Posts Tagged ‘poverty’

Only in America

Posted: 2 November 2015 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,

10008981_H12066055-600x377

Apparently, Maine is going to start limiting the financial assets of welfare recipients, effectively discouraging them from saving money.

The state will place a $5,000 cap on the savings and other assets of residents enrolled in the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Those whose bank accounts, secondary vehicles and homes, and other assets considered non-essential by the government, exceed the limit will no longer be eligible to participate in the food stamp program. An individual’s primary home and vehicle won’t count toward the limit.

The thinking, according to the Gov. Paul LePage’s office, is simple: People shouldn’t be allowed to take money from the government if they don’t need to. “Most Mainers would agree that before someone receives taxpayer-funded welfare benefits, they should sell non-essential assets and use their savings,” LePage said in a written statement.

So, we now live in a country that is hellbent on surveilling and limiting the financial resources of poor people—but never asks the question of how much savings and other assets (from stocks to art) rich people have when it comes to paying taxes.

ACA

The New York Times has mapped the percentage of the U.S. population that still, two years into Obamacare, remains without health insurance.

The remaining uninsured are primarily in the South and the Southwest. They tend to be poor. They tend to live in Republican-leaning states. The rates of people without insurance in the Northeast and the upper Midwest have fallen into the single digits since the Affordable Care Act’s main provisions kicked in. But in many parts of the country, obtaining health insurance is still a problem for many Americans.

Here, for comparison, are some additional maps—starting with slave and free states in 1860, rates of poverty in 2011, and red and blue states in 2014:

1860_US_Free_and_Slave_States

poverty

states

In the name of science

Posted: 5 October 2015 in Uncategorized
Tags: , ,

Triff_Brain_MRI

There’s no doubt Kimberly G. Noble and her team of neuroscientists are genuinely concerned about the effects of poverty on children’s brains—and not for nefarious purposes.

Not surprisingly, our findings made many people uncomfortable. Some feared the study would be used to reinforce the notion that people remain in poverty because they are less capable than those with higher incomes.

As neuroscientists, we interpret the results very differently. We know that the brain is most malleable in the early years of life and that experiences during that time have lifelong effects on the mind. Work by social scientists such as Sendhil Mullainathan at Harvard University and Eldar Shafir at Princeton University has shown that poverty depletes parents’ cognitive resources, leaving less capacity for making everyday decisions about parenting. These parents are also at far greater risk for depression and anxiety — poverty’s “mental tax.” All of this has important implications for children.

When parents are distracted or depressed, family life is likely to be characterized by conflict and emotional withdrawal rather than nurturing and supportive relationships with children. Parents don’t talk and read to their kids as often and make less eye contact with them. This accumulation of stress in children’s lives has cascading effects on brain systems critical to learning, remembering and reasoning.

As a society we cannot stand by when millions of children are at risk for not reaching their full cognitive and academic potential.

But then, in the name of science (in particular, in the name of randomized trials), here’s what they propose:

That’s why I am part of a team of social scientists and neuroscientists planning a large clinical trial in which 1,000 low-income mothers will be randomly assigned to receive either a large ($333) or small ($20) monthly income supplement for the first three years of their children’s lives. Periodic assessments of the children and their mothers will enable us to estimate the impact of these cash supplements on children’s cognitive, emotional and brain development, as well as the effect on family functioning. . .

The political battles for major expansion of these types of programs are unlikely to be won until we can provide hard scientific proof of their effectiveness. Until then, we need to do all we can to support policies that offer our most vulnerable children the best chance of reaching their full potential.

I understand the desire to want to be able to produce and use “hard” numbers to intervene in public debate. I do it all the time on this blog.

However, we need to be concerned about attempts to use poor people—first in Third World countries, and now in the United States—as guinea pigs “to estimate the impact of these cash supplements on children’s cognitive, emotional and brain development, as well as the effect on family functioning.”

We can well imagine what the reaction would be if, in the name of science, we devised a large clinical trial in which 1,000 high-income mothers were randomly assigned to a large (say, $10,000) or small (say, $1,000) monthly income deduction in order to estimate the impact of these cash deductions on children’s cognitive, emotional and brain development, as well as the effect on family functioning.

strip-27-9

Special mention

169323_600 169336_600

welfare_590_428

What is it poor working Americans need?

According to Jeb Bush, channeling Mitt Romney, they need “hope and aspiration,” not promises of “free stuff.”

“Our message is one of hope and aspiration,” he said at the East Cooper Republican Women’s Club annual Shrimp Dinner. “It isn’t one of division and get in line and we’ll take care of you with free stuff. Our message is one that is uplifting — that says you can achieve earned success.”

And then there’s Robert Macdonald, mayor of Lewiston, Maine, who supports a bill “asking that a Web site be created containing the names, addresses, length of time on assistance and the benefits being collected by every individual on the dole.”

Of people receiving benefits, he said: “Go into the grocery store. They flaunt it.” Publicly posting personal information, he said, could encourage people to go after those “gaming the system.”

He added he doesn’t care whether some people who rightly receive benefits could be hurt, saying: “Some people are going to get harmed but if it’s for the good of everybody, that’s the way it is.”

What’s next, requiring welfare recipients to submit to drug testing or screening?

Oh, that’s right, at least thirteen states have already passed legislation regarding drug testing or screening for public assistance applicants or recipients (Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah). And, as of July 2015, another 18 states have proposed legislation requiring some form of drug testing or screening for public assistance recipients this year (Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia).

huck1octCOLOR

Special mention

169160_600 169178_600

Chart of the day

Posted: 23 September 2015 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,

reservation_poverty

As part of his report on the geography of poverty in the United States, Matt Black how the pipelines and profits of the oil industry have failed to address the high poverty rate among American Indians.

Tribes have been forced to fight a series of losing battles to control and capitalize on the natural resources found on their land. In North Dakota, where an oil boom has bolstered the state economy and driven the unemployment rate down to just 3.1%, the unemployment rate in Standing Rock is 79%.

The thriving oil industry on or near the state’s tribal lands has created a tense tug-of-war between big industry and the tribes, some of whom have opted to work with corporations in order to claim at least some of what those corporations are sucking out of the earth. At the same time, there’s concern over what many native environmental activists call a con game, where corporations use loopholes and the messy state of tribal and government relations to push further into native lands for oil exploration.