Tag: rosa delauro
Let’s Cut Child Poverty In Half -- By Making Tax Credit Permanent

Let’s Cut Child Poverty In Half -- By Making Tax Credit Permanent

Reprinted with permission from American Independent

Child poverty has been a pervasive issue in the United States as nearly 11 million children are considered poor. That's one in seven children. Rising costs of living — from basic necessities, like rent and groceries, to transportation and childcare — coupled with stagnating wages are putting more children and their families below the poverty line.

COVID-19 has made it worse as families deal with record levels of unemployment. When schools transitioned fully to remote learning, many parents were forced to choose between employment and taking care of their children. The economic impacts of the pandemic can have long-term consequences, including an increase in food and housing insecurity and worse health and education outcomes.

Growing up, my family struggled to make ends meet, and we moved around a lot as my parents looked for work. I was fortunate to be able to go to college where I worked hard and was able to start my career. Now more than ever, I feel that working hard isn't enough to guarantee success. There are too many institutional barriers that keep children in a generational cycle of poverty.

There is no reason why the wealthiest country in the world should be home to 11 million children living in poverty. Most other developed countries offer a child benefit that gives families money to help cover the basic necessities of raising children.

In the United States, we have the Child Tax Credit, but it is much more narrow than the benefit in other countries. Until recently, it didn't serve the people who needed it most, leaving behind one-third of all children who live in families that didn't make enough money to qualify for the full benefit.

That's why Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Ritchie Torres (D-NY) and I introduced the American Family Act, which would give families up to $300 per month per child and make sure all low- and middle-income families can access the full credit.

A one-year version of our proposal was included in the American Rescue Plan. That's because the New Democrat Coalition, a group of 94 forward-thinking Democrats that I lead in the House, endorsed the American Family Act and pushed for its inclusion as a way to rebuild the middle class. The federal government is expected to start issuing these monthly checks to families in July, to help pay for groceries, rent, and other regular bills.

This is only the beginning of this effort. We cannot lift children out of poverty for just one year. Parents need consistency and predictability knowing this support will be here for the long term as they raise their families. Some might contend this will cost too much or will be too hard to achieve. I say how can we afford not to? Childhood poverty costs the nation upwards of $1 trillion a year. Permanent expansion of the benefit is supported broadly by Democrats, including the New Democrats and Progressives. Giving children a fair chance at success is a position that shouldn't be partisan. The permanent enhanced credit is estimated to save eight dollars for every dollar it costs. This means better health and education outcomes for children and more stability and predictability for parents.

President Joe Biden has said he supports making the expanded benefit permanent. This could be a historic opportunity to cut childhood poverty by 55 percent and we cannot afford not to act.

Suzan DelBene, the representative for Washington's First Congressional District, serves as chair of the New Democrat Coalition and vice chair of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Democrats Fight Back Against Huge Cuts In School Lunches

Democrats Fight Back Against Huge Cuts In School Lunches

House Democrats are calling out Republicans for sneaking provisions into the Child Nutrition and Education Act, which passed through committee in late May, that would adjust the requirement for free breakfast and lunch eligibility in public school districts

Today, school districts qualify for free breakfast or lunch if at least 40 percent of students are either homeless, in foster care, or belong to families receiving other benefits; under the Child Nutrition and Education Act, that percentage requirement would jump to 60 percent, effectively shutting out a whopping 20 percent of students who were previously eligible.

The bill also stipulates that sodium levels in school food would not be reduced without additional evidence supporting the change; it would increase the states’ prerogatives to make their own determinations about which children would be eligible for the meal-based aid; and it would roll out a three-state block grant pilot program for child nutrition assistance programs, which many Democrats believe would be used to cap — and in effect, limit — funds provided to states.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi stood with Rep. Rosa DeLauro, driving force behind the opposition to the bill, to ramp up pressure ahead of the late-summer recess. DeLauro exposed the unfair bill and slammed the dangerous, cost-cutting tactics by Republicans as an extension of House Speaker Paul Ryan’s so-called anti-poverty plan unveiled earlier this week.

“Paul Ryan’s sham poverty plan task force says that it is focused on eradicating poverty, but it’s cuts like this that demonstrate where they’re coming from,” DeLauro said during a press conference on Thursday. “His plan will drive more and more Americans into poverty and make more and more Americans hungry.”

DeLauro highlighted the correlation between proper nutrition and academic performance, stressing that both food availability and nutrition would be compromised under the bill. DeLauro is reportedly continuing talks with leaders in Washington in an effort to convince Congress not to allow this bill to get to the floor for a vote.

The bill’s stringent requirements for aid further echo Ryan’s controversial poverty initiatives, which include extra barriers and qualification requirements for welfare recipients and those who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamp benefits. Ryan argues that the effort to combat poverty should be focused on allocating funds towards areas where there is the highest likelihood to see results. And although he has made comments pointing toward the failures of the war on poverty, programs such as SNAP — which he reportedly wants to cuthave proven to be effective.

This all comes despite a recent, apparently-not-so-genuine admission from Ryan that his approach to poverty was “wrong” in the past, because he referred to those on government assistance as “takers.”

“But as I spent more time listening, and really learning the root causes of poverty,” he said. “I realized I was wrong.”

 

Photo: Flickr/ U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Most Of  The “Most Valuable Progressives” Named By ‘The Nation’ Have Endorsed…Hillary?

Most Of The “Most Valuable Progressives” Named By ‘The Nation’ Have Endorsed…Hillary?

If like me you’re a longtime and faithful reader of The Nation — a venerable publication celebrating its 150th anniversary — then you probably saw its recent cover editorial endorsing Bernie Sanders for president. That lengthy essay, along with many other Nation articles over the past several months, leaves the unmistakable impression that Sanders is the only truly progressive choice for Democratic voters.

Yet just a month ago, The Nation published its 2015 Progressive Honor Roll, an annual feature written by John Nichols, who happens to be a highly enthusiastic Sanders supporter — which named several strong supporters of Hillary Clinton among America’s “most valuable” progressives. In fact, of the individuals named on Nichols’ list, nearly every single one is backing Clinton (one exception is Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell, “most valuable Cabinet member,” who must observe administration neutrality in the primary but — as a former top Clinton administration official — would very likely endorse her).

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), named “most valuable Senator,” officially endorsed Clinton back in January 2014. Rosa DeLauro, “most valuable House member,” endorsed her last April. Pam Jochum, the Dubuque Democrat who presides over the Iowa State Senate — chosen from hundreds of local pols across the country as “most valuable state legislator” — announced her support for Clinton last October. Cecile Richards, the Planned Parenthood president named “most valuable activist,” led her organization to back Clinton earlier this month (and earned a sour-grapes dismissal by Sanders as “the establishment”). Newark’s Ras Baraka, the “most valuable mayor,” hasn’t officially endorsed a presidential candidate yet, but his political organization has shown every sign of backing Clinton since last summer. And “most valuable memoir” author Gloria Steinem, the great feminist leader and thinker, will campaign for Clinton in New Hampshire tomorrow.

As voting approaches, primary rhetoric gets super-hot, and partisans inevitably utter silly, uninformed, and even offensive remarks about the opposing candidate. But it is worth remembering that progressives can differ honestly over which of these two candidates will represent the nation’s real interests most effectively.

Photo: Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders, is getting most of the high-profile progressive endorsements.