The temptation is to respond mainly by pointing to the proven efficacy of Medicaid, food stamps, the Women's, Infants, and Children nutrition program, etc., in improving the health of impoverished children and adults. The main purpose of these kinds of programs is not to lift people out of poverty but to reduce the harmful effects of poverty. On those terms, studies have showed they have succeeded.

But the more important point to emphasize is that the tax cuts for the rich that constitute the heart of conservative ideology and the president's economic agenda have coincided with lousy economic performance by any number or measures, including a notable increase in poverty. The poverty rate has increased from 11.3 percent in 2000 to 12.7 percent—about 5.4 million more Americans are in poverty today. Childhood poverty rates have climbed from 16.2 percent to 17.8 percent during the Bush presidency. In contrast, poverty declined substantially during the eight years of the Clinton administration, when the economy stayed hot for a prolonged period in the wake of substantial, yes, tax increases. The poverty rate under Clinton fell from 14.8 percent to 11.3 percent; childhood poverty dropped from 22.3 percent to 16.2 percent.

When it comes to efforts to lift people out of poverty, it is the conservative agenda that is failing. Since the administration's primary response is to just extend the tax cuts for the rich further, we are the ones who should be saying, "This is not the time to expand a policy that is failing anyway; the right is just talking up an old paradigm: 'let's expand what failed before.'"

Greg Anrig, Jr., is vice president for programs at The Century Foundation.