San Marcos Mercury | Local News from San Marcos and Hays County, Texas
Breaking News
Firefighters pull dead worker from underground chamber at fish hatchery
The San Marcos police and fire departments are at...

Freethought San Marcos: A column
by LAMAR W. HANKINS

In a hackneyed play on words, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s extremist vice-presidential running mate, declared, “In this war on poverty, poverty is winning.” His claim created an enticing sound-bite for the evening news, but it is factually incorrect.

Ryan’s argument: “With a few exceptions, government’s approach has been to spend lots of money on centralized, bureaucratic, top-down anti-poverty programs. The mindset behind this approach is that a nation should measure compassion by the size of the federal government and how much it spends. The problem is, starting in the 1960s, this top-down approach created and perpetuated a debilitating culture of dependency, wrecking families and communities.”

Correspondent John Nichols took a look at the census data and found a different reality:

“In 1959, 22.1 percent of Americans lived below the poverty line. In 1969, 13.7 percent of Americans lived below the poverty line. The poverty level has varied since 1969. It has gone as high as 15 percent. But it has never again gotten anywhere near where it was in 1959.”

In 1964, long before Paul Ryan was ever swaddled in a diaper, President Lyndon Johnson declared that because America is a great nation, it should not have nearly one quarter of its people living in poverty. I was a junior in college then. Lyndon Johnson’s vision of an America in which all people had adequate food, clothing, shelter, and work moved me to drop out of college for a year to join Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA). I was assigned to a migrant labor project developed by a local nonprofit organization in south Florida.

While we helped many migrant farm workers in a modest way, what we did was a drop in the ocean of America’s poverty. But programs and agencies like Medicare, Food Stamps, Job Corps, the Office of Economic Opportunity, and Head Start made a vast difference in the lives of the elderly poor, impoverished families, poor youth in need of job skills, and the young children of America’s poor families.

After graduating from college, I spent seven years working for a local nonprofit agency in Texas that operated Head Start centers, job training programs, summer programs for poor teens, family planning and women’s health programs, and a host of projects developed by VISTA volunteers working for our local nonprofit agency – housing programs, a credit union, employment services, tutorial programs, recreation programs, buying clubs, food distribution, and more. What was done was limited only by the imagination of the participants and those who wanted to help them, and available funds.

What I experienced in those years was far more than what Paul Ryan blithely describes as “centralized, bureaucratic, top-down anti-poverty programs.” After getting a law degree, I spent over three working for a local nonprofit legal services program operating in six counties in the Bryan-College Station area. It, too, was created by Lyndon Johnson’s anti-poverty initiative to provide a modicum of civil justice to poor families.

From my personal experience, I know that what Paul Ryan said is an outright lie. He might not have intentionally lied, but he did intentionally parrot the Republican, right-wing position against making America a better, more prosperous country by correcting many of the deficiencies, injustices, and inequities in our economic, social, and legal systems.

Ryan’s opponent in his other political race (he is running also to keep his seat in Congress), Rob Zerban, had this to say about Ryan’s views on anti-poverty programs:

“If poverty’s winning the war, it’s because of policies Paul Ryan supports. By doubling down on his radical plot to gut Medicaid, privatize Social Security, and decimate food assistance programs, Paul Ryan is betting against working families—all to hand out new tax breaks for millionaires and Big Oil.”

As John Nichols points out, “Paul Ryan has taken a side in the war on poverty. He’s against what works. Ryan has a right to take the positions that he does. But no one should confuse those positions with a sincere commitment to fighting, let alone ending, poverty.”

And that about sums up Paul Ryan as a politician and a human being. Like Ryan and so many cut from his mold, I can tell anecdotes from personal experience about people unmotivated to take advantage of available opportunities, but I can tell far more about people who eagerly made the most of opportunities that were available – about children who received health and dental care as they learned what they needed to prepare for public school; about their parents, who learned how to help their children be more successful in life than they ever imagined was possible; about people with few marketable skills who acquired job skills that lasted a lifetime; about high school dropouts who obtained their GEDs and went on to colleges or jobs that enriched their lives, not just with money, but with hope made possible by opportunity; about families with renewed pride because they helped to build their own homes; about women whose lives were saved by having access to preventive health care for the first time in their lives; about elderly people who, because of Medicare and Medicaid, avoided the misery their parents experienced in old age.

In the spring of 1969, the local nonprofit agency I worked for received a crudely-written letter addressed only to “Headstart, Washington, D.C.” It had been received at the national offices of the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), the agency responsible for the Head Start program at that time. The Washington office sent it to the regional OEO office in Dallas, which forwarded it to my agency. It had been sent by a man who lived with his family of four children and his wife in rural Williamson County, Texas, where we provided services.

The man had heard a public service announcement on the radio promoting Head Start, the pre-school OEO program. His letter stated simply that “he needed a headstart.” While he had not correctly understood the announcement, he had heard that there might be an opportunity for him and his family to get some relief from their misery, and he desperately wanted that opportunity. The director of my agency, Rawleigh Elliott, a former mayor of Georgetown and businessman, asked me to find the family and offer help.

After a bit of searching, a friend and I found the family’s house – a shack with a wood-fired stove, no insulation, and no paint on its weather-worn clapboards. We talked with the family, assessed their needs, and started finding them the help they needed to get their own “Headstart.” Such families exist all over this country, even as many politicians dismiss their plight and even their existence.

One such politician is Paul Ryan, who has a deformed and myopic view of life. Ryan has never believed the words of his party’s progenitor Abraham Lincoln, that our government is of, by, and for the people. Many things are wrong in this country, but none of them involve actions by “we, the people” to make everyone’s lives less degrading, less impoverished, and less unjust, with more decency and opportunity for all. It will be a sad day for America if someone like Ryan is put in charge of our government.

© Lamar W. Hankins, Freethought San Marcos


LAMAR W. HANKINS is a former San Marcos city attorney.

COVER: U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, now the Republican nominee for vice president, spoke at the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. PHOTO by GAGE SKIDMORE FOR THE TEXAS TRIBUNE

Email Email | Print Print

12 thoughts on “Freethought San Marcos: Paul Ryan’s war against people, not poverty

  1. Lamar – if only those who oppose your ideas could learn the real truth – and quit listening to the crap dished out by FOX & its friends. The Republican party of today is a lot different from the one I knew 25 years ago. It took me way too many years to see what should have been obvious then and is all too real today. Shame on W, Rove, Ryan, and the rest of them.

  2. Oh and if only those on the left would open their eyes as well to the false dichotomy lotus we are complacently eating. People I beg you to check out Obama’s dealings with Monsanto, Goldman-Sachs, and Halliburton and please tell me where the change is, I really want to know. Kinda like TR was gonna take down all those robber barons, right?

  3. KC, what about those no bid contracts Dick Chaney got for his company?

  4. Oh,Charlie, I believe you are not being truthful when you claim you were once a Republican. Please, be specific in your assertion of Fox news’ “crap”…
    Yes, both sides stink but more Americans are living in poverty today than ever before. Obama has been President for 4 years.
    But the Obama Benghazi Libya scandal is a war against ALL the American people. Americans asking for help prior to a terrorist attack were denied help by our Dear Leader and HIS administration. The main function of the U.S. government is to PROTECT its citizens. When the attack occurred Obama watched idly and passively as Americans died when he could have prevented it in the first place and interrupted the attacks as they were progressing. But admitting we had been attacked would have made his Vegas trip the next day look especially tacky….
    Obama told the people involved in the hurricane that “we don’t leave anyone behind”, yet he certainly did in Libya. Why does the Obama administration label patriotic Americans as potential terrorists when it is unable to call real terrorists what they are? If Obama told Gen. Ham and Adm. Gaouette to stand down because it wasn’t a terrorist attack, then it must have been an executive order government assassination.

  5. To the above complainers on this post:

    Judge not and ye shall not be judged!

    Take the log out of your own eye, before
    you take the speck out of your brothers!

    What would you guys do in Obama’s place if
    the reins were given to you?

    Is privatization really the panacea to fix
    the present problems? Blame the gov’t? Really?

    Yes the dichotomy is false, but action has to
    happen. What would you do in his place? Would you
    burn all bridges?

  6. Don’t judge our politicians? To (kinda) quote Jello, “Do you want a Banana Republic that bad?” I certainly don’t.

    And yes Winchester, that was the point I was trying to make. The same lobbyists have unbridled access to our leaders and the regulatory process and our tax dollars no matter which party is in power. And meanwhile the gap between rich and poor grows, our liberties are eroded, and the cost of everything for us plebians rises. And then we get caught up in periodic fights between candidates whose policies are really not that different on the important issues, and the system colludes to limit our choice to A or B and any other ideas – some that just might offer better solutions to our many problems – are marginalized while we vote on people based upon ridiculous “likability” ratings and meaningless target-marketed catch phrases. And to me that really sucks.

    And SP if I were ever given the reins I would certainly stop giving lobbyists access to things like the Treasury Department, the FDA, and other organizations that allegedly have our best interests in mind but seem to be little more than greased slides for wealth and influence to slide away from us who this whole thing is supposed and into the pockets of the well-connected. Of course this would probably get me a bullet to the head. But whatever, the bread and circuses continue, blah, blah, blah…

  7. Present presidential administration, the most corrupt, dysfunctional, partisan load of crap that I have only imagined of in the context of potential nightmarish realities, that are in fact,now what they are!JLB :-)

  8. Nice Dead Kennedys reference K.C. Not sure most Mercury readers will get that. Can’t stand Jello’s voice, but he’s a great social commentator (or poet if you read the lyrics).

  9. Then we are on the same page KC, but it chaps me that many want to only cite one side.

    As for the bullet to the head, I suggest listening to Bill Hicks; then start ducking and dodging.

    Take care all; please vote. Just please vote.

    Said it before, will say it again; if the person I vote for looses with a 90% turnout, I was wrong; with a 10% turnout, we screwed.

    Peace y’all!

  10. Jaimy, one word for you, Nixon.

    Remember, resigned in disgrace. Accepted a pardon from the person he appointed to replace him.

    Those who forget …

  11. I fear that this time no pardons will be appropriate, much less due!
    :-) jlb

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>