Poverty

Subterms

    Latest story

    100 Shares189 Views

    The Unnecessary Suffering of Women With Obstetric Fistulas

    by

    One of the most dangerous things a woman can do in much of the world is become pregnant, and the risks caught up with a Kenyan named Alice Wanjiru a decade ago.Then 20 years old and pregnant for the first time, she suffered a childbirth injury called an obstetric fistula, caused by prolonged labor without access to a C-section to end it. This left her with a hole in the tissue between her rectum and her vagina, and for 10 years she endured the humiliation of continually leaking stool through her genital tract.“I could never get fully clean, for there was always some stool left,” she told me. “The other women would say, ‘She is the woman who stinks.’ I would ask God, ‘Why me? Why can’t I be like other women?’”Wanjiru bathed herself several times a day, fasted from morning until evening so there wouldn’t be much in her digestive tract during the day, and always wore a sanitary pad. Doctors misdiagnosed her, sex was a nightmare and her husband abandoned her after harshly accusing her of having poor hygiene.Shamed by the continuous odor, she withdrew from friends and stayed home from church and other gatherings. She endured her shame in solitude, year after year.Perhaps one million or two million women worldwide are enduring fistulas and leak stool or, more commonly, urine through their vaginas. These are typically impoverished women in poor countries where home births are the norm, who couldn’t get to a doctor in time for a needed C-section.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans take aim at subsidies that help tens of millions of women

      by

      As they prepare to take control of the White House and Congress next month, conservatives are eyeing cutbacks to federal programs that help tens of millions of women pay for healthcare, food, housing and transportation.Slashing or overhauling social support programs, long a goal of Republican lawmakers, could be catastrophic for women experiencing poverty. Supporters contend the social safety-net programs are already grossly underfunded.“With this new administration that is coming in … I really am concerned about the lives of women. We are seeing so many policies, so many budget cuts,” said Christian Nunes, president of the National Organization for Women.Republicans say they want to keep campaign promises to cut government spending, and three major programs make easy targets: Medicaid, the joint state/federal health insurance program for people with lower incomes; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), a cash-allowance program that replaced welfare; and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), widely known as food stamps.While conservatives frame cuts as making government more efficient and even restoring freedom, advocates for and experts on families with little or no income say reducing these programs will throw more people – especially women and children – further into poverty.“It is going to fall heavily on women,” said Elaine Waxman, a senior fellow in the Income and Benefits Policy Center at the Urban Institute, a non-profit research organization.Predicting precisely what Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration will do is difficult. Congressional leaders are close-mouthed about negotiations, and the president-elect has not finished putting together his advisory team. None of the spokespeople contacted for this story returned calls or e-mails.But organizations known to advise top leaders in Congress and the previous Trump administration have laid out fairly detailed roadmaps.Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for the incoming administration, denies its proposed changes will harm women, saying instead that marriage and “family values” will improve their economic situations. “Marriage, healthy family formation, and delaying sex to prevent pregnancy are virtually ignored in terms of priorities, yet these goals can reverse the cycle of poverty in meaningful ways,” reads the section on proposed changes to TANF and Snap.Numerous other groups that have studied the problem say forcing or even encouraging marriage will not make poverty disappear. And a recent study by a team at the University of South Carolina found that when state laws make it harder for pregnant women to get divorced, they’re more likely to be killed by their partners.Trump has promised not to attack the two most expensive and popular government programs: social security and Medicare. But he and Congress are up against a deadline to extend his 2017 tax reforms, which raised the federal deficit. They’ll have to cut something, and social spending programs, especially the $805bn Medicaid program, are low-hanging fruit for conservatives.Trump repeatedly tried to slash Snap during his last tenure in office: his 2021 budget proposal would have cut the program by more than $180bn – nearly 30% – over 10 years. Conservatives in Congress have continued these efforts and, with majorities in the House and Senate, they may be able to get them through next year.The Republican Study Committee, whose members include about three-quarters of the House Republican caucus, recommends more work requirements for Snap and TANF.“SNAP and our welfare system should embrace that work conveys dignity and self-sustainment and encourage individuals to find gainful employment, not reward them for staying at home,” their plan, released in March, reads.A large body of research questions whether widening work requirements does anything other than force people off benefits without helping them find employment. “I think there is a misperception that people in need of help are not working,” said Mei Powers, chief development and communications officer at Martha’s Table, a non-profit aid organization in Washington DC. “People are a paycheck, a crisis, a broken-down car away from needing services.”Snap currently helps 41 million people buy groceries and other necessities every month. Women accounted for more than 55% of people under 65 receiving Snap benefits in 2022, according to the National Women’s Law Center, a gender justice advocacy group. About one-third of them were women of color, the NWLC said.Among other things, cutting these programs will trap women in dangerous situations, the NWLC said: “SNAP helps survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault establish basic economic security.”TANF, which provides cash assistance, overwhelmingly benefits women. In 2022, 370,000 TANF adult recipients were female and 69,000 were male, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.Perhaps Medicaid is the most tempting target for conservatives because they can use it to undermine the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. The GOP has been gunning for the ACA since it was signed into law without a single Republican vote in 2010.The federal government shares the cost of Medicaid with states. The ACA aimed to make Medicaid cover more people by offering to pay for virtually all the extra costs. Many Republican-led states resisted for years, but as of November, all but 10 states had expanded coverage to an extra 21 million people, or about a quarter of all Medicaid recipients.Medicaid pays for more than 40% of births in the US, plus it covers new mothers for post-pregnancy-related issues for 60 days. It also pays for medical care for 60% of all nursing home residents, more than 70% of whom are women.According to the health research organization KFF, expanding Medicaid helped improve care for women before and during pregnancy and after they gave birth.But most Republicans in Congress have never approved of this federal spending. Proposed cuts to Medicaid funding, which would save hundreds of billions of dollars, are laid out by the Paragon Health Institute, a conservative health thinktank headed by Brian Blase, a top health adviser to the first Trump administration.Experts predict states would be unable or unwilling to make up the difference. “Facing such drastic reductions in federal Medicaid funding, states will have no choice but to institute truly draconian cuts to eligibility, benefits and provider reimbursement rates,” Edwin Park, research professor at Georgetown University, wrote in an analysis.That would mean women, children, older adults and people with disabilities would lose coverage as facilities closed and providers stopped seeing patients.The effects, says the National Organization for Women, “will be widespread, devastating, and long-lasting”.This story is published in partnership with the Fuller Project, a non-profit newsroom dedicated to the coverage of women’s issues around the world. Sign up for the Fuller Project’s newsletter. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Breaking the Cycle of Childhood Poverty in New York

      by

      This is part of an Opinion series on The New York Times Communities Fund, which assists nonprofits that provide direct support to people and communities facing hardship. Donate to the fund here. .g-goldbergseriesinfo a { text-decoration: underline; color: inherit; text-decoration-thickness: 1px; text-underline-offset: 2px; } .g-goldbergseriesinfo{ position: relative; display: flex; overflow: hidden; box-sizing: border-box; padding: 1.125rem […] More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      World Bank Warns of Record Debt Costs for Developing Countries

      by

      The World Bank warned in a new report that poor countries will be stuck in economic “purgatory” without debt relief.Soaring inflation saddled developing countries with a record $1.4 trillion in debt servicing costs last year, the World Bank said in a report published on Tuesday, detailing the precarious state faced by the world’s most vulnerable economies since the pandemic.As central banks around the world raised interest rates to slow rising prices, poor countries with already high debt burdens saw the interest payments on the money that they owed to creditors balloon. While principal balances held steady at around $951 billion, interest payments jumped by a third, to $406 billion. That has left more countries facing fiscal crises and struggling to avoid default.“These facts imply a metastasizing solvency crisis that continues to be misdiagnosed as a liquidity problem in many of the poorest countries,” Indermit Gill, the World Bank’s chief economist, wrote in the report. “It is easy to kick the can down the road, to provide these countries just enough financing to help them meet their immediate repayment obligations. But that simply extends their purgatory.”More than a dozen sovereign nations defaulted on their debt in the last three years, and more than 30 of the world’s poorest countries have experienced “debt distress,” according to the United Nations. In 2023, Belarus, Ghana, Lebanon, Sri Lanka and Zambia were all in default, according to Fitch Ratings.Global financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have been working with international lenders to help developing countries restructure their debt, but the process has been slow and painstaking. China, the world’s largest creditor, has been particularly reluctant to alter the terms of its loans as it grapples with its own economic challenges.The Biden administration has been critical of China’s lending practices. Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen described them as “opaque” in an interview with The New York Times in October in which she called for accelerating debt relief. She also raised the idea of helping nations find new sources of borrowing by creating coordinated aid packages for “high-ambition countries” that want to invest in clean energy projects.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      A Loss and Damage Fund Is Taking Shape at COP Climate Talks

      by

      The U.N. climate summit in Azerbaijan has cleared the for way aid to flow when lower-income countries are hit.A long-awaited fund designed to help lower-income countries respond to natural disasters is finally taking shape at the U.N. climate conference in Baku, Azerbaijan.Wealthy nations agreed to create the fund at the 2022 climate summit in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt, after decades of resistance. Last year, a group of nations, including the United States and the European Union, made the first financial commitments.Now, the fund has a leader and is looking to start distributing money within the next year.Ibrahima Cheikh Diong, who has Senegalese and American citizenship and has held roles at financial firms and at development banks, started this month as the inaugural executive director of the initiative, which is formally known as the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage.At this year’s climate summit, known as COP29, formal agreements were signed that will allow the fund to begin formally receiving the money that has been pledged and to start distributing it soon. The fund is being managed by the United Nations, and the World Bank is serving as a financial trustee.Sweden this month became the latest country to make a pledge, with its $19 million contribution bringing total commitments to around $720 million.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘A once-in-a-generation change’: Oregon’s biggest city prepares for monumental overhaul of government

      by

      When voters in Portland, Oregon, head to the polls next month, they will be tasked not only with selecting new leaders, but also the implementation of a monumental overhaul of the city’s government.Two years ago, residents moved to fundamentally alter their local government structure and adopted what experts have described as some of the most “expansive voting reforms” undertaken by a major US city in recent decades. Come November, the city will use ranked-choice voting to elect a mayor and a larger, more representative city council as Portland moves from a commission form of government to one overseen by a city administrator.The shake-up comes after challenging years for Portland in which the city of 630,000 grappled with a declining downtown, rising homelessness, a fentanyl crisis, growing public drug use and the continued economic impacts of the pandemic years.While some news coverage has portrayed the shift as Portlanders rejecting the city’s historically progressive values, those involved with the project counter that residents are embracing democratic reforms that will lead to a more equitable government better equipped to solve the city’s problems.“It was really clear that this system was, as operated, very inequitable,” said Jenny Lee, managing director of Building Power for Communities of Color, a non-profit that was a key proponent of the effort.“And the challenges in governing are going to be felt the most by those who already have been marginalized in our political system.”Now the city waits to see what the “once-in-a-generation” change will mean for its future.Since 1913, Portland has used a commission form of government. The commission consisted of five people elected citywide and who were responsible for passing policies and also acting as administrators in charge of city departments.The system was briefly popular in other major US cities, but then largely abandoned, said Richard Clucas, a political science professor at Portland State University.“Most cities who adopted that form of government realized there were problems with it,” he said. “Someone may be good as a legislator but it doesn’t make them good as an administrator.”View image in fullscreenAnd Portland’s system had long failed to adequately represent different demographics in the city, Lee said. The city’s elected officials historically have been white men from more affluent areas where residents are more likely to have a higher income and own their homes, according to the Sightline Institute. In 2017, only two people of color had ever been elected to the city council.Under the charter system, simple decisions – such as where to put a bike lane – were politicized, said Shoshanah Oppenheim, the charter transition project manager.“It was based on the political tide,” said Oppenheim, who is also a senior adviser in the city administrator’s office.For more than a century, Portlanders rejected attempts to reform the commission system, but that changed when the 10-year review of the city charter coincided with upheaval and challenges of the pandemic years.The pandemic exacerbated the existing limitations of the city’s form of government, according to a report from Harvard’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation chronicling Portland’s reforms.Meanwhile, Portland was the site of widespread racial justice protests and an ensuing federal crackdown, the city’s economic recovery from the pandemic was slow, and residents grew increasingly disillusioned with their leaders’ ability to make meaningful progress tackling homelessness and drug abuse.Those challenges created an opportunity to have meaningful conversations about elections and government, Lee said.Clucas echoed that sentiment: “I think the public was looking and happy to take on some sort of change.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionCommunity leaders had spent years educating themselves about electoral reform, and saw an opportunity to create change in the city, the report stated.With support from community organizations and local activists, the commission brought a measure before voters that would make key changes to the city’s system, allowing voters to rank local candidates in order of preference, expand the city council from five to 12 representatives elected from four newly created districts, and move to a system of government overseen by a professional city administrator.Despite criticism about the complexity of the measure and opposition from political leaders and the business community, 58% of voters approved the package of reforms proposed by the commission.Although the timing coincided with major changes and social issues, Lee said the reforms were not reactionary and instead an example of Portland being willing to try new things, which ties into Oregon’s long history of democratic reforms aimed at making government more participatory.“It was a message about change, but it was definitely a hopeful one,” she said. “It was always about these changes will make our government more effective and equitable.”The city has spent the last two years preparing for a project unlike anything Portland has seen before,Oppenheim said. “We had a really short timeline … It’s been an all-hands-on-deck approach,” she said. “There is no playbook. We are making it up as we go along.”Next month, voters will decided among more than 100 candidates for 12 council seats and 19 candidates for mayor. A recent poll from the Oregonian suggested a once-longshot candidate, whose campaign has focused on ending homelessness, is well positioned to win.In a poll of roughly 300 voters from early October, before election packets were sent out, two-thirds responded that they understood how voting works very well or somewhat well. People tend to understand the system right away given that they rank things every day, Oppenheim said.The city has also developed a voter education program to inform residents about the changes and trained operators on its information line how to explain ranked-choice voting.The hope is that voters will feel the increased power of their vote, Lee said. “Every vote has a lot of power. Your constituents’ voices really matter. Their second- and third-choice rankings actually really matter.”After the election, the other major test comes next year when Portland’s new government takes the reins. “We want to be ready on day one so all the city business can continue,” Oppenheim said.“Portlanders have huge expectations for change and we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to do things better,” Oppenheim said. “They want a more representative government. We have it in our power to deliver that.” More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump and Harris Both Like a Child Tax Credit but With Different Aims

      by

      Kamala Harris’s campaign is pushing a version of the credit intended to fight child poverty, while Donald J. Trump sees the program primarily as a tax cut for people higher up the income scale.Vice President Kamala Harris has made an expanded child tax credit central to her campaign, and former President Donald J. Trump boasts, “I doubled the child tax credit.” With a quick look, voters might think the child-rearing subsidy the rare matter on which the rival candidates agree.It is anything but. The common vocabulary masks profound differences over which parents the government should help and what constitutes fairness for children in a country of great wealth and inequality.Mr. Trump sees the $110 billion program mostly as a tax cut, which as president he increased to $2,000 per child and extended to high-income families. But his policy denies the full benefit to the poorest quarter of children because their parents earn too little and owe no income tax.Ms. Harris would expand the tax cuts and add a large anti-poverty plan, sending checks to millions of parents with low pay or no jobs. That would turn a tax cut into an income guarantee, in a landmark expansion of the safety net.Supporters of the Harris plan say the payments would shrink child poverty. Critics see an expensive welfare scheme that could weaken the willingness to work.“They’re both talking about something called the ‘child tax credit,’ but they’re not at all talking about the same policy,” said Scott Winship of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 200 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      The American dream is dead for many. Social democracy can bring it back | Bhaskar Sunkara

      by

      I love the United States. My parents came here from Trinidad and Tobago the year before I was born, and they and my four siblings eventually became citizens. My parents struggled for many years to get established here, but it has offered us everything – security, belonging, opportunity.Yet for many Americans, particularly those who have been in this country for generations building the foundations of American prosperity, the American dream is not alive and well.This point can’t be debated with measures of the United States’ relative affluence; it’s what American workers are telling us, both through how they respond to polls directly on the question and through the political views they increasingly hold. The question isn’t if the American dream is dead, it’s how we go about reviving it.By the time the writer James Truslow Adams popularized the phrase “American dream” in the 1930s, it had already existed as an ethos for generations. Despite the country’s brutality towards Black and Native people, there is a reason why masses of workers saw the United States as a place without the leftovers of feudalism and aristocratic privilege holding people back. Even Karl Marx himself looked to the world’s “most progressive nation” to lead a “new era of ascendancy” for the working classes after the triumph of Union forces in the civil war.Today, however, few at home or abroad hold such hopes for our country.Since it’s just a broad idea, we can’t measure the American dream in empirical terms. If it’s alive, it would be found in the minds of ordinary citizens who feel like they’re part of a project that is rooted in both their individual advancement and national advancement as a whole. And simply, the American dream is dead because ordinary Americans say it’s dead.Only 27% of people polled this year said “the American dream holds true.” Just 13 years ago, it was double that number. This doesn’t just reflect increasing cynicism in general: a majority of Americans say “the American dream once held true but doesn’t any more.” What’s happened to change so many of our minds?That polling isn’t uniform and correlates closely to both income and education, both proxies for social class. Among Americans who don’t have four-year college degrees only 22% say that American dream still holds true, half the mark of those with postgraduate degrees. Our national crisis of confidence is mostly a working-class problem.Americans as a whole, critics retort, are wealthier than ever. But, rather than argue with them, if we want to figure out why people don’t feel like they’re staying above water, we need to examine issues of income disparity and social wealth.The widening life expectancy gap between poor and rich Americans, which now averages more than 10 years, is perhaps the most dramatic example of a basic point that most of us take for granted: a kid growing up in a wealthy area is likely to have a wildly better life outcome compared to one growing up in a poor one.By most measures, the US has among the lowest rates of social mobility of any rich country. And our income disparity is even more stark when considering not just pre-tax wages, but the more expansive “social wage” provided in other countries. The Harvard economist Raj Chetty has shown the depth of the problem. By his measure, US absolute mobility – the chance a child will earn more than their parents – has fallen from 90% for children born in 1940 to 50% for children born in the 1980s. The problem isn’t just that growth rates have declined. Chetty and his co-authors note that an economy that maintains our current income disparity but restores growth to booming 1940s and 50s levels would only increase absolute mobility to 62%.This problem of social mobility is compounded by issues of social welfare owing from our poorly designed entitlements, which are unable to deliver results as well as universal welfare states in Europe that offer things like childcare for new families, guaranteed national healthcare, and free vocation and trade schools.Another key difference between the US and northern Europe? The role of trade unions and other forms of working-class representation. In 1983, over 20% of Americans belonged to a union. That number is 10% now, compared with almost 70% in countries like Denmark and Sweden.The loss of good union jobs, particularly in manufacturing, persistent poverty and hopelessness have fueled social ills in communities across the country.To name just a few of their consequences: we face a serious problem with drug use and overdoses, with 107,543 people dying last year alone. Alcohol abuse has gone up dramatically, as have alcohol-related deaths. Between mass shootings and ordinary crime, people don’t feel safe, and our politicians seem to accept as natural fact that we’re destined to be a country with eight times the murder rate of Germany or where children need to pay attention during “active shooter” drills.Taken together, it’s obvious that you’d have a better chance of living the American dream in Europe than you would in America.Of course, some of the pessimism that people feel is inflamed by ideological actors. From parts of the left, earnest attempts to right historical wrongs might have fueled an excess of negativity about the progress we’ve made in recent decades. On the right, a much more dangerous tendency is built around the idea that immigration – a key component of the American dream and our economic progress – is a social ill that needs to be combated.Thankfully, the United States has a rich, dynamic economy. That’s a good thing and it allows us to support well-designed universal programs to improve the social mobility and material wellbeing of our poor and working classes. We can pursue taxation policies that better redistribute wealth and create greater state support for health care, childcare, housing and job training. We can shift the funding of K-12 education away from unequal property taxes and to a more equal base of federal support. We can also support worker unionization and expand policies to revitalize domestic manufacturing.As for concerns over immigration, a key part of Donald Trump’s appeal, we can support native-born workers feeling pressure in the job market from immigrants without elevating their situation to a zero-sum, existential battle in which either new Americans or established Americans will survive.We also, however, need to rally behind a vision of politics to go with these social-democratic policies. A vision of politics in which we assert the moral worth of every American and strive together to build a healthier and more optimistic society.We can’t pretend like things are going great in our country. But we also must reject the pessimism that says things must stay like this.

      Bhaskar Sunkara is the president of the Nation, founding editor of Jacobin and author of The Socialist Manifesto: The Case for Radical Politics in an Era of Extreme Inequalities More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Are Right: One Party is ‘Anti-Family and Anti-Kid’

      by

      In attacking Democrats and Kamala Harris, Republicans have been making a legitimate point: One of our major political parties has worked to undermine America’s families.The problem? While neither party has done enough to support families and children, the one that is failing most egregiously is — not surprisingly — the one led by the thrice-married tycoon who tangled with a porn star, boasted about grabbing women by the genitals and was found by a jury to have committed sexual assault.You’d think that would make it awkward for the Republican Party to preach family values. But with the same chutzpah with which Donald Trump reportedly marched into a dressing room where teenage girls were half-naked, the G.O.P. claims that it’s the Democrats who betray family values.“The rejection of the American family is perhaps the most pernicious and most evil thing that the left has done in this country,” JD Vance said in 2021. Pressed on those remarks last month, he went further in a conversation with Megyn Kelly, saying that Democrats “have become anti-family and anti-kid.”This is gibberish. Children are more likely to be poor, to die young and to drop out of high school in red states than in blue states. The states with the highest divorce rates are mostly Republican, and with some exceptions like Utah, it’s in red states that babies are more likely to be born to unmarried mothers (partly because of lack of access to reliable contraception).One of President Biden’s greatest achievements was to cut the child poverty rate by almost half, largely with the refundable child tax credit. Then Republicans killed the program, sending child poverty soaring again.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More