their biologic father lives. In Shelby County, Tenn., it is 17 percent. That is otherwise, for all demographic groups.
As for the first goal of maximal disruption, I'd say they did well. As for the second goal, they defined an end to poverty as still being dependent on government for subsistence. Normal people would consider that to be some kind of oxymoron.
David Pruitt
Hot Springs
Editorial on 05/20/2015