Poverty

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Another Red-Blue Divide: Money to Feed Kids in the Summer

      by

      The governor was firm: Nebraska would reject the new federal money for summer meals. The state already fed a small number of children when schools closed. He would not sign on to a program to provide all families that received free or cut-rate school meals with cards to buy groceries during the summer.“I don’t believe in welfare,” the governor, Jim Pillen, a Republican, said in December.A group of low-income youths, in a face-to-face meeting, urged him to reconsider. One told him she had eaten less when schools were out. Another criticized the meals at the existing feeding sites and held a crustless prepackaged sandwich to argue that electronic benefit cards from the new federal program would offer better food and more choice.“Sometimes money isn’t the solution,” the governor replied.A week later, Mr. Pillen made a U-turn the size of a Nebraska cornfield, approving the cards and praising the young people for speaking out.“This isn’t about me winning,” he said. “This is about coming to the conclusion of what is best for our kids.”After meeting with young people, Gov. Jim Pillen of Nebraska reversed himself and accepted federal money for summer meals.Kenneth Ferriera/Lincoln Journal Star, via Associated PressMr. Pillen’s extraordinary reversal shows the conflicts shaping red-state views of federal aid: needs beckon, but suspicions run high of the Biden administration and programs that critics call handouts.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

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      What Really Causes Poor Performance in School

      by

      More from our inbox:Becoming a Republican to Vote Against TrumpCountering Propaganda From the Fossil Fuel Industry Wayne Miller/MagnumTo the Editor:Re “We’re Not Battling the School Issues That Matter,” by Nicholas Kristof (column, March 7):I completely agree with Mr. Kristof’s column. The situation is serious, not only for education but also for our embattled democracy.I would like to add some nuance. I have been working on a state-by-state analysis of the possible influence of racism, specifically anti-Black racism, on educational achievement.What I have found so far indicates that some children are taught quite well: those in private schools, of course; Asian American children (particularly those whose families are from India); white children of families prosperous enough to be ineligible for the National School Lunch Program; children of college-educated parents; and Hispanic children who are not English-language learners.Some students are in groups that are not likely to be taught to read effectively: Native Americans, children who are poor enough to be eligible for the National School Lunch Program and Black children.None of this will be news to Mr. Kristof. What is surprising to me is the sheer extent and arbitrary nature of the failure by school authorities. Almost everywhere that urban schools, in particular, are failing, socioeconomically similar children are being taught much more effectively in the nearest suburban districts.Part of the reason is money: Per-student expenditure is associated with educational achievement.But part of the problem — most of it — is a matter of administrative decisions: placing the best teachers in schools with the “best” students; equipping schools, in effect, in accordance with parental income; offering more gifted and talented classes to white students — all the perhaps unconscious manifestations of everyday racism.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 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Ambani Wedding Event Signifies the Rise of the Oligarch in Modi’s India

      by

      Rihanna, Mark Zuckerberg, bejeweled elephants and 5,500 drones. Those were some of the highlights of what is likely the most ostentatious “pre-wedding” ceremony the modern world has ever seen.On a long weekend in early March, members of the global elite gathered to celebrate the impending nuptials of the billionaire business titan Mukesh Ambani’s youngest son, Anant, and Radhika Merchant. Monarchs, politicians and the ultrawealthy, including Bill Gates and Ivanka Trump, descended on an oil refinery city in the western Indian state of Gujarat for an event so extravagant you’d be forgiven for thinking it was, well, a wedding. But that will take place in July. For the long windup to the big day, some of Bollywood’s biggest stars, though invited as guests, took to the stage to sing and dance in what amounted to a bending of the knee to India’s most powerful family.Watching the event, I couldn’t help thinking of the 1911 durbar, or royal reception, when King George V was proclaimed emperor of India. Once India won its independence from Britain in 1947, it committed itself to becoming a democratic welfare state — an audacious experiment that resulted in what is now the world’s largest democracy. But in advance of this year’s general election, expected to begin in April, the Ambani-Merchant matrimonial extravaganza shows us where true power in India now lies: with a handful of people whose untrammeled wealth and influence has elevated them to the position of India’s shadow leaders.It’s difficult to imagine the Ambani-Merchant wedding event in an India that isn’t ruled by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It’s true that the Ambanis have been wealthy for years now and that accusations of favorable treatment from government authorities are not unique to this family or the Modi government. But no other prime minister in India’s history has been so openly aligned with big business, and never before has the concentration of wealth been more apparent. India’s richest 1 percent now own more than 40 percent of the country’s wealth, according to Oxfam. The country has the world’s largest number of poor, at 228.9 million. And according to a newly published study looking at 92 low- and middle-income countries, India had the third-highest percentage of “zero food” children — babies between 6 months and 23 months old who had gone a day or more without food other than breast milk at the time they were surveyed. Oxfam has described this new India as the “survival of the richest.”For the uberwealthy, this presents a no-holds-barred opportunity to exert their power and influence. In 2017, Mr. Modi introduced a fund-raising mechanism called “electoral bonds” to allow unlimited anonymous donations to political parties. In the five years that followed, the prime minister’s Bharatiya Janata Party received $635 million in contributions through such bonds, 5.5 times as much as its closest rival, the Congress Party. The 2019 Indian general elections cost $8.6 billion, surpassing the estimated $6.5 billion spent on the 2016 U.S. presidential and congressional elections.Analysis by three independent media organizations in India published on March 14 revealed that a company called Qwik Supply Chains purchased bonds in the scheme worth $50 million. One of the company’s three directors, reporters later uncovered, is also a director at several subsidiaries of Reliance, Mukesh Ambani’s mega-firm. A spokesperson for Reliance said that Qwik is not a Reliance subsidiary and did not respond to further questioning from Reuters. The Indian Supreme Court has since struck down the electoral bond mechanism, calling it unconstitutional, but the delay in addressing the matter has most likely come too late to change the outcome of the forthcoming election, which is widely considered all but certain to go in Mr. Modi’s favor.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

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Global Warming Is Particularly Bad for Women-Led Families, Study Says

      by

      New U.N. research shows that climate change disproportionately erodes income in households led by women in poorer countries. But there are ways to fix it.Extreme heat is making some of the world’s poorest women poorer.That is the stark conclusion of a report, released Tuesday, by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, based on weather and income data in 24 low- and middle-income countries.The report adds to a body of work that shows how global warming, driven by the burning of fossil fuels, can magnify and worsen existing social disparities.What does the report find?The report concludes that while heat stress is costly for all rural households, it is significantly more costly for households headed by a woman: Female-headed households lose 8 percent more of their annual income compared to other households.That is to say, extreme heat widens the disparity between households headed by women and others. That’s because underlying disparities are at play.For instance, while women depend on agricultural income, they represent only 12.6 percent of landowners globally, according to estimates by the United Nations Development Program. That means women-headed households are likely to lack access to essential services, like loans, crop insurance, and agricultural extension services to help them adapt to climate change.The report is based on household survey data between 2010 and 2020, overlaid with temperature and rainfall data over 70 years.The long-term effect of global warming is also pronounced. Female-headed households lose 34 percent more income, compared to others, when the long-term average temperature rises by 1 degree Celsius.The average global temperature has already risen by roughly 1.2 degrees Celsius since the start of the industrial age.Flooding similarly suppress the incomes of female-headed households more than it does other kinds of households, according to the report, but to a lesser degree than heat.“As these events become more frequent, the impacts on peoples’ lives will deepen as well,” said Nicholas Sitko, an economist with the Food and Agriculture Organization and the lead author of the report.Why does it matter?There’s been growing attention in recent years to the disproportionate harms of extreme weather, sometimes aggravated by climate change, on low-income countries that produce far less greenhouse gas emissions, per person, than wealthier, more industrialized countries.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 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Ferguson, Mo., Agrees to Pay $4.5 Million to Settle ‘Debtors’ Prison’ Suit

      by

      A federal judge gave the settlement preliminarily approval nearly a decade after a class-action lawsuit accused the city of wrongfully jailing plaintiffs for traffic tickets and other minor offenses.The City of Ferguson, Mo., has agreed to pay $4.5 million to settle a federal lawsuit that accused it of violating the constitutional rights of thousands of people who said they were jailed without due process because they could not pay fines.The lawsuit was filed in 2015 amid protests over the killing of Michael Brown, an unarmed Black teenager, by a white Ferguson police officer. It accused the city of jailing the plaintiffs in “deplorable” conditions simply because they could not pay debts owed for traffic tickets or other minor offenses.“They were threatened, abused, and left to languish in confinement,” lawyers for the plaintiffs argued in the suit, noting that these conditions lasted until families could produce enough cash for bail, or until jail officials decided to let them out.On Tuesday, ArchCity Defenders, the nonprofit group in St. Louis that filed the suit, said in a statement that checks would be sent to more than 15,000 people who were jailed by the city between Feb. 8, 2010, and Dec. 30, 2022, and that the amount would depend on the number of hours each of them had spent in jail.David Musgrave, Ferguson’s assistant city manager, said in an email on Thursday that the city would not comment “while the settlement agreement is pending final approval by the Court.”Mr. Musgrave directed further questions to the city’s lawyers, one of whom, Apollo Carey, declined to comment. Another lawyer did not immediately respond to an email and call. Neither the mayor nor the Ferguson Police Department could be reached for comment on Thursday evening.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 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Ohio pastor fights court battle with city over shelter for unhoused people

      by

      A Christian pastor is fighting back against a city in Ohio after it charged him with breaking a municipal law by opening up his place of worship to unhoused people as well as others who need shelter.Police in Bryan, Ohio, filed 18 charges accusing Chris Avell – the pastor of Dad’s Place – with zoning violations at his rented church building. Officers alleged that the church lacked proper kitchen and laundry facilities, safe exits and adequate ventilation, as required.Avell pleaded not guilty. Then his church sued Bryan’s government in federal court on Monday, arguing the city has violated the pastor’s constitutional rights to religious freedom.Despite Avell making changes trying to address the city’s complaints, including the installation of a stove hood and closing its laundry facility, the church alleges in its lawsuit that officers are still harassing and intimidating them.An attorney for Avell and the church, Jeremy Dys, said he suspects city leaders do not want a ministry for the unhoused in the middle of town. He described it as a “not in my backyard” – or, colloquially, “Nimby” – issue that his client’s lawsuit seeks to reframe as a test of the federal rights of free religious exercise and protection against government intrusion on religion.“Nothing satisfies the city,” Dys said on Monday, hours after the lawsuit was filed. “And worse – they go on a smear campaign of innuendo and half-truths.”Dys also accused the city of “creating problems in order to gin up opposition to this church existing in the town square”.The defendants in the church’s lawsuit – the city of Bryan, its mayor, Carrie Schlade, and other municipal officials – deny allegations that any religious institution has been dealt with inappropriately.“The city has been and continues to be interested in any business, any church, any entity complying with local and state law,” an attorney for the city, Marc Fishel, said.The church said in its lawsuit that its leaders decided in March to remain open at all hours as a temporary, emergency shelter “for people to go who have nowhere else to go and no one to care for them”.On average, eight people stay there each night, and a few more do so when weather is bad, the church said.The city said police received complaints of criminal mischief, trespassing, theft and disturbing the peace and requests to investigate generally inappropriate activity at the church.The church said its policy had been to let anyone stay overnight and not to ask them to leave “unless there is a biblically valid reason for doing so or if someone at the property poses a danger to himself or others”, according to the complaint.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe church holds a “rest and refresh in the Lord” ministry from 11pm to 8am, which includes scriptural readings piped in under dim lights. It is open to anyone.The city argues these actions constitute housing, and the church is in a zone that does not permit residential use on the first floor of a building.Bryan’s planning and zoning administrator gave the church 10 days to stop housing people. After an inspection, police in December sought charges against Avell for code violations.The church wants a federal judge to enforce its rights to free exercise of religion and protection from government hostility. It also seeks a restraining order keeping Bryan officials from taking action against the church in connection with the charges in the case that were obtained by police, and the church additionally is pursuing damages along with attorneys’ fees.“No history or tradition justifies the city’s intrusion into the church’s inner sanctum to dictate which rooms may be used for religious purposes, how the church may go about accomplishing its religious mission, or at what hours of the day religious activities are permitted,” the church said in its lawsuit.Dys added in a statement: “Instead of supporting a church that is trying to help citizens going through some of the worst situations in their lives (and in the dead of winter), the city seems intent on intimidating the church into ending its ministry to vulnerable citizens or relocating it somewhere out of mayor Schlade’s sight. The constitution and the law say otherwise.”The Associated Press contributed reporting More

    • 63 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Donald Trump Is No Moderate’

      by

      More from our inbox:Poll on Biden’s Handling of the War in GazaWealthy Donors Seeking InfluenceHelping Lower-Income People Pay BillsMatt ChaseTo the Editor:Re “The Secret of Trump’s Appeal Isn’t Authoritarianism,” by Matthew Schmitz (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, Dec. 18):According to Mr. Schmitz, the key to understanding Donald Trump’s electoral appeal is not his authoritarianism but his moderation. There may have been some truth to this eight years ago, when Mr. Trump’s policy views were often poorly defined. However, it is clearly no longer true in 2023.On a wide range of issues, including immigration, climate change, health care and gun control, Mr. Trump has endorsed policies supported by the right wing of the Republican Party. And when it comes to abortion, whatever his recent public statements, while he was in office, he consistently appointed anti-abortion judges committed to overturning Roe v. Wade.As a result, Mr. Trump now appeals most strongly to the far right wing of the Republican Party. Donald Trump is no moderate.Alan AbramowitzAtlantaThe writer is professor emeritus of political science at Emory University.To the Editor:Matthew Schmitz’s longwinded guest essay still misses the point: The bottom line of Donald Trump’s appeal to his supporters is the permission to indulge their darkest impulses and harshest judgments of “the other” — everyone in the world outside of MAGA Nation.Rich LaytonPortland, Ore.To the Editor:Matthew Schmitz could not be more wrong. There is no universe in which Donald Trump is a moderate. Moderates do not gut the system that they have sworn to uphold. Moderates do not consider calling in the military against American citizens, as Mr. Trump did during the Black Lives Matter demonstrations. Moderates do not start riots when they lose elections.Trump voters are either fellow grifters or people who do not understand how government works and are taken in by his shtick: the incurious and the easily fooled. It’s as simple — and as dangerous — as that. We have work to do to make sure he will not regain office.Christine PotterValley Cottage, N.Y.To the Editor:I was shocked to read a piece that wasn’t the usual drone of let’s count all the ways that Donald Trump is a disaster for the country. I’m so grateful that you are actually inviting a broader variety of opinions. It is just as valuable to understand why Mr. Trump is loved as why he is hated.I read the article twice, and it was compelling at times. I’m still not a fan of Mr. Trump, but am grateful that finally your paper is respecting its readership to handle different perspectives.T. PalserCalgary, AlbertaTo the Editor:Matthew Schmitz seems to think that he needs to explain to us that people are willing to overlook the clearly authoritarian tendencies of a candidate if they like some of his policies. Thanks, Mr. Schmitz, but we’re already well aware of this. Italians liked Mussolini because he “made the trains run on time.”This is exactly our point. This is how dictatorships happen.Robert Stillman CohenNew YorkTo the Editor:When you have to argue that the secret to someone’s appeal isn’t authoritarianism, the secret to their appeal is authoritarianism.David D. TurnerClifton, N.J.Poll on Biden’s Handling of the War in GazaPresident Biden addressing the nation from the Oval Office after visiting Israel in October, following the breakout of its war against Hamas.Tom Brenner for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Most Disapprove of Biden on Gaza, Survey Indicates” (front page, Dec. 19):You report that the people surveyed trusted Donald Trump to manage the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over President Biden by a margin of 46 percent to 38 percent. This is puzzling, since during his tenure as president, Mr. Trump was an extreme Israeli partisan. Indeed, everything he did with reference to the Middle East heavily favored Israel to the detriment of the Palestinians.Some of the actions that he undertook that were adverse to the Palestinians included: the appointment of an extreme Orthodox Jewish bankruptcy lawyer, who was an Israeli partisan, as ambassador to Israel; moving the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, contrary to both decades of American policy and Palestinian opposition; terminating American contributions to the U.N. fund for Palestinians; supporting the Israeli settler movement; and negotiating the Abraham Accords without any consideration of Palestinian interests.Mr. Trump is one of the people least likely to fairly manage the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Richard J. WeisbergNorwalk, Conn.To the Editor:The Biden administration is beginning to understand that while most Jewish Americans believe in Israel’s right to exist, this does not mean that American Jews overwhelmingly support the Israeli government’s relentless killing of innocent Palestinian civilians — at this point, more than 10,000 of them children.Increasingly, as the traumatized Israeli pursuit of Hamas costs more death and destruction, cracks are appearing in Jewish community support for the Biden administration’s military and political backing of the current Israeli government. President Biden is well advised to pay close attention to these cracks.As the article points out, nearly three-quarters of Jews historically vote Democratic. Unless Mr. Biden takes a harder line against the continued killings and steps up more boldly for a cease-fire, Democrats could lose Jewish votes.John CregerBerkeley, Calif.Wealthy Donors Seeking InfluenceHarvard University in Cambridge, Mass., on Tuesday.Adam Glanzman for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “College Turmoil Reveals a New Politics of Power” (news article, Dec. 15):Having spent a lifetime working for and with nonprofits, I am disgusted by wealthy donors who expect money to buy a voice in university affairs. Donations are gifts, not transactions, and I have always objected to 1) listing names of donors, whether on buildings or in concert programs, and 2) tax deductions for charitable donations.Yes, we will lose some ego-driven donors along the way, but we will eventually prevail by keeping it clean.Michael Rooke-LeySan FranciscoThe writer is a former law professor.Helping Lower-Income People Pay BillsJessica Jones and her three daughters moved in with Ms. Jones’s mother two years ago after her landlord did not renew the lease on a subsidized apartment. She said the displacement has wreaked family havoc.Elizabeth Bick for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Soaring Rents Are Burdening Lower Incomes” (front page, Dec. 12):Congress should exempt the first $40,000 of income from the Social Security tax, which would immediately give lower-income families some relief.The lost income to the government should not be seen as lost but as support to allow people to stay in their existing apartments.This would also be the time to apply the Social Security tax to higher incomes that are currently exempt above $160,200. And to cap or reduce the excessive interest rate — which currently averages 24 percent — that many people pay on their credit card bills.Studies show that lower-income households use credit cards to buy necessities like food and to pay utility bills. Those interest rates often translate into money that ultimately ends up in the pockets of high-income people who are invested in the market.Let’s all give a little, so people can live with dignity.Ann L. SullivanPortsmouth, R.I. More

    • 225 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      US child poverty doubled in 2022, thanks to Joe Manchin. We must reverse course | Katrina Vanden Heuvel

      by

      Legislators are fleeing Washington, DC and heading home for the holidays. They leave behind a dysfunctional Congress with a rookie Speaker, brutal wars ongoing overseas, and a country with 11 million children living in poverty.Yes, after a brief reprieve, child poverty is once again on the rise in the United States. But Congress can put a stop to that. As members of both houses, and both parties, work together on an end-of-year tax deal, they can re-implement a simple, wildly popular measure that has already proven to dramatically reduce child poverty: the expanded Child Tax Credit.As Nelson Mandela said, “Like slavery and apartheid, poverty is not natural. It is man-made and it can be overcome and eradicated by the action of human beings.” Child poverty is not an individual choice, it is a collective choice—and just as we choose to perpetuate it, we can choose to abolish it. After all, just a few years ago, Congress chose to do something about it, and it’s time to make that choice again—this time for good.In 2021, the American Rescue Plan significantly expanded the child tax credit, increasing payments by up to $1,600, paying out the credit monthly, and expanding eligibility to include more families in need.The result was nothing short of miraculous. The expanded credit lifted 2.9 million children out of poverty, provided a crucial lifeline to families during the worst of the Covid-19 pandemic, and brought the US child poverty rate to the lowest level ever recorded.It was one of the most successful policy decisions our government has made in decades.Enter Joe Manchin.Last December, the West Virginia senator, houseboat enthusiast, and Maserati collector reportedly refused to extend the credit because—per private comments—he believed low-income parents would spend it on drugs instead of feeding their children. This was despite a survey by the Census Bureau released just months earlier that proved over 90% of families were spending the money on food, shelter, and school supplies for their kids. And it was despite acute poverty in his home state, where the tax credit helped more than 300,000 children in 2021.But Manchin refused to extend the expansion, and Senate Republicans did nothing to help. It lapsed at the end of 2021, leading to an immediate, massive increase in child poverty in 2022, doubling from 5.2% to 12.4%.Now 11 million children live in poverty, and 19 million receive less than the full tax credit because their parents don’t make enough money. Senator Manchin has seemingly yet to be visited by three spirits to persuade him that this is unacceptable. But after two years of sustained pressure by activists and advocates, there are finally signs that this profoundly impactful benefit could be restored.A bipartisan coalition is growing on Capitol Hill to bring back the expanded credit in some form, with a tax deal that could be reached as soon as January. It would cost an estimated $50 billion over two years—the price of less than four aircraft carriers.If they succeed, it would represent an unambiguous win for all parties. 75% of voters are in favor of restoring the credit—including 64% of Republicans. Even the conservative Faith and Freedom Coalition have called for the credit to be expanded, in a letter signed by evangelical right-wing heavyweights like Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, and Rick Santorum.Of course, there is posturing at play—the letter emphasizes low marriage rates and “strengthening the overall family unit”—but if indulging a bit of regressive nostalgia is what it takes to lift kids out of poverty, it’s a small price to pay.Meanwhile, across the country—and beyond the child tax credit—there are proposals that reflect a growing consensus that ending poverty is within our power. Last year, I wrote about the End Poverty in California movement—originated by Upton Sinclair in the 1930s, now revitalized by former Stockton, California mayor Michael Tubbs. Since its inception as a nonprofit last February, EPIC has embarked on a statewide listening tour and helped secure $100m in funding in the California state budget for tens of thousands of lower-income California children.Other anti-poverty programs gaining steam include baby bonds, which would provide every American child with start-up money and level the economic playing field from birth. This would reduce the racial wealth gap from 91% to 25%—and a majority of voters support the idea. Baby bond legislation has been passed in California, Connecticut, and Washington, DC and introduced in eight other states this year. A national version has been introduced by Cory Booker and Ayanna Pressley.Anti-poverty activism is nothing new. The Poor People’s Campaign was launched by Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1968 and is continued today by Bishop William Barber and Reverend Liz Theoharis. This year, Barber called poverty a “death sentence” and said, “There’s not a scarcity of resources, but a scarcity of political will” to end poverty.
      Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor and publisher of the Nation and serves on the Council on Foreign Relations More