Poverty

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Low-income Americans face a ‘hunger cliff’ as Snap benefits are cut

      by

      Gina Melton is facing a dilemma. Like millions of other Americans, Melton and her family relied on food assistance benefits boosted by Congress to help them through the pandemic. Now that extra cash is gone.The reduction has hit them hard. Three of her family members are disabled and one of her daughters works to take care of them through an agency. They had already relied on credit cards to pay for medical equipment that wasn’t covered by the federal health insurance schemes Medicare or Medicaid but have had to stop paying a couple of them in order to afford food.“When you have to choose between feeding your family and paying a credit card bill, you have to choose food,” said Melton, 62.Around 42 million Americans are currently enrolled in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) benefits. Congress increased Snap benefits in response to the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020. The last extra payments went out at the end of February in the remaining 32 states that were still issuing them, in addition to the District of Columbia, Guam and the US Virgin Islands.The emergency allotments were authorized in tandem with the Covid-19 emergency declaration in March 2022, but in December 2022, Congress passed a law to end the allotments.The lapse in the additional benefits will reduce Snap allotments for the average recipient by $90 a month, with some households losing $250 a month or more. Older adults at the minimum benefit level will see their monthly Snap benefits drop from $281 a month to $23.Though Melton’s husband, a diabetic, is still recovering from a recent surgery, he has been considering going back to work part time at the age of 65 as the family struggles to afford basic necessities, including healthy food. They’ve cut back on food purchases and buy what’s on sale or in reduced-price bins.“The extra food allotment was helping us a lot,” said Melton. “We’ve started shopping at lower-priced stores that don’t bag your groceries, but for a disabled person like myself, that requires me to go with a helper. We’ve also cut back on some more expensive necessities and are relying on the local food pantry more.”The end of the expanded benefits comes at a time when US consumer debt has been on the rise, with 20.5 million Americans currently behind on their utility payments and nearly 25 million behind on credit card, auto loan or personal loan payments, the highest number since 2009. Low-wage workers in the US, who make less than $20 an hour, have experienced drops in wage growth compared with other workers in recent months.Food prices have and are expected to continue to significantly rise in 2023 as well. The US Department of Agriculture estimated that all food prices will increase by 7.9% in 2023 – and they were already 9.5% higher in February 2023 compared with February 2022.With so many Americans receiving Snap benefits because of low wages, unemployment and underemployment, the sudden end of the emergency allotment has been characterized as a “hunger cliff”.Ellen Vollinger, Snap director for the nonprofit Food Research and Action Center, said: “The cliff is aptly named because this a very abrupt change in what people are going to have in their food budget and it’s affecting tens of millions of people.“When the federal government doesn’t provide as much support for food, it doesn’t mean that hungry people all of a sudden are better off, or no longer need assistance, or they go away. The hunger is still there, people are still there, the need is there, but the federal government is too abrupt in shifting the burden and costs of dealing with that downstream, to states [and] localities, and puts a greater burden on charities.”Vollinger noted that the end of emergency allotments leaves low-income families facing difficult choices around food, from forgoing meals and purchasing less to buying cheaper food.“There’s a lot of stress, that’s why we call it a hunger cliff. It’s very precipitous,” she added.Food banks have been bracing for a surge in demand as the expanded Snap benefits expire, with state agencies directing recipients to food pantries to help cope with the reduction in benefits.Studies have shown that the extra payments worked. The Urban Institute found that the increased Snap benefits during the Covid-19 pandemic kept 4.2 million Americans out of poverty in the fourth quarter of 2021, reducing poverty by 9.6% and child poverty by 14% in states with emergency allotments. They also have a wider economic benefit. Every $1 invested in Snap benefits yields between $1.50 and $1.80 in economic activity during economic downturns.A 2022 survey conducted by Propel found that among Snap recipients, there was a significant level of higher food insecurity in states where emergency allotments were cut off. In a January 2023 survey, there was an increase in the number of Snap recipients who reported skipping meals, eating less, visiting food pantries or relying on family or friends for meals compared with December 2022.The end of the emergency Snap allotments also coincides with a push from Republicans in Congress to cut regular Snap benefits this year, despite the majority of Americans having favorable views of the benefits. A January 2023 survey conducted by Purdue University found that seven out of 10 respondents supported permanent expansions of the Snap program.But an expansion looks very unlikely in the current Congress. In the meantime, recipients are facing tough choices.“I just received the last one last week,” said Patricia Ameral, 67, of Massachusetts, referring to the Covid emergency benefits. “I am certain it will mean the difference between consuming less fresh produce and less meat, fresh or frozen.” More

    • 63 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Britain’s Cautionary Tale of Self-Destruction

      by

      In December, as many as 500 patients per week were dying in Britain because of E.R. waits, according to the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, a figure rivaling (and perhaps surpassing) the death toll from Covid-19. On average, English ambulances were taking an hour and a half to respond to stroke and heart-attack calls, compared with a target time of 18 minutes; nationwide, 10 times as many patients spent more than four hours waiting in emergency rooms as did in 2011. The waiting list for scheduled treatments recently passed seven million — more than 10 percent of the country — prompting nurses to strike. The National Health Service has been in crisis for years, but over the holidays, as wait times spiked, the crisis moved to the very center of a narrative of national decline.Post-Covid, the geopolitical order has been thrown into tumult. At the beginning of the pandemic, commentators wondered about the fate of the United States, its indifferent political leadership and its apparently diminished “state capacity.” Lately, they have focused more on the sudden weakness of China: its population in decline, its economy struggling more than it has in decades, its “zero Covid” reversal a sign of both political weakness and political overreach, depending on whom you ask.But the descent of Britain is in many ways more dramatic. By the end of next year, the average British family will be less well off than the average Slovenian one, according to a recent analysis by John Burn-Murdoch at The Financial Times; by the end of this decade, the average British family will have a lower standard of living than the average Polish one.On the campaign trail and in office, promising a new prosperity, Boris Johnson used to talk incessantly about “leveling up.” But the last dozen years of uninterrupted Tory rule have produced, in economic terms, something much more like a national flatlining. In a 2020 academic analysis by Nicholas Crafts and Terence C. Mills, recently publicized by the economic historian Adam Tooze, the two economists asked whether the ongoing slowdown in British productivity was unprecedented. Their answer: not quite, but that it was certainly the worst in the last 250 years, since the very beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Which is to say: To find a fitting analogue to the British economic experience of the last decade, you have to reach back to a time before the arrival of any significant growth at all, to a period governed much more by Malthusianism, subsistence-level poverty and a nearly flat economic future. By all accounts, things have gotten worse since their paper was published. According to “Stagnation Nation,” a recent report by a think tank, there are eight million young Brits in the work force today who have not experienced sustained wage growth at all.Over the past several decades, the China boom and then the world’s populist turn have upended one of the basic promises of post-Cold War geopolitics: that free trade would not just bring predictable prosperity but also draw countries into closer political consensus around something like Anglo-American market liberalism. The experience of Britain over the same period suggests another fly in the end-of-history ointment, undermining a separate supposition of that era, which lives on in zombie form in ours: that convergence meant that rich and well-​governed countries would stay that way.For a few weeks last fall, as Liz Truss failed to survive longer as head of government than the shelf life of a head of lettuce, I found myself wondering how a country that had long seen itself — and to some significant degree been seen by the rest of the world — as a very beacon of good governance had become so seemingly ungovernable. It was of course not that long ago that American liberals looked with envy at the British system — admiring the speed of national elections, and the way that new governing coalitions always seemed able to get things done.Post-Brexit, both the outlook for Britain and the quality of its politics look very different, as everyone knows. But focusing on a single “Leave” vote risks confusing that one abrupt outburst of xenophobic populism with what in fact is a long-term story of manufactured decline. As Burn-Murdoch demonstrates in another in his series of data-rich analyses of the British plight, the country’s obvious struggles have a very obvious central cause: austerity. In the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis, and in the name of rebalancing budgets, the Tory-led government set about cutting annual public spending, as a proportion of G.D.P., to 39 percent from 46 percent. The cuts were far larger and more consistent than nearly all of Britain’s peer countries managed to enact; spending on new physical and digital health infrastructure, for instance, fell by half over the decade. In the United States, political reversals and partisan hypocrisy put a check on deep austerity; in Britain, the party making the cuts has stayed steadily in power for 12 years.The consequences have been remarkable: a very different Britain from the one that reached the turn of the millennium as Tony Blair’s “Cool Britannia.” Real wages have actually declined, on average, over the last 15 years, making America’s wage stagnation over the same period seem appealing by comparison. As the political economist William Davies has written, the private sector is also behaving shortsightedly, skimping on long-term investments and extracting profits from financial speculation instead: “To put it bluntly, Britain’s capitalist class has effectively given up on the future.” Even the right-wing Daily Telegraph is now lamenting that England is “becoming a poor country.”Of course, trends aside, in absolute terms Britain remains a wealthy place: the sixth-largest economy in the world, though its G.D.P. is now smaller than that of India, its former colony. And while the deluded promises of Brexit boosters obviously haven’t come to pass, neither have the bleakest projections: food shortages, crippling labor crunches or economic chaos.Instead, there has been a slow, sighing decay — one that makes contemporary Britain a revealing case study in the way we talk and think about the fates of nations and the shape of contemporary history. Optimists like to point to global graphs of long-term progress, but if the political experience of the last decade has taught us anything, it is that whether the world as a whole is richer than it was 50 years ago matters much less to the people on it today than who got those gains, and how they compare with expectations. Worldwide child mortality statistics are indeed encouraging, as are measures of global poverty. But it’s cold comfort to point out to an American despairing over Covid-era life expectancy declines that, in fact, a child born today can still expect to live longer than one born in 1995, for instance, or to tell a Brit worrying over his or her economic prospects that added prosperity is likely to come eventually — at the same level enjoyed by economies in the former Eastern Bloc.Can Britain even stomach such a comparison? The wealthy West has long regarded development as a race that has already and definitively been won, with suspense remaining primarily about how quickly and how fully the rest of the world might catch up. Rich countries could stumble, the triumphalist narrative went, but even the worst-case scenarios would look something like Japan — a rich country that stalled out and stubbornly stopped growing. But Japan is an economic utopia compared with Argentina, among the richest countries of the world a century ago, or Italy, which has tripped its way into instability over the last few decades. Britain has long since formally relinquished its dreams of world domination, but the implied bargain of imperial retreat was something like a tenured chair at the table of global elders. As it turns out, things can fall apart in the metropole too. Over two centuries, a tiny island nation made itself an empire and a capitalist fable, essentially inventing economic growth and then, powered by it, swallowing half the world. Over just two decades now, it has remade itself as a cautionary tale.David Wallace-Wells (@dwallacewells), a writer for Opinion and a columnist for The New York Times Magazine, is the author of “The Uninhabitable Earth.” More

    • 38 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Pandemic Learning Loss

      by

      The role remote education played.Months into the current school year, most American students are still trying to make up for what they lost during the pandemic. This fall, we saw some of the clearest evidence yet of the extent to which the pandemic — and the school closures that came with it — hurt children’s education.Nine-year-olds lost the equivalent of two decades of progress in math and reading, according to an authoritative national test. Fourth and eighth graders also recorded sweeping declines, particularly in math, with eighth-grade scores falling in 49 of 50 states.The data comes from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a rigorous exam that evaluates thousands of children across the country and is overseen by a research arm of the U.S. Education Department.Today, I’ll break down the factors that drove these declines and explain an important trend that helps show why these results are so sobering.Remote learning’s roleFirst, to address one of the most common questions I hear as an education reporter: To what degree is remote learning responsible for these setbacks? The answer is both simple and complicated.At a basic level, there is good evidence and a growing consensus that extended remote learning harmed students. Some state test results from 2021 help show the damage. In Ohio, researchers found that districts that stayed fully remote during the 2020-21 school year experienced declines up to three times greater than those of districts that mostly taught students in person.More recently, the national test results capture both the initial academic declines and any recovery, and they offer some nuance. While there was a notable correlation between remote learning and declines in fourth-grade math, for example, there was little to no correlation in reading. Why the discrepancy? One explanation is that reading skills tend to be more influenced by parents and what happens at home, whereas math is more directly affected by what is taught in school.So remote learning does not explain the whole story. What else does? In a sophisticated analysis of thousands of public school districts in 29 states, researchers at Harvard and Stanford Universities found that poverty played an even bigger role in academic declines during the pandemic.“The poverty rate is very predictive of how much you lost,” Sean Reardon, an education professor at Stanford who helped lead the analysis, told me.Comparing two California school districts, one wealthier and the other poorer, illustrates this point. Cupertino Union, a Silicon Valley school district where about 6 percent of students qualify for free or reduced lunch (a marker that researchers use to estimate poverty), spent nearly half of the 2020-21 school year remote. So did Merced City in the Central Valley, where nearly 80 percent of students are eligible for free or reduced lunch, according to the Harvard-Stanford analysis.Yet despite spending roughly the same amount of time attending classes remotely, students in the wealthier Cupertino district actually gained ground in math, while students in poorer Merced City fell behind.High vs. low performersWhile the overall declines in student achievement were stark, the averages mask even deeper divergences between student groups. For example, Black and Hispanic students, who had started out behind white and Asian students in fourth-grade math, lost more ground than those groups during the pandemic.Notably, the gap is also growing between the country’s highest-achieving students and low-performing students who struggle the most.That gap — driven by declines among lower performers — was most clear for younger students and in reading. (Middle-school math declines were more significant across the board.)In fourth grade, the average reading score on the national exam fell three points. But results for students in the top 90th percentile did not fall at all, while those for students in the bottom 10th percentile plunged six points, double the overall average.In other words: The students who had the least ground to lose lost the most.There may be a twofold explanation. Recent research from NWEA, a nonprofit academic assessment organization, found that students at the bottom of their classes both experienced sharper setbacks at the start of the pandemic and showed less improvement last school year.I am sometimes asked: If the pandemic affected all students, how much does it matter? Isn’t everyone behind?What the latest data affirmed is that while the pandemic affected all students, it did not affect all students equally. That was true with remote learning, and it is playing out now in recovery. The students who had the greatest needs coming into the pandemic have the steepest challenge — and will need the most help — in the future.Related: On “The Daily,” I explained what schools can do to help students recover.THE LATEST NEWSProtests in ChinaDemonstrators in Beijing.Kevin Frayer/Getty ImagesChina has witnessed its most defiant eruption of public anger in years, after a deadly apartment fire last week set off nationwide protests against Covid lockdowns.Anger with Xi Jinping, China’s leader, helps explain how the demonstrations gained momentum.Chinese spam flooded Twitter and obscured news about the protests, The Washington Post reported.PoliticsA strong midterm performance eased some Democrats’ fears about President Biden’s potential re-election bid.Attorney General Merrick Garland is recalibrating his political approach as the Justice Department investigates Donald Trump.Biden’s sweeping marijuana pardons do not apply to many people with minor convictions.Other Big StoriesGunmen in explosive vests stormed a hotel in Somalia, trapping government officials in an ongoing siege. The militant group Al Shabab claimed responsibility.A small plane crashed into power lines in Maryland, injuring two people and knocking out electricity to roughly 117,000 customers.Many developed countries have reduced roadway deaths, but the U.S. has failed to keep up.“I simply wanted to save the family I found”: Another patron helped stop the shooter during the attack on an L.G.B.T.Q. nightclub in Colorado Springs.Millions of people in Houston were told to boil drinking water and schools were closed after a power failure at a purification plant.OpinionsGail Collins and Bret Stephens discuss gun violence.Just ignore Donald Trump, Patti Davis, a daughter of Ronald Reagan, writes.To protect patients, give older doctors competency assessments, Dr. Sandeep Jauhar writes.MORNING READSA wind farm in the North Sea.Francesca Jones for The New York TimesGreen transition: Oil and gas workers are finding jobs on Scotland’s wind farms.Vows: They met in an elevator and danced their way to a “beautifully intoxicating” romance.Metropolitan diary: The upside of a forgotten phone.Quiz time: Take our latest news quiz, and share your score (the average was 9.4).Advice from Wirecutter: The best advent calendars.Lives Lived: Irene Cara was an Oscar-winning singer who performed the title tracks for “Flashdance” and “Fame.” She died at 63.SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETICEagles beat Packers: Philadelphia maintained the N.F.L.’s best record with a 40-33 win over the Packers late last night. Aaron Rodgers left the game with a rib injury.No. 1 goes down: The Alabama men’s basketball team upset top-ranked North Carolina in four overtimes.WORLD CUPMorocco’s Zakaria Aboukhlal scores against Belgium.Amr Abdallah Dalsh/ReutersShock: Morocco upset Belgium, leading to riots in Brussels. And Canada is out after losing to Croatia. Manager John Herdman’s ill-fated bravado before the match proved disastrous.Powers draw even: Germany kept its tournament hopes alive with a 1-1 tie against Spain.Taking stock: Do all these upsets make for a more exciting tournament?Protest battle: Iran called for the U.S. to be expelled from the competition over a social media post featuring an altered flag.Photo collage: A V.I.P. entrance at Qatar’s showpiece stadium replaced a mural celebrating migrant workers.Today: Cameroon is playing Serbia, and Brazil will face Switzerland this afternoon — though without its star, Neymar, who is injured. Here are the latest scores.ARTS AND IDEAS The modern wine barPlace des Fêtes in Brooklyn.Karsten Moran for The New York TimesThey’re popping up all over New York City. But what is a wine bar, anyway?American wine bars used to be a novelty — a space for customers to learn about the intricacies of a bottle’s taste and production. They have evolved over the last few decades, finding success with a new formula: simple food, casual atmosphere, inexpensive wine by the glass.This relaxed approach sets wine bars apart from restaurants. “Good wine bars are informal neighborhood gathering places rather than destinations, with occasional exceptions,” our critic Eric Asimov writes. Some of his favorite wine bars introduce new trends, like natural and orange wines.For more: Eric picks New York’s best wine bars.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookPeter DaSilva for The New York TimesCacio e Pepe is simple but incredible.What to seePuerto Rican artists at the Whitney.What to WatchAn “Unsolved Mysteries” reboot from an executive producer of “Stranger Things,” and six other shows to binge.Now Time to PlayThe pangram from yesterday’s Spelling Bee was workload. Here is today’s puzzle.Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Moon goddess (four letters).And here’s today’s Wordle. After, use our bot to get better.Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow.P.S. Amanda Choy and Mantai Chow are joining Times Cooking to produce documentary-style videos.Here’s today’s front page. “The Daily” is about the World Cup.Matthew Cullen, Lauren Hard, Lauren Jackson, Claire Moses, Ian Prasad Philbrick, Tom Wright-Piersanti and Ashley Wu contributed to The Morning. You can reach the team at themorning@nytimes.com.Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. More

    • 225 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      These midterm elections have enormous stakes for poor and low-income Americans | Rev William Barber and Karen Dolan

      by

      These midterm elections have enormous stakes for poor and low-income AmericansReverend William Barber and Karen DolanOur country faces a material and moral crisis – and Republicans are offering only resentment and false solutions Our wellbeing is on the ballot this November. Amid a pandemic, rising inflation, and deepening financial instability, we need a strong commitment from all candidates to our children, families and planet.In 2021, we won some of that commitment.Democrats need to address economic fears now – or risk losing their majorities | Robert ReichRead moreMembers of Congress – some of them – heard our voices. They made investments – from the expanded child tax credit to healthcare to infrastructure – that brought unemployment to historic lows and reduced child poverty to its lowest measure on record.Prior to the pandemic, the Poor People’s Campaign: a National Call for Moral Revival estimated that 140 million of us were poor and low-wealth. The American Rescue Plan and other investments brought that down to 112 million last year – a huge step forward.But even this help left one-third of us still living in serious economic hardship. Even worse, it was temporary. With those programs now expiring, and the cost of living continuing to climb, poverty is again on the rise.What have we learned? That poverty is a political choice. It drops when the government commits to reducing it. And it rises when that commitment vanishes.So the stakes for America’s poor and low-income families are huge this election.It’s not just social spending at stake. Climate disasters are becoming deadlier and costlier. Wars, supply chain issues and corporate price-gouging are sending inflation upward. And the democratic systems we need to fix these problems together are under threat themselves.We need our lawmakers to show moral leadership and take these crises seriously.The Republicans favored to take control of the House of Representatives have released a program they call the “Commitment to America”. We believe this document shows none of that moral leadership. Instead, it peddles in hollow resentment politicking and offers no alternatives to address real problems.To the contrary, this agenda seems to threaten the most effective anti-poverty programs we have – like social security and Medicare – with vague allusions to “fixing” and “personalizing” them. Coming from Republicans, terms like these usually mean privatization.Privatized healthcare helped big pharma and insurance companies make huge profits through the worst public health crisis in a century. And private takeovers of nursing homes increased both costs and deaths among Medicare patients using those facilities. What we need now is more public health care.And despite professing concern for our health, the Republican manifesto leaves out the fact that every Republican voted against affordable healthcare and reducing prescription drug prices.Meanwhile, the Republican program promises to increase our already obscene and ever-increasing Pentagon budget.We’ve already spent over $21tn over the past 20 years on war, policing, surveillance and border enforcement even as our healthcare, infrastructure and social programs have failed to keep up with need. The so-called “Commitment to America” would divert still more funding from children and families while ignoring that the greatest threat to the homeland is domestic terrorism.Finally, the “Commitment to America” promises still more tax cuts for corporations and the extremely wealthy. The 2017 Trump tax cuts for the rich are already on track to cost more than $2.2tn over the next decade. If they’re extended, they could cost $5.5tn – effectively taking away from programs that support our basic needs.Rather than its stated purpose, the Republican program is merely a commitment to corporate greed and private profit. These times call for a real “commitment to America” that moves us toward the promise of what we want to be. Toward a nation where the wellbeing of all of our children and families is guaranteed. A society where all workers have dignity and living wages, paid leave, healthcare, and the right to unionize.In this society, moral policies would lift the crushing burden of debt. They would ensure a robust democracy and our participation in the decisions impacting our daily lives. They would prioritize wellbeing over militarization and mass incarceration.This November, with one-third of the nation still struggling, we must come together and demand a real commitment to the wellbeing of our hardworking families from all candidates, not the revenge politics being served up by those who are unprepared to lead. We won’t be silent any more.
      The Rev Dr William J Barber II is a national co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival
      Karen Dolan directs the Criminalization of Race and Poverty Project at the Institute for Policy Studies
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionRepublicansDemocratsPovertycommentReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘We’re in a moral crisis’: US faith leaders urge lawmakers to combat poverty

      by

      ‘We’re in a moral crisis’: US faith leaders urge lawmakers to combat povertyCoalition gathers on Capitol Hill to deliver impassioned demand to improve life for low-income Americans A coalition of faith leaders gathered on Capitol Hill on Thursday to deliver an impassioned demand for more congressional action to combat poverty, telling lawmakers they have a moral obligation to improve life for low-income Americans.Indiana judge blocks enforcement of abortion ban passed by RepublicansRead moreThe faith leaders called on the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate to take at least three votes on major progressive issues before midterm elections in November.They emphasized the importance of putting lawmakers “on the record” about strengthening voting rights, raising wages and reinstating pandemic-era policies aimed at lifting families out of poverty.“We’re in a moral crisis,” said the Rev William J Barber II, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign (PPC). “The very soul of this democracy will implode if we don’t deal with these issues.”The press conference, organized by the group Repairers of the Breach, came one week after US census data indicated that the US child poverty rate fell by nearly half last year.Faith leaders warned that such progress made since the start of the coronavirus pandemic could be reversed if Congress does not act to extend policies like the expanded child tax credit, which provided monthly checks to millions of families. That program expired at the end of last year, when Democrats failed to pass the Build Back Better Act.“It’s important to note that these numbers are down based on an antiquated and inadequate poverty measure but also because of temporary relief from the child tax credit,” said Rev Dr Liz Theoharis, co-chair of the PPC.“The fact that that has not been extended, that it has not been expanded, that we haven’t seen the minimum wage raised, that we are still fighting for our voting rights means that millions upon millions of people’s lives are being cut short.”Dozens of faith leaders spoke, applauding the recent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, Democrats’ healthcare and climate package, while lamenting that poverty-fighting policies were left out. They insisted Democrats must do more to help low-income families.“Our country is broken. People are suffering, and we must do better,” said Sheila Katz, chief executive officer of National Council of Jewish Women. “Let me be clear: it is a policy decision that millions of children are living in poverty. It is a policy decision that millions of families are living paycheck to paycheck.”With less than 50 days until the midterm elections, Democrats show few signs of progress on new anti-poverty legislation, as many incumbents turn their attention to re-election campaigns.Republicans are favored to take the House in November. If Republicans do so, any hope of extending the expanded child tax credit or restoring critical voting protections will vanish.“This is why we’re saying there has to be a vote before November,” Barber said. “We’re not afraid of losing. We’re afraid of the American people not knowing who stands where … And if you do it, you will see a massive turnout of low-income voters like you’ve never seen before.”Several progressive House members attended the press conference, reaffirming their commitment to helping those in poverty.But they acknowledged Democrats have had trouble advancing progressive policies in the evenly divided Senate, where Republicans have been able to filibuster proposals embraced by Barber and his allies.Two Democratic senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have objected to proposals to amend the filibuster to help overcome Republican obstruction.“The political will oftentimes in the Senate, I have to say quite frankly, has not been there,” said Barbara Lee, a California congresswoman. “This is a numbers game here.”Lee pledged to keep working with allies like Barber to help lift Americans out of poverty and ensure a more equitable future.“We’re going to keep fighting until justice is done,” Lee told the faith leaders. “Have hope. You give us hope. You inspire us. And united we stand, divided we fall, but we’re going to keep standing and moving forward.”TopicsPovertyUS CongressUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      As Latin America Shifts Left, Leaders Face a Bleak Reality.

      by

      All six of the region’s largest economies could soon be run by presidents elected on leftist platforms. Their challenge? Inflation, war in Europe and growing poverty at home.BOGOTÁ, Colombia — In Chile, a tattooed former student activist won the presidency with a pledge to oversee the most profound transformation of Chilean society in decades, widening the social safety net and shifting the tax burden to the wealthy.In Peru, the son of poor farmers was propelled to victory on a vow to prioritize struggling families, feed the hungry and correct longstanding disparities in access to health care and education.In Colombia, a former rebel and longtime legislator was elected the country’s first leftist president, promising to champion the rights of Indigenous, Black and poor Colombians, while building an economy that works for everyone.“A new story for Colombia, for Latin America, for the world,” he said in his victory speech, to thunderous applause.After years of tilting rightward, Latin America is hurtling to the left, a watershed moment that began in 2018 with the election of Andrés Manuel López Obrador in Mexico and could culminate with a victory later this year by a leftist candidate in Brazil, leaving the region’s six largest economies run by leaders elected on leftist platforms.A combination of forces have thrust this new group into power, including an anti-incumbent fervor driven by anger over chronic poverty and inequality, which have only been exacerbated by the pandemic and have deepened frustration among voters who have taken out their indignation on establishment candidates.During the height of a coronavirus wave in Peru last year, people waited to refill oxygen tanks for loved ones on the outskirts of Lima. Marco Garro for The New York TimesBut just as new leaders settle into office, their campaign pledges have collided with a bleak reality, including a European war that has sent the cost of everyday goods, from fuel to food, soaring, making life more painful for already suffering constituents and evaporating much of the good will presidents once enjoyed.Chile’s Gabriel Boric, Peru’s Pedro Castillo and Colombia’s Gustavo Petro are among the leaders who rode to victory promising to help the poor and disenfranchised, but who find themselves facing enormous challenges in trying to meet the high expectations of voters.Unlike today, the last significant leftist shift in Latin America, in the first decade of the millennium, was propelled by a commodities boom that allowed leaders to expand social programs and move an extraordinary number of people into the middle class, raising expectations for millions of families.Now that middle class is sliding backward, and instead of a boom, governments face pandemic-battered budgets, galloping inflation fed by the war in Ukraine, rising migration and increasingly dire economic and social consequences of climate change.In Argentina, where the leftist Alberto Fernández took the reins from a right-wing president in late 2019, protesters have taken to the streets amid rising prices. Even larger protests erupted recently in Ecuador, threatening the government of one of the region’s few newly elected right-wing presidents, Guillermo Lasso.“I don’t want to be apocalyptic about it,” said Cynthia Arnson, a distinguished fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “But there are times when you look at this that it feels like the perfect storm, the number of things hitting the region at once.”Protesters in Santiago, Chile, in 2019, demanding economic changes to address systemic inequality. The country’s new president, elected last year, has become deeply unpopular among Chileans angry over rising prices.Tomas Munita for The New York TimesThe rise of social media, with the potential to supercharge discontent and drive major protest movements, including in Chile and Colombia, has shown people the power of the streets.Beginning in August, when Mr. Petro takes over from his conservative predecessor, five of the six largest economies in the region will be run by leaders who campaigned from the left.The sixth, Brazil, the largest country in Latin America, could swing that way in a national election in October. Polls show that former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a fiery leftist, has a wide lead on the right-wing incumbent, President Jair Bolsonaro.New leaders in Colombia and Chile are far more socially progressive than leftists in the past, calling for a shift away from fossil fuels and advocating for abortion rights at a time when the United States Supreme Court is moving the country in the opposite direction.But taken together, this group is extremely mixed, differing on everything from economic policy to their commitment to democratic principles.Mr. Petro and Mr. Boric have vowed to vastly expand social programs for the poor, for example, while Mr. López Obrador, who is focused on austerity, is reducing spending.What does link these leaders, however, are promises for sweeping change that in many instances are running headlong into difficult and growing challenges.Gustavo Petro and his running mate, Francia Márquez, celebrated their victory in June in Colombia’s national election. They will lead a country where 40 percent of the people lives on less than half of the monthly minimum wage.Federico Rios for The New York TimesIn Chile late last year, Mr. Boric beat José Antonio Kast, a right-wing establishment politician associated with Chile’s former dictator, Augusto Pinochet, by pledging to jettison the neoliberal economic policies of the past.But just months into his term, with an inexperienced cabinet, divided Congress, rising consumer prices and unrest in the country’s south, Mr. Boric’s approval ratings have plummeted.Ninety percent of poll respondents told the polling firm Cadem this month that they believed the country’s economy was stuck or going backward.Like many neighbors in the region, Chile’s yearly inflation rate is the highest it has been in more than a generation, at 11.5 percent, spurring a cost-of-living crisis.In southern Chile, a land struggle between the Mapuche, the country’s largest Indigenous group, and the state has entered its deadliest phase in 20 years, leading Mr. Boric to reverse course on one of his campaign pledges and redeploy troops in the area.Catalina Becerra, 37, a human resources manager from Antofagasta, in northern Chile, said that “like many people of my generation” she voted for Mr. Boric because Mr. Kast “didn’t represent me in the slightest.”Students taking part in an anti-government protest in June in Santiago.Javier Torres/Agence France-Presse, via Getty Images“But I wasn’t convinced by what he could do for the country,’’ Ms. Becerra added. “He has not achieved what he said he would.”In September, Chileans will vote on a remarkably progressive constitution that enshrines gender equality, environmental protections and Indigenous rights and that is meant to replace a Pinochet-era document.The president has bound his success to the referendum, putting himself in a precarious position should the draft be rejected, which polls show is for now the more likely outcome.In neighboring Peru, Mr. Castillo rose last year from virtual anonymity to beat Keiko Fujimori, a right-wing career politician whose father, former President Alberto Fujimori, governed with an iron fist and introduced neoliberal policies similar to those rejected by Chilean voters.While some Peruvians supported Mr. Castillo solely as a rejection of Ms. Fujimori, he also represented real hopes for many, especially poor and rural voters.As a candidate, Mr. Castillo promised to empower farmers with more subsidies, access to credit and technical assistance.But today, he is barely managing to survive politically. He has governed erratically, pulled between his far-left party and the far-right opposition, reflecting the fractious politics that helped him win the presidency.Supporters of Peru’s leftist presidential candidate Pedro Castillo during a protest against his rival’s effort to annul votes in 2021. Mr. Castillo won the election but is barely managing to survive politically. Marco Garro for The New York TimesMr. Castillo — whose approval rating has sunk to 19 percent, according to the Institute of Peruvian Studies — is now subject to five criminal probes, has already faced two impeachment attempts and cycled through seven interior ministers.The agrarian reform he pledged has yet to translate into any concrete policies. Instead, price spikes for food, fuel and fertilizer are hitting his base the hardest.Farmers are struggling through one of the worst crises in decades, facing the biggest planting season of the year without widespread access to synthetic fertilizer. They normally get most of it from Russia, but it is difficult to obtain because of global supply disruptions related to the war.Eduardo Zegarra, an investigator at GRADE, a research institute, called the situation “unprecedented.”“I think this is going to unfold very dramatically, and usher in a lot of instability,” he said.In a poor, hillside neighborhood in Lima, the capital, many parents are skipping meals so their children have more to eat.“We voted for Castillo because we had the hope that his government would be different,” said Ruth Canchari, 29, a stay-at-home mother of three children. “But he’s not taking action.”In Colombia, Mr. Petro will take office facing many of the same headwinds.President Gabriel Boric of Chile flashed a victory sign after his swearing-in ceremony at Congress in Valparaiso in March.Esteban Felix/Associated PressPoverty has risen — 40 percent of households now live on less than $100 a month, less than half of the monthly minimum wage — while inflation has hit nearly 10 percent.Still, despite widespread financial anxiety, Mr. Petro’s actions as he prepares to assume office seem to have earned him some support.He has made repeated calls for national consensus, met with his biggest political foe, the right-wing former president Álvaro Uribe, and appointed a widely respected, relatively conservative and Yale-educated finance minister.The moves may allow Mr. Petro to govern more successfully than, say, Mr. Boric, said Daniel García-Peña, a political scientist, and have calmed down some fears about how he will try to revive the economy.But given how quickly the honeymoon period ended for others, Mr. Petro will have precious little time to start delivering relief.“Petro must come through for his voters,” said Hernan Morantes, 30, a Petro supporter and environmental activist. “Social movements must be ready, so that when the government does not come through, or does not want to come through, we’re ready.”Julie Turkewitz More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Covid had devastating toll on poor and low-income communities in US

      by

      Covid had devastating toll on poor and low-income communities in USPoor People’s Pandemic Report concludes that while virus did not discriminate between rich and poor, society and government did The devastating impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on poor and low-income communities across America is laid bare in a new report released on Monday that concludes that while the virus did not discriminate between rich and poor, society and government did.As the US draws close to the terrible landmark of 1 million deaths from coronavirus, the glaringly disproportionate human toll that has been exacted is exposed by the Poor People’s Pandemic Report. Based on a data analysis of more than 3,000 counties across the US, it finds that people in poorer counties have died overall at almost twice the rate of those in richer counties.Looking at the most deadly surges of the virus, the disparity in death rates grows even more pronounced. During the third pandemic wave in the US, over the winter of 2020 and 2021, death rates were four and a half times higher in the poorest counties than those with the highest median incomes.During the recent Omicron wave, that divergence in death rates stood at almost three times.Such a staggering gulf in outcomes cannot be explained by differences in vaccination rates, the authors find, with more than half of the population of the poorest counties having received two vaccine shots. A more relevant factor is likely to be that the poorest communities had twice the proportion of people who lack health insurance compared with the richer counties.“The findings of this report reveal neglect and sometimes intentional decisions to not focus on the poor,” said Bishop William Barber, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign which jointly prepared the research. “The neglect of poor and low-wealth people in this country during a pandemic is immoral, shocking and unjust.”The report was produced by the Poor People’s Campaign in partnership with a team of economists at the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) led by Jeffrey Sachs. They have number-crunched statistics from more than 3,200 counties as a way of comparing the poorest 10% with the richest 10%.They then interrogate the interplay between Covid death rates and poverty, as well as other crucial demographic factors such as race and occupation.Until now the extent to which the virus has struck low-income communities has been difficult to gauge because official mortality data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and elsewhere has not systematically factored in income and wealth information.The new report seeks to fill that gaping hole in understanding of the US pandemic. One of its most striking findings is that within the top 300 counties with the highest death rates, 45% of the population on average lives below the poverty line as defined as 200% of the official poverty measure.Sachs, a Columbia University professor who is president of the UN SDSN, said the findings underlined how the pandemic was not just a national tragedy but also a failure of social justice. “The burden of disease – in terms of deaths, illness and economic costs – was borne disproportionately by the poor, women, and people of color. The poor were America’s essential workers, on the frontlines, saving lives and also incurring disease and death.”The authors rank US counties according to the intersection of poverty and Covid-19 death rates. Top of the list is Galax county, a small rural community in south-west Virginia.Its death rate per 100,000 people stands at an astonishing 1,134, compared with 299 per 100,000 nationally. Median income in the county is little more than $33,000, and almost half of the population lives below the poverty line.Among the counties with punishingly high poverty and death rates is the Bronx in New York City, where 56% of the population is Hispanic and 29% Black. More than half of the borough lives under the poverty line, and the Covid death rate is 538 per 100,000 – within the highest 10% in the US.Racial disparities have been at the centre of the pandemic experience in the US. Early on it became clear that Black people and Hispanics in New York City, for instance, were dying of Covid at twice the rate of whites and Asians.The consequences of such racial inequity are still only now becoming visible. Last week a study in the journal Social Science & Medicine reached a disturbing conclusion.It found that when white Americans were informed through the media that Black Americans were dying at higher rates than their demographic group was, their fear of the virus receded and they became less empathetic towards those vulnerable to the disease. They were also more likely to abandon Covid safety precautions such as masks and social distancing.But low-income predominantly white communities are also in peril. Mingo county in West Virginia, for example, has one of the lowest income levels in the US following the collapse of coal mining and the scourge of the opioid epidemic.The county is 96% white, with over half its residents living below the poverty line. Its Covid death rate is 470 per 100,000 – putting it within the top quarter of counties in the nation for pandemic mortality.TopicsCoronavirusOmicron variantUS politicsInequalityPovertynewsReuse this content More