Poverty

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares129 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

    • 63 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      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

    • 125 Shares149 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