As we celebrate this Christmas with the sound of tiny feet rushing toward a tree to rip open presents, let’s take a moment to consider the children less fortunate — the growing number who live in poverty in this country.
Damon Winter/The New York TimesCharles M. Blow
According to the National Center for Children in Poverty, 42 percent of American children live in low-income homes and about a fifth live in poverty. It gets worse. The number of children living in poverty has risen 33 percent since 2000. For perspective, the child population of the country over all increased by only about 3 percent over that time. And, according to a 2007 Unicef report on child poverty, the U.S. ranked last among 24 wealthy countries. This is a national disgrace. Yet the reaction to this issue in some quarters is still tangled in class and race: no more welfare to black and brown people who’ve made poor choices and haven’t got the gumption to work their way out of them. The truth is, neither the problem nor the solutions are that simple.
Yes, the percentage of blacks, Hispanics and American Indians living in low-income homes is about twice that of whites and Asians. This raises unpleasant cultural questions that must be addressed. But that’s not the whole story. Despite the imbalance, white children are still the largest group of low-income children.
Furthermore, the British may have created a road map for us that dramatically reduces child poverty while not relying solely on handouts. A report released this month by Jane Waldfogel of Columbia University and the London School of Economics paints a fascinating portrait of how smart policies and targeted investments in that country have produced stellar results.
In 1994, about 30 percent of British children were below the country’s poverty threshold. Fifteen years later, that number has fallen to 12 percent. Over that same time, the number of American children below our poverty line slipped a bit then rose again as the economy turned sour. It is now approaching its 1994 level.
How did the British do it? It was a three-pronged attack.
First, they established a welfare-to-work program and a national minimum wage (which, at about $9, leaves ours wanting) and instituted tax reductions and credits for low-income workers. They made work more attractive, and people responded. The report said, “Lone-parent employment increased by 12 percentage points — from 45 percent to 57 percent — between 1997 and 2008.”
Second, they raised child welfare benefits, especially for families with small children, whether or not the parents worked.
Third, they invested directly in the lives of young children with things like doubling paid maternity leave, providing universal preschool, assisting with child care and allowing parents of young children to request flexible work schedules.
The British example shows that child poverty is not an intractable problem. If we can rise above the impulse to punish parents and focus on protecting children, we might replicate Britain’s success.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/25/opinion/25blow.html?hp
No comments:
Post a Comment