Ryan Anti-Poverty Plan a Wolf in GOP Clothing, say Critics

Congressman Paul Ryan’s (R – Wisc.) new vision for how the Republican Party will address poverty in the United States is facing its strongest criticism from key people in the debate: the poor themselves and those who advocate on their behalf.

With inequality and financial hardship constituting top concerns among the U.S. public, Ryan appears to be taking on a populist, anti-poverty tone as he ascends to the leadership of the GOP. But economic justice advocates warn that Ryan’s re-branded message masks the same old policies that attack the already-beleaguered safety nets for society’s most vulnerable and dispossessed.

In a speech to the right-wing American Enterprise Institute delivered Thursday, Ryan unrolled a sweeping proposal for restructuring social services at a national level. The centerpiece is the “Opportunity Grant,” which would consolidate nearly every key federal anti-poverty program—including food stamps and housing vouchers—into a single pool of money. That sum would then be handed to states that opt into a pilot program, effectively shifting the distribution of social services out of federal hands.

States would be tasked with delivering social services in partnership with what Ryan calls, “community groups”—a category that would include the for-profit sector. “The state welfare agency can’t be the only game in town,” said Ryan. “People must have at least one other option, whether it’s a non-profit, a for-profit, what have you.”

John Nichols, writing for the Nation, slammed Ryan’s ‘re-branding’ and ‘faux populist’ plan as a rehashing of “decades-old schemes to scale back anti-poverty initiatives and regulatory protections for low-income Americans.” He argues that Ryan’s approach “would allow Republican governors who have already shown a penchant for undermining healthcare, food-stamp and education initiatives the ‘flexibility to do even more harm.”

In Ryan’s proposal, low-income people would meet with case managers to develop “opportunity plans”—a mix of programs, financial advice, and goal-setting, with a heavy emphasis on employment and “hard work.” Under Ryan’s proposal, these plans would be contractually binding, and failure to meet benchmarks would result in punishment, including potential reduction of benefits.

Ryan championed the plan as a “flexible” and collaborative alternative to “fragmented and formulaic” federal aid. “My thinking is, listen to the ‘boots on the ground’—the local leaders who are changing the status quo. Let them try unique and innovative ideas with a proven track record,” he said. According to Ryan, we need this legislation because, “Too many families are working harder and harder to get ahead, and yet they’re falling further and further behind.”

But anti-poverty campaigners warn that beneath Ryan’s claims to represent the interests of the poor and working classes lies a dangerous proposal that would gut and privatize the scant social programs that exist.