Poverty

Subterms

    Latest story

    75 Shares37 Views

    Sebastião Salgado: A Life in Pictures

    by

    From the small town in the Brazilian countryside where he was born, Sebastião Salgado, the renowned photojournalist who died on Friday at 81, traveled the world many times over, documenting the plight of workers and chasing the grandeur, diversity and, ultimately, fragility of nature.In photographs — most often in richly contrasting black and white — Mr. Salgado brought viewers to famine-stricken refugee camps in Ethiopia, to a hive of toiling gold miners in Brazil, to firefighters battling burning oil fields in Kuwait, and to chinstrap penguins sliding down ice slopes in the Sandwich Islands.Mr. Salgado had a gift for bringing together, often in a single frame, the immediacy of individual human suffering and the enormity of the dire realities that he documented. His photographs, frequently displayed in museums and galleries, often show a figure standing against the horizon. Cloud-filled skies are reflected on the surface of a river in the Amazon rainforest. Rays of heavenly light pour down onto mountain landscapes in the tundra, signaling to the viewer that this place is divine.This is the world Mr. Salgado left us: beautiful, fragile, sacred. Here is a selection of his work.Sebastião Salgado/Amazonas Images, via Contact Press Images/Peter Fetterman GalleryRefugees in the Korem camp in Ethiopia, 1984.Sebastião Salgado/Amazonas Images, via Contact Press Images/Peter Fetterman GalleryThe Rwandan refugee camp in Benako, Tanzania, in 1994. Right, children inside the Kimumba camp in Goma, Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of Congo.Sebastião Salgado/Amazonas Images, via Contact Press Images/Peter Fetterman GalleryWorkers in a gold mine in the northern Brazilian state of Pará in 1986. Some of Mr. Salgado’s most famous images were of workers climbing from the bottom of the mine to the dumping ground at the top while carrying 30 kilos of soil on slick ladders.Sebastião Salgado/Amazonas Images, via Contact Press Images/Peter Fetterman GalleryChurchgate Station in Mumbai, India, in 1995. Mr. Salgado published “Migrations” in 2000, a series documenting the mass migration of people forced to leave their homes by war or economic hardship.Sebastião Salgado/Amazonas Images, via Contact Press Images/Peter Fetterman GalleryChemical sprays protect this firefighter against the flames from a burning oil well in Kuwait in April 1991. Mr. Saldado’s photo essay “The Kuwaiti Inferno” was published in The New York Times Magazine in June 1991.Sebastião Salgado/Amazonas Images, via Contact Press Images/Peter Fetterman GalleryMembers of the Safety Boss Company of Canada worked to plug damaged oil wells, an effort to repair damage done by Iraqi troops.Sebastião Salgado/Amazonas Images, via Contact Press Images/Peter Fetterman GalleryMr. Salgado had been traveling for his epic ecological work “Genesis,” a series about the effects of human activities on the environment.Photographs by Sebastião Salgado/Amazonas Images, via Contact Press Images/Peter Fetterman GalleryMr. Salgado spent years traveling across the Amazon, capturing arresting images of vast rivers and rainforests while documenting the impact of development on natural landscapes and Indigenous communities.Photographs by Sebastião Salgado/Amazonas Images, via Contact Press Images/Peter Fetterman GalleryMembers of the Yanomami tribe from the community of Maturacá in 2014, looking out to the mountain vegetation on the flanks of Pico da Neblina, or Mist Peak. The Yanomami believe their most important spirits inhabit these mountains, which were long occupied by hundreds of gold diggers, until 1992, when the Brazilian Army expelled all of them. The tribe keeps watch over the region for potential intruders. A shaman, chanting and dancing, prepared the expedition up to the peak. More

    More stories

    • 150 Shares71 Views

      in Elections

      Millions Could Lose Food Stamp Benefits Under Trump Tax Bill, Analysis Finds

      by

      Others could see their monthly benefits reduced if the bill were to become law, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.Millions of low-income Americans could lose access to food stamps or see reductions in their monthly benefits as a result of House Republicans’ newly adopted tax bill, according to an analysis released Thursday from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.The findings underscore the significant trade-offs in the party’s signature legislative package, which seeks to save money by cutting federal anti-poverty programs in a move that may leave some of the poorest Americans in worse financial shape.To save nearly $300 billion over the next decade, Republicans proposed a series of new rules that would tighten eligibility under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Under their bill, a wider range of aid recipients would be required to obtain work to qualify for federal help.Republicans say the change aims to reduce waste and ensure that the federal government provides food stamps only to the truly needy. They have similarly looked to expand work requirements to Medicaid, which provides health insurance to low-income Americans.Still, the work mandate could reduce participation in SNAP by more than three million people in an average month over the next decade, according to the budget office, which studied a version of the party’s recently approved legislative package.Republicans also proposed to have states assume some of the costs for the federal food stamp program, an idea that has troubled some governors, who say their budgets cannot afford to shoulder the responsibility.As a result, congressional budget scorekeepers estimated the shift could result in an average of 1.3 million people losing access to SNAP. They attributed the reduction to the fact that some states may opt to “modify benefits or eligibility or possibly leave the program altogether because of the increased costs.”Issuing its analysis, the budget office cautioned it could not produce one total, concise estimate of the number of people who could lose anti-hunger aid, given the possibility of overlap and the potential interactions with changes to other federal programs.Still, the budget office estimated that many of Republicans’ proposed changes would reduce eligibility while cutting benefit amounts for those who do remain on the program. A small percentage of households could even see a roughly $100 reduction in their monthly allowance because of a provision that would change how some benefits are computed, according to the analysis. More

    • 150 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Republican Tax Bill May Hurt the Lowest Earners and Help the Richest

      by

      Even though most Americans may see lower taxes, Republicans’ spending cuts could outweigh those benefits and leave some worse off.As Representative Jason Smith commenced a marathon session this week to consider a sprawling and expensive Republican tax package, he took special care to emphasize his party’s commitment to “hard-working Americans.”“Pro-growth tax policy will shift our economy toward one that serves them, not the wealthy and well-connected,” Mr. Smith, the Missouri lawmaker who leads the House’s top tax panel, proclaimed.But the proposal he is trying to get to President Trump’s desk ultimately tells a more complicated story. The Republican tax plan may offer only modest gains to everyday workers, according to a wide range of tax experts, and some taxpayers may actually be left in worse financial shape if the bill becomes law.The latest assessment arrived Friday from the Penn Wharton Budget Model, a nonpartisan scorekeeper closely watched on Capitol Hill. Economists found that many Americans who make less than $51,000 a year would see their after-tax income fall as a result of the Republican proposal beginning in 2026.The Penn Wharton estimate sought to analyze the full scope of the Republican tax package, computing the effects of the tax cuts as well as the plan to pay for them by slashing federal spending on other programs, including Medicaid and food stamps. Combined, those policies could fall disproportionately on the poorest, including those near or below the poverty line, the economists found.People making between about $51,000 and $17,000 could lose about $700 on average in after-tax income beginning in 2026, according to the analysis, when factoring in both wages and federal aid. That reduction would worsen over the next eight years. People reporting less than $17,000 in income would see a reduction closer to $1,000, on average, also increasing over time, a shortfall that underscores their reliance on federal benefits.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

    • 113 Shares76 Views

      in Elections

      New York’s Deepest Pockets Turn Out to Fight Poverty

      by

      Thousands of Wall Street big shots crowded into the Javits Center Monday night for the annual Robin Hood gala. Founded in 1988, Robin Hood is one of New York’s largest anti-poverty groups, and its yearly fund-raiser lures the city’s deepest pockets for a night that results in millions in grants.A sea of men in navy jackets and brown oxfords filed through metal detectors to enter the cavernous hall, which was decked out with sports-themed decorations that included a giant inflatable basketball and baseball mitt. Thirsty bankers and hedge fund managers ordered vodka tonics and pours of Johnnie Walker Black Label at a bar housed in a soccer net. Boxers standing on small podiums jabbed at bright green punching bags that read “#fightpoverty.”After a marching band and a cheerleading squad performed, some 3,500 guests filed into an arena-like dining hall filled with hundreds of tables populated with sports, politics and finance figures. They included the National Football League’s commissioner Roger Goodell, the former N.F.L. quarterback Colin Kaepernick, the philanthropist Laurie M. Tisch and former Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Serena Williams sat beside her husband, Alexis Ohanian, one of the founders of Reddit and a Robin Hood board member.As the former New York Giants quarterback Eli Manning tucked into a plate of fried chicken, he considered the importance of giving back.“This city is filled with the people who root for me and who have rooted for me,” Mr. Manning said, “and I think all New York athletes and sports teams have a responsibility to give back.”Gov. Kathy HochulDolly Faibyshev for The New York TimesWe 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

    • 113 Shares151 Views

      in Elections

      In Trump Tax Package, Republicans Target SNAP Food Program

      by

      Limiting funding for SNAP could help defray the costs of President Trump’s tax plans, but could result in millions of low-income families losing access to aid. House Republicans on Monday proposed a series of sharp restrictions on the federal anti-hunger program known as food stamps, seeking to limit its funding and benefits as part of a sprawling package to advance President Trump’s tax cuts.The proposal, included in a draft measure to be considered by the House Agriculture Committee this week, would require states to supply some of the funding for food stamps while forcing more of its beneficiaries to obtain employment in exchange for federal aid. The moves could result in potentially millions of low-income families losing access to the safety net program. But G.O.P. leaders insist that their approach would improve the provision of food stamp benefits while helping to defray the cost of Mr. Trump’s expensive legislative ambitions.House Republicans said in a statement on Monday that their proposal emphasized “reinforcing work, rooting out waste, and instituting long-overdue accountability incentives to control costs and end executive and state overreach.”The Republican overhaul specifically targets the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP With a roughly $110 billion annual budget, it is the federal government’s largest nutrition assistance initiative, providing monthly allotments to an average of 42 million people in the 2025 fiscal year, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which manages the program.Proponents of the food stamp program say that it has long served as a critical lifeline for low-income families by ensuring that they do not experience hunger in a nation where about one in seven reported food insecurity at some point during 2023, according to federal data released in September.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

    • 138 Shares107 Views

      in US Politics

      Newsom calls on California cities to ban homeless encampments ‘without delay’

      by

      Gavin Newsom has called on California cities and counties to clear and effectively ban encampments “without delay” as the governor intensifies a crackdown on homelessness in the state.Newsom on Monday announced a new model ordinance to address “persistent” camps, in hopes of reducing the most visible signs of a worsening crisis, as well as $3.3bn in voter-approved funding to increase housing and drug treatment programs.“There’s nothing compassionate about letting people die on the streets. Local leaders asked for resources – we delivered the largest state investment in history. They asked for legal clarity – the courts delivered,” Newsom said in a statement.“Now, we’re giving them a model they can put to work immediately, with urgency and with humanity, to resolve encampments and connect people to shelter, housing, and care. The time for inaction is over. There are no more excuses.”California has the largest population of unsheltered people in the US with more than 180,000 people in the state experiencing homelessness, including 123,000 people living outside, according to a 2023 count. The state – and local governments across California – have begun enacting harsher anti-camping policies following a US supreme court’s ruling last year that cities can criminalize unhoused people for sleeping outside – even if there are no available shelter spaces.Newsom has escalated efforts to force local governments into action since the 2024 supreme court decision, warning counties that he could withhold state support if they did not do more sweeps. In February, he told cities and counties they could lose out on hundreds of millions of dollars in state funding if they do not make progress in eradicating encampments and reducing homelessness.In a statement this week the governor’s office pointed to its own approach that it said had cleared more than 16,000 encampments and was “effective and scalable”. The model ordinance introduced by the office includes provisions it said can be modified to suit local needs, including a ban on persistent camping in one location, a ban on encampments blocking sidewalks and a requirement for local officials to provide notice and offer shelter before clearing an encampment.The governor is seeking to help municipalities set “rules around encampments and establish effective enforcement procedures that prioritize notice, shelter and services”, according to the statement.“Encampments pose a serious public safety risk, and expose the people in encampments to increased risk of sexual violence, criminal activity, property damage and break-ins, and unsanitary conditions,” the news release said. More

    • 200 Shares110 Views

      in US Politics

      This Mother’s Day, lets talk about why birth rates are really declining | Katrina vanden Heuvel

      by

      Mother’s Day is here, and while Donald Trump may seem an unlikely celebrant of the occasion, his administration has recently floated several proposals to incentivize motherhood – or, more accurately, giving birth. There’s the $5,000 “baby bonus” for every American mother, free classes educating women on their menstrual cycles and a National Medal of Motherhood for moms who have at least six children. (Want to guess which regime also awarded such a medal?)As usual, the president has offered ridiculous solutions to a very real problem. He’s certainly right that every American should be able to afford to raise children, and that programs like social security depend on stable demographics. But of course, every other action he has taken to undermine gender equality would suggest that this sudden interest in the wellbeing of mothers is less than sincere. That’s exactly why progressives have an opening to break up what the Republican party believes to be its ideological monopoly on pro-family policies.The roots of the fertility crisis engage the bread-and-butter issues that have long been the domain of Democrats. US birthrates have hit a record low not because the nation has become “almost pathologically anti-child”, as JD Vance asserted to the New York Times. Instead, surveys have shown that would-be parents want to own a home, repay student debt and have money for childcare before starting a family. Yet the average age of a homebuyer has climbed to 56, almost double what it was 40 years ago. And 43% of young people currently carry student debt, compared with 28% in 1993. The problem isn’t lack of interest – it’s too much interest being paid on record high loans.But most of the Trump administration’s floated fixes are unoriginal swipes from the undemocratic leaders they admire. In 2017, Vladimir Putin declared a “Decade of Childhood in Russia”, an innocent name for a program that calls for everything from defending so-called family values to encouraging conjugal trysts during workplace coffee breaks to censoring “childfree propaganda”. Meanwhile, Viktor Orbán has dedicated 5% of Hungary’s GDP to pronatalist policies, which include nationalized IVF services and lifetime tax exemptions for mothers with three children. These men are carrying on an authoritarian tradition begun by the original strongman, Benito Mussolini, whose “Battle for Births” portended literal battles that decreased Europe’s population by 20 million people.That’s why those who really care about real solutions would be wise to start offering their own plans, and, in fact, some already have. What the Trump administration didn’t plagiarize from autocrats, they took from progressives, which is why “baby bonuses” sounds an awful lot like the “baby bonds” proposed in 2021 by Senators Tammy Baldwin and Cory Booker and Representative Ayanna Pressley. The legislation would put $1,000 in a savings account at birth for every American child. The Biden-era American Rescue Plan also almost doubled the child tax credit, which nearly halved the child poverty rate. Though making that expansion permanent received bipartisan support, it was ultimately killed by the centrist triangulating of Joe Manchin.Four years later, Democrats have the chance to embrace a genuinely progressive agenda that doubles as a pro-family platform. Bernie Sanders has long called for cancelling all student debt, Elizabeth Warren has campaigned for universal childcare, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was among the first politicians on Capitol Hill to offer three months of paid parental leave to her entire staff. The Congressional Progressive caucus has also called for a whole raft of policies that would lower the cost of living, from expanding Medicaid to investing $250bn in affordable housing. They understand that real relief will come not from handing out medals but from having the mettle to fight for working families.Still, even if Democrats manage a progressive populist revival not seen since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, it probably wouldn’t be enough to lift birthrates. In social democracies like Finland and Sweden – which offer 13 months of paid parental leave and cover 90% of preschool costs, respectively – fertility remains below replacement levels.Does that indicate the problem may be more fundamental? One sociologist, Dr Karen Benjamin Guzzo, has attributed this dilemma to apprehension: “People really need to feel confident about the future.” But whether it’s 60% of young people feeling very worried about the climate crisis, or 80% of new mothers feeling lonely, or 90% of voters feeling that American politics is broken, the state of the world doesn’t seem too conducive to domestic bliss. The right’s response to this anxiety is embodied by Elon Musk, who keeps siring children with women he meets on X to create a “legion-level” brood “before the apocalypse”.To help avert said apocalypse, what should be on offer are authentically family-friendly policies that benefit parents and non-parents alike. In doing so, there’s a chance to persuade Americans that the next generation still might have a brighter future than the last. Or, at the very least, that progressives have a more compelling vision for American families than the one whose budget is about to take billions from children’s education, food and healthcare.It’s one thing to incentivize giving birth. Americans deserve leaders who will fight for those kids after they’re born.

      Katrina vanden Heuvel is editorial director and publisher of the Nation. She is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and has contributed to the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Francis Wanted a Church of the Poor and Put It Into Practice

      by

      Around St. Peter’s Square, the pope offered services to the homeless and migrants, in ways that often did not go down well with his fellow clerics.Throughout his papacy, Francis was an outspoken advocate for the downtrodden. Shortly after he was elected in 2013 he said, “How I would like a church that is poor and for the poor.”But Francis, who died on Monday at 88, didn’t just pay lip service.When the vehicle carrying his coffin pulls up at the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, where he will be buried on Saturday, a group of “poor and needy” people will be waiting on the steps, the Vatican said this week. After all, the statement added, the pope “had chosen the name Francis to never forget them.” St. Francis of Assisi renounced his wealth to live in poverty.Marginalized groups will be present at the funeral, the Vatican said Friday.One of the first people to pay their respects when Francis was brought to St. Peter’s Basilica on Wednesday was Sister Geneviève Jeanningros, who until last year lived in a camper in a fairground outside Rome, serving those in need. She was in regular contact with Francis, who visited the fairground, and images of her weeping in front of his coffin moved many.Sister Geneviève Jeanningros, center in blue, was one of the first people to pay their respects to Francis.Pool photo by Alessandro Di MeoCloser to his own home, Francis “strongly supported” transforming the Vatican post office located on the right side of the colonnade of St. Peter’s Square into a free medical clinic for the homeless and for undocumented migrants. The clinic opened in 2018 and averages 100 visits a day, said its director, Dr. Massimo Ralli.“It’s putting the Gospel into practice because caring for people is one of the aspects of charity,” said Dr. Ralli. “So it absolutely mirrors the message of the Holy Father toward the least.”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

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      White House Eyes Overhaul of Federal Housing Aid to the Poor

      by

      The White House is considering deep cuts to federal housing programs, including a sweeping overhaul of aid to low-income families, in a reconfiguration that could jeopardize millions of Americans’ continued access to rental assistance funds.The potential changes primarily concern federal housing vouchers, including those more commonly known as Section 8. The aid generally helps the poorest tenants cover the monthly costs of apartments, town homes and single-family residences.Administration officials recently discussed cutting or canceling out the vouchers and other rental assistance programs and potentially replacing them with a more limited system of housing grants, perhaps sent to states, according to three people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the confidential discussions. The overhaul would be included in President Trump’s new budget, which is expected to be sent to Capitol Hill in the coming weeks.The exact design and cost of the retooled program is unclear, and any such change is likely to require approval from Congress, as White House budgets on their own do not carry the force of law.But people familiar with the administration’s thinking said the overhaul under discussion would most likely amount to more than just a technical change, resulting in fewer federal dollars for low-income families on top of additional cuts planned for the rest of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.Federal voucher programs currently provide assistance to about 2.3 million low-income families, according to the government’s estimates, who enroll through their local public-housing authorities. The aid is part of a broader universe of rental assistance programs that are set to exceed $54 billion this fiscal year. But the annual demand for these subsidies is far greater than the available funds, creating a sizable wait list as rents are rising nationally.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