The latest numbers are a moral outrage and a wake-up call.
The Census Bureau recently delivered some disturbing news about how the Great Recession and its aftermath are affecting the most vulnerable among us — America 's school children.
More than 20 percent of the nation's counties saw significant increases in poverty among school-aged children between 2007 and 2010. Nationally, 22 percent of our children are living in poverty.
This poverty increase has hit large, urban school systems the hardest, with 96 of the 100 biggest school districts reporting increases in the number of poor children. In Detroit , for example, 47 percent of school children are poor. In New York City , the rate stands at 29 percent.
This is a moral outrage. While the debate drags on in Washington about the right balance of spending cuts and taxes, a real and preventable tragedy is unfolding before our eyes. Through no fault of their own, millions of children whose parents have lost jobs need free school lunches, and in many cases are going without health care. As depicted in a recent "60 Minutes" segment, some are homeless and living in cars.
The new Census data comes on the heels of news in September that the number of impoverished Americans has risen to 46.2 million. That's 15 percent of us, the largest number in 52 years.
Many previously middle-class families are finding themselves standing in line at food banks and homeless shelters. And, according to the Children's Defense Fund, one in three African-American and Latino children are living in poverty. This should be a loud and urgent wake-up call to Congress and policymakers.
If Congress fails to act, already struggling families face the end of the payroll tax cut in the New Year. This would add about $1,000 to an average family's tax bill. Lawmakers may also fail to extend unemployment benefits. According to the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, unemployment benefits, together with supports like the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit, are keeping 7 million people out of poverty.
Beth Davalos, who runs Families in Transition in Seminole County , Florida , was interviewed for the "60 Minutes" segment on homeless children living in cars. She explained in stark terms the impact poverty is having on a kindergarten child she was trying to help: "That little 5-year-old was so troubled over where she would be sleeping, she was not thinking about 2 + 2."
The fact is, we shouldn't even be talking about child poverty in the richest nation on earth. We have the means. We simply need to summon the will to end it.
If we can find the money to bail out Wall Street and give tax breaks to the wealthy, surely we can find the resources to provide food, shelter, health care, and a good education for our children.
As Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children's Defense Fund, has said, "A country that does not stand for and protect its children — our seed corn for the future — does not stand for anything."
Marc Morial is the president and CEO of the National Urban League. www.nul.org
Distributed via OtherWords (OtherWords.org)
Distributed via OtherWords (OtherWords.org)

Rich and their ideological BS and their supporters reap their economic rewards at the expense of children;the greater number of children in poverty correlates to greater income for the Rich and the want to be. American corporations exploit third world children as well here in America. The means differ here in America but the exploitative results remain identical. Give no thought to poverty and its endemic cause, rationalization will support your conscience; Happy Holiday or Merry Christmas !
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, help me out here. I, like you, am looking for people to blame for my problems and people to hate for causing those problems. You and a few of the people here at PC hate the rich.
ReplyDeleteSo I can decide for myself if I will stand united with you, I ask your assistance. What is "rich"? Wealthy? Super rich?
President Obama has defined rich as earning over $100,000 per year. Chuch Schumer disagrees and says families making 250K per year are firmly in the middle class. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refuses to give any indication of a definition. Schumer and Barbara Boxer feel the income level should be $1,000,000 per year.
I saw one definition from a prominent Democrat. It was "Having enough money that you don't need to work". Living in Charlestown you can see how lame that definition is.
So, Anonymous, or Will, someone, who are these rich I am supposed to hate. Hating everyone or hating no one is unacceptable, and I guess, the real problem. I have a friend that is very smart and works his buns off. He works 10-12 hour days, weekends, he travels extensively depriving himself of much of what most of us would not. In turn, he earns over that $250K. Should I hate him or convince him to knock off the weekends and make less than $250K so he can be my friend again?
Davespop
AND this article is titled "Too Many American Children Live in Poverty". That is true.
ReplyDeleteDavespop
Well, Davespop, if you're Herman Cain, you blame the poor for being poor. He says “If you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself.” Jonathan Swift also blamed the poor. In a sermon on poverty, he preached: “Among the number of those who beg in our streets, or are half starved at home, or languish in prison for debt, there is hardly one in a hundred who doth not owe his misfortunes to his own laziness or drunkenness or worse vices.”
ReplyDeleteOr you could look at unemployment rates and the fact that 9/10 of income growth since the end of the recession has gone to corporate profits and conclude that maybe a system in which we all are forced to contribute to ever-increasing corporate profits by having no job security, no retirement security, and a decreasing standard of living—median household income has actually decreased more during the "recovery" than it did during the recession—is perhaps not ideal. That's how I look at it, at any rate.
Is that a definition or Rich?
ReplyDeleteDavespop
As you've pointed out, there are many different definitions of rich. I don't much care how it's defined. What concerns me is a system that impoverishes huge numbers of people for the benefit of a very small minority. Because once you've driven your labor costs down to subsistence level and there's no middle class left that has any money to spend on the products and services of capitalism, then what?
ReplyDeleteJust a small minority? I was hoping for more of a definition and a better guide of who to dislike and who to like. I would hate to be politically incorrect and like the wrong people. You hate them, but who are them? Such a dilemma.
ReplyDeleteDavespop
If all you're interested in is hate, I'm afraid I can't help you. I don't hate anyone. I hate poverty. I hate the fact that in a world with such material abundance, children starve to death by the millions, or die of curable diseases. I hate injustice, intolerance, and anything that prevents people from living up to their full potential. But no, I don't hate people, either individuals or groups.
ReplyDeleteLinda, if you really do hate all these things, why are you content to sit in the comforts of Charlestown and blog about your discontent? Why aren't you out there doing something about it, traveling to third world countries and donating your time and money? Or is that the job of somebody else?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous; Linda is educating, informing, and pulling on one's conscience in an effort to establish a sense of humanity in those that indulge themselves in their inflated vanity.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I don't "blog about my discontent." I'm a malcontent. There's a difference.
ReplyDeleteAs for third world poverty, that's a problem of resource allocation that is not going to be solved by the Peace Corps or idealistic Hollywood actresses adopting babies. We create poverty by extracting wealth from the third world. But that's too large of a subject for a mere blog post. There's a site called SlaveryFootprint that will demonstrate for you how much of your consumption habits are dependent upon slave labor. You might be shocked to find out how many of the little gadgets so many people "can't live without" create misery in other parts of the world. But for most people, it's easier to just write a check to an aid organization.
Well said Linda ! We are not born with out a heart (no empathy or compassion ),we are class conditioned to live with this human mutation.
ReplyDeleteOk, so what are you doing about it other than being malcontented? Oh, I know. Telling others what to do.
ReplyDeleteAs I pointed out, there's not much any one individual can do to make a difference. It requires collective action. One thing I do is not buy things that I know are made with slave labor, such as Victoria's Secret's organic cotton underwear.
ReplyDeleteLinda,
ReplyDeleteDefining yourself as a malcontent answers many of the questions I would ask you. You said you are not a hater. That I have an issue with. Read your own postings. You hate the rich, People smarter than you or I who bust their buns to enhance their career. You say some pretty rough things about Republicans, almost as a race.
So, in my opinion you have defined hate, or at least who to hate. NOW could you define rich? At least your definition. Please.
Davespop
What "rough things" have I ever said about Republicans? Pretty much the only time I use the word is to identify a specific politician of that party. I think you have me confused with someone else.
ReplyDeleteAs for defining rich, I suppose as a general proposition I would say that when someone reaches the point where their money earns more for them than they earn through their own work, then they're rich.
Does it matter how they accumulated that money (Inheritance, lottery, hard work)? I think we are getting close.
ReplyDeleteDavespop
I've already answered this question here.
ReplyDelete