In May 1966, Columbia University sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven published what would become known as their Cloward–Piven strategy in the liberal magazine, “The Nation.” Their article was titled, “The weight of the poor: A strategy to end poverty.”
In short, the Cloward-Piven strategy is a political plan to overload the U.S. public welfare system with the goal to replace it with a national system of “a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.”
Wikipedia summarized their strategy well: “The two stated that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would strain local budgets, precipitating a crisis at the state and local levels that would be a wake-up call for the federal government, particularly the Democratic Party. There would also be side consequences of this strategy, according to Cloward and Piven. These would include: easing the plight of the poor in the short-term (through their participation in the welfare system); shoring up support for the national Democratic Party-then splintered by pluralistic interests (through its cultivation of poor and minority constituencies by implementing a national “solution” to poverty); and relieving local governments of the financially and politically onerous burdens of public welfare (through a national “solution” to poverty).”
It’s not a coincidence that President Obama graduated from Columbia University in 1983. He even wrote an article there for the school’s magazine, “Sundial.” The full article is still available on the website, Politico.com. The reporter for Human Events magazine was right by calling it “a wholesale endorsement of all sorts of leftist claptrap fashionable at the time.”
It’s also not a coincidence that those who espoused the Cloward-Piven strategy were a group of radicals who have been a part of Obama’s life and education: Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, Bernardine Dohrn, George Wiley, Frank Marshall Davis, Wade Rathke, and George Soros, among others.
It’s also not a coincidence that, with the implementation of President Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 “War on Poverty” and Cloward-Piven’s 1966 political strategy, the total recipients on welfare rocketed from 4.3 million to 10.8 million from 1965 through 1974.
Today, roughly $1 trillion annually is given to more than 107 million Americans who receive some type of government benefits – not including Social Security, Medicare or unemployment.
In 2007, there were 26 million recipients alone of food stamps before Obama took office. There are now a record 47 million and climbing. And that doesn’t include the expansion of other entitlements (like Obamacare) given to that skyrocketing number of so-called “needy people.”
In 2012, Forbes already summarized Obama’s “success” of skyrocketing the welfare society:
- An increase of 18 million people, to 46 million Americans now receiving food stamps;
- A 122 percent increase in food-stamp spending to an estimated $89 billion this year from $40 billion in 2008;
- An increase of 3.6 million people receiving Social Security disability payments;
- A 10 million person increase in the number of individuals receiving welfare, to 107 million, or more than one-third of the U.S. population;
- A 34 percent, $683 billion reduction in the adjusted gross income of the top 1 percent to $1.3 trillion in 2009 (latest data) from its 2007 peak.
And let’s not forget new entitlements like Obamacare, which will result in government expansion and expenditures by 2022 to the tune of:
- Federal expenditures on Obamacare will total $2.3 trillion, a $1.4 trillion increase from the program’s initial estimates;
- The combination of budget cuts and sequestration will reduce defense spending by $1 trillion, while total government spending will increase by $1.1 trillion;
- Taxes will be increased by $1.8 trillion;
- Yet, the national debt will increase by another $11 trillion.
The Heritage Foundation summarized well: “In 1964, programs for the poor consumed 1.2 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). Today, spending on welfare programs is 13 times greater than it was in 1964 and consumes over 5 percent of GDP. Spending per poor person in 2008 amounted to around $16,800 in programmatic benefits.”
In the next 10 years, America will spend another $10.3 trillion on programs for the poor.
Yet, have all those trillions of dollars of government subsidy helped through past years?
In 1964, almost nine in 10 men between 18 and 64 years old were employed. By 2012, less than three-fourths of that same group had jobs, according to Fox News. By 2011, the number of Americans receiving federal welfare benefits was greater than those with year-round full-time jobs.
The truth is, since 1964, the percentage of Americans in poverty has only dismally dropped from 19 percent to 15 percent. Granted, other factors have contributed to that decrease, but the fact still remains that despite decades of government handouts, poverty levels remain basically the same.
Could it be that the reason poverty basically remains at the same levels is that the solution for it remains somewhere else than in government handouts? Now, there’s a novel idea! But solutions to poverty aren’t actually in the Obama Cloward-Piven cards. Expanding it is.
Of course, there are many other ways to increase and expand the welfare state besides just doling out more money and entitlements to the same people groups. What about increasing the number of needy immigrants flooding into our nation and loosening the laws and borders that restrict them?
That’s exactly what Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, told WND: “I do feel this attempt to flood the border with illegals is a playing out of the Cloward-Piven theory.”
King added, “If you don’t see them bring reinforcements down there to seal the border, that means that, yes, it’s a Cloward-Piven maneuver to flood the country until we get to the point where we are an open-borders country that welcomes everybody, legal and illegal.”
Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, agreed that Obama “is trying to do a Cloward-Piven thing with the border. … [It’s] an open secret Obama is trying to flood Texas with illegals to make it into a blue state. If we lose Texas, and it becomes like California, then the Republicans lose the chance of ever getting a Republican elected president.”
Could Obama be that intentional and devious, as Cloward-Pivens would require him?
In his Forbes article, “Deconstructing Obamanomics: What is the Real Goal?,” Bill Frezza, an MIT graduate and a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a Boston-based venture capitalist, “raises the horrifying possibility – unlikely as it might sound – that precipitating an existential crisis in order to bring about radical change has been Obama’s underlying agenda all along. … Suppose he is methodically executing the infamous Cloward-Piven strategy – which, if it is not succeeding in its objective of totally remaking America, you sure couldn’t tell by looking at the results.”
Frezza concludes with a quip: “Yes, of course, it is possible that all of the formative influences that made our president who he is are irrelevant to the policies he is enacting now, just as it possible that we are living through a bad dream and that in the morning we will awaken refreshed in a country that is not in the process of destroying itself.”
Alas, now we all – left and right – understand Obama’s campaign and presidency primary goal to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.”
(In my next column, I will detail some little-known facts how Hillary is prepared and preparing to receive “The Cloward-Piven baton from Barack” in 2016, unless of course she is stopped.)