World Hunger and Poverty

A recent Washington Post editorial addressed Michael Bloomberg and the earned-income tax credit. I include an excerpt:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg says he is not running for president. Yet that didn’t stop him from coming to Washington last week to promote an expansion of the earned-income tax credit as the next phase in the war on poverty. The EITC has been around since 1975 and is widely considered the single most important and effective policy for reducing poverty. According to a 2006 report from the Brookings Institution, “In 2003, the EITC lifted 4.4 million people in low-income, working families out of poverty, more than one-half of them children.” Mr. Bloomberg is right to focus on its expansion.

In a speech at the National Press Club, Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire former Democrat, former Republican and now independent who many believe is mulling a White House bid, noted that welfare reform and the EITC “incentivized work among women with young children.” But, he said, “fathers are missing from our strategy to drive down the poverty rate.” He proposed to triple the size of the maximum credit received, to $1,236 per year, and to eliminate the marriage penalty now at work. He would raise the maximum income for EITC eligibility from $12,100 to $18,040 and lower the qualifying age from 25 to 21, to make stable employment more attractive to young men. And he would make the EITC expansion off-limits to fathers who are behind on child-support obligations.

As far as government policies go, the earned-income tax credit has a lot of potential. I support almost anything that reduces taxes for the working class.

Most of all, I agree with Bloomberg’s point about fathers. Missing fathers contribute to poverty, especially that amongst children and single mothers.  Incentives such as the EITC can help get more fathers to take care of their children. Unfortunately, no government program will get rid of all deadbeat dads. Plus, some children become fatherless other ways, such as when their fathers die or go to jail.

Let’s not let children suffer in poverty because of their fathers’ absence.

We can fully put a stop to this by changing the way society works so that children do not require a father to grow up in proper conditions. In other words, we can make sure children do not need financial support from their parents. We can do this by making sure all children have direct access to food, clothes, shelter, healthcare and education. I suggest doing this by making sure all children can get student loans for boarding schools which would not only provide education but also would provide food, clothes, shelter, and healthcare.

If all children can have their needs met without the financial support of their parents or deadbeat father, and if the children get a quality education, then they will not fall into the poverty trap. As adults, with their quality education, they will have the ability to get a job that pays them enough to fully support themselves, which includes paying off the student loans.

I agree with penalizing deadbeat dads. I agree with offering incentives for parents to take care of their children. However, if we want to end poverty for all children, we have to help children directly, because the world will always have deadbeat parents no matter how many incentives and penalties we impose.

Roy Goldenberg recently reported that one third of Israeli children live in poverty. I include an excerpt:

The National Insurance Institute Poverty Report for 2006 states that Israel had 1,649,800 persons living below the poverty line. The proportion of poor persons was unchanged from 2005, when there were 1,630,500 poor.

The proportion of children living below the poverty line rose to 796,100 in 2006 from 768,800 in 2005, although the proportion was unchanged at more than one third of all children. The proportion of children in poverty has risen 60% since 1998.

Of course, non-Israeli Palestinian children also live in shocking rates of poverty. In addition to poverty, these children of both groups often have to face violence and terrorism, especially since both groups often target civilians. Unsurprisingly, these children grow up angry and otherwise distressed, which can lead to more violence and poverty.

Of course, the governments and leaders involved spend billions of dollars on war, while this poverty rages.

The United States gives billions of dollars to Israel for military purposes. If the United States wants to give its taxpayers money away, I suggest that this money go to feed hungry children rather than to war.

I doubt that we will ever resolve poverty while warfare continues, and I doubt we will stop warfare while land remains divided. We need to find a way to allow all people, regardless of race and religion, to move in and out of any country or region and get jobs and housing. So long as land remains divided and certain races or religions get excluded, people will fight over the land and the divisions.

I hope for better days for the poor Israeli and Palestinian children.

Gary Younge recently wrote an article about poverty in the United States. At one point in the article, he shows how the Bush administration has pushed more working class people into poverty. I include an excerpt:

So it would have seemed last Tuesday when the US census bureau revealed its latest findings on income, poverty and health. The report showed that since George Bush came to power the poverty rate had risen by 9%, the number of people without health insurance had risen by 12%, and real median household income had remained stagnant. On the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina we learned the racial disparity in income and the gap between rich and poor show no sign of abating.

Ironically, the Bush administration cites fractional decreases year in the poverty he created as good news. In the article quoted above, Gary Younge describes class warfare as the rich attacking the poor, and points out that the poor have not yet started fighting back. He points out the lack of unity amongst the working class, due to many Americans referring to themselves as “middle class” rather than “working class.”

I think the entire working class needs to band together and stop letting ultra-rich people leech off its labor. Within any 10 year period, approximately 40% of the United States falls into poverty. People cycle in and out of poverty. Poverty affects the entire working class, not some isolated, marginal lower class. If the working class organized better, they could fight the socioeconomic corruption that rich people use to weasel them out of their money. The working class can demand more freedom and fairness, and finally put an end to poverty and other working class problems.