John Edward's poverty tour

Anthony Bradley’s analysis of John Edwards’ poverty initiatives is spot-on. Where he fails, however, is in addressing the issue fully.

He is absolutely correct in his analysis that having fathers involved in the lives of their children is a critical component in making sure those children stay out of poverty. Other than that, though, it’s bereft of alternate solutions.

America's poverty rate exceeds 18%, which is a national shame and embarrassment. Increased job opportunities, improvements in education, reduction of crime, and mentoring the youth to encourage the next generation to advance are all critical in the fight on poverty. Republican principals of economic development, personal responsibility, and reduction in crime can be instituted along side the existing support institutions to help people move to independence. Advocating policies which support job creation, reduced crime, improved education, and mentoring can solve the problems causing poverty, not just addressing its effects. Unlike the Democrat anti-poverty initiatives, which have shown decades of failure, investing money directly in the means to bring people out of poverty will result in a net increase of tax revenues as the people moving out of poverty get higher paying jobs and pay more in taxes than they received in benefits.

Edwards' poverty tour embraces failed policies
The Detroit News

The oft-quoted saying from the book of Ecclesiastes, "There is nothing new under the sun," is especially true of Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards' well-intentioned but misguided "poverty tour." Edwards' proposals to help the poor are nothing more than a remix of Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" and Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" and, like those previous initiatives, miss the mark.

Edwards proposes to raise the minimum wage as high as $9.50 an hour from the current $5.85, strengthen labor laws and promote "responsible families." Government wealth redistribution schemes, more unions and expanded government social programming have not helped the poor in the past and will continue to fail the truly disadvantaged in the future.

Raising the minimum wage does not help the poor over the long term. As James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation points out, a higher minimum wage causes employers to cut both the number of workers they hire and their employees' working hours, which reduces overall job opportunities for the poor. Economic research shows each 10 percent increase in the minimum wage reduces employment by roughly 2 percent.

In addition, few minimum-wage earners actually come from poor households. Most minimum-wage earners tend to be in nonpoor groups, such as suburban teens.

Labor unions don't help the truly disadvantaged either. They pursue their own protectionist interests, which include minimum wage increases that make unskilled labor too expensive for employers.