New Plan to Reduce Child Poverty in America

August 20, 2015

Children have the highest poverty rate of any age group in our country. Nearly 14.7 million of them — 19.9% — are officially poor, according to the latest Census report.

The percent is even higher for infants and toddlers, a new brief from the Center for American Progress tells us — nearly 23% or well over one in five. CAP has a four-part proposal to reduce the child poverty rate — and the depth of poverty for children who’d still be poor.

Unlike a plan I earlier blogged on, its parts all have to do with the Child Tax Credit. The first part, tucked into the brief as a starting point, is a permanent extension of the improvement the Recovery Act made. It’s now among the refundable tax credit improvements due to expire in 2017.

CAP’s plan would then do what some progressives advocated for the Recovery Act — drop the threshold for claiming the CTC to the first dollar of earned income, rather than the first dollar over $3,000.

At the same time, the plan would make the CTC fully refundable. In other words, a family would get a refund from the Internal Revenue Service for the entire amount its income tax liability fell short of the deductions and credits it claimed.

The credit now phases in to a maximum of $1,000 per child, leaving low-income parents with only a partial credit — or in some cases, no credit at all for a second or third child.

A third change would index the per child credit to inflation so that it didn’t lose value over time. Like the other two parts I’ve cited, linking the credit to the Consumer Price Index the IRS uses for tax provisions would make the CTC more like the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Now comes a part that CAP refers to as “enhancing” the CTC, but would actually be more like the child allowances many European countries (and a few others) provide. Families with children less than three years old would get $125 a month, regardless of income or how they net out at tax time.

They’d get this supplement monthly as a direct deposit to their bank account or on a debit card. So they’d have more to spend as they needed it to pay for the costs of caring for their babies and toddlers.

These costs can be very high. I’ve already said my bit about diapers. Full-time day care in a center for an infant cost, on average, more than $10,000 a year in half the states in 2013. And far from all poor and near-poor families can have their children’s daycare costs subsidized by either of the two main federal funding sources.

Rolling all the costs together, a CNN Money calculator tells us that a low-income family will have to pay, on average, an estimated $176,550 to raise a child born two years ago — $35,880 more if they live in an urban area in the northeast part of the country.

Now, CAP’s proposals would hardly supply parents with the wherewithal to pay for anything approaching this. Nor are they intended to. They wouldn’t eliminate child poverty either. They would, however, reduce it.

The overall poverty rate for children under seventeen would fall by 13.2%, CAP says. About 18% of children under three would be lifted out of poverty altogether — this, I assume, because of the extra income boost parents of children this young would get.

CAP also looks at the combined effects of its proposals on families with infants and toddlers who’d still have incomes (less any EITC refund and/or cash benefits) below the federal poverty line.

For them, it estimates how far its proposal would go toward closing the “poverty gap,” i.e., the difference between their average income and the FPL.

The gap would shrink by an estimated 26.1% nationwide, it reports. But, of course, the proposals would shrink the gap for all now-poor families with children — perhaps, in fact, lifting some of them above the FPL and, for sure, reducing the poverty gap for all.

The gap-closing effects of the proposals would vary considerably from state to state, a map supplement to the brief shows. They range from 25.4% in Hawaii to 12% in Wyoming. We who live in the District of Columbia could see a gap roughly 16.4% smaller.

CAP’s proposals would cost an estimated $29.2 billion if they were all in place this year. Somewhat more in the future, since the child tax credit would increase to keep pace with consumer price inflation.

This is hardly a big investment, even for spending through the tax code. So-called tax expenditures will cost the federal government about $1.22 trillion this year, the National Priorities Project reports.

Unlike many of the tax breaks, however, investments to reduce child poverty would pay for themselves many times over. An oft-cited study conducted in 2007 concluded that child poverty cost our country about half a trillion a year. Adjusting for inflation, CAP puts the total at more than $672 billion.

But this is a low-end estimate because the study included only the largest and mostly easily quantifiable costs, as the authors dutifully noted.

One doesn’t, I think, want our policies to hinge on dollars saved by alleviating the hardships and lifelong consequences of growing up in a family that’s so short on money as to be officially poor — or the hardships parents suffer to do the best they can for their children.

But if the return on investment would help CAP’s proposals gain support in a Congress that seems reluctant to even sustain the anti-poverty programs we’ve got, a strong talking point is ready to hand.

 


A Bold, Smart Bill to End Child Poverty in America

June 15, 2015

Four Congressional Democrats have introduced a bill to reduce — indeed, to end — child poverty in our country. Will it pass? Not in this Congress. But as a lobbyist friend used to remind me, it took eight years to pass the Family and Medical Leave Act.

So should we press for a law like the proposed Child Poverty Reduction Act? I think so, as do some of our leading children’s advocates. Three reasons, with an asterisk.

Far Too Many Poor Children. Well over 14.6 million children in the U.S. are officially poor, according to the latest report. That’s nearly one in five. We’ve got too many poor adults as well, but children are the poorest age group the Census Bureau counts.

This is still true when the Bureau uses its better poverty measure, which factors in major near-cash benefits like SNAP (food stamps), as well as refundable tax credits. These lower the child poverty rate, but still leave nearly 12.2 million children below the applicable poverty threshold.

Lifelong Consequences. Children born to poor parents are more likely than others to die while infants. Research tells us that those who survive, as most do, can soon suffer damages to their brain and other systems caused by toxic levels of stress.

They’re at high risk for physical and mental health problems due to a wide range of poverty-related factors — inadequate nutrition, unstable (or no) housing, parental abuse and (more often) neglect, neighborhood violence and exposure to toxins, e.g., mold, lead paint, air pollution from nearby power plants, dumps and/or highways.

Needless to say (I hope), children suffering from such problems don’t arrive at school ready to learn — or in some cases, behave themselves, as classroom decorum dictates.

They’re more likely to miss school days because they’re ill, can’t get to school or have to stay home to care for a younger child — or because they’re suspended for misbehaving, especially likely if they’re black, Hispanic or Native American.

They may choose to miss school days because they don’t want to sit in classrooms where they can’t understand the lessons and to suffer humiliation because of that and/or because their peers gang up on them.

Ultimately, far too many drop up — mostly, though perhaps not always because they’re failing academically. Or they graduate, even though they can barely read or do basic math. Barring further education, most will face a lifetime of low-wage employment — if they’re lucky. Some, as we know, will find more gainful employment in drug dealing and the like.

A somewhat dated but still indicative study estimated that child poverty costs our country $500 billion a year in lost earnings, higher crime-related costs and increased health expenditures.

So if we need a cost-benefit rationale, which I’d like to think we don’t, then making child poverty rare and brief would seem a sensible priority.

Not a National Priority. We’ve already got programs to break the poverty cycle — too many to even simply list here. We’ve got research indicating other promising initiatives, e.g., the housing pilot evaluation I blogged on recently. We’ve got at least one full-blown agenda for dramatically reducing child poverty.

But, as First Focus President Bruce Lesley observes, tackling child poverty isn’t a national priority to the extent that top-level policymakers feel they must actually do something about it — or that we, the public, demand they do.

The Child Poverty Reduction Act aims to change this by importing elements of an approach that worked in the UK. Adopted there in 2000, it drove policy changes and investments that cut the child poverty rate, as we measure it,* in half by 2008.

The proposed approach has three major prongs. Like the UK’s, it sets goals — half as many children living in poverty and none in deep poverty in 10 years and no children in poverty at all 10 years thereafter.

The proposal doesn’t include new and/or reformed policies and programs to achieve these goals. Here too, it’s like the initial UK law. It does, however, differ somewhat in how the agenda would develop.

The elements of the UK’s child poverty initiative emerged over time, though the goal-setting law required both the overarching government and the nation-level governments the UK comprises to issue strategies.

The CPRA would instead set the stage for policymaking by mandating a national plan for achieving the reduction-elimination goals, plus recommendations for achieving related goals, e.g. understanding the root causes of child poverty, eliminating race, ethnicity and other disparities.

A working group of officials in at least six federal agencies would be responsible for developing the plan and other recommendations. It would first, however, have to commission workshops and research papers from the independent National Academy of Sciences.

So we’d have a blueprint of sorts, based on research already conducted — and perhaps new studies — to launch the actual war on child poverty.

Then, much as in the UK, the working group would monitor relevant programs and services and annually publish results. Reports would include states’ child poverty reduction efforts and recommendations for further legislation.

Political Will. As Lesley says, all major parties in the UK have embraced the child poverty goals there. And their leaders apparently feel they’re accountable to the public for the impacts of their policies and other decisions.

They face a major test because recent projections suggest the child poverty rate will rise, as a report for First Focus notes. The policy largely responsible for bringing the rate down would cost too much to replicate, it says, “even if the political appetite were there.”

The lesson here isn’t one we have to learn from the UK. We’ve had goals before. Then-candidate Obama was going to end child hunger by this year, for example.

We’ve had recommendations from independent research agencies, including the recently overridden exclusion of white potatoes from foods mothers could use their WIC benefits to buy. We’ve had reams of plans to achieve worthy goals — more than 243 to end homelessness, for example.

Don’t mean to sound cynical. My point is simply that even if Congress passed the CPRA, we’d still be merely looking at the annual Census reports and shaking our heads unless we create — and sustain – enough political will to convince our elected officials that they have to show progress toward the goals.

* Countries in the European Union ordinarily use a poverty measure based on their median income. Our official measure uses incomes adjusted only for inflation to divide the poor from the not-poor year after year. The UK now uses both types of measures for child poverty.

 


What Could Lift More Seniors Out of Poverty?

May 26, 2015

The senior poverty rate, according to the official measure, is lower than the rate for the U.S. population as a whole and considerably lower than the child poverty rate. It still translates into about 4.2 million people 65 and older whose incomes fell below the applicable poverty threshold last year — just $11,354 for those who live alone.

The more accurate Supplemental Poverty Measure boosts the senior poverty rate to 14.6% — about 2.3 million more people. But for Social Security benefits, the rate would have been a whopping 52.6%. This is why Social Security is justifiably called the most effective anti-poverty program we have.

Yet we do still have some 6.5 million seniors without enough income to live on. And our poverty prevention measures tend to focus on younger people, as Kevin Prindiville, the Executive Director of Justice in Aging, says.

We’ve got a battery of programs to support education and work-related training, for example. And we’ve got a spectrum of programs to prevent — or at the very least, reduce — poverty among those who find work, especially those with dependent family members. In other words, it’s not just younger people our measures focus on, but working families.

All too late, Prindiville observes, for someone in her 70s or 80s who’s struggling now after a lifetime of low-wage jobs. “We cannot just hold up our hands and say we should have helped … [seniors] 50 years ago, or helped their parents a century ago.”

So what would help them now? Prindiville proposes a five-step plan. He’s managed to get them into a single, compact post. I, as usual, want to flesh out the issues and solutions.

So I’ll deal here with the first two, overlapping steps and leave the remaining three for a followup.

Strengthen the Existing Safety Net and Social Insurance Programs*

Social Security, SSI (Supplemental Security Income), Medicare and Medicaid largely account for the 26% drop in the official senior poverty rate since 1960, Prindiville says. First and foremost, we need to protect them.

None of those proposed Social Security benefits cuts, increased Medicare cost-sharing, e.g., through a voucher plan, or tighter limits on Medicaid coverage, which we could expect to see under the Congressional Republicans’ upcoming block grant proposals.

On the strengthening side, I suppose Prindiville would endorse the latest version of what was originally the Strengthening Social Security Act of 2013.

It would change the benefits formula, providing an average of $65 a month more, and base annual adjustments on an as-yet-to-be-completed Consumer Price Index specifically for the elderly. And unlike the 2013 bill, it would ensure that formerly low-wage workers receive benefits at least big enough to lift them over the poverty line, provided they’d worked at least 10 years.

Of course, like its predecessor, the current bill would also keep the Social Security Trust Fund from coming up short on the money needed to pay full benefits past its projected insolvency in 2033.

Rather than simply scrapping the cap on payroll taxes, as some have proposed, it would trigger taxes on all income — not only wage income — over $250,000.

Improve Supplemental Security Income

Let’s just say proposals to boost Social Security retirement benefits won’t go anywhere in this Congress. So we’ll still have seniors in poverty.

We would anyway because not all seniors used to work — or have spouses that did. And even a work history often won’t yield a benefit anyone can live on unless it spans at least 35 years — this because of the way the Social Security Administration calculates benefits.

For the poorest 2.1 million seniors, SSI provides a safety net. But it’s in need of strengthening too. The maximum benefit — currently $733 a month — is nearly $250 less than would be needed to lift a single person over the poverty line.

No benefits at all for individuals whose savings and other “countable resources” are worth more than $2,000. Nor for couples who’ve more than $3,000. So seniors who’ve saved even a modest amount don’t qualify, though they surely need some stash they can draw on for expenses like Medicare deductibles and co-pays.

And as I’ve written before, the formula for SSI benefits adjusts them downward, based on other income beneficiaries receive. The adjustments kick in only if income exceeds a certain amount, however.

We see a preference for income earned from work — understandable, since it encourages SSI recipients to enter (or reenter) the workforce. For other income, the exclusion — or disregard, as Prindiville calls it — is a mere $20 a month, plus the value of a few other public benefits.

The benefits reduction for other income is dollar-for-dollar — twice as much as for wage income. This isn’t a problem for seniors only. But it’s a big problem for them because they’ll lose as much as they gain from even a piddling increase in Social Security retirement benefits.

Congress hasn’t updated the exclusions since it created the program in 1972. If they’d been adjusted to reflect consumer price increases, the unearned income exclusion would be roughly $112 today.

Bills that died in the last Congress would have addressed these problems, as well as what can be large benefits reductions when a friend of relative helps out with food, housing costs and/or utility bills.

Prindiville says he expects the bills to be introduced again this spring. Nothing thus far, but they probably will be — whether to be better fate remains to be seen. Not holding my breath, folks.

* Prindiville’s top-line recommendation implies that Social Security retirement benefits and Medicare are safety net programs like SSI and Medicaid, but they’re insurance programs because workers pay premiums of a sort, as payroll taxes. I’ve modified the recommendation accordingly because I, among others, feel it’s important to preserve the distinction.


Who Should Decide What Poverty Is?

May 20, 2015

Let’s step back for a moment — oh, lets — from all the budget and other hot-button issues that will make life better or worse for people in poverty here in the U.S. Let’s consider how we decide who those people are.

As I suppose you know, we decide, for official purposes, by using a measure developed more than 50 years ago. This is the measure that becomes the basis for deciding who is poor enough to qualify for most of our major safety-net benefits.

Knowing it’s outdated — and was crude from the get-go — the Census Bureau has developed a “supplemental” measure, which some other analysts now use. Though more complex and sophisticated than the official measure, it still reflects needs experts have decided are essential, e.g., food, shelter and utilities, clothing, health insurance.

This, economist Stewart Lansley and coauthor Joanna Mack say, is a technocratic way of going at what’s essentially a philosophical question: what it means to be poor. What if we instead asked everyday people what they think necessary for an acceptable standard of living in our society?

The team ought to know because that’s what they’ve done for Great Britain, though thus far only as one of several alternatives to the official measure there. That measure, like ours, uses a straightforward income threshold. But unlike ours, it bases the threshold on median household income.

Below 60% of whatever the median happens to be at any given time means a household is officially poor. So the measure is relative, as it also is in other European Union countries, plus some additional countries in the OECD.

The threshold, however, still reflects a line experts and policymakers have drawn — in this case, to identify people whose resources are “so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities.”

Lansley and Mack advocate a “consensual” poverty measure. It’s consensual in that it’s based on surveys that ask the public to identify items they think are necessities not merely for survival, but for living in their society.

So the surveys include not only food, “damp free” housing and the like, but some of those amenities the far-right Heritage Foundation cites to trash on our poverty measure — and our public benefits programs. The survey, in fact, goes beyond goods and services of any sort to include “social activities” no one should have to do without.

The researchers then take items and activities a majority of respondents have chosen as necessities of life. Adults who lack three or more fall into the poverty group, as do children who lack at least two. (Basing the counts on multiple lacks is intended to exclude adults who don’t have — or engage in — one thing or the other because they’ve chosen not to, even though they could afford it.)

A  basic premise here is that the deprivation we commonly view as poverty depends on cultural and social conditions. Whatever the type(s) or degree(s) of deprivation our poverty definition entails don’t properly apply everywhere and for always.

A second, related premise is that deprivation includes the experience of being marginalized due to the indirect consequences of not having enough income and/or sufficient public benefits. We see this in the fact that a majority of UK survey respondents view the ability to afford a school trip for one’s children as a necessity.

Beyond this, the method formally recognizes that “[p]overty is a value judgment,” as the inventor of our own official measure said.

So the question becomes who should make the value judgment — experts who define some set of minimal needs and the compute the costs or the public, whose views and everyday living activities set norms that, as Lansley and Mack have said, cause people who can’t afford to meet them “to be regarded as deprived and to feel deprived.”

The team argues that the public opinion methods is “the nearest we have to a democratic definition of poverty.” In the UK, at least, it’s a standard that has support from “all social groups,” they say, cutting across classes, age groups, gender and “very importantly, political affiliation.”

They view it hopefully as an approach that could “refocus the discussion” — heated debate actually — about the safety net and the government’s proper role in fighting poverty.

Whether such broad support for a poverty definition would make a difference in our public policies is, to my mind, doubtful. We know from polls, for example, that a large majority of American voters view SNAP (the food stamp program) as important for our country.

Has this protected the program from cuts, let alone produced the needed benefits boost and other changes I tend to harp on?

The notion of a poverty definition grounded in the public’s view of the necessities of life in our country is nevertheless intriguing. If nothing else, it gives us insights into rarely surfaced assumptions underlying our poverty measures.

That, in itself, is, I think, worthwhile as the debate over who’s truly poor, why and what’s appropriate for our government to do rages on.



How We Could Cut Child Poverty By More Than Half and Pay for It Too

February 9, 2015

Back in 2007, the Half in Ten campaign set a goal of cutting poverty in America in half in 10 years. Not doing so well at that, are we?

Well, says the Children’s Defense Fund, what if we ended child poverty in this very wealthy country? That, of course, would mean ending poverty for parents and guardians too.

CDF recently released a report to take us a long way toward the child poverty goal. It offers nine recommendations that would reduce child poverty by roughly 60% — and deliver more economic resources for families of all but 3% of children who are poor now.

We’d have 6.6 million fewer children living in poverty, including half a million who are deeply poor, i.e., in households with incomes below 50% of the applicable poverty threshold.

What’s Notable

Several things distinguish this report. The first is that it builds on existing policies and programs that have proved effective. The aim is less to innovate than to increase reach — and in some cases, effectiveness as well.

The second, which is more distinctive, is that the report includes poverty-reduction impacts for each of the recommendations.* These reflect analyses by experts at the Urban Institute, who used Census Bureau data and its Supplemental Poverty Measure — a more complex and accurate measure than the one used for official purposes.

The third distinctive thing is that the report identifies specific policy and other budget changes that would yield enough savings or additional revenues to offset what the recommendations would cost.

What CDF Recommends

The recommendations fall into two big buckets. In the first are recommendations that would enable more low-income parents to work — or work more than they do — and to make their work pay more, both directly and through the tax code.

On the work side itself, we have subsidized jobs, like those temporarily funded through the Recovery Act. Also enough childcare subsidies so that all eligible families below 150% of the federal poverty line could afford high-quality child care during their working hours.

On the pay-more side, we, of course, have an increase in the federal minimum wage, but also an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and changes in the Child Care and Dependent Tax Credit. The latter would become refundable so that families with incomes too low to owe federal taxes could benefit. At the same time, the reimbursement rate for lower-income families would increase.

In the second bucket, we have recommendations that would ensure children’s basic needs are met. These are mostly changes in major safety net programs. And all but one — treatment of child support payments — would lift more children out of poverty than any of the work-related recommendations.

The most effective of all addresses housing costs. CDF proposes a large expansion of the shrunken federal Housing Choice voucher program.

Vouchers would become available for all households with children that have incomes below 150% of the poverty line and that pay — or would have to pay — at least half their income for rent at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s fair market rate. This recommendation alone would cut the child poverty rate by 20.8%.

Next down on the impact scale is a recommendation based on one the Food Research and Action Center has made for some years.

It would change the basis for determining SNAP (food stamp) benefits from the Thrifty Food Plan, which is generally used for no other purpose, to the Low-Cost Food Plan, which, FRAC says, is “generally in line with what low- and moderate-income families report they have to spend on food.”

We’d not only have fewer poorly-fed — or even underfed — children. We’d have 11.6% fewer in poverty. No benefits boost, however, for people who’ve got no children living with them.

How We Could Pay for the Proposals

First off, it’s worth noting that we’re already paying for child poverty — roughly $500 billion a year, according to an estimate a team of economists produced some years ago.

The proposals themselves would cost an estimated $77.2 billion a year. This is not only far less. It’s a tiny fraction — about 2% — of what the federal government spends.

CDF nevertheless lists five trade-offs, i.e., policy and spending changes that would free up funds to cover the costs of its proposals.

Like the recommendations, the trade-offs fall into two buckets. In one bucket, we have tax loopholes Congress could close, plus an income tax rate for capital gains and dividends equal to the rate imposed on wages.

In the other bucket, we have cuts in egregiously large and arguably wasteful Pentagon spending. Congress could, for example, give up on the F-35 fighter plane, which still can’t fly. This would free up $162.5 million per plane.

Total savings from this alone would fund all CDF’s proposals for 19 years, it says. Could be even longer, since the President’s proposed budget would fund more of these clunkers than the estimate CDF relied on.

On the other hand, the President’s budget does include some proposals similar to CDF’s, e.g., a subsidized jobs program, a larger maximum Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit for families with young children, more funding for housing vouchers, though far from enough to expand eligibility. General resemblances to some of the trade-offs in his tax code proposals too.

House Speaker John Boehner, among others, pronounced the budget DOA even before it got to Congress. Other sources think there might be some common ground. Far from enough — or in enough of the right places — to significantly reduce the child poverty rate. But it’s useful to know how we could do it — and pay for it too.

* Economist/blogger Jared Bernstein, who uses the report to poke Republican Presidential hopefuls, provides a table that identifies each recommendations, its impact of child poverty and the net new cost.

 


Many Millions Above the Poverty Line Lack Basic Economic Security

November 24, 2014

Blogger Matt Bruenig has declared war on the notion that poor people are “a small, especially degenerate class.” I don’t think this view is as common as he implies, thought it’s hardly as marginal as one would wish.

I mentioned his campaign, however, because the salvo I’ve linked to focuses on the arbitrariness of the federal poverty line. Look, he says, at the 53 million people hovering just above it, according to the Census Bureau’s latest Supplemental Poverty report. That’s 4 million more than fall below it.

And look at the gradual upward slope of the income distribution from way below the poverty line up to 300% of it. We see no “especially large gap” that would justify putting poor people into one bucket and everyone else into another.

Besides, he reminds us, people cycle in and out of official poverty. During 2009-11, for example, 31.6% of the population lived in poverty for at least two months, but only 3.5% were poor for the entire three-year period.

It’s nevertheless hard to imagine doing away with a line of some sort or other — at least, so long as we have programs that set eligibility and/or benefit levels based on income.

At the same time, a line, wherever we set it, will be a crude measure of what should most concern us — material hardship. Do people have the wherewithal for food, shelter, heat during the winter, etc. For what they need to pay in order to work, e.g., transportation, perhaps child care?

As I wrote awhile ago, Molly Scott at the Urban Institute showed that a single mother working part time at the minimum wage could actually be better off than a single mother working 60 hours a week at the same wage. Public benefit help explain this, but so do work-related costs.

Yet having just the resources to get by day to day without material hardship seems a low bar to set in a country with as much wealth as ours. Wider Opportunities for Women proposes that we look instead at how much a family much have to be economically secure.

WOW has a very complex database — the BEST (Basic Economic Security Tables) Index. It’s made up of many hundreds of monthly budgets for different family configurations, with and without employment-based benefits, and each reflecting costs in diverse geographic locations.

The budgets include not only basic needs and work-related expenses, but some savings for retirement and for emergencies — enough to get along for nine weeks without earnings because that was the average time jobless workers remained unemployed when the index was created.

The budgets are strictly “no frills,” in the words of WOW’s Vice President for Policies and Programs. In other words, they don’t allow for entertainment, vacations or even electronics, except a phone. They do, however, include optional, below the line savings for higher education and home ownership.

Using the BEST Index, WOW finds that 44% of Americans didn’t have enough income for economic security two years ago. Children in the household raised the rate to nearly 50%.

Economic insecurity was much more common than this for single parents with children — 77% without enough income. The rate for single-mother families was an even higher 81% — more than two and a half times their high poverty rate.

These are national figures. Economic security requires far more income in some places than others, of course. Consider, for example, Scott’s single mother and her two elementary school-age children living in the District of Columbia.

She and her kids would have cleared the poverty threshold in 2012 if she earned $18,500 a year. But she’d have had to make well over four times as much — at least $79,932 — for her family to be economically secure.

“At least” because this formidable sum assumes she was eligible for unemployment insurance, e.g., not a contract worker, and that her employer provided both a health insurance and a retirement plan. Without these employed-related benefits, she’d have had to make $85,992.

In both cases, the biggest ticket items for her child care, taxes and rent. Child care was the second biggest, even though her children needed it only during after-school hours — nearly $1,300 a month. And the rent, as WOW computes it, is quite low for the District — $1,259 a month.

I’m not sure what we should make of all this. I suppose we could begin, as Professor Stephen Pimpare suggests, by recognizing the “widespread economic fragility” of households in our country — and the weakness of the safety net many are likely to need.

But there are other, more specific policy lessons in the enormous gap between what it takes to be officially not-poor and what it takes to have enough for health, safety and work-related costs, plus a modest stash to draw on so as not to fall into poverty.

Far too many lessons for this post. But the sobering figures surely support a wide range of proposals — and confirm objections to others that our recent “Republican wave” seems likely to toss onto our Congressional and state legislative agendas.

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 207 other followers