We interpret the report’s major recommendations in this way:
Investment in public services devoted to improving conditions for the poor should be more than doubled in order to break the cycle of poverty which tends to keep the children of the poor as dependent and impoverished as their parents were - an increase nationally in governmental expenditures from $11.5 billion in 1967 to about $26.5 billion (in 1967 dollars). In the New York Region’s older cities analyzed here, the increase should be from $1.7 billion in 1967 to $3.6 billion. These estimates are based on present anti-poverty efforts even though none of these programs has been an unqualified success so far. The estimates take into consideration the failures but assume that many past efforts can become the foundation for success if substantially higher funds are invested over a longer period of time.
Most of the additional funds should pay for better education for disadvantaged children and for higher income-maintenance payments and more complete coverage.
All anti-poverty services should be paid for by the federal government. Poverty is a national problem; many of the poverty-stricken began life far from the cities in which they now reside. The financial sacrifice being made by the older cities of the Region to support poverty-related services is draining their ability to carry out strictly municipal programs such as police, fire, parks and street maintenance. If anti-poverty expenditures were doubled, as is recommended, the cities could not possibly maintain their present share of the costs - which in New York City would rise to a billion dollars a year. Transferring full financial responsibility for poverty-related public services to the federal government - with the proposed increase in services would mean a rise in the federal budget of about $20 billion a year. Federal revenues will increase by $20 billion without any change in tax rates in just over two years through the increase in gross national product - an indication of the fiscal implication of these proposals.
Adding to the poverty burden of the older cities compared to the financial capacity of suburban communities is the state aid-to-education formula used in each of the three states of the Region. In none of these states is the extra need of disadvantaged children sufficiently covered or the ability of communities to bear education costs adequately taken into account. Therefore, state aid formulas should be revised to reflect more fully ability to pay. Until the federal government bears full anti-poverty costs, including compensatory education for the disadvantaged, the state aid formulas should provide added funds for school districts with large numbers of poor children.
If poverty-related services are covered by the federal government and a larger share of other education costs of the older cities is covered by a revised state aid formula, the cities should be able to improve the local services they provide so that living conditions are competitive with the suburbs and can attract those in the Region who prefer city living. New York City, for example, would be relieved of a half-billion dollar burden of poverty-related services-one tenth of its entire annual budget-by federal assumption of this responsibility.
The cities would be well advised to seek a solution to their financial difficulties by transferring poverty burdens to the federal government rather than begging for all kinds of grants for which there is little justification from both federal and state governments. The logic of the argument for federal anti-poverty funds is strong, and a clear definition of programs which are mainly local responsibilities and those, like poverty, which are national responsibilities, would be salutary.
The report substantiates these recommendations with financial data.
