Tag: The Poor

Who Can Go Without Utilities?

Utility service was cut off to 1 in 20 households in the US in 2007, and 1 in 5 were behind in their utility bills, according to a survey released Wednesday. These figures portend a dire situation for the current heating season as families struggle to cover expenses under the impact of the deepening recession.

The survey was conducted by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), a non-profit organization of state utility regulators. Results were compiled from statistics submitted by utility commissions in 41 states and Washington, D.C. It is the largest sample size ever analyzed by the organization, and covers roughly half of all US households.

The termination of gas or electric service to a household spells extreme hardship, with families and individuals forced to go without heat, hot water, lighting, or cooking facilities. Unsafe methods of coping with the lack of power—including the use of space heaters, candles, and the rigging of unauthorized connections—pose a risk to health in the form of poor nutrition and sickness and the danger of fire and asphyxiation. House fires resulting in death are the most tragic outcome and a frequent occurrence in the US.

More than 5.7 million US households had their electricity terminated in 2007, accounting for 4.7 percent of all electric customers. Of these, 1.9 million—or 33 percent—did not have service restored in the reporting year.

Gas service was cut off to 3 million customers in 2007, a termination rate of 5 percent. This rate was double the 2.5 percent cut off in 2001. More than half of these customers—or 55 percent—were unable to have their service restored during the year.

Yet another problem that will grow with the deepening economic crisis.

Hunger Is Growing

As the economic crisis deepens, its human toll is becoming more evident. A new survey of food charities in the United States has revealed a dramatic increase in hunger. Feeding America, the largest hunger-relief organization in the US, says that a growing number of families face difficulties in securing adequate nutrition. Meanwhile food banks have proven ill-equipped to meet the increased demand caused by layoffs and increased food costs, and many have collapsed or have restricted the allotments of food they make.

In a nationwide survey of 160 local food assistance programs, with operations covering virtually every county in the US, Feeding America found that there has been a 30 percent increase in requests for emergency food assistance, and that every food bank has seen an increase in demand for food relief. An opinion poll commissioned by the organization and released simultaneously found that a growing number of low-income families lack sufficient nutrition.

In a chilling statement on social conditions in the US, 72 percent of surveyed food charities said that they are unable to meet the current demands of local communities for assistance. In most cases, the charities have responded by offering smaller distributions to the hungry, and some have been forced to close down.

In its survey of households, Feeding America found that nearly two thirds of low-income households—defined as having an income at less than 200 percent of the official poverty level—said that within the past year “their food didn’t last and they could not afford to buy more.” Forty percent “ate less than they felt they should,” and 36 percent “cut the size of meals or skipped meals because there wasn’t enough money for food.” A large majority of low-income respondents, 70 percent, said that they are reducing food spending, while 62 percent said they make multiple shopping trips for food “because they didn’t have enough money to buy everything at one time.” In New York City, in 2008, nearly 40 percent of all households said that they had faced difficulties in procuring sufficient food for their families, a sharp increase over figures from 2007.

Sad stats indeed.  But the worse is yet to come……

How About Making Healthier Easier?

The state of Mississippi tried to pass a bill that would ban restaurants from serving certain foods to overweight patrons.  It failed.  The government, both state and federal, has tried for years to get the poor to adopt a healthier diet.  They have failed.  All attempts to help low income families learn to eat healthier have failed, for the most part.

Why is this?  First of all, healthier foods are far more expensive than high fat low nutrition foods.  That is the main cause of the unhealthy diet–cheaper foods make the food budget go further.

I am sure that somewhere within the HHS catacombs there is a new plan to help the poor learn to eat healthier.  They will fail also.  With the incoming administration there will be an emphasis on health care and one of the canons will be preventive measures like a healthier diet.  And now we are back to where we began…it will fail.

I know somewhere someone is saying, “there has got to be an answer”.  Uh huh and there is.  It does not take a rocket scientist to figure it out.  The answer is in the food stamp program which many poor people are benefitting from.  Take the program and make it where if healthier foods are bought then they would be half priced or 2 of 1 type of thing.  This would not be that difficult because all stores are computerized and it would take an adjustment in the software to make it viable.

The government will want all of us to focus on the preventive side of the health care equation, but telling people about the benefits of eating healthier will not make it so.  There has got to be an incentive for such an approach

Without the incentive ALL attempts to make a healthier population will FAIL.  This is an easy approach and will have a high rate of success—but there is the problem…it is not complicated enough for government.

copyright:  CHUQ/Info Ink

How Does Your Brain Use Information?

The brains of children from low-income families process information differently to those of their wealthier counterparts, US research suggests.

Normal nine and 10-year-olds from rich and poor backgrounds had differing electrical activity in a part of the brain linked to problem solving.

The 26 children in the study, conducted at the University of California, Berkeley, were measured using an electroencephalograph (EEG), which measured activity in the “prefrontal cortex” of the brain.

Half were from low income homes, and half from high income families.

During the test, an image the children had not been briefed to expect was flashed onto a screen, and their brain responses were measured.

Those from lower income families showed a lower prefrontal cortex response to it than those from wealthier households.

Dr Mark Kishiyama, one of the researchers, said: “The low socioeconomic kids were not detecting or processing the visual stimuli as well – they were not getting that extra boost from the prefrontal cortex.”

Since the children were, in health terms, normal in every way, the researchers suspected that “stressful environments” created by low socioeconomic status might be to blame.

Previous studies have suggested that children in low-income families are spoken to far less – on average hearing 30 million fewer words by the age of four.

Professor Robert Knight, added: “This is a wake-up call – it’s not just that these kids are poor and more likely to have health problems, but they might actually not be getting full brain development from the stressful and relatively impoverished environment associated with low socioeconomic status.”

“The study showed that low socioeconomic status children behaved exactly the same way as high socioeconomic status children, but their brain processed the information differently.”

Whatever!

Poverty And Hunger–American Style

Is anyone out there paying attention?  You might want to keep track of this.  There is a storm coming and you may not have your storm prep ready.

The US Department of Agriculture will shortly release figures showing that a record number of Americans, some 30 million, now receive food stamps, benefits available to low- or no-income people. That total will surpass the previous record set in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in 2005.

Every statistic related to poverty and hunger, as well as anecdotal reports from food banks and charities, points to a sharp growth in social misery in America. The majority of the statistics do not take into account the rapid economic deterioration of the past several months.

The figure of 30 million people on food stamps is one sign of the social crisis—although only the near-destitute qualify for the benefits, which themselves are entirely inadequate. The maximum monthly amount for a single individual is $176, the minimum, $14. A family of eight can receive $1,058. The average monthly benefit per person is $95, while the average US household spends $184 per person a month on food.

The number of those using food stamps rose 9.6 percent, or some 2.6 million people, from August 2007 to August 2008. The total is expected to continue rising sharply. Already in 25 states, at least one in five children is receiving food stamps.

Those receiving the benefits must have an income under 130 percent of the federal poverty level ($21,200) for a family of four, or $27,600. Income levels necessary to decently sustain a family of four are estimated to be at least twice the official poverty level. In the New York City area, for a four-member family, the Economic Policy Institute’s “Family Budget Calculator” puts the figure at $68,000; in the Los Angeles-Long Beach area at $54,000; and in the Detroit-Livonia-Warren, Michigan, area at $44,000. If this more-accurate measure were used, the percentage of Americans living in poverty would be at least 30 percent.

What Will The Bailout Failure Mean To The Poor?

This is from the Progressive Policy Institute’s Moving Up Blog:

The House voted against the economic bailout with 226 members voting against and 207 for it, causing the Dow to drop as much as 700 points.  No one knows exactly how the next few days will play out, but we will see one of three things: Congress will renew negotiations and pass a slightly altered version, they will go back to the drawing board and pass a completely different version, or they will do nothing.

What does this mean for low-income Americans?  If Congress somehow passes a new package, we know one thing for certain: money will be tight at the federal, state, local and individual level and we can’t count on a big boost in spending for anti-poverty programs. That means that over the next few years poverty advocates are going to have to be opportunistic and creative in identifying strategies to assist low-income workers in the context of other policy areas.

For example, we know that the next president and Congress will have a significant debate next year over taxes.  While tax policy isn’t always at the top of our minds when looking to reduce poverty, this is the perfect time to insist that any tax cut not only help those in the middle class but increase the size of the middle class by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit.

In addition, while we also saw crude oil drop below $100 per barrel today due to economic anxiety, both presidential candidates have made energy independence a key priority. Creating a new energy economy will have a significant impact on the lives of low-income Americans.  While there may not be as much money for subsidies and tax credits when Congress finally takes up this issue, the government must play a key role in facilitating the expansion of alternative energies.  As they expand, so will the green collar job opportunities – such as retrofitting buildings – that will benefit many individuals who are struggling to find a high-wage job.  These are just two examples. There will be more, but we will have to be very creative in what are likely to be some very lean years.

Why Is Poverty A Dirty Word?

A question that I have been trying to answer for 40+ years. Along with the one, why are we afraid of the poor? Both questions are difficult to answer. And really difficult to find a starting point to answer the questions. I have started this piece many times and after awhile and much thought I have thrown it away just to start over and over and…….

The poor have been tagged in the past and are still being tagged as lazy, cheap and promiscuous. Labels that are used to try and explain why there is a condition known as POVERTY. Many define poverty, few actually offer any solutions.

In The US there are approximately 35 million people living in poverty. The present economic crisis will no doubt raise those numbers considerably.

Poverty has become a dirty word because of several factors. One of the factors is the perception of poverty and the poor by society. Through many years and many political tap dances the poor have been used as a tool in elections, both pro and con. Thus perceptions are now standard in some political circles. The people have been taught to believe: 1) the poor are extremely disliked, 2) poverty equates to a moral failure, 3) the poor are uneducated, unemployed and on welfare, 4) the poor are a threat to the upper class who believe that we are in control of our lives, 5) the poor cost us money.

But the poor have a place in American society, they do the filthy, dangerous, temporary, undignified, menial jobs, the labor of the poor at low wages frees up the affluent for more important activities, the poor help create jobs which protects society from the poor, such as police, which would be less needed if there were fewer poor, the poor clear the stocks from the selves with day old bread, dent stores, etc.

In recent elections the poor have not been a concern of the candidates, other than a little political rhetoric they were never a problem to be solved. Look at this campaign season, the McCain camp talks about jobs for America, but offer plans like his home plan, or his gas tax holiday, none of which address the poor of the country. He wants to preserve human dignity by overturning Roe, protecting marriage, promoting adoption, but nothing about the dignity of the poor. As usual the Repubs basically ignore the poor and the problems they face.

Now we have the Dem side of the coin. Obama’s plan is to expand the earned credit, raise the minimum wage, increase affordable housing, and strengthen the family unit, and so on. All sounds good in speeches and sound bites; it does not address the core cause of poverty. The social system as well as the political system has created poverty and it must change to end poverty. Change is what is being promised by both candidates, but unfortunately, neither candidate has the answer. Their proposals are merely band-aids for a gunshot wound.

Until there is a serious attempt to end poverty, then the poor will continue to be joked about, pitied, and most notably feared. Yes, I said feared. Why? Because the poor are a reminder that all is not perfect in this country and a lot of work must be done to make it so. But sadly, no one wants to truly end poverty, just to use it for self-serving ends.

That Irene is why poverty is a dirty word.