Poverty

Subterms

    Latest story

    63 Shares152 Views

    If Elon Musk Were Empathetic

    by

    This is the story of two immensely talented sons of Africa who each migrated to America and thrived. One you’ve heard of: Elon Musk. The other, Valentino Achak Deng, was a “lost boy” from Sudan who survived massacres, lions and crocodiles and moved to Atlanta as a refugee.Musk and Deng have since gone in opposite directions.Born in South Africa, Musk has proved himself one of the great tech entrepreneurs in history, with remarkable achievements in rockets, electric vehicles, brain implants and satellite internet. Yet Musk has warned that “the fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy,” and by demolishing the United States Agency for International Development he is now destroying the lives of many impoverished children on the continent where he grew up.Valentino, an old friend of mine, is the opposite, for his traumas have left him exuding empathy. I admire Musk’s genius, but I wish it were leavened by Valentino’s selflessness.Valentino AchakMalin Fezehai for The New York TimesSo I came here to the remote town of Aweil in South Sudan to see what can be learned from Valentino. Maybe, just maybe, Musk will read this and appreciate that the measure of a man is less his net worth than his net humanity.Valentino’s odyssey began when he was 7 and a Sudanese militia raided his village, forcing him to flee for his life. Losing all contact with his family, surviving by eating leaves and animal carcasses, he spent five years dodging bullets and land mines. Eventually, he reached a Kenyan refugee camp, where he says he made a pact with God: If you let me get to America, I will use those connections to help my country.

    .css-1xd5j6v{margin-top:0.75rem;}.css-xc2fe3{font-weight:700;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-qitxok{margin-left:45px;margin-top:10px;border-left:1px solid var(–color-stroke-tertiary,#C7C7C7);}.css-2f9c0w{list-style:none;margin:0;-webkit-box-flex:1;-webkit-flex-grow:1;-ms-flex-positive:1;flex-grow:1;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.0625rem;}.css-1kziinj{color:var(–color-content-tertiary,#5A5A5A);-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}.css-mw5tos{border-radius:50%;height:18px;width:18px;background-color:#000;background-image:url(‘https://www.nytimes.com/vi-assets/static-assets/icon-t-logo-16×16-white-6d6d01f365f1dbdab596ce5f3e5b4592.svg’);background-position:center;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-size:10px 10px;display:inline-block;margin-left:4px;vertical-align:-5px;white-space:nowrap;}.css-ept3uu{display:inline-block;margin-right:10px;overflow:hidden;object-fit:cover;border-radius:50%;height:34px;width:34px;}span.css-ept3uu{background:#ccc;color:#fff;display:inline-block;font-size:1rem;text-align:center;text-transform:uppercase;line-height:2.25rem;}.placeholder .css-ept3uu{background:#ccc;}.css-9ko0hh{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:500;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4375rem;max-width:600px;margin-left:0px;width:100%;}@media (min-width:630px){.css-9ko0hh{margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;box-sizing:border-box;}}@media (min-width:1440px){.css-9ko0hh{max-width:600px;width:600px;margin-left:calc((100% – 600px) / 2);}}.css-1g0hipa{line-height:1.875rem;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;border-top:1px solid var(–color-stroke-secondary,#8B8B8B);padding-top:0.75rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1g0hipa{font-size:1.125rem;line-height:2.25rem;}}.css-1b2d1km{margin:5px 0 20px;border:1px solid var(–color-stroke-quaternary,#DFDFDF);padding:9px 18px 24px 18px;width:calc(100% – 40px);background-image:url(‘data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20width%3D%2219%22%20height%3D%2217%22%20viewBox%3D%220%200%2019%2017%22%20fill%3D%22none%22%20xmlns%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2000%2Fsvg%22%3E%0A%3Cpath%20id%3D%22Vector%22%20d%3D%22M13.2271%2017L7.66331%2012.5661H1.42971C1.05056%2012.5661%200.686942%2012.4151%200.418844%2012.1464C0.150746%2011.8777%200.00013055%2011.5133%200.00013055%2011.1333V1.45216C-0.00242853%201.26238%200.0326583%201.07398%200.103355%200.897906C0.174051%200.72183%200.278947%200.561586%200.411951%200.42648C0.544956%200.291375%200.703417%200.1841%200.878133%200.110887C1.05285%200.0376746%201.24034%20-1.73249e-05%201.42971%205.97386e-09H17.5704C17.9496%205.97386e-09%2018.3132%200.150955%2018.5813%200.419657C18.8494%200.68836%2019%201.0528%2019%201.4328V11.1139C19%2011.4939%2018.8494%2011.8583%2018.5813%2012.127C18.3132%2012.3957%2017.9496%2012.5467%2017.5704%2012.5467H13.285L13.2271%2017ZM1.42971%201.21014C1.37079%201.21014%201.31428%201.2336%201.27262%201.27535C1.23095%201.31711%201.20754%201.37375%201.20754%201.4328V11.1139C1.20754%2011.1729%201.23095%2011.2296%201.27262%2011.2713C1.31428%2011.3131%201.37079%2011.3366%201.42971%2011.3366H8.05934L12.01%2014.4926V11.3366H17.5125C17.5714%2011.3366%2017.6279%2011.3131%2017.6696%2011.2713C17.7112%2011.2296%2017.7346%2011.1729%2017.7346%2011.1139V1.4328C17.7346%201.37375%2017.7112%201.31711%2017.6696%201.27535C17.6279%201.2336%2017.5714%201.21014%2017.5125%201.21014H1.42971Z%22%20fill%3D%22var(–color-content-quaternary%2C%23727272)%22%2F%3E%0A%3C%2Fsvg%3E’);background-repeat:no-repeat;background-position:calc(100% – 20px) 20px;}.css-1spplqm{margin-left:45px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;}.css-1bctr2p{font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.25rem;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);word-break:break-word;}.css-1bctr2p a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}.css-146oyqz{margin:0;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;}.css-146oyqz a{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-shrink:1;-ms-flex-negative:1;flex-shrink:1;}.css-1ker8rx{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;display:block;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.0625rem;}.css-1ker8rx a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.css-1ker8rx:afer{content:’ ‘;position:absolute;top:0;right:0;left:0;bottom:0;}.css-1ker8rx:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}.css-qitxok .css-1ker8rx{margin:21px 0 0 16px;}.css-1xd5j6v{margin-top:0.75rem;}.css-xc2fe3{font-weight:700;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-qitxok{margin-left:45px;margin-top:10px;border-left:1px solid var(–color-stroke-tertiary,#C7C7C7);}.css-2f9c0w{list-style:none;margin:0;-webkit-box-flex:1;-webkit-flex-grow:1;-ms-flex-positive:1;flex-grow:1;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.0625rem;}.css-1kziinj{color:var(–color-content-tertiary,#5A5A5A);-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}.css-mw5tos{border-radius:50%;height:18px;width:18px;background-color:#000;background-image:url(‘https://www.nytimes.com/vi-assets/static-assets/icon-t-logo-16×16-white-6d6d01f365f1dbdab596ce5f3e5b4592.svg’);background-position:center;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-size:10px 10px;display:inline-block;margin-left:4px;vertical-align:-5px;white-space:nowrap;}.css-ept3uu{display:inline-block;margin-right:10px;overflow:hidden;object-fit:cover;border-radius:50%;height:34px;width:34px;}span.css-ept3uu{background:#ccc;color:#fff;display:inline-block;font-size:1rem;text-align:center;text-transform:uppercase;line-height:2.25rem;}.placeholder .css-ept3uu{background:#ccc;}.css-9ko0hh{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:500;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.4375rem;max-width:600px;margin-left:0px;width:100%;}@media (min-width:630px){.css-9ko0hh{margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;box-sizing:border-box;}}@media (min-width:1440px){.css-9ko0hh{max-width:600px;width:600px;margin-left:calc((100% – 600px) / 2);}}.css-1g0hipa{line-height:1.875rem;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;border-top:1px solid var(–color-stroke-secondary,#8B8B8B);padding-top:0.75rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1g0hipa{font-size:1.125rem;line-height:2.25rem;}}.css-1b2d1km{margin:5px 0 20px;border:1px solid var(–color-stroke-quaternary,#DFDFDF);padding:9px 18px 24px 18px;width:calc(100% – 40px);background-image:url(‘data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20width%3D%2219%22%20height%3D%2217%22%20viewBox%3D%220%200%2019%2017%22%20fill%3D%22none%22%20xmlns%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2000%2Fsvg%22%3E%0A%3Cpath%20id%3D%22Vector%22%20d%3D%22M13.2271%2017L7.66331%2012.5661H1.42971C1.05056%2012.5661%200.686942%2012.4151%200.418844%2012.1464C0.150746%2011.8777%200.00013055%2011.5133%200.00013055%2011.1333V1.45216C-0.00242853%201.26238%200.0326583%201.07398%200.103355%200.897906C0.174051%200.72183%200.278947%200.561586%200.411951%200.42648C0.544956%200.291375%200.703417%200.1841%200.878133%200.110887C1.05285%200.0376746%201.24034%20-1.73249e-05%201.42971%205.97386e-09H17.5704C17.9496%205.97386e-09%2018.3132%200.150955%2018.5813%200.419657C18.8494%200.68836%2019%201.0528%2019%201.4328V11.1139C19%2011.4939%2018.8494%2011.8583%2018.5813%2012.127C18.3132%2012.3957%2017.9496%2012.5467%2017.5704%2012.5467H13.285L13.2271%2017ZM1.42971%201.21014C1.37079%201.21014%201.31428%201.2336%201.27262%201.27535C1.23095%201.31711%201.20754%201.37375%201.20754%201.4328V11.1139C1.20754%2011.1729%201.23095%2011.2296%201.27262%2011.2713C1.31428%2011.3131%201.37079%2011.3366%201.42971%2011.3366H8.05934L12.01%2014.4926V11.3366H17.5125C17.5714%2011.3366%2017.6279%2011.3131%2017.6696%2011.2713C17.7112%2011.2296%2017.7346%2011.1729%2017.7346%2011.1139V1.4328C17.7346%201.37375%2017.7112%201.31711%2017.6696%201.27535C17.6279%201.2336%2017.5714%201.21014%2017.5125%201.21014H1.42971Z%22%20fill%3D%22var(–color-content-quaternary%2C%23727272)%22%2F%3E%0A%3C%2Fsvg%3E’);background-repeat:no-repeat;background-position:calc(100% – 20px) 20px;}.css-1spplqm{margin-left:45px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:column;-ms-flex-direction:column;flex-direction:column;}.css-1bctr2p{font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.25rem;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);word-break:break-word;}.css-1bctr2p a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}.css-146oyqz{margin:0;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-box-pack:justify;-webkit-justify-content:space-between;-ms-flex-pack:justify;justify-content:space-between;}.css-146oyqz a{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-shrink:1;-ms-flex-negative:1;flex-shrink:1;}.css-1ker8rx{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;display:block;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:1.0625rem;}.css-1ker8rx a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.css-1ker8rx:afer{content:’ ‘;position:absolute;top:0;right:0;left:0;bottom:0;}.css-1ker8rx:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}.css-qitxok .css-1ker8rx{margin:21px 0 0 16px;}

    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

    • 125 Shares148 Views

      in Elections

      UK Aims to Cut Billions in Welfare Amid Budget Crunch

      by

      Changing disability allowances is a particularly contentious move within Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s center-left Labour Party.Britain’s center-left government outlined plans on Tuesday to curb spiraling welfare costs as it attempts to juggle a difficult set of competing objectives: saving public money, incentivizing work and protecting the most vulnerable.The announcement follows weeks of tense internal debate within the governing Labour Party, led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, about how to cut Britain’s spending on welfare, which has risen sharply since the Covid-19 pandemic.“The status quo is unacceptable but it is not inevitable,” Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, said in Parliament, promising “decisive action” to get those who can work into employment, protect those who cannot, and save five billion pounds (about $6.5 billion) by 2030.For Labour, a party that sees itself as the creator and guardian of Britain’s post-World War II welfare state, cutting support for some of the most vulnerable in society is especially contentious.But Britain, with a total population of about 68 million, now has more than 9.3 million people of working age across England, Scotland and Wales who are not employed, a rise of 713,000 since 2020. Of those, 2.8 million receive long-term sickness payments or related welfare, according to the government, which expects the number to grow to more than four million if nothing is done. The government spent £65 billion on sickness payments last year.Facing mounting pressure to increase military spending, at a time when public services including the health system are badly underfunded, and economic growth is sluggish, Britain’s Treasury is searching for cuts to public programs.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

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Roy L. Prosterman, 89, Dies; Worked to Secure Land for the Rural Poor

      by

      Seeing land rights as the key to lifting up the impoverished, he pushed authoritarian governments as well as emerging democratic ones to distribute farmland.Roy L. Prosterman, a lawyer who left a lucrative corporate law practice to champion land reform in the underdeveloped world, died on Feb. 27 at his home in Seattle. He was 89.His death was announced by the Seattle land-rights institute Landesa, of which he was a founder. The organization did not specify a cause.Mr. Prosterman worked with governments in some 60 countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America over nearly six decades, crafting plans to give a degree of ownership to peasant families. Sometimes the governments he worked with obtained land by expropriating large tracts, with compensation to the owners. At other times, the government simply gave away land it owned.Seeing land rights as the key to lifting up the world’s millions of rural poor people, he pushed authoritarian governments in places like Vietnam and El Salvador, as well as emerging democratic ones in countries like India, to distribute farmland to impoverished farmers.Mr. Prosterman, center, conducting interviews in China in an undated photo. Beside him is Tim Hanstad, his longtime colleague and a co-founder of Landesa.via LandesaIn an obituary, Landesa said that millions of people had benefited from the programs created by Mr. Prosterman and his group. Landesa, which was founded in 1981 as the Rural Development Institute at the University of Washington and became an independent organization in 1992, was “an early, and often lonely, voice recognizing the importance that access to land and security of land has in uplifting the lives of the poor in agrarian economies,” the Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote in the preface to “One Billion Rising: Law, Land and the Alleviation of Global Poverty” (2009), a book edited and partly written by Mr. Prosterman.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

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Medicaid recipients fear ‘buzzsaw cuts’ for Trump’s agenda: ‘We’re not going to be alive forever’

      by

      At the age of 62, Marya Parral knows that her, and her husband’s, years of being able to care for their two developmentally disabled sons are numbered, and so they have done everything they can to ensure their children can continue to live independently.For their oldest, Ian, that’s meant placing him in a program on an organic farm that caters to people diagnosed with autism. For Joey, their youngest, who has both autism and Down syndrome, Parral has found a caregiver who can help him deliver newspapers and run errands around their community of Ocean City, New Jersey.Parral said none of this would be affordable without help from Medicaid, the federal government’s insurance program for poor and disabled Americans. But this week, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives approved a budget framework that would make deep cuts to the program, and Parral worries her sons will lose what she has worked so hard to build.“We’re not going to be alive forever. We’re trying to set up a life for them, but that entire life that we’re working so hard to set up for them is dependent on Medicaid,” Parral said. “So it’s really devastating to think about cuts.”Producing a budget is the first step in the Republican-controlled Congress’s drive to enact legislation that will pay for Donald Trump’s priorities. House lawmakers will now spend weeks working to write and pass a bill that is expected to approve $4.5tn in extended tax cuts, as well as funding for Trump’s plan for mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.To pay for it, Republicans are considering a rollback of the federal social safety net, particularly Medicaid, which has nearly 80 million enrollees in all 50 states. The budget plan proposes an $880bn reduction in funding for the insurance over the next 10 years, an amount that experts warn would hollow out the program and have ripple effects across the entire American healthcare system.Megan Cole Brahim, a professor at Boston University School of Public Health and an expert on Medicaid, said the cut was the largest ever proposed, and if enacted would “have far-reaching impacts not just for those who rely on Medicaid, but for entire communities and economies”.“These changes mean millions of Americans – including the low-income, elderly, persons with disabilities, children – will lose health insurance coverage,” she said. “Others may see significant reductions in benefits or limited access to care. The impact on hospitals and health systems will be significant, particularly for safety-net and rural hospitals, which are already on the brink of closure. Patient revenues will fall, uncompensated care will rise. There will be staff layoffs and site closures.”John Driscoll, a healthcare executive and chair of the board of UConn Health in Connecticut, said: “The scale of the buzzsaw cuts to Medicaid would undermine every hospital’s ability to actually support its mission to care for the community, and would be a dangerous cut to the nursing-home infrastructure in the country.”Republican leaders backed the cuts to Medicaid, as well as to similar programs such as one that helps poor Americans afford food, as a way to mollify lawmakers in their party who want the US’s large budget deficit addressed. Still, not everyone is pleased. As the budget was being debated, eight Republican representatives, some of whom Democrats are keen to unseat in next year’s midterm elections, wrote to the House speaker, Mike Johnson, warning that their districts’ large Hispanic populations would be harmed.“Slashing Medicaid would have serious consequences, particularly in rural and predominantly Hispanic communities where hospitals and nursing homes are already struggling to keep their doors open,” they said.All eight ultimately voted for the resolution, but the dissent may be a warning sign for the budget’s prospects of enactment, particularly in the House, where the GOP has a mere three-seat majority. It also remains unclear whether Republicans will try to pass all of Trump’s priorities in one bill, or split them into two.The GOP has made clear they want to fully pay for the extension of Trump’s tax cuts, and Elyssa Schmier, vice-president of government relations for advocacy group MomsRising, said Medicaid and social safety programs are the party’s prime targets for cost savings.“If you’re not going to go after, say, the Pentagon budget, if they’re only going to go to some of these big mandatory spending programs, there’s only so many places that Republicans feel that they can go,” she said.In the days since the budget’s approval, Johnson and Trump have scrambled to downplay the possibility of slashing Medicaid, insisting they intend only to root out “fraud, waste and abuse.”“The president said over and over and over: ‘We’re not going to touch social security, Medicare or Medicaid.’ We’ve made the same commitment,” Johnson told CNN in an interview.Democrats have little leverage to stop the budget, which can be passed with simple majorities in both chambers. But the Democratic senator Ruben Gallego warned that gutting the social safety net to extend tax cuts that have mostly benefited the rich will alienate voters who sided with the GOP last November.“It will be on Donald Trump and Republicans, the fact that he’s going to side with the ultra-rich versus the working poor,” said Gallego, who won election to his seat in Arizona even as Trump captured the state’s electoral votes. “Families that are barely making a living, scratching a living, they’re now going to get kicked off healthcare to give tax cuts to the mega-rich.”The proposed cut to Medicaid would remove billions of dollars in funding from congressional districts nationwide that are represented by lawmakers from both parties, according to an analysis by the liberal Center for American Progress.In California’s San Joaquin valley, the Democratic representative Jim Costa’s district would lose the third-largest amount of funding, according to the data, and Medicaid coverage would be imperiled for more than 450,000 residents.“This reckless budget prioritizes the wealthy while devastating those who need help the most,” Costa said. “I voted no because this resolution is bad for our valley and a threat to the wellbeing of the people I represent.” More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      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

    • 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