At Week's End; 410; Poverty in New Mexico

I'm getting told one thing by the camera guy and one thing by you. Where do you want me right here? Okay, you want me over? It's called the Land of Enchantment, and the world comes to marvel at the natural beauty and cultural grace of New Mexico. Yet for too long there has been another uglier reality behind the charm. For the Land of Enchantment is also a land of unreleaved, often unrecognized poverty for a startling number of our citizens. I'm Roger Morris. Join me next on a week's end for an examination of this old and deepening shame in our midst.

As the rest of the nation braces for an incalculable war abroad in a gathering recession at home, New Mexico faces these trials with special severity. We're not merely one more state suffering the economic turbulence of the 1980s or the uncertainties of the 90s. New Mexico began this critical period already behind with the legacy of deep-seated poverty and the toll has been stark. To cite only a few of the figures, New Mexico is now fifth in the United States in the number of its children living in poverty. We rank among the worst in the nation in providing prenatal care. Half of the state's poor are less than 25 years old. Last year alone, 5,500 New Mexicans dropped out of the labor force.

Poverty in New Mexico is increased by 24% over the past decade, making the total percentage one of the worst in the nation. Over 90% of New Mexican families living in poverty have annual incomes of less than $5,000, and a majority of the state's poor families, including the working poor, receive no public assistance of any kind. Joining me now is a panel of distinguished experts to discuss these issues. Pauline Nunez-Morales, a former member of the Task Force on Poverty of the Conference of Churches and now of the New Mexico Community Development Loan Fund. Robert Louder, a district operations manager in the income support division of the New Mexico Department of Human Services. And Brian McDonald, director of UNM's respected Bureau of Business and Economic Research. Welcome to all of you. I want to begin with you, Ms. Morales, with I suppose the most fundamental question of all. Why do we still face this scourge of poverty in the midst of such plenty, of such wealth in the United States?

I think it's always been a question of distribution of resources. It's a fundamental reason for poverty, and with that there are a number of reasons, political leadership, even though we did have a war on poverty in the 60s. We learned many lessons from that as far as you just, you know, even if we threw hundreds of thousands of dollars over the state of New Mexico or any other state, we wouldn't solve our poverty. But so it's many reasons, the fundamental being the distribution of resources, leadership within any state or nation. You know, in New Mexico is last in the West, and now in the equity of income distribution, we're 45th in the nation, the gap between Rich and Poor is growing all the time. Why? I mean, why did we lose this war? Was it a failure of leadership in the first instance at the state, as well as the national level? Well, I think we also have a unique history here in New Mexico. We have, you know, several nations, you look at the Indian population of our state.

We also just became a territory in this century. We have ruled villages in our state. We have very unique factors in our state that don't exist in even our neighbors of Texas and Colorado. We don't have the resources, even if you look at our university system, where in Texas we have land grant colleges and what have you. We don't have that here, so, but it hasn't been a recent problem like you have said in your introduction. It's been a historical problem throughout our state. A chronic one, really? A chronic one. Bob Louder isn't the picture, in fact, perhaps even worse than these statistics show. We've got a working poor population out there, a lot of people who are now on food stamps. Your department announced a 15% increase recently in the number of food stamps for which people are applying and using. As many as half of those people get some kind of income, many of them are working Americans.

Should we be adjusting our definition of poverty, and if we do, is the picture going to be even more bleak than we already have? The definition of poverty in view of the way the federal government makes that definition changes on almost an annual basis. They continually redefine the parameters on who is eligible for our programs and who is not. And what we find as years go by, that definition gets broader and broader and broader. And what it appears to be taking places that they are finally starting to realize what the need is out there and are adjusting the programs to meet that. For that, and perhaps many other reasons, as you've already pointed out, we have seen a very dramatic increase in the number of people who are taking advantage of our programs. And it's a situation that once people become aware of what's available, they come into our offices and learn that there is even more. And as a result, we have had quite a boom if we could use that word in the number of individuals that we are serving.

You know, I think most Americans would tend to believe that there are fewer poor people now, almost by definition, in America, than say there were 30 years ago, or 10 years ago. And that is not the case, is it, in New Mexico? We've got more people in tough straits than ever before. We just recently, with going over 21,000 cases in AFDC, I'm sorry, yes, in AFDC, have exceeded the total number of people that we have ever had in that particular program. Your figures show 10% of this state, eligible for food stamps. Some of these counties are running 20%. Yes, we have one that's close to 23%. It goes on down to, as one might expect, Los Alamos, which is two tenths of one percent. But that 20% figure is as bad as anything in the deep south in this country. Yes. We're nationally prominent in that respect. We're not a rich state by any means. Year after year, we find ourselves in the low 40s as far as per capita income goes, and it's definitely reflected in our programs. It makes sort of a vicious cycle in that the programs that we administer for the federal government with the exception of the food stamp program, the amount that a state can pay depends upon the amount that they can contribute under AFDC at this point.

The state pays, the federal government pays 73% of the program, and we are in the bottom third nationally in the amount of AFDC that we pay. If the state was richer, we could pay more. The federal government would match more. So it's almost a vicious cycle. The poorer you are, the less help you can provide to the poor population. And we're getting poorer. The new secretary of taxation and revenue, Dick Minzner, when he was a representative wrote an op-ed piece for the Albuquerque Journal in which he said the following, this was his conclusion. The problem, he says, is that we are 45th among the states in per capita income and not improving. When people earn less and spend less, even relatively high tax rates produce a relatively little money. We're on the verge of bankruptcy and fiscal crisis in budgetary terms in this state, and we're almost too poor the new secretary is saying to do anything about it. Brian McDonnell, let me ask you, isn't New Mexico part of a very disturbing national trend over the last decade? We've seen some new census figures showing that the top 1% of the American population now own as much of the national wealth as the entire bottom half of the population all put together.

What happened to the American dream here? The middle class seems to be disappearing and we've got a very European look to this class society we've spawned. Well, you're right. I mean, this is not just a New Mexico phenomenon, and I can think of sort of two broad trends that have occurred in the 80s that have really resulted in some greater inequality and income during the 80s. One is we found that we have to compete in a world economy in the 80s and wage rates are lower by in large in many places in the rest of the world and our manufacturing sector in particular because that's where goods are traded have to compete with those low wage rates. We've seen a great decline in our manufacturing sector in the 80s primarily because of competition in world trade and in the manufacturing sector is where you'll find fairly high wage jobs that individuals say with just a high school education can apply for and in the past have been able to earn a decent wage.

Those jobs are disappearing in this country. There's a vicious cycle in the sense that education is the key and yet education is one of the first casualties of this deepening poverty. These kids are not going to school, not being equipped to deal with these new demands. In fact, where the United States as a nation can compete internationally are in the higher skilled type jobs that require higher education. The other general trend I think was the federal deficit that we had really, we still have today and really began in the early 80s that has really caused a problem in Washington because it means there are less resources to go around in terms of federal spending and there's more competition among different groups for those federal resources. In the 80s, at least through the late 80s, defense spending got a bigger share of federal resources and with the 25% federal tax cut, there were fewer resources to go around and so social welfare programs did not get their share of the pie during the 80s.

But there's this continuing issue of inequity. I mean, I saw a House Ways and Means Committee study just the other day that showed that of this latest budget deal that just came out of all these elaborate and public-sized negotiations between George Bush and the Congress, the bite out of the top 10% of Americans in terms of income was one-half the levy on middle-class Americans. The penalty in effect, the bill to be paid here is still being exacted from the middle or even the lower half of the population. Well, that's right and I think that the debate in the future is going to be just about who pays for the federal government in the 90s and that debate really became clear there's fall. And really, in terms of taxes, about the only tax that hits upper income people more severely than other taxes is the progressive income tax.

And we've really gone- Which is not all that progressive in some instances. Well, exactly, it is no longer progressive and we have two rates or we have three rates, but the top rate is 33%. And we used to have much higher rates, so we have to rely more on taxes that do fall on lower and middle income people. Pauline, what are the consequences? What's the price of this poverty for the non-poor? You know, there are some startling figures there too. Over 28% of New Mexicans not insured for health insurance, which is a tremendous burden on our medical system. Infant mortality is very high, teen pregnancies are high, we have a high rate of incarceration in this state, high percentage of low-weight babies and of birth defects. All of those burdens, of course, fall on the taxpayers who are out there earning money. The middle class, such as they are in this state, are paying an ever-increasing price. It seems to me, for letting poverty go on.

Well, it hurts us all. I mean, it's when you have, basically we lose generation of people. When we do have low eight birth babies, when we have our young people dropping out of school, they are not going to be competitive, which means as a state, we are losing our competitive edge. We have a way to begin trade better with Japan or with Mexico. But if we have a young population and that growing percentage does not go to school, has already started with a disability with being low birth weight and, you know, will have a number of problems, we are losing it for all of us. Also, I always think, as we have a growing number of homelessness, even in our rural communities like Espanyola, I was just speaking to a housing authority person up there. What does it say about us as a state that women and children are numbering in our soup kitchens, in our AFDC, in our streets? And, you know, this is not only a Burnley County or a Santa Fe problem. This is not an urban problem in Las Cruces or Roswell.

This is a rural problem in this state. Rural poverty is profound. Most of your statistics come from these rural counties. Bob Louder, what is to be done here about this? We've been fighting this problem and bandating what seems to be cancer here now for 20 years, and nothing much has happened. I hate to say it. But exactly what we see are programs that come and go, and as you pointed out, some of them are indeed band-aids. It seems that there is a national impatience on plans that might have some chance of breaking this vicious cycle of poverty. What the department is currently undergoing is a program which we refer to as Project Forward. You may have heard of this. It's an employment and training program, and it's our firm belief that one way out of this cycle is to train people how to do other things, get them some education, enable them to become self-sufficient, which is one of the basic goals of the department. And within the last few years since this program has been in place, we have managed to find employment for over 2,500 people.

Simply, the old thing that says that if you give a man a fish, you feed him for one day, if you teach him to fish, et cetera, we all know how that one goes. Are these cases of people who have actually broken out of the pattern of poverty and dependence? They are on their way. We have had a percentage of people who have been successful in earning enough money to actually get their income to a point where they are no longer eligible for our programs. And there are various extensions, Medicaid extension programs where the department attempts to ease people into self-sufficiency. One of the major problems is that if you immediately begin to earn enough money to close yourself out from one of our assistance programs, and everyone knows that it doesn't take a lot of income to do that. One of the shocks that hits is that if you don't have any medical coverage and something happens, someone gets sick, you can be wiped out immediately, so we extend the Medicaid coverage for individuals to help that out. The problem with these things, these particular programs, are that they take a long time.

And as an impatient people, sometimes Congress will look and say, well, this program has been in effect now for three or four years. How come you haven't made a significant dent in the population? And it does cost money. It does. It's very, very expensive to take the time to apply a staff individual, to counsel them, to teach them how to go to job interviews, getting an education, even completing a GED or taking a few college courses. It's very expensive. It's very intensive. But it is a way if we are patient enough as a people to make that investment. I'm wondering, though, as I hear you talk, and I've heard people talk this way in the 1960s and 70s, aren't we simply nurturing small fishes that were to throw into the shark tank? Brian, this is still a system which responds to money and power, politically speaking, even if you train these folks and get them on their feet, as Bob says, if catastrophic health problems face them, they could be wiped out. There is still a disadvantage in terms of the political world because the political world doesn't respond to low-income people or even to lower middle class people.

Isn't there something deeper here in the flawed in this system that we have devised in America? It seems no longer to be what we thought it was, which is an authentic democracy or a democratic economic system. Well, I think part of the problem is that our welfare system in the past has created dependency rather than trying to create independence. And we really need to sort of change the whole incentives and objectives of our social welfare system to encourage people to become independent. But that requires a whole set of different things such as training and help with job applications, daycare for women, and so on. But part of it is also the structure of our economy is changing. And as I mentioned earlier, we're losing jobs that traditionally were higher paying, that people say it was just a high school education could apply for. The higher paid jobs now require the higher skills, the lower paying jobs in retail trade and in some of the service industries barely pay a wage above the poverty level. But can you see any way out of this other than a massive reinvestment in American education and a retooling retraining for the future?

You're talking about trends that are decades old and national and international in scope. Well, that's right. And it's going to take time. It's going to take recognition on the part of individuals that education is going to become more and more important in the future. That's going to take programs to encourage kids to stay in school, to do well in school. It really is going to sort of mega changes rather than something that can be done overnight. I think also we have to be very, very creative. And I don't think one entity can solve this problem. It's not just for government. It's not just for the church. It's not just for our community of foundations, the philanthropy, or our corporations. I think it's going to take a joint effort. But some very creative solutions. I think job training is one. Education certainly must be prominent, retooling in the long term. But it, and also our political leadership. I think there's some talent that has been selected that will drive us into the next decade.

However, it takes all of us playing a role. It takes our financial community that is also being restructured on a day-to-day basis almost. But it takes a partnership with all of these players. And one entity, the government, cannot think that will solve all. Will the church or will private individuals be talking about the exercise of responsibility, really, in a democracy, which is a tough job, a tough thing to get people to do, basically. Our experience, I think in this country, is that we need leaders to do that. Not to tell us what to do, but to bring us together and to give us some of that guidance, to give us the boost. Do we have in this state an awful and crippling habit of poverty? Have we grown a bit complacent or accepting of our low status on the totem pole here in the United States? I wonder sometimes. I don't think so. I find on a daily basis heroes, I find that there's a lot of talented people in this state that care about what is happening in a housing situation.

They're very angry. They don't want women children on the streets. They don't want families separated. There's a lot of creative individuals and talent and leadership in our government, in income support, in UNM, whatever. So I guess I try to look at the more positive, because if you look at the statistics on a data basis, you can get overwhelmed. We need not be overwhelmed. There are people who are doing things courageous of people on a day to day basis. Let's talk about some of the new things that are foot in government. We've got a new administration taking power here in Santa Fe, the first of the year, a new governor who's had great experience. He's got a secretary now in Dick Heim, who has had experience in human services. What are some of the things Bob that we can look for in terms of initiatives in bold new ideas? As has already been pointed out by everyone, the pie that is chopped up for all of these different needs definitely is not growing.

And we have seen that for some time. I don't believe that that's going to change at any time in the future. So I believe that what we have seen in place for some time now in New Mexico since the days when we were flush with funds from gas and oil, that we need to be a little bit more creative, make things go a little bit further. We had a secretary previously who coined the phrase, let's work smarter and not harder, because we are working very hard and we never seem to be able to break the cycle. What the new administration may have in mind at this point, I'm really not sure of, but one might assume that given the restraints that they are going to be facing, that creativity will probably play a very, very large part. We've seen that simply maintenance hasn't gotten us where we really do need to be, and we need to do have some people come in and start looking at ways that we can bring people into the mainstream. Aren't there other states with some good experience, some hopeful precedents here that we might be able to copy or whose solutions we might be able to adapt to New Mexico?

We're constantly looking around for examples of things that have worked elsewhere and brought them in. As was pointed out earlier in this discussion, New Mexico started way behind anyway, and it sometimes takes us a little bit longer to try to catch up. There have been success stories, but I'm not optimistic that we can break the cycle that we are in anywhere in the near future. We've been here a long time, we'll probably take a long time for a while to break out. Brian, if you could put together an old-fashioned brain trust for Bruce King, and we could duplicate the brain trusters of the New Deal here, we had 100 days to do things in Santa Fe. Do you have the talent and the fresh ideas at UNM or other universities in this state who might be called upon? Well, I don't think that I think we know what needs to be done. It's a question of how to do that and how to implement it, and it does take political leadership, but it takes a lot of other things as well. For example, one of the reasons New Mexico is a poor state is that we don't have a lot of manufacturing jobs, we tend to have more lower paid trade and service jobs.

In terms of developing our state economy, we need to concentrate on developing, for example, more of a manufacturing sector that has those higher paying jobs that our citizens can apply for and get. But doing a decent job of that now, or do we need to do much more in that respect? I personally think the state needs to do much more. In terms of the resources this state has to do economic development compared to other states is very small, but we also need to do that very wisely as well to do things smarter, not only more. It will take more than just the state government doing it. It's going to take the private community here, the private business community here. We're talking about, aren't we more than simply new ideas for government or new programs or smarter use of resources? Aren't we talking about as well a kind of revolution in values? Don't we have to turn people toward a fairer and more equitable and more caring society so that these statistics don't appear in the next generation?

This is where I feel New Mexico does have the abridge. I feel we do have a history of quality of life, family values in our state. We do have that, and I think also if we go back to our real communities, there has been a barter economy. There's something to be learned through listening to what communities have to say what are their solutions. But I think in that case, as far as the human values, we do have the answer. There are cultures here that are deeply communal and caring in Native Americans and Hispanics. We've got to reach back in the past and find those intrinsic values again in economic and practical governmental terms. Revitalize that. I mean, I'm thinking right now of going out of the way up in Rio River County, which is a great success story. Great success story, but the community took it and it's been a long time development. It didn't happen overnight, but it was that community took its fate in its own hands.

So you can't always wait for wait for government or somebody else to do it for you. Are there any initiatives that any of you know of or can imagine in this next legislature that might ameliorate some of these conditions? I know money is going to be a great controversy. It's going to be tight. They're already beginning to argue about taxes or no taxes and read their lips or don't read their lips. Anything that we can look forward to that the legislature might be able to pull out of a hat. There is some talk again of doing a housing trust fund and to also coordinate better housing services because they are divided into many different agencies from your rehab as well as with your affordable housing programs. They're trying to consolidate that. So that's an initiative that I think has some has some hope to it. We have just a few seconds left. Are you two hopeful? We're hoping that the legislature will look favorably upon our employment and training programs because their experience has shown there are people out there that want to break this cycle.

I agree wholeheartedly that the desire is there. Should we be able to at some point in the future provide the means. I'm confident that we would see a great change in this poverty cycle that we have lived under for so long. Let's leave on that very hopeful note of great change. Thank you Pauline Nunez Morales. Thank you Bob Louder and thank you Brian Mcdonald. And thank you for joining us for Weeks End. I'm Roger Morris. Thank you very much. Thank you.