When Personal Responsibility Paves the Way to Homelessness

January 21, 2016

Many accounts of homelessness focus on personal financial crises — a job loss, for example, a serious illness or injury that results in huge medical bills, an eruption of domestic violence that impels a spouse or partner to flee the breadwinner.

Others cite less sudden crises due to mental illness and/or substance abuse, both ultimately leading to lack of money for housing. Still others take a different tack — rising housing costs, with no commensurate wage increases to cover them.

But sometimes families become homeless for altogether other reasons. Here’s a still-unfinished true story and some untruths it exposes.

I’ve written before about Peter,* who does occasional work for me. Now he and his daughters are homeless, though not (yet) eligible for federally-funded assistance as such.

Peter must depend on earnings from short-term jobs with flexible hours because he often must drop everything to tend to his chronically ill younger daughter. But between what he makes and her Supplemental Security Income benefits, he’s had enough to cover the family’s housing costs.

Seems his landlord didn’t have enough for the mortgage payments, however. So the lender repossessed the building and evicted the tenants.

Shortly before and after, a series of untoward events diminished Peter’s earnings and, at the same time, forced him to come up with extra money. His daughter’s new medication caused drastic side-effects. So he had to stay home with her for some days.

Then his car got towed because he’d parked it illegally, seeing no other way he could sell the newspapers he’d already purchased, as all vendors of our local homelessness paper do. No way for Peter to get to other jobs unless he paid the fine and the hefty towing-storage fee.

His sister then borrowed the car and got arrested for drunk driving. Immediately thrown in jail because it was her second such offense. Peter felt he had to bail her out, which, of course, meant a fee to a bail bondsman. And he had to bail the car out too because the authorities had impounded it.

Now, none of these things or even all in combination would have left Peter with nothing to spend except what he could earn day by day if he’d had the emergency savings that financial experts advise. But he could just get by when everything went smoothly.

So at this point, he, his daughters and his sister are holed up in a cheap motel while he waits for the tax refund that will cover the upfront costs of a new apartment lease — or so he hopes.

He’s thus far found no apartment he can afford. In the family’s home county, a two-bedroom apartment — very snug for them — costs, on average, $1,625 a month. And he sure won’t get help from the local housing authority. He’s been on its waiting list for some considerable time.

As I put together the pieces of this story, I recalled part of Tolstoy’s frame for Anna Karenina. “[E]ach unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” But the story has other, more pertinent lessons.

Right-wing policymakers and the gurus they listen to often trace poverty to a failure of personal responsibility. Well, who exercises more personal responsibility than Peter, who could have left his daughters with their egregiously negligent mother — and his sister miserable in jail and then alone to struggle against her alcoholism?

More specifically, the Republican Presidential candidates at the recent “expanding opportunity” forum seemingly concurred on three ways our public policies and programs could reduce poverty.

First, they have to do a better job of promoting marriage — not only of getting people (of opposite sexes) to marry, but of inducing them to stay married and in the same home. Hard to see how persisting in a failed marriage to a persistent substance abuser would have made life better for Peter and his kids.

Second, public policies have to get people working for enough pay so they can support themselves and their dependents. Peter could do that if his younger daughter had neither a chronic illness nor developmental disabilities. He has in-demand technical skills and an entrepreneurial spirit.

As things stand now, however, he can’t responsibly delegate care for the daughter to a home healthcare aide or anyone else. Too many emergencies. Too many judgment calls only a parent can make. And too much time needed for his role in the education she’s receiving to develop independent living skills.

Third, our major federal safety net programs should get rolled into block grants that states can spend pretty much however they see fit. I’ll leave it to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities President Robert Greenstein to explain (again) why this is such a bad idea.

I’ll merely note that the programs Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and forum moderator Paul Ryan would replace with super-block grants expressly include major federal housing assistance programs.

If Peter’s got problems getting back into an affordable apartment now, imagine how he and his family would fare if states had no obligation to provide vouchers or public housing — and had less in real dollars to fund any of the block-granted programs that now serve low-income people’s needs.

And imagine what would happen if he couldn’t rely on Medicaid for the services that keep his daughter alive — a distinct possibility if the program were block-granted, as Ryan and his House Republican colleagues intend.

* As before, I’ve changed his name to protect his and his family’s privacy.


Far More in King’s Dream Than a Color-Blind Society

January 18, 2016

Not long after Congress passed the since-enfeebled Voting Rights Act, Martin Luther King, Jr. turned his attention to poverty and income inequality.

This, for him, was clearly a next step, along with opposition to the country’s engagement in Vietnam. He and colleagues at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference had launched a Poor People’s Campaign and were planning a demonstration akin to the original March on Washington.

King signaled the campaign’s agenda in a book entitled Where Do We Go From Here? — here being after the enactment of most of our major federal nondiscrimination laws.

His answer took off from a critique of the anti-poverty approach still reflected in many of our public policies. They proceed, he said, “from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” e.g., bad housing, lack of education.

Not a faulty notion, he implied. But it led to a piecemeal approach — “a housing program to transform living conditions, improved educational facilities,” etc. And the programs were neither coordinated nor sufficiently funded “to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.”

Beyond this, they all sought “to solve poverty by solving something else.” The solution to poverty is for everyone to have enough money. So “we must create full employment or we must create incomes” by establishing a guaranteed minimum.

The latter has garnered more attention — for two reasons, I’d guess. On the one hand, it seems radically progressive. On the other, it has conservative roots and current support from some minimum government types.

King had in mind something far more ambitious than proposals conservatives had floated or the version President Nixon wanted Congress to pass as a replacement for welfare. Likewise what Charles Murray more recently advocated as a substitute for all social welfare programs, including Social Security and Medicare.

King’s guaranteed income would “be pegged to the median income of society.” Once set there, it would increase automatically to maintain parity with the median.

It wouldn’t, on the other hand, go automatically to every adult or family. It would supplement, so far as necessary income gained from work and/or investments, which have always served as “an assured income for the wealthy,” he noted.

Now, one might think that full employment has gotten its proper share of attention too. But what King had in mind, as I understand it, differs significantly from the way it’s commonly understood, i.e., as a situation where everyone willing and able to work is working or merely between jobs.

This, for King, was necessary, but not sufficient. Recall that he was killed in Memphis, where he’d gone to support a strike by black sanitation workers. They had employment obviously. They were demanding safer working conditions, a wage increase and recognition of their union.

“It is criminal,” King said there, “to have people working on a full-time basis and a full-time job getting part-time income.” With “wages so low,” the working poor — as most poor people in the country were, he said — “cannot begin to function in the mainstream of the economic life of our nation.” In other words, poverty-level wages were a form of segregation.

King’s Memphis message grew out of the Freedom Budget developed by two other civil rights leaders. It called for, among other things, a higher minimum wage, unemployment benefits and compensation for workers injured on the job.

As the Poor People’s Campaign got in gear, the $2 an hour minimum wage the Freedom Budget called for had become a living wage. And jobs for everyone who could work had become “meaningful” jobs, including at least a million more providing “socially useful” careers in public service.

King himself had broadened the meaning of full employment in another way too. He noted — astutely, given the anxieties triggered by the first spate of big-city riots — that “Negro youth … are the explosive outsiders of the American expansion.”

Many “have left the labor market completely,” having “faced so many closed doors and so many crippling defeats.” They “are alienated from the routines of work” and so will initially “require work situations which permit flexibility.”

The jobs will also develop skills. They will nevertheless be jobs, not training, which often “becomes a way of avoiding the issue of unemployment.”

Ultimately, full employment, so understood, will help solve other major problems cited in the Freedom Budget — or so supporters thought. It would, of course, generate revenues to “finance improvements we all need,” including “decent housing” to replace the clusters that form slums.

At the same time, workers would have the wherewithal “to do a great deal on their own to alter housing decay,” as King’s Where Do We Go argued. And blacks, who were disadvantaged by discrimination, as well as poverty would have “the additional weapon of cash to use in their struggle.”

King hoped that the guaranteed income proposal would provide the basis for a biracial coalition, since two-thirds of the country’s poor were white. The Freedom Budget drafters — and presumably King, since he endorsed it for the SLCC — had similar hopes for full employment.

“The workings of our economy,” they said, “often pit the white poor and the black poor against each other.” They termed that “a tragedy.”

Likewise the fact “that groups only one generation removed from poverty themselves, haunted by the memory of scarcity and fearful of slipping back, step on the fingers of those struggling up the ladder.” Anyone who sees no relevance to current events is blessedly insulated from the Presidential campaigns.

We have, however, made progress, in some respects, since King unfolded his dream of an end to segregation and other then-legal forms of discrimination. Not saying we don’t have a long way to go before black children (and adults) are no longer “judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” But progress nonetheless.

We’d be hard put, I think, to find anything like such progress toward King’s dream of a society where no one is poor and everyone has, at all times, enough income to live on and then some. Worth pondering as we celebrate his birthday.


Third-World Poverty Among the Most Native Americans of All

January 7, 2016

Cleaning out my email box, I came belatedly on a post by Nick Tilsen, Executive Director of the Thunder Valley Community Development Corporation, which aims to end poverty on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota.

Poverty there is broader and deeper than any we commonly read about — truly shocking to think it’s here in America.

The poverty rate of the Oglala Lakota who live on the reservation is about 48%, according to a development plan. That’s nearly three and a half times the latest rate for South Dakota, though it’s home to six Indian reservations.

We see the ripple effect of such acute deprivation in median incomes. On Pine Ridge, the household halfway between the highest and lowest has an income of $27,065 — or at least did in 2010, when the Census Bureau collected the figures the planners used.*

The median income for the state as a whole was about $19,300 higher then and the nationwide median about $24,000 higher.

We get a better sense of what Tilsen refers to as “third-world poverty conditions” from other figures he pulls from the development plan.

For example, the average household on the Pine Ridge reservation consists of somewhere between 6.7 and 9.2 people, as compared to 2.6 people nationwide. This clearly indicates severe over-crowding — as many as nine people in a two or three-bedroom home.

Nine percent of the dwellings have inadequate plumbing, as compared to a half percent nationwide. In other words, the houses or apartment units don’t have hot and cold running water, a bathtub or shower and/or a flush toilet. Or they may not have even a substandard bathroom.

Almost as many Pine Ridge dwellings (8%) lack adequate kitchen facilities, i.e., a sink with running water, a refrigerator and a stove or other “built-in burners” like those sunk into countertops.

Living conditions account in part, though far from entirely for the average life expectancy of Pine Ridge residents — just 48 years for men and 52 for women. Both are about 30 years less than for the U.S. population as a whole.

The development plan cites other factors that help explain the foreshortened lives of Pine Ridge residents — lack of access to healthful food, for example, and to preventive health care.

All these and others closely related, e.g., substance abuse, help account for another reason Pine Ridge residents, on average, die before they reach middle age — a suicide rate that’s more than twice the national average.

It’s customary — and largely correct — to trace the relatively high black poverty rate back to slavery, the Jim Crow regime and racist laws and policies that disadvantaged blacks in Northern states.

The Native American poverty rate has historical roots too. Those of us whose history classes predate efforts to put a more positive spin on the westward expansion, among other things, know something of them — smallpox-infected blankets, massacres, treaties broken when whites decided they wanted the lands granted after all.

We may even know that a unilateral decision made back in 1840 transferred control of Native American lands and other assets to a federal agency. It still acts as trustee, despite a long track record of mismanagement.

Shawn Regan at the Property and Environment Research Center argues that the trust arrangement, plus other federal controls “keep Native Americans in poverty.”

Tilsen also cites policies designed to eradicate “cultural ways,” e.g., forcing children into boarding schools where they had to look and behave like white, Christian children — this because “all the Indian in the race should be dead,” as the founder of the first such federally-funded school explained.

Well, knowing what accounts for the extraordinary poverty in Native American communities is one thing. Feeling morally responsible for ending it quite another. People in those communities believe we should, Tilsen says. If we do, we could end their poverty within a generation.

That seems a tall order. But he’s done a fine service in raising awareness of a poverty still perpetuated that’s “largely out of sight and out of mind to mainstream American society.”

* The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey — the usual source of our most detailed poverty and income figures for specific populations — reports them for Native Americans and Alaskan Natives together. The plan drafters presumably used the actual data sets.

 


Better Poverty Measure Changes Rates, Strengthens Case for Safety Net

September 21, 2015

As I noted last week, the Census Bureau published the results of its latest Supplemental Poverty Measure analysis at the same time as its official poverty measure rates for 2014.

As in the past, the SPM produces a somewhat higher nationwide poverty rate — 15.3%. Though a tad lower than the comparable rate last year, slides from the Bureau say it’s not enough to pass the statistical test.

We also see different rates, both higher and lower, for the major population groups the Bureau breaks out. For example, the child poverty rate is 4.8% lower — 3.5 million or so fewer children. At the same time, the senior poverty rate rises by nearly as much.

We see shifts among major race/ethnicity groups as well. The largest are for blacks (3% lower) and for Asians (4.8% higher).

All these shifts and others reflect four major ways the SPM differs from the official measure — the base it proceeds from, adjustments it makes for certain basic living and other “necessary” costs, whom it includes as part of a family and what it counts as income.

This last gives us a glimpse — imperfect, but the best we’ve got — of how well some of our major federal anti-poverty measures work. And once again, we get reliable hard data proving that they do work, right-wing canards notwithstanding.

For example, we generally see lower deep poverty rates, i.e., the percent of the population overall or of a particular group that lived on incomes no greater than half the applicable poverty threshold — about $9,535 for a parent with two children.

The overall deep poverty rate is 1.6% lower than what the official measure produces. The deep poverty rate for children drops more markedly — from 9.7% to 4.3%.

The Census Bureau attributes the lower deep poverty rates to non-cash benefits targeted to low-income people — a type of income the SPM captures, while the official measure doesn’t. Seniors are the exception here, it notes.

Their deep poverty rate goes up to 5.1%, making it the same as the rate for the population as a whole. This is mainly because both the official measure and the SPM count Social Security benefits as income, but only the latter adjusts for medical out-of-pocket costs, along with others deducted from the base.

It’s nevertheless still the case that Social Security proves the single most effective anti-poverty program we’ve got. Without Social Security benefits, half of all people 65 and over would fall below the poverty threshold.

The Census Bureau shows this and the effects of other benefits — mostly parts of the safety net — by deducting their value and displaying the new poverty rate.

So we learn, for example, that not counting the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit would make the SPM poverty rate 3.1% higher. Little back-of-the-envelope math tells us that the tax credits effectively lifted about 9.8 million people out of poverty, including more than 5.2 million children.

SNAP (food stamp) benefits rank third among the anti-poverty impacts. They account for about 4.7 million fewer poor people, almost half of them children.

On the other hand, LIHEAP (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program) benefits lifted only about 316,000 people above the poverty threshold — and so few in the working-age (18-64) group as to make no nick in their poverty rate whatever.

Now, the analysis doesn’t reflect the way benefits work in the real world. Most families that receive federally-funded help with their heating bills probably also get SNAP benefits, for example. Likewise low-income working families that get an annual budget boost from the refundable tax credits.

We don’t yet have an analysis that rolls all such safety net benefits together, though we do have one for 2012 that shows they cut the SPM poverty rate by nearly half and the child poverty rate by even more.

Do we nonetheless have policy lessons here? Well, of course, we do. Don’t want to try your patience, followers, but can’t restrain myself from flagging (flogging?) a few.

LIHEAP has become a pitiful thing, partly because it got whacked by the 2013 across-the-board cuts, partly because this came on top of earlier cuts and partly because, in case you hadn’t noticed, home heating costs have increased.

So fewer households are getting such help as LIHEAP provides and they’re getting less — so much less that the average grant didn’t cover even two months of heating during the 2014-15 winter season.

Not going to see much improvement, if any so long as the Congressional Republican majority insists on keeping appropriations for non-defense programs below the caps set by the Budget Control Act. The House Appropriations Committee has, in fact, approved a $25 million cut for LIHEAP.

Changes in the refundable tax credits that help account for the effectiveness the SPM analysis indicates will expire at the end of 2017. And what seems a bipartisan sentiment in favor of expanding the EITC for childless workers is thus far little more than that — and not all that bipartisan, if we judge by cosponsors of bills pending in Congress.

Though SNAP clearly lifts people of all ages out of poverty, it doesn’t prevent a goodly number from going hungry at least some of the time. More about this in an upcoming post — and more perhaps about other issues one can tease out of the new SPM report.

 


DC Poverty Rate Dips Down

September 17, 2015

Hard on the results of the Census Bureau’s latest annual Current Population Survey supplement come the vastly more detailed results of its American Community Survey. As the headline says, they indicate what seems a drop in the overall poverty rate for the District of Columbia — down from 18.9% in 2013 to 17.7% last year.*

In human terms, this means that roughly 5,120 fewer District residents lived in poverty, as the Census Bureau’s official measure defines it.

At the same time, fewer residents lived in deep poverty, i.e., with household incomes no greater than 50% of the applicable poverty threshold — 9.1%, as compared to 10.3% in 2013.

These figures are obviously good news. But they’re hardly good enough to pop a champagne cork for. Several major reasons we should remain very concerned.

First, as I’ve said before, the poverty thresholds are extraordinarily low. A single parent and her two children, for example, were counted as poor only if the family’s pre-tax cash income was less than $19,073 — this in a city where the family’s basic needs cost roughly $104,000. Perhaps even more, as the DC Fiscal Policy Institute has noted.

Second, the District’s poverty rate is still high, even comparatively. The national poverty rate, according to the ACS, was 15.5% last year. The District’s poverty rate also exceeds all but 11 state-level rates.

Third, the poverty rate for children in the District is far higher than the rate for the population as a whole — 26% or more than one in four residents under 18 years old. The deep poverty rate for children is also higher — 12.4%.

True, these rates are lower than in 2013, when they were 27.2% and 16.2%. But we’ve got more children in the District now. So the rate dips — for plain vanilla poverty in particular — reflect less progress than they seem to.

Fourth, we still have large gaps among major race/ethnicity groups in the District — one, though far from the only sign of persistent income inequality, rooted in discriminatory policies and practices. For example:

  • The new poverty rate for blacks is 25.9%, as compared to 6.9% for non-Hispanic whites.
  • 12.7% of blacks lived in deep poverty, while only 4.8% of non-Hispanic whites did.
  • The rates for Hispanics fall in between, as they have in the past — 16.9% and 7.5%.

We find the same sort of divide in household incomes. The median for non-Hispanic white households was $117,134 — $57,512 higher than their median nationwide. The median household income for black residents was barely more than a third of what non-Hispanic whites here had to live on — $40,739.

For the poverty rates themselves, we can find some ready explanations in other ACS figures. For example, the poverty rate for District residents who were at least 25 years old and had less than a high school diploma or the equivalent was 33.7%, as compared to 5.8% for their counterparts with at least a four-year college degree.

Only a small fraction of working-age (16-64 year-old) residents who worked full-time, year round were officially poor — 2.1% — while 45.9% who lived in poverty didn’t work (for pay) at all.

They presumably include residents too disabled to work and dependent on Supplemental Security Income benefits. These, at a maximum, left a single individual about $3,660 below the poverty threshold.

But that leaves 23.4% who worked for at least part of the year, less than full time or both. They were not, by any means, all workers who chose part-time and/or temporary work, as a recent report by DCFPI and partners tells us.

The report includes some policy recommendations to help low-wage hourly workers who are now jerked around — and economically disadvantaged — by unpredictable, erratic work schedules. One can readily find other policy proposals that would, in various ways, significantly reduce poverty rates in the District and nationwide.

Though the ACS gives us new numbers, neither the story they tell nor the solutions they imply are new. Still worth knowing how the prosperity we witness in our gentrifying neighborhoods, as well as our traditionally upper-income havens has egregiously failed to reach so many District residents.

* All the ACS tables include margins of error, i.e., how much the raw numbers and percents could be too high or too low. For readability, I’m reporting both as given. However, the high side of the margin for the overall rate could mean no change from 2013.

 


U.S. Poverty Rate Flat-Lines

September 16, 2015

Defying predictions, the Census Bureau just reported that 14.8% of people in the U.S. — roughly 46.7 million — were officially poor last year. Both the rate and the raw number are so little different from 2013 as to be statistically the same.

The newest rate is 2.3% higher than in 2007, shortly before the recession set in. This is yet further evidence that our economic recovery hasn’t brought recovery to everybody.

Much has rightly been made of flaws in the official measure the figures reflect. These include what the Census Bureau counts and doesn’t as income and the thresholds it perforce uses, i.e., the household incomes that set the upper limits for poverty.

The figures nevertheless represent reasonably accurate trends over time. So they’re disheartening, especially because improvements in the labor market suggested we’d see somewhat lower rates.

Also disheartening is the essentially unchanged deep poverty rate, i.e., the percent of people who lived (who knows how?) on pre-tax cash incomes less than half the applicable threshold — 6.6%. This is a full percent higher than in 2007.

Poverty rates for the major age groups the report breaks out also flat-lined. We thus still see basically the same large disparities.

As in the past, the child poverty rate was markedly higher than the overall rate — 21.1%. It translates into well over 15.5 million children — a third of all poor people in our country. About 6.8 million children — 9.3% — lived in deep poverty.

The senior poverty rate was again the lowest of the three the age groups — 10% or roughly 4.6 million people 65 and older. For seniors, the deep poverty rate apparently ticked up to 3.2%.

We still see marked disparities among major race/ethnicity groups too. For example:

  • The poverty rate for blacks was more than two and a half times the rate for non-Hispanic whites — 26.2%, as compared to 10.1%.
  • For blacks, the deep poverty rate was 12%, while only 4.6% of non-Hispanic whites were that poor.
  • The poverty rate for Hispanics was 23.6% and the deep poverty rate 9.6%.
  • By contrast, the poverty rate for Asians was 12% and the deep poverty rate 5.6%. Several analyses suggest we’d see a quite different picture if the Census Bureau differentiated among the sub-populations this group comprises.

Bottom line, I suppose, is that we’ve got new numbers, but no real change. So they tell the same old story. We’ve got a lot of prosperity in this country, but it’s far from equally shared.

We know quite a bit about how we could move toward greater economic and social justice. What we don’t have is the political will where we most need it.

NOTE: The Census Bureau simultaneously released the results of its Supplemental Poverty Measure — a departure from past practice. I’ll deal with them separately.

UPDATE: I’ve learned that the reason the U.S. poverty rate for 2014 isn’t statistically different from the 2013 rate is that the Census Bureau reported results from a redesigned survey it began using last year, along with the old survey. Last year, it reported what the old survey showed. This year, what the new one did.


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.

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 229 other followers