>> this is al jazeera america live from new york city. i'm tony harris with a look at today's stop stories. millions of americans are dealing with bitter cold conference as dave just mentioned. 11 people have died and the weather is reaching well into the deep south. the procedural vote is just the beginning, the current proposal is not enough. tougher security measures are in place for the month leading up to the olympics in sochi. russia issuing lockdown on the city. visitors and drivers are required to have special passes to get around the city. talks aimed at ending the lie

venezuelviolence in south sudant least 1,000 people have died from the violence that erupted three weeks ago. and the stand off over fallujah is intensifying. officials report that 25 rebels were killed. the u.s. offered missile report but declined to put any troops on the ground in that country, i'm tony harris for new new york. more news for you in the next hour. >> unveiling his proposal for the great society, president johnson asked americans to join him in a battle to give every citizen an escape from the crushing weight of poverty. did it work? and is this country still willing to put government to

work against poverty. that's the inside story. hello, i'm ray suarez. in 1964 the university of michigan president lyndon johnson used soaring words to commit america's great wealth and power to solving it's d domestic problems. he said a great society depends on its abundance, and end poverty to which we're totally committed in our time. he told the audience to picture an american where the cities are beautiful, environment is cleaner, schools are better and people healthier. he talked in economic and spiritual terms of what a better and healthier america would look

like. now it's 50 years later. did the great society programs hit their mark? did we get close to johnson's vision? or did it put a tax burden for the next 50 years. >> our task is to help replace their despair with opportunity. >> january 8, 1964, president lyndon johnson's state of the union address. >> this administration today here and now declares u unconditional war on poverty in america. i urge in congress and all americans who join with me in that effort. [applause] it will not be a short or easy struggle.

no single weapon or strategy will suffice. but we shall not rest until that war is won. the richest nation on earth can afford to win it. we cannot afford to lose it. >> just weeks after jfk's murder the new president found he was leading a nation with millions trapped in desperation and hardship. and set out on a course to bring americans out of poverty. >> for the war against poverty will not be won here in washington. it must be won in the field. in every private home. in every public office. from the courthouse to the white house. >> it required an unprecedented push to improve and create

social welfare programs that exists to this day. it would be the makings of johnson's great society. in 1964 19% of the population lived in poverty, so working with the democrat-controlled congress johnson controlled head start, work study programs, the food stamp program, the job corp, the medicare and medicaid programs. it was successful at the start, poverty fell to 11% by 1973. president richard nixon took the reins and broadened the food stamp program and added an automatic cost of living increase to social security. poor people were being helped, but challenges remained. incomes were dropping and increase in single income families kept the poverty rate very high. the income gap was widening and by the late 80s the mindset changed. >> my friends, some years ago

the federal government declared war on poverty, and poverty won. >> reporter: president ronald reagan's notion that government is the problem took hold as legislators sought to weaken the social safety net. the question of how to effectively help the poor remains the enduring debate of our time. today the poverty rate is at 15% with 46 million americans living below the poverty line. from 1992 to 2012 american incomes declined in every single education category except among college graduates. the great recession in 2008 saw the most dramatic contraction of employment since the great depression. but as the country tightens it's belt under the troubles of dollar of debt, any kind of help to struggling americans becomes

a political football. >> we have never in the history of our country have long-term unemployment like we do today. never in the history of our republic. yet we're turning 1.3 million people away? so i hope republicans remember that during hard times, during times of high employment regardless of who is in the white house or who has led this chamber, americans have always put politics aside and put american families first. >> reporter: the first question is whether to extend the unemployment benefits to 1.3 million americans. the senate cleared an procedural hurdle by voting to continue the debate but the ideological arguments are in the shadows of 50 years ago. >> it's only when you believe that government is the answer to your problems, you talk about unemployment rather than job creation, and instead of helping

people reach their maximum potential. it's time to give the american people the tools they need to drive the economy that truly works for them and their families. >> letting unemployment benefits for families is wrong. >> reporter: president obama surrounded himself with unemployed americans behind him at the white house. >> we make this promise to our fellow americans who are working hard to get back on their feet because when times get tough we are not a people who say you're on your own. we are people who say we're all in it together. and we know there by the grace of god go i. >> reporter: so the wrestling match in washington how to help americans in need still goes on 50 years after president johnson announced his war on poverty. in this midterm election year the social safety net of medicare, medicaid and food

stamps will be at the heart of the debate. >> joining me now to discuss the successes and failures of the war on poverty as it's known are philip cohen, professor of sociology at university of maryland, and olivia golden, executive director of the center for law and social policy for k clasp. let me ask you, on balance, do they work? >> i had a chance in the clinton administration to oversee head start and focus on the programs for low income people. i would say the improvement in nutrition, the ability to reach children with healthcare are extraordinarily important, but

for children which is what i know best, the overall poverty levels remain bright anyoning in 22% to 21%, that's the low wage labor market. it's the ways in which the economy and low-wage jobs are failing us and our public investment is getting us part of the way there. but there is a huge amount less to do. >> professor, same question. >> well, i think that we're doing okay now. the trick is we have to keep score correctly. all the programs that you mentioned other than social security aren't counted in our official poverty measure. but if you take accounting of the snap or food stamps, they're helping families who are facing an economy which is generating

part-time service sector jobs. you have to look at the package, the refundable tax credits which were brought on in 1975, food stamps and earnings. so olivia is right. i think two things change. first the economy changed, but also, and phil will know more about this, but the family changed substantially. >> we'll get to both those things later, but just to see if i understand you, you say these programs on balance have worked in cushioning the worst effects of persistent poverty? >> they cushioned the worth wort facts. effects. the best anti-poverty program that we have in my estimate is the snap or food stamp program. it's targeted exclusively at the poor. it does a tremendous job feeding

people, our most important need, and it keeps many of them from poverty to put together with their wages and with the earned income tax credit. i would say that we have a safety net for low income workers or potential workers in hard times, which is helping them to get along. is it enough? no. what is the answer to poverty for the younger generation or for parents and their kids? a good job that pays wages high enough that they're not poor. >> i think people agree on that. before we go to a break, professor, same question, on balance did these programs do their jobs? >> they didn't do the job of eliminating poverty or eliminating the causes of poverty very well. what they did was alleviate the hardship and suffering associated with low incomes as well as they did. that's debatable. when we look at the number of people, for example, the rapid

rise of millions more people added to the food stamp rolls, do we deem that a success because we're feeding more people or is that a failure because we're not eliminating poverty and the need for it. you have to say it's both. we're certainly better off having these programs than not, in my opinion, but we're not addressing everything that causes poverty. >> later on i do want to talk about that very, very important dichotomy when the paliat approach, and we'll take a short break when we come back we'll talk about just those aspects of what the war on poverty was for. this is "inside story" on al jazeera america. stay with us.

>> welcome back to "inside story." i'm ray suarez. we're looking back at president johnson's war on poverty, and examining what works and what doesn't in the efforts to help americans. professor, i'm wondering as we look back at the design of the great society whether it was meant to provide those millions

of americans that the president was talking to the country about in the early 60s with a way out of poverty or simply to make poverty more bearable. >> the answer always has been to get them out of poverty. the solution is not an income support program. the solution is a good job. the job that pays well. now, unfortunately our economy changed so that we don't have as many of those jobs as we used to. we can't walk out of high school into a factory or construction job or even a public sector job any more and support a family. that's not going to happen. those jobs aren't there. the jobs available are low skill service jobs and there are hasn't thanksgiving many jobs all together. we need to make them as work ready as we can which means investing in skills, training, community colleges,

apprenticeships if we're able to find them, but it also means preparing for the next generation better, expanding on head start, early education making sure that kids do better in elementary and secondary school, those who want to go to college understand what the costs and benefits of going to college are. that's a long run solution for young people. for their parents we need a hot economy. in the late 1990's poverty was falling like a stone, everyone was doing better, single parents included. unemployment was 3%, and if you could walk, talk and chew bubblegum you could get a job in america. today it's a different situation. it's difficult to get a job. if you're unskilled and get a job it's hard to support a family. and if you're a single parent it's hard to work for your full

time and raise a family, too. >> first, what you described is helping people live better. and helping people move out of poverty are very closely related particularly for children. that's one of the ideas behind head start as one of the great society programs, and it's the idea behind child nutrition, child health. it's that growing up and able to thrive is crucial to breaking the poverty. to m me another is the huge chae in those 50 years. many have succeeded poor families have succeeded in doing what we say needed to do, which is work lots more.

but our public institutions have not changed at all. mothers are trying to work, while you look at children in poverty, 22% or almost half of kids in low-income families you find that a third of the kids in poverty are living with a full-time, full-year worker, and most of them with someone who works some of the time. >> professor, did what we expect out of these programs change over time? because earlier on i mentioned that the high watermark of poverty reduction was 1973. not coincidentally, perhaps, that was also the year that adjusted for inflation middle class wages were the highest they've ever been, and they've been going down ever since with the changes that the professor mentioned in the workplace is what we expect out of these programs different?

now the pressure is for people to do more work, not more people. >> the change in family structure with the growth of single-mother families, basically. as the policies have shifted to demand work were recipients of welfare programs. raising children is work. when you're alone you'r you done a spouse to help with that work, and many are trying to support their children and getting the paycheck from the government for raising children that we all benefit from, that we all need to be done effectively there was a popular resentment against them that what they weren't doing was working, and we needed them to work. the problem with pushing single mothers in employment, and most

of them would like to have good jobs that would cover their expenses. the problem with having that as your policy they need to make enough money in those jobs to pay for someone to take care of their children all day, the housing and education care of their children and other relatives. it shifts the whole attitude towards fixing the poverty problem if you're going to then expect single parents to use the wages they're getting to do all the stuff that the programs might otherwise have to do. >> shifting attitudes towards work, the people who do it, and what we expect out of it. we'll take a short break right now. when we come back we'll talk about what success would look like as we assess these programs both looking back over the last 50 years and ahead to the coming years. this is inside story. stay with us.

and in those cases where formal education isn't feasible because of the security situation inside

>> welcome back to inside story. i'm ray suarez. we're talking about the great society 50 years later, and well, it's 50 years later. looking back over my own life i'm just a little bit older than the great society programs themselves, one program in particular, the basic educational opportunity grant made it possible for me to attend an university that i never would have been able to go to without it. so here i am, sitting here, making a nice living, thank you. how do we assess that? do we say, well, then it paid off because you pay taxes, you're a productive citizen, so it worked. or do we say, well, you probably would have been a success without it because i can't know that you wouldn't, it's unsure whether this was a good idea to help pay for you to go to

school? >> i have always thought what you do is you learn from the successes you build on them, and then you go the next step. head start, educational investment, social security which sharply reduced poverty among the elderly over the years. we haven't even talked about that. health insurance reached children and made a big difference to their help an hea. we realize those have worked and we think about the next step of crucial important investment which to me include more on the child care and early childhood side because women are working and because of the devastating effects of poverty on children. they include policies around low wage work, increasing minimum wage and paid sick leave. it's astonishing how many children and how many of our future are growing up in poor families, and work for training and access to higher education.

we work on what works and add the remaining pieces. >> i know it's not data but anecdote, but when i look back at the great society, and i know it changed my life, it's hard for me to know how much it changed my life. it's hard for me to assess how much difference it made in one individual life. help me out here, how would you measure it? >> well, it's hard, ray. the national student loan did the same thing for me. i'm ten years older than you are. it did the same thing for me. we know that education is increasingly expensive. we know that large numbers of children are being born to under educated parents who have a hard time negotiating the education system, and can't support their families by themselves. so it just seems to me that these programs that you mentioned have added. there is plenty of evidence that in the schooling does improve

human capital. it adds to your skill and employable. >> it's not a--it's not a binary difference. you would have been dead or healthy. you would have been somewhat less healthy. would you have been somewhat educated, less well housed. is it hard for us now 50 years removed to figure out what it did and what it didn't do? >> part of problem is i think the war on poverty was the patchwork of a lot of different things, and they changed, and the requirements changed and food stamps is partly about agriculture subsidies, and there are a lot of moving parts. there's not one vision behind it. i think we would gain a lot from--and if we could, and i'm not the policy expert--i would like to see us do something more universal. the universal child credit, guarantee incomed. if added up it might not cost more than what we're doing now but it would be less

bureaucratic floor under everything. >> are you saying that we could spend the same amount of money and spend it better? >> no, i think we have to spend more. i give away trillions pretty easily. >> then we would have to borrow. >> yes, but the good thing about job programs you're going to give it to people who spend it. they create jobs, it's moving movable money around. >> just to put my research hat on quickly, the other thing that we know about is the cost of poverty, my colleagues at the urban institute when i was there looked at the cost of childhood poverty with adult incarceration, that's a huge number as well. we shouldn't think of it as though the cost of the program is the only cost, but it's what you avert. >> but incarceration got higher

when jo unemployment was low. >> there is not a perfect way of doing it, but the accumulation of evidence says that childhood poverty is associated with a whole set of adult bad outcomes. >> well thank you. olivia, peter, timothy, good to talk to you all. that brings us to the end of this edition of "inside story." the program may be over, but the conversation continues. we want to hear what you think about the issues on this day's or any day's show. log on to our facebook page or send us your thoughts on twitter. or you can reach me directly @ray suarez news. we'll see you for the next edition of "inside story." in washington, i'm ray suarez.

>> jose antonio elena rodriguez was 16 when he was killed with a bullet through the head by the united states border patrol. nine more shots went into body, as he lay on the ground in his hometown, nogales mexico. the bullets fired from the top of this cliff in arizona traveled through an international boundary, and into a legal vacuum. >>e agent has never been named.