By Georgia Levenson Keohane

Going On The Offensive Against Poverty In America

November 14, 2012 1:17 pm Category: Memo Pad 3 Comments A+ / A-

As part of the series “A Rooseveltian Second-Term Agenda,” suggestions for how President Obama can get serious about combating poverty.

Hurricane Sandy’s violence was a tragic reminder of some important truths in American life: climate change matters, government matters, and caring for the vulnerable—those severely afflicted by circumstances beyond their control —not only matters, it is the essence of who we are as a people. Today, our country’s vulnerable include the 46 million people—nearly 1 in 6—who live in poverty, and 16 million of those are children. This deprivation is particularly grievous in context: earnings for the wealthiest continued to grow last year, while income for the rest stagnated or fell. These levels of poverty and inequality are not only unconscionable, they threaten our economic security.  When it comes to fighting poverty, what do we make of the Obama team’s record and, more importantly, what should be its priorities for the next four years?

The Poverty of the Debate on Poverty

Poverty’s notable absence during the campaign season disappointed and galvanized many progressives who hoped to insert the issue into the election platform and political debates. Those concerns echoed earlier remonstrations that the president had failed to address poverty over the last four years with the passion or federal muscle promised in his 2008 campaign. “Barack Obama can barely bring himself to say the word ‘poor,’ Bob Herbert wrote this spring in The Grio. Paul Tough, Herbert’s public conscience heir at The New York Times, explains the political conundrum behind the administration’s focus on the economic woes of a broader set of struggling Americans rather than on the poorest per se: “how do you persuade voters to devote tax dollars to help the truly disadvantaged when the middle class is feeling disadvantaged itself?”

While we may long for the soaring rhetoric of 2008, the fact is these broad-based policies have worked. They have not eradicated poverty, but many important domestic programs—the stimulus, in particular, which included new and expanded tax credits, enhanced unemployment insurance, and increased eligibility for food stamps—kept an estimated seven million out of poverty and cushioned against even greater hardship for more than 30 million people already below the federal threshold. Not to mention that health care reform extended coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans (in part by expanding access to Medicaid). The federal poverty measure does not take into account non-cash transfers, including food stamps, housing subsidies, and health care benefits like Medicare and Medicaid. When these are factored in, it appears as though poverty has not increased under Obama’s tenure.

Pages →  1 2

Going On The Offensive Against Poverty In America Reviewed by on . As part of the series "A Rooseveltian Second-Term Agenda," suggestions for how President Obama can get serious about combating poverty. Hurricane Sandy’s violen As part of the series "A Rooseveltian Second-Term Agenda," suggestions for how President Obama can get serious about combating poverty. Hurricane Sandy’s violen Rating:

More by Georgia Levenson Keohane

Hoover Dam 427x321

The Time Is Right To Create A 21st Century Infrastructure Bank

President Obama has called for the creation of an infrastructure bank. Congress must follow his lead. “It’s not a bigger government we need,” President Obama said in the State of the Union address, “but a smarter government that sets priorities and invests in broad-based growth.” The creation of a national infrastructure bank is a “smarter

Read more...

Tags

Comments

  • foolsdance

    Yet another forgotted issue in this election – thanks to the GOP being so single (and wrong) minded, many issues remained in the background. Poverty, Climate Change, Education… Thanks for nothing mitt wits.

  • nobsartist

    National Re-Construction.

  • http://www.facebook.com/clarence.swinney Clarence Swinney

    WHY THE DEBT?
    In 2000, We had revenue of 20% and spending 18% of GDP. Surplus.
    In 2009, we had 15% of Revenue and 25% of spending as % of GDP.
    That was an increase in Spending and decline in Revenue.
    Bush policies. How will historians rate his administration?

scroll to top