Approaches to Dealing with Poverty Gerry OShea
I read
recently in the Irish Independent newspaper that Ireland has been ranked among
the worst countries in Europe for providing paid maternity leave. The league
table used in this study showed that new mothers in Ireland get up to 52 weeks
off work between pregnancy and aftercare with a maintenance allowance of 245
punts – around 260 dollars – paid to them weekly for the first six months.
By
comparison, Bulgaria rates as the best European country for maternity
entitlements. New mothers there are assured of 58.6 weeks of paid leave with
the central government shelling out 90% of their salary during their time away
from their job. Norway also scored well, paying mothers at least 80% of their
wages for 49 weeks after giving birth.
In America only 23% of private companies
provide any coverage for their employees going through the challenges of
pregnancy and birth – and even that small proportion of the workforce is
allowed, on average, a mere 8 weeks at
home.
Any
pediatrician will testify to the abundant research which shows the crucial
importance of nurturing babies in the early months of their lives. So, it is
clearly good public policy to facilitate parental time with newborns. Yet, any
proposal in Washington to mandate time off work for new parents is dismissed by
Republicans as a socialist infringement.
Such proposals helping parents of newborns
should win immediate acclaim from the pro-life community, but they have not
been heard on this important issue. Surely, their concerns are not confined to
the unborn.
The Biden
administration’s reaction to the covid pandemic included payments to various
vulnerable groups including small businesses and struggling families. These
were temporary responses to the national health crisis, but for many political
leaders the child benefit program was meant to continue. Among the voices
favoring continuation - with some minor changes - was Senator Mitt Romney, the
Utah Republican.
It was part
of the Build Back Better program proposed by President Biden which passed the
House of Representatives with the full approval of Democrats but without a
single Republican vote. It would have been carried in the Senate also along party
lines except Democrat Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia felt the bill was
poorly structured and too expensive. His vote effectively ended the program.
The failure
to extend the benefit was particularly galling because according to most
analyses it had been a remarkable success. Researchers in Columbia University
estimate that the payments kept 3.8 million children out of poverty.
Other
studies found that the benefit reduced hunger and, not surprisingly, lowered
financial stress, especially for single mothers. The main beneficiaries lived
in rural states which received the most money per capita. Also, the Biden bill
made the benefit fully available to the poor who previously lost part of the
benefit because they were not earning enough. Experts call this sensible change
“full refundability” and it especially helps struggling single mothers as 70%
of them previously received less than the full benefit.
Again, one wonders how pro-life spokespeople can
tolerate the position of their representatives in the House and the Senate
depriving the poorest children in the country of an important, proven
family-enhancing subsidy.
Bruce D.
Meyer, an economist from the University of Chicago, led a team of researchers
who claimed that providing such child benefits could discourage people from
working. They contend that programs like this one could have a negative effect
on the “labor supply.”
Analyses of
the data does not affirm this conservative worry. In fact, some researchers point
out that a generous child-support program
allows more people to return to work because the new benefit is often used to pay for child care.
Senator Roy
Blunt, a senior Republican from Missouri, expressed his reservations because he
felt that giving poor people more money to spend would cause inflation and
increase the national debt. The senator and his party colleagues had no problem
unanimously passing the last Trump budget a few years ago which massively
benefited the richest 5% of the population and added over two trillion to the
national deficit.
Anyway, the
shameful net result, thanks to Joe Manchin and every single Republican member
of the House and the Senate, was the defeat of an important progressive bill
that offered a helping hand to poor and middle-class families.
Americans
make up less than 5% of the world population, but we enjoy more than 20% of international
wealth. We far outstrip all other countries in the number of residents who are
millionaires and billionaires while the United States’ record in confronting
the scourges of homelessness and hunger can only be described as abysmal.
According to
official records 10.5% of households are considered “food insecure.” The same
2020 statistics reveal that 17.3% of American children live in poverty, and in
states like Texas the numbers exceed 20%.
Poor people
anywhere have a higher risk for mental illness and for chronic disease. They
have lower life expectancy by comparison with people in the well-off community where members
avail of proper medical care. Social security experts point out that poor
people have a significantly lower life expectancy than the rest of the
community.
Lack of
means explains why children in comfortable homes have far easier access to
books than their counterparts on the other side of the track. Encouraging young
children to read a variety of books highlights the most important determinant
of later scholastic success. Also, poor children are twice as likely than their
more affluent classmates to have unhealthy levels of lead in their blood.
Capitalists
propound an unusual theory to justify the huge disparity between the rich and
the poor in America. They blame the people at the bottom for not dragging
themselves up to a higher echelon. They are marked as lazy and unambitious by
comparison with the high-fliers – most of whom, by the way, reach plenitude
because of inherited money.
The rich
have their stories about the American Dream and how they used their talents to
reach the top or somewhere close. They feel that just because they have a lot
of money they should not get high tax bills. In reality, ordinary workers pay a
higher percentage of their earnings to the government than the top earners do.
Poverty is really
a moral issue, a matter of right and wrong. And, America is identified as a
religious country with high church attendance. We hear that the country is
grounded in Judaeo-Christian thinking. However, the clear central theme of both
biblical testaments focuses on justice and fair treatment for the poor.
In Sweden, just 1.1% of the population goes to
church or synagogue, but their public policies have all but eliminated poverty,
and the rich are still doing ok! Why is America so different?
Gerry
OShea blogs at wemustbetalking.com
Comments
Post a Comment