If you’re wondering why Mayor Mike is suddenly pushing a broader official definition of poverty, here’s one guess: He may fear that fewer and fewer New Yorkers these days are actually poor.
And that could mean fewer public-assistance programs. Heaven forfend!
Think about it: Hizzoner wants to jack up the poverty line, boosting the number of people who count as poor in New York by about a fifth, perhaps paving the way for a major expansion of government “antipoverty” initiatives – a la John Lindsay 40 years ago.
Meanwhile, the revolution that began in the Giuliani era – moving hundreds of thousands off welfare and into jobs – shows no sign of letting up.
Gotham’s welfare rolls have shriveled to 341,329 cases in the latest figures – the lowest since 1963 and an impressive 26 percent plunge since Mike took office.
And ex-Mayor Rudy Giuliani by then had already pared some 700,000 cases, or about 60 percent, from the rolls.
By enforcing standards, targeting fraud and nudging folks toward productive lifestyles, Giuliani & Co. reversed the city’s longtime approach to welfare – sending a simple but stern message: Anyone able to work . . . must work.
National welfare reform in ’96 reinforced that notion, limiting how long a person could stay on the dole.
Liberals predicted doom. Instead, armies of would-be advantage-takers adapted: They acquired skills, found jobs, even formed families headed by two adults rather than just one.
Not only did taxpayers get a break, but those forced off lives of dependency benefited enormously as well.
Indeed, the new approach turned out to be America’s most successful social experiment in decades.
Mike, to his great credit, built on Rudy’s foundation. He resisted attempts by liberals to water down the rules, shored up ties to employers and held job-training and placement agencies accountable.
Throw in a humming economy and presto – even the supposedly “hard-to-place” folks were dropping off the rolls and into work.
Bloomberg’s big-government mind-set seems to be a victim of his own success (and Rudy’s) with welfare reform.
Taxpayers should hope his response – simply labeling more people as “poor” – meets a similar fate.