Quantcast
Connect with us

Rep. Paul Ryan misused data to show poverty programs don’t work, say economists he cited

Published

on

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) misrepresented or misunderstood the data he cited in his exhaustive critique of the federal safety net, said some of the economists he cited in his 204-page report.

The former vice presidential candidate relied heavily on academic research for his report, “The War On Poverty: 50 Years Later,” which was released Monday and noted the poverty rate remained stuck at 15 percent – the highest in a generation.

ADVERTISEMENT

“And the trends are not encouraging,” Ryan wrote. “Federal programs are not only failing to address the problem. They are also in some significant respects making it worse. Changes are clearly necessary, and the first step is to evaluate what the federal government is doing right now.”

But some authors of that research said Ryan apparently left out or ignored statistics that showed federal anti-poverty programs worked exactly as they were intended, reported The Fiscal Times.

For example, the Republican lawmaker left off data measured in a recent study of the two most successful years in President Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty to argue that federal efforts hadn’t worked.

Researchers at the Columbia Population Research Center examined the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which factors in government benefits such as food stamps and the earned-income tax credit, and found the poverty rate had dropped from 26 percent in 1967 to 15 percent in 2012.

But Ryan only cited data from 1969 onward, noted one of the Columbia study’s authors, ignoring 36 percent of the total decline.

ADVERTISEMENT

“It’s technically correct, but it’s an odd way to cite the research,” said Jane Waldfogel, a professor at Columbia University. “In my experience, usually you use all of the available data. There’s no justification given. It’s unfortunate because it really understates the progress we’ve made in reducing poverty.”

Ryan also cites the same research paper to support his claim that a 1996 welfare reform program caused a decline in child poverty, but its lead author said the lawmaker had ignored a major expansion in the earned-income tax credit in 1993 and the economic expansion at the time.

“While our data can’t disentangle those three things, attributing the decline in poverty after 1993 to the welfare reform of 1996 seems to go beyond what the data show,” said Columbia researcher Chris Wimer.

ADVERTISEMENT

Another researcher said Ryan misstated the findings in one of her papers on the effects of housing assistance on labor.

Barbara Wolfe, a professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, told The Fiscal Times that Ryan’s report misstated by $260 the average annual decline in earnings in the first year of voucher assistance and by $229 in the five years afterward.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Our findings are a decrease of $598 NOT his $858 and in five years the decrease we estimate is $47.46 (which is not statistically different from zero),” Wolfe said in an email.

She also noted that Ryan’s paper ignored another study by the same researchers that found “the housing program has more benefits than costs so focusing on only one outcome is insufficient from a policy perspective.”

Wolfe also objected to the Wisconsin lawmaker’s use of another study she wrote, saying Ryan had misrepresented its narrow and now obsolete findings about some Medicaid recipients prior to the 1996 welfare reform bill.

ADVERTISEMENT

Ryan cited a study by Jeffrey Brown and Amy Finkelstein on Medicaid’s effect on private long-term care insurance to claim an “implicit tax” of up to 90 percent is passed along to consumers who purchase private plans.

But Brown, a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, said Ryan ignored data that show other factors would limit the size of the private market even if Medicaid was reformed.

A spokesperson said Ryan welcomed the criticism because it encouraged debate about federal anti-poverty programs.

“This report will help start the conversation,” Ryan himself said Monday. “It shows that some programs work; others don’t. And for many of them, we just don’t know.”

ADVERTISEMENT


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Never Trump conservative strategist punches back at Laura Ingraham for saying he’s ‘hoping for calamity’

Published

on

On Tuesday, Fox News host Laura Ingraham lashed out at former GOP strategist and Never Trump conservative Steve Schmidt for criticizing President Donald Trump's response to the coronavirus pandemic, accusing him of "hoping for calamity."

Another irrelevant NeverTrump former Republican “strategist” who sounds like he’s hoping for calamity. https://t.co/JrII3n4EkH

— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) March 31, 2020

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Kellyanne Conway is preparing to spread the ‘Big Lie’ designed to absolve Trump of screwing up coronavirus response: op-ed

Published

on

Writing in the Washington Post this Tuesday, Greg Sargent warns that President Trump's campaign is gearing up to disseminate a new "Big Lie" in a bid to ensure he's re-elected in the wake of his mishandling of the response to the coronavirus pandemic -- and Kellyanne Conway is leading the initial push.

According to the Big Lie, as relayed by Conway, the coronavirus was "unanticipated" and Trump will lead the country back to its former glory.

Sargent writes that in reality, "Trump vastly minimized the crisis in real time for weeks and weeks, at a time when his own health-care officials, as well as members of Congress and outside experts, were frantically doing the opposite, badly hampering the federal response."

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

This researcher literally wrote the book on presidential failure — she’s never see anything like Trump’s

Published

on

“When presidents fail, they do so on a grand scale.”

That quote comes from “Why President Fail and How They Can Succeed Again,” a book by Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a lecturer at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government who worked in the White House under President Bill Clinton. The book was published in 2016, and in the shock of Donald Trump’s election to the presidency, I gave it a read. As it documented the way much more prepared presidents had floundered when they needed to shine, the book terrified me about the prospects for a President Trump.

Continue Reading
 
 
You need honest news coverage. Help us deliver it. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1. Go ad-free.
close-image