A BETTER WAY UP FROM POVERTY / THE WALL STREET JOURNAL OP EDITORIAL

Opinion

A Better Way Up From Poverty

I've learned I was wrong to talk about 'makers and takers.' We have to do more to unwind the cycle of dependency on government.

By Paul Ryan

Aug. 15, 2014 6:19 p.m. ET

In July 2012, our local fairground was full of families, farmers and visitors who had traveled to Janesville, Wis., for the Rock County 4-H Fair. I was shaking hands and talking with people when a man made his way over to me.

"Hey, Paul," he said, "I just need a minute. I'm from the Democrats' tent, and I just wanted to come over here and give you a piece of my mind."

He got up close and asked, "Who, exactly, are the takers?"

"Excuse me?" I replied.

"The makers and the takers," he said. "I know who the makers are, but who are the takers? Is it the person who lost a job and is on unemployment benefits? Is it the veteran who served in Iraq and gets medical care through the VA? When you talk about the takers, who exactly do you mean?"

I'd started using the phrase "makers and takers" after the Tax Foundation issued a study comparing how much families receive in government spending with how much they pay in taxes. If a family's share of government spending exceeded the amount it paid in taxes, the study deemed them "receivers." If it was less, they were described as "givers." The Tax Foundation's analysis found that 60% of American families were net "receivers," and under President Obama's policies, that number would grow to 70%.

The phrase "givers and receivers" was similar to another term making the rounds: "makers and takers." Both seemed convenient shorthand for a serious problem.

Over the years, we've slowly been adding to the number of benefits that government provides to an increasing number of our citizens. Some of those benefits are worthy, laudable commitments, but others aren't really the responsibility of government or the kind of thing we can afford.

If we keep on this way, we'll reach a tipping point where there are too many people receiving government benefits and not enough people to pay for those benefits. That's an untenable problem. The receivers cannot receive more than the givers can give.

© Cargo/ImageZoo/Corbis

Even so, that day at the fair was the first time I really heard the way the phrase sounded. Later, I thought about that guy from the Democrats' tent, and eventually I realized: He's right.

Who was a taker? My mom, who is on Medicare? Me at 18 years old, using the Social Security survivor's benefits we got after my father's death to go to college? My buddy who had been unemployed and used job-training benefits to get back on his feet?

The phrase gave insult where none was intended. People struggling and striving to get ahead—that's what our country is all about. On that journey, they're not "takers"; they're trying to make something of themselves. We shouldn't disparage that.

Of course, the phrase wasn't just insensitive; it was also ineffective. The problem I was trying to describe wasn't about our people; it's a philosophy of government that erodes the American Idea.

Like many of the challenges we're facing, the tipping point we're approaching is the result of a liberal progressive mindset that seeks a larger, more active government and lets bureaucrats decide what's best for everyone instead of allowing citizens to govern themselves. Its response to every social problem is more government, more bureaucracy and more taxpayer money.

This government-centered approach is at the core of modern-day liberalism and the Obama administration's policy decisions.
Have a high unemployment rate? Pass a $787 billion spending bill.
Got an energy crisis? Dump millions of taxpayer dollars into a boondoggle like solar-cell maker Solyndra.

Need to lower health-care costs? Hand over decisions to a bloated bureaucracy in Washington, D.C.
Now, the problem isn't bad motives; it's bad ideas. All of these policies stem from an ideology that favors coercion over collaboration, that puts faith in government instead of in a free people. And the results speak for themselves.

Fortunately, there is an alternative: the Founders' vision, which puts individuals, their families and their communities—not government—at the center of American life.

What does this vision look like in action? For starters, it favors choice and competition over government-run solutions.

It would make health care a true market with transparent prices and more choices. It would empower Americans to make their own health decisions. Instead of top-down price controls imposed by bureaucrats, we'd have bottom-up competition driven by millions of consumers. That won't just lower health-care costs; it will improve the quality of care.

The vision also means promoting a foreign policy that rejects relativism and embraces exceptionalism, ensuring our prosperity and security.

It would promote pro-market policies that benefit consumers instead of pro-business policies that favor the wealthy and well connected. It would roll back regulations that serve no purpose except to stifle enterprises, big and small. That will encourage competition and innovation, and get our economy growing so that people can start working again.

And instead of managing poverty, we'd actually be fighting it. Today, we're spending almost $800 billion on 92 federal antipoverty programs—and yet we have the highest poverty rate in a generation. That's because the solution can't be found in a federal bureaucracy; it lies within individual Americans and the community that surrounds and supports them.

As it stands, we're not empowering people; we're overseeing them. That's got to change. We need to see an individual's problems and potential. Our goal shouldn't be to simply meet their needs; we should help them tap into their talent and achieve their goals.

That's why I've proposed a plan that would reform our poverty programs by creating federal opportunity grants. These grants would consolidate up to 11 programs—such as food stamps, housing assistance and cash welfare—into one funding stream, and allow states to experiment with different ways of customizing aid. Families in need would have a choice about where and how they get assistance. And this opportunity would come with greater accountability for recipients and states. Individuals would be rewarded for meeting their goals, and states would be required to measure their results.

When you compare liberal progressivism's promises with the future that conservatism can actually deliver, the choice is clear. The way forward I'm proposing fosters risk-taking, ingenuity and creativity. 

Instead of growing government, it grows the economy and offers everyone greater opportunity and prosperity. It can unwind the cycle of dependency and finally defeat poverty. And, perhaps most important, it protects our rights while offering a real safety net for those in need—without overpowering the private economy or our private lives.

Mapping this path has been the focus of my work in Congress. I don't have all of the answers, but as an elected leader, I do have a responsibility to help start and sustain a conversation about where we go from here. That's why I proposed my budgets—first, the Roadmap and, later, the Path to Prosperity—and it's why I've now written a book, "The Way Forward."

The country's problems are urgent and real, but they aren't insurmountable. When I visit our big cities and small communities, I see the signs of a great American comeback in the making. If we focus on solutions and give voters a meaningful choice, then I know we can get this done.


Rep. Ryan, a Republican, represents Wisconsin's first congressional district and is chairman of the House Budget Committee. "The Way Forward: Renewing the American Idea" will be published Tuesday by Twelve.