Page images
PDF
EPUB

SECTION C

TESTIMONY OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION

BEFORE THE

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE

SENATE SUB-COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT, MANPOWER, AND POVERTY

BY: Blue A. Carstenson

DATE: May 14, 1970

Most of the

Most of the testimony taken by the Congress about the problems of poverty concerns the difficulties of the urban poor. action has been directed to the urban cores, and most of the Federal program funds have gone into the urban areas. Because of these programs, poverty has been reduced in the urban areas.

The situation in rural America is getting worse, especially among the aged. In 1965, according to Federal figures, 43 percent of the America's poor lived in rural areas. A month ago the President's Task Force on Rural Development reported that ONE HALF OF ALL POVERTY IN THE COUNTRY IS IN RURAL AREAS. Well over one in four in rural America is poor today. One third of the people in this country, or 65 million people, live in rural areas and very small towns. They receive only one-fourth of the total income. The situation could be worse. However, the migration of rural poor to the cities tends to alleviate the problem somewhat.

Poverty among families with large numbers of children is a major problem. Red Jonnson, President of the Arkansas Farmers Union, will be commenting on this.

Old age is the most pronounced characteristic of poverty in rural America. Forty percent of all the poor in America are over 65 years of age. In rural America well over one-half are over 65. The poor in rural America are 78-1/2 percent white. The balance is mainly blacks in the south and Indians in the west. Rural poverty is found in every single rural county in America and in sufficient numbers to warrant special efforts of ald in every county. The vast bulk of these people have been hard-working, wellrespected citizens during their lifetime and became poor permanently only when they grew old. It is extremely difficult for an older person to find a job without help.

In every rural community, especially in the small towns, old people sit in their little old houses rusting away, and far too many rotting away. Most old people in rural America die from disuse not disease. They spend their last years sitting on a shelf in a small town without adequate medical or social services. I nave come to believe that the Eskimos, who placed their old folks on an ice floe and pushed them off to sea, were more humane than we are to our older Americans. At least their death was quick and relatively painless and dignified. Many of the children of our rural aged have long since left for the cities, returning only once a year for a visit. Because of the situation in rural America, many of our young people feel that their only hope for a future, is to leave these small towns for the big cities.

These

These older people have too much pride to ask for welfare. Only about one in ten who are at or below the poverty line applies for welfare. If he is over age 65, he is denied a job opportunity. Some employers feel a person's age sets a limit on ability. older people are not reached by most of the Federal anti-poverty or manpower programs in any significant manner except for Mainstream, and a small number of special projects under the Office of Economic Opportunity which are assisted by the National Council on Aging. The Administration on Aging funds are completely inadequate, although they have developed excellent demonstrations.

Since World War II, some 25 million people have been attracted or forced to leave the countryside and move to the city. Farm prices and the high costs of production and the scarcity of land and loans, nave pushed farmers out of farming. This has not been a case of lack of efficiency but a case of not having the capital, bargaining power, and money to buy new high-priced equipment. Public policies which have too often favored the big producer over the small have also been a factor. For every farm family that went broke, a person in town lost a job. For every four farmers who went bankrupt, one business went broke on Main Street, and the young farmer has had to leave. Today young people can only get into farming by inheritance or marriage. My parents', however, were the first of two large families in McPhearson County, Kansas to move to the "city" from the farms. Now only one distant cousin remains and she has had to move into a small town.

Many older people move off the farms and grow old in the small towns finding little more than a refuge with poverty, inflation, and inadequate health services, and most likely no social, recreational, public transportation or home-care services. In small towns, by-passed by the interstate highways, bus lines, and modern snopping centers, they are left without hope for anything except deterioration, deeper poverty and loss of bodily functions including the brain and the prostate gland.

Many have only the minimum of Social Security to live on, although many have none or are in even worse condition. They are not aware of any Federal aid. Social Security is supposed to be a base upon which to build a pension. With most rural older people who have gone broke, or nearly so trying to farm, and except for a few older people with disability pensions, veteran pensions, Federal civil service pensions, or railroad retirement, I cannot remember a single person working in Green Thumb who had any other kind of pension. With more than half of the old people living in poverty in rural America, any talk of private pension plans in the rural areas is blind ignorance. It is again ignorance of the farm economists to hope that future generations of older farm people will nave a better life with today's farm prices, interest rates and farr costs.

Unemployment is four times as great in rural areas as in urban areas. The number of rural jobless poor reporting to the community employment services would be staggering if these people could reach the service. So often these rural poor live 50-75 miles from these services. Also, most rural employers do not use the community employment services. Only 5 percent of MDTA and OJT funds go to train the rural unemployed for jobs in rural areas.

The accident rate among rural people is much higher than among urban people, Three out of five deaths caused by accidents involve rural people, although they represent only one-third of the population. Rural areas account for 60 percent of all the substandard and dilapidated housing in America. You find few doctors, hospitals, social agencies, dentists, nurses, trained social workers, anti-poverty efforts, manpower programs, etc. in rural areas. Green Thumb usually employs 14 men per county and is, for the most part, the largest manpower or anti-poverty program in most of the 185 counties in which we are located. Unemployment hurts the older unemployed more than it does the younger unemployed.

You in the Senate last year voted a major increase in the minimum Social Security payment. This would have done more to Leip poverty in rural America than any other thing. Remember, a 5 percent increase on $150 Social Security check is not a lot more than a 5 percent increase on the minimum Social Security check which is the usual check received by the rural area resident. A percentage increase in Social Security is not a great help to the massive problem of poverty among the old folks in rural America.

we nave made dramatic strides in breaking through some of the problems among older people through Green Thumb and Green Light. I will tell you more later about this, out first let me say that we are quite confident that instead of the 3,030 jobs we have provided for rural older people through Green Thumb this past year, there are more than 3 million older and retired low-income people in rural America today who want a job so that they can have decent clothes and decent food or more accurately any new clothes,

enough to eat, or transportation to the doctor.

The price of our public welfare system goes far beyond the giant out-lays of Federal funds. Our entire Nation's life is affected: race relations, family life and family planning, mental health, mental retardation, employment, economic development, retraining, public housing, morality, and a host of other areas.

For the last four years, I have made it a point to ask a wide range of people about welfare. To this date, I cannot find a single person, whether he be the recipient of welfare, a welfare administrator, or a tax payer who likes the public welfare system that we nave in this country. The division of responsibility for public welfare policies between Federal, state and local governments, coupled with the complexities of the details of the welfare law, make it almost impossible for the citizen-backed reform. The welfare amendments of 1970 have not evoked an enthusiastic positive public response.

The snarl of public welfare has become almost as bad as the Gordian Knot." What is needed is not something to cut that "Gordian Knot," to free us from the system that was born in another era, in another land, and which we have been unable to change fast enough to keep pace with our fast moving and fast changing society.

We suggest that there are two major solutions to our present welfare problems. First, there are those who are physically and psychologically unable to work. We have found that among the most conservative, the most liberal, and among most people in this country, it is felt that society must take care of those who are disabled and cannot take care of themselves. We urge that the Congress seriously consider amending the Social Security Disability Insurance program so that people who are heads of households, who are no longer able to work because of disability, (physical or psychological), receive immediately, upon certification by medical authorities, regular disability payments allowance adequate for the family. These payments should provide a minimum decent standard of living. All such disabled persons whould be automatically tied in with the health and vocational rehabilitation services. Whenever rehabilitation can restore the head of the household, or someone else in the family is able to function as the head of household, then the payments would automatically stop.

The second group in welfare are those who are not disabled. There are many on welfare who are not physically able to take jobs in the competitive job market. There are many on welfare now and many more who are poor that will be on welfare within the next few years, who can work in non-competitive public service jobs such as those provided in Green Thumb, Green Light, Senior Aides, or Mainstream programs.

Most low-income people,

including those on welfare, would prefer to work, rather than receive welfare, or charity, or even a guaranteed annual income. The "work ethic" is extremely deep in our society and culture. It affects how people, especially low-income, look at assistance. If people "work' in meaningful ways, regardless of how limited, it is income not charity, dignity not degrading. Green Thumb has proved that work opportunities develop dignity while bringing people out of poverty. The Green Thumb program, as this Committee knows, employs older and retired low-income people to carry out conservation, beautification and community services and betterment projects. It has provided local and state governments with the kind of help that they desperately need to help build a decent society.

Ask any County official who has a Green Thumb program in their county whether they would rather have Green Thumb or their present welfare program. Ask any person "on welfare" whether they would rather have a job like Green Thumb or Green Light instead of welfare. Ask any taxpayer in any of 185 counties who has Green Thumb if they would rather have people helped by Green Thumb or by Welfare. Ask anyone if they were to become poor, would they rather 'go on welfare or go to work for Green Thumb. We all know the answer. But why do we continue to pour billions into welfare and few millions into program like Green Thumb and these other Mainstream programs like Green Thumb Service Aides and other Mainstream programs when the cost of Green Thumb and these programs is less per person in financial, psychological and social terms.

We ask that this Committee help the Kennedy-Poverty Bill take the Mainstream program out of the nickel and dime level and with major emphasis, put it into the Department of Labor.

ON-THE-JOB TRAINING LXPERIMENT_IS A SUCCESS

Our Green Thumb On-the Job Training program has been carried out as an experimental progam. It is the only older worker OJT program in the country. As we conclude two years of work and a year's experiment with full-time staff direction, we have made a major breakthrough in the employment of older workers. This is as significant as the development of the Green Thumb Program itself. After a long period of experimentation, without success, we finally found the right combination. During the past six months, OJT has done a fantastic job in placing people aged 45-83, the average age being 60 in fourteen states.

« PreviousContinue »