![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
malasadas.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsBack in 2002, the Wall Street Journal published what became the first of three articles calling attention to the existence of what they called "Lucky Duckies," the percentage of the American population whose incomes were so low they qualified to pay no federal income taxes. The term quickly became a political one, drawing ire from liberals and becoming a periodic talking point of conservatives discussing tax policy.
Recently, Governor Mitt Romney, candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States, drew criticism when he said that he "Did not care about the very poor." In context, the statement was meant to draw attention to the struggling American middle class as Governor Romney added that he believed the very poor have a safety net. Republican candidates jumped on the safety net metaphor with former Speaker Gingrich claiming he wanted the poor to have a "trampoline" to bounce out of poverty.
For a moment, I would like to partially see some of what the Wall Street Journal was saying. In the income tax argument, it is important to note that the very rich do pay a large portion of the tax receipts. It is also important to not mistake income tax owed with total tax burden, as anyone with a salary or who buys most anything contributes payroll taxes and sales taxes to our tax receipts.
Governor Romney is not entirely wrong to note that there is a safety net for the poor. And it can be hard to pin down exactly what we mean by poor when the term can apply to a family of four struggling to get by and receiving assistance via the earned income tax credit and to a family completely out of work and homeless.
However, it is absolutely clear to me that there a plenty of Duckies with precious little in the way of luck and very little hope of gaining any in the near future. NPR's The Takeaway aired an extended segment yesterday on the plight of the very poor and some of the people working closely with them and their children.
The segment is over ten minutes long, but some salient points:
* 47 million Americans live below the poverty line today, many of them formerly middle class.
* The impact of this on children can be particularly acute, including health ailments such as ulcers.
At Whitney School in Las Vegas -- half of the children enrolled are homeless.
* The school provides free meals, even on weekends so the students can have anything to eat
* Workers at the school note that they frequently see kids stuffing their pockets full of ketchup packets to make "ketchup soup" when they are away from school.
* The children don't talk about kid activities -- they talk about food, obsessed as primary school students about simply surviving one week to the next.
* The reporter spoke to an 8 year-old openly worried about if his mother would be able to feed their baby and whether or not they would put his sibling up for adoption. A six year-old girl spoke to the reporter in hushed tones about eating rat.
Sherrie Gahn, Principal at Whitney:
"The dream here is that these children will be on the same level playing field as any other child in America. We know that doesn't happen because they are in such survival mode and they can't possibly learn because they are not thinking about learning. They are thinking about their shoes hurting or where they are going to go to sleep at night or if they are going to have a place to sleep at night or their tummies are grumbling."
Jeffrey Sachs, of Columbia University:
"America has, by many standards, the lowest social mobility of all of the high income countries. Meaning, a child born into poverty is likely to grow up as a poor adult. And this is stunning for a society that prides itself not only as a middle class society, but as a society where anyone can make it and where social mobility is so high."
Dr. Sachs and Principal Gahn are on to some very important matters here -- Regardless of where you fall in America's liberal versus conservative debate about the role of government, it is a simple fact that America's tax burden as a percentage of GDP is lower than our peers among western democracies, although our overall tax burden for individuals and families is close to some other nations and ahead of Japan and Canada. As a rule, however, we simply redistribute less income than many other countries, and our system is based primarily upon negative rights where the government CANNOT do things to citizens rather than positive rights where the government MUST do things for citizens.
But I would argue that one of the underlying principles of that arrangement is a promise of equality of opportunity. America may not provide cradle to grave support or guarantees that match other nations, but America is supposed to a society where people have an equal opportunity for greater economic success than other nations. If equal opportunity is seriously in question or, worse, irreparably damaged then a fundamental premise of our society is at risk.
I would also argue that the dire situation of children in The Whitney School reveals a serious crack in that premise. The interviews show children speaking of attending school when they are dizzy from hunger, of a child under ten pondering the chance of his baby sibling having to be put up for adoption, of a six year-old girl barely overcoming her shame to describe eating rat. These are not children who can put their mental and emotional energy into learning and meeting their potential opportunity through school -- these are children who are caught up in a daily struggle to merely survive. The existence of the Whitney School is at least a minor miracle for their uprooted lives, but it is not going to be an academic engine for them to achieve purely on "merit".
Here's the thing -- I don't care about political finger pointing between people who think the "other side" is responsible for the situations described above. What I care about is what can be done about it, for THESE children right now and so that there are not even more of them a decade from now. They are children. They have made no economic choices, but they are living in circumstances that make it nearly impossible for them to have an equal opportunity at success. I do not believe that a nation with a 14.58 trillion GDP has to say "Oh well, we lost these ones, but we'll fix it for the next generation."
So regardless of what you believe needs to be done for the long term, what do you think needs to be done to actually preserve one of the bedrock principles of opportunity for children like these?
Recently, Governor Mitt Romney, candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States, drew criticism when he said that he "Did not care about the very poor." In context, the statement was meant to draw attention to the struggling American middle class as Governor Romney added that he believed the very poor have a safety net. Republican candidates jumped on the safety net metaphor with former Speaker Gingrich claiming he wanted the poor to have a "trampoline" to bounce out of poverty.
For a moment, I would like to partially see some of what the Wall Street Journal was saying. In the income tax argument, it is important to note that the very rich do pay a large portion of the tax receipts. It is also important to not mistake income tax owed with total tax burden, as anyone with a salary or who buys most anything contributes payroll taxes and sales taxes to our tax receipts.
Governor Romney is not entirely wrong to note that there is a safety net for the poor. And it can be hard to pin down exactly what we mean by poor when the term can apply to a family of four struggling to get by and receiving assistance via the earned income tax credit and to a family completely out of work and homeless.
However, it is absolutely clear to me that there a plenty of Duckies with precious little in the way of luck and very little hope of gaining any in the near future. NPR's The Takeaway aired an extended segment yesterday on the plight of the very poor and some of the people working closely with them and their children.
The segment is over ten minutes long, but some salient points:
* 47 million Americans live below the poverty line today, many of them formerly middle class.
* The impact of this on children can be particularly acute, including health ailments such as ulcers.
At Whitney School in Las Vegas -- half of the children enrolled are homeless.
* The school provides free meals, even on weekends so the students can have anything to eat
* Workers at the school note that they frequently see kids stuffing their pockets full of ketchup packets to make "ketchup soup" when they are away from school.
* The children don't talk about kid activities -- they talk about food, obsessed as primary school students about simply surviving one week to the next.
* The reporter spoke to an 8 year-old openly worried about if his mother would be able to feed their baby and whether or not they would put his sibling up for adoption. A six year-old girl spoke to the reporter in hushed tones about eating rat.
Sherrie Gahn, Principal at Whitney:
"The dream here is that these children will be on the same level playing field as any other child in America. We know that doesn't happen because they are in such survival mode and they can't possibly learn because they are not thinking about learning. They are thinking about their shoes hurting or where they are going to go to sleep at night or if they are going to have a place to sleep at night or their tummies are grumbling."
Jeffrey Sachs, of Columbia University:
"America has, by many standards, the lowest social mobility of all of the high income countries. Meaning, a child born into poverty is likely to grow up as a poor adult. And this is stunning for a society that prides itself not only as a middle class society, but as a society where anyone can make it and where social mobility is so high."
Dr. Sachs and Principal Gahn are on to some very important matters here -- Regardless of where you fall in America's liberal versus conservative debate about the role of government, it is a simple fact that America's tax burden as a percentage of GDP is lower than our peers among western democracies, although our overall tax burden for individuals and families is close to some other nations and ahead of Japan and Canada. As a rule, however, we simply redistribute less income than many other countries, and our system is based primarily upon negative rights where the government CANNOT do things to citizens rather than positive rights where the government MUST do things for citizens.
But I would argue that one of the underlying principles of that arrangement is a promise of equality of opportunity. America may not provide cradle to grave support or guarantees that match other nations, but America is supposed to a society where people have an equal opportunity for greater economic success than other nations. If equal opportunity is seriously in question or, worse, irreparably damaged then a fundamental premise of our society is at risk.
I would also argue that the dire situation of children in The Whitney School reveals a serious crack in that premise. The interviews show children speaking of attending school when they are dizzy from hunger, of a child under ten pondering the chance of his baby sibling having to be put up for adoption, of a six year-old girl barely overcoming her shame to describe eating rat. These are not children who can put their mental and emotional energy into learning and meeting their potential opportunity through school -- these are children who are caught up in a daily struggle to merely survive. The existence of the Whitney School is at least a minor miracle for their uprooted lives, but it is not going to be an academic engine for them to achieve purely on "merit".
Here's the thing -- I don't care about political finger pointing between people who think the "other side" is responsible for the situations described above. What I care about is what can be done about it, for THESE children right now and so that there are not even more of them a decade from now. They are children. They have made no economic choices, but they are living in circumstances that make it nearly impossible for them to have an equal opportunity at success. I do not believe that a nation with a 14.58 trillion GDP has to say "Oh well, we lost these ones, but we'll fix it for the next generation."
So regardless of what you believe needs to be done for the long term, what do you think needs to be done to actually preserve one of the bedrock principles of opportunity for children like these?
(no subject)
Date: 17/2/12 07:24 (UTC)