Does the U.S. need a new war on poverty?

• Position: Debate

In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson announced a federal initiative to end poverty. Fifty years later, millions of Americans still struggle to get by.

YES The original War on Poverty aimed to increase opportunities for all Americans. Despite the real successes of some of President Johnson's programs, poverty is still with us.

One in five children are poor and increasingly falling behind their peers. Through no fault of their own, poor children live in more-dangerous neighborhoods and attend underperforming schools. They're less likely to complete high school and college and more likely to live in poverty as adults.

The War on Poverty's early-childhood programs offer lessons in how to combat these trends. Head Start, an early-childhood education program, and food stamps have improved children's education and health, and led to more productive lives. Programs like these are investments in the future that more than pay for themselves in the long run.

Anti-poverty programs can make a huge difference in the lives of Americans. Research shows that the children who used programs like Head Start and food stamps during the 1960s grew up to become healthier and more successful: They have lower rates of obesity and diabetes, they tend to be better educated, and they earn higher wages.

With income inequality at the highest level in almost a century, America needs a new War on Poverty to continue what Johnson's effort began: creating opportunities for more Americans and strengthening our society and economy.

--MARTHA J. BAILEY

Professor of Economics, University of Michigan

NO Albert Einstein reportedly said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. A new War on Poverty would be crazy indeed.

...