There seems to me to be a close alignment of Ryan’s block-grant approach with the many instances in which the authors of the Hamilton Project volume propose flexible, low-cost, small-scale, locally administered programs, rather than large-scale, federally administered universal solutions. In addition, I was struck by the way that both Ryan and the Hamilton Project focus on rigorous evaluation of results as well as the need for further experimentation.
I do not expect to see a bipartisan reform of anti-poverty programs any time soon. If it were up to policy experts, yes. But politically, improving anti-poverty efforts takes a back seat to offering goodies to the middle class and to the clout of people with a stake in the existing programs.
As a “Big L” Libertarian I would support three large policy initiatives (none of which have any chance of ever happening).
1. Elimination of all taxes with a VAT.
2. A minimum income which replaces all anti-poverty programs (also rebating VAT taxes to the poorest citizens).
3. Mandating a one week a quarter work schedule for all politicians.
Your article makes reference to “remediation” programs as presently conducted in post-secondary education.
Some private preparatory schools, such as Phillips Academy at Andover had developed a “Postgraduate” program.
In addition to the efforts to delineate, reduce and eliminate “gaps” in public secondary education are there any ongoing efforts to create a “Postgraduate” program in the public education systems, preferably in separated facilities, with provisions for certifications of those programs by post-secondary institutions, such that the costs of necessary “remediation” (basically the filling in of gaps) can be reduced?
Public expenditure for secondary postgraduate costs would likely be more effective than expenditure on pre-K (basically childcare) for actual education objectives.
Such secondary postgraduate programs could provide a 1st 9 months at public expense and a 2nd 9 months at a moderate tuition charge.
Something similar to this is occurring in the uses being made of Community Colleges and by some of their curricula available at lower costs (and with more convenience and flexibility). However, this would not rule out some of the advantages of postgraduate secondary education.
“But politically, improving anti-poverty efforts takes a back seat to offering goodies to the middle class and to the clout of people with a stake in the existing programs.”
I get the feeling that Arnold thinks (1) middle class Americans don’t have any problems that aren’t their own fault and (2) the country doesn’t really need a large, robust middle class anyway.
Incidentally, how does importing large numbers of additional poor, unskilled foreigners play into an “anti-poverty consensus”? I don’t see how advocacy for increasing the number of poor people we have to worry about is consistent with a desire to reduce poverty in this country.