The Shame of Child Poverty in the Age of Trump

By Rajan Menon, TomDispatch

03 February 20

Formerly a pitchman for Pizza Hut and McDonald’s, he became president while eating KFC chicken and later served Wendy’s burgers to the Clemson Tigers, the national championship football team. (The board chairman of Wendy’s had contributed handsomely to his 2016 campaign.) So, honestly, how could it harm kids -- poor kids, to be specific -- to eat pizza and hamburger instead of a bunch of namby-pamby “vegetables” and “fruit” of the sort championed by the school nutrition standards Michelle Obama once sponsored? No wonder the Trump Department of Agriculture rolled out its new version of those standards for school breakfasts, lunches, and snacks on the former first lady’s birthday (to the cheers of food companies).

Hey, how about mushroom pizza? Don’t tell me that a mushroom isn’t a vegetable or that the tomato sauce on that pizza or the onion on that hamburger doesn’t qualify as healthier than hell! And they have the added advantage of being considered “more cost-efficient foods,” which, in translation, means that they lack nutrition. For the presidential deal-maker of the century (if not all eternity), what a deal this turns out to be: food companies get more, while children get less -- and yet, given the foods we’re talking about, are likely to become fatter eating them!

And childhood obesity? Much overrated as a crisis, right? After all, only 14 million American schoolchildren are considered obese at the moment. And keep in mind that, of the 30 million children who eat school meals daily, about 20 million of them are “low-income” (think: poor) and may get “more than half of their daily calories” from those meals.

Honestly, if this doesn’t sum up the Trump era so far, what does? With that in mind, let TomDispatch regular Rajan Menon take you through the grim American world of child poverty that the president and his crew, including Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, are going to make worse, even as they put more dollars in the hands of food companies (and the truly wealthy more generally). It’s a story for the ages, a genuine tale from hell.

-Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch

he plight of impoverished children anywhere should evoke sympathy, exemplifying as it does the suffering of the innocent and defenseless. Poverty among children in a wealthy country like the United States, however, should summon shame and outrage as well. Unlike poor countries (sometimes run by leaders more interested in lining their pockets than anything else), what excuse does the United States have for its striking levels of child poverty? After all, it has the world’s 10th highest per capita income at $62,795 and an unrivalled gross domestic product (GDP) of $21.3 trillion. Despite that, in 2020, an estimated 11.9 million American kids -- 16.2% of the total -- live below the official poverty line, which is a paltry $25,701 for a family of four with two kids. Put another way, according to the Children's Defense Fund, kids now constitute one-third of the 38.1 million Americans classified as poor and 70% of them have at least one working parent -- so poverty can’t be chalked up to parental indolence.

Yes, the proportion of kids living below the poverty line has zigzagged down from 22% when the country was being ravaged by the Great Recession of 2008-2009 and was even higher in prior decades, but no one should crack open the champagne bottles just yet. The relevant standard ought to be how the United States compares to other wealthy countries. The answer: badly. It has the 11th highest child poverty rate of the 42 industrialized countries tracked by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Winnow that list down to European Union states and Canada, omitting low and middle-income countries, and our child poverty rate ranks above only Spain’s. Use the poverty threshold of the OECD -- 50% of a country’s median income ($63,178 for the United States) -- and the American child poverty rate leaps to 20%.

The United States certainly doesn’t lack the means to drive child poverty down or perhaps even eliminate it. Many countries on that shorter OECD list have lower per-capita incomes and substantially smaller GDPs yet (as a UNICEF report makes clear) have done far better by their kids. Our high child-poverty rate stems from politics, not economics -- government policies that, since the 1980s, have reduced public investment as a proportion of GDP in infrastructure, public education, and poverty reduction.  These were, of course, the same years when a belief that “big government” was an obstacle to advancement took ever-deeper hold, especially in the Republican Party.  Today, Washington allocates only 9% of its federal budget to children, poor or not. That compares to a third for Americans over 65, up from 22% in 1971. If you want a single fact that sums up where we are now, inflation-adjusted per-capita spending on kids living in the poorest families has barely budged compared to 30 years ago whereas the corresponding figure for the elderly has doubled.

The conservative response to all this remains predictable: you can’t solve complex social problems like child poverty by throwing money at them. Besides, government antipoverty programs only foster dependence and create bloated bureaucracies without solving the problem. It matters little that the actual successes of American social programs prove this claim to be flat-out false. Before getting to that, however, let’s take a snapshot of child poverty in America.

Sizing Up the Problem

Defining poverty may sound straightforward, but it’s not. The government’s annual Official Poverty Measure (OPM), developed in the 1960s, establishes poverty lines by taking into account family size, multiplying the 1963 cost for a minimum food budget by three while factoring in changes in the Consumer Price Index, and comparing the result to family income. In 2018, a family with a single adult and one child was considered poor with an income below $17,308 ($20,2012 for two adults and one child, $25,465 for two adults and two children, and so on). According to the OPM, 11.8% of all Americans were poor that year.

By contrast, the Supplementary Poverty Measure (SPM), published yearly since 2011, builds on the OPM but provides a more nuanced calculus. It counts the post-tax income of families, but also cash flows from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC), both of which help low-income households. It adds in government-provided assistance through, say, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), Medicaid, subsidies for housing and utilities, and unemployment and disability insurance. However, it deducts costs like child care, child-support payments, and out-of-pocket medical expenses. According to the SPM, the 2018 national poverty rate was 12.8%.

Of course, neither of these poverty calculations can tell us how children are actually faring. Put simply, they’re faring worse. In 2018, 16.2% of Americans under 18 lived in families with incomes below the SPM line. And that’s not the worst of it. A 2019 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine study commissioned by Congress found that 9% of poor children belong to families in “deep poverty” (incomes that are less than 50% of the SPM). But 36% of all American children live in poor or “near poor” families, those with incomes within 150% of the poverty line.

Child poverty also varies by race -- a lot. The rate for black children is 17.8%; for Hispanic kids, 21.7%; for their white counterparts, 7.9%. Worse, more than half of all black and Hispanic kids live in “near poor” families compared to less than a quarter of white children. Combine age and race and you’ll see another difference, especially for children under five, a population with an overall 2017 poverty rate of 19.2%.  Break those under-fives down by race, however, and here’s what you find: white kids at 15.9%, Hispanic kids at an eye-opening 25.8%, and their black peers at a staggering 32.9%.

Location matters, too. The child poverty rate shifts by state and the differences are stark. North Dakota and Utah are at 9%, for instance, while New Mexico and Mississippi are at 27% and 28%. Nineteen states have rates of 20% or more. Check out a color-coded map of geographic variations in child poverty and you’ll see that rates in the South, Southwest, and parts of the Midwest are above the national average, while rural areas tend to have higher proportions of poor families than cities. According to the Department of Agriculture, in rural America, 22% of all children and 26% of those under five were poor in 2017.

Why Child Poverty Matters

Imagine, for a moment, this scenario: a 200-meter footrace in which the starting blocks of some competitors are placed 75 meters behind the others. Barring an Olympic-caliber runner, those who started way in front will naturally win. Now, think of that as an analogy for the predicament that American kids born in poverty face through no fault of their own. They may be smart and diligent, their parents may do their best to care for them, but they begin life with a huge handicap.

As a start, the nutrition of poor children will generally be inferior to that of other kids. No surprise there, but here’s what’s not common knowledge: a childhood nutritional deficit matters for years afterwards, possibly for life. Scientific research shows that, by age three, the quality of childrens’ diets is already shaping the development of critical parts of young brains like the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex in ways that matter. That’s worth keeping in mind because four million American kids under age six were poor in 2018, as were close to half of those in families headed by single women.

Indeed, the process starts even earlier. Poor mothers may themselves have nutritional deficiencies that increase their risk of having babies with low birthweights.  That, in turn, can have long-term effects on children’s health, what level of education they reach, and their future incomes since the quality of nutrition affects brain size, concentration, and cognitive capacity. It also increases the chances of having learning disabilities and experiencing mental health problems.

Poor children are likely to be less healthy in other ways as well, for reasons that range from having a greater susceptibility to asthma to higher concentrations of lead in their blood. Moreover, poor families find it harder to get good health care. And add one more thing: in our zip-code-influenced public-school system, such children are likely to attend schools with far fewer resources than those in more affluent neighborhoods.

Our national opioid problem also affects the well-being of children in a striking fashion. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), between 2008 and 2012, a third of women in their childbearing years filled opioid-based medication prescriptions in pharmacies and an estimated 14%-22% of them were pregnant. The result: an alarming increase in the number of babies exposed to opioids in utero and experiencing withdrawal symptoms at birth, which is also known as neonatal abstinence syndrome, or NAS, in medical lingo. Its effects, a Penn State study found, include future increased sensitivity to pain and susceptibility to fevers and seizures. Between 2000 and 2014, the incidence of NAS increased by a multiple of four. In 2014, 34,000 babies were born with NAS, which, as a CDC report put it, “is equivalent to one baby suffering from opioid withdrawal born approximately every 15 minutes.” (Given the ongoing opioid crisis, it’s unlikely that things have improved in recent years.)

And the complications attributable to NAS don’t stop with birth. Though the research remains at an early stage -- the opioid crisis only began in the early 1990s -- it suggests that the ill effects of NAS extend well beyond infancy and include impaired cognitive and motor skills, respiratory ailments, learning disabilities, difficulty maintaining intellectual focus, and behavioral traits that make productive interaction with others harder.

At this point, you won’t be surprised to learn that NAS and child poverty are connected. Prescription opioid use rates are much higher for women on Medicaid, who are more likely to be poor than those with private insurance. Moreover, the abuse of, and overdose deaths from, opioids (whether obtained through prescriptions or illegally) have been far more widespread among the poor.

Combine all of this and here’s the picture: from the months before birth on, poverty diminishes opportunity, capacity, and agency and its consequences reach into adulthood. While that rigged footrace of mine was imaginary, child poverty certainly does ensure a future-rigged society. The good news (though not in Donald Trump’s America): the race to a half-decent life (or better) doesn’t have to be rigged.

It Needn’t Be this Way (But Will Be as Long as Trump Is President)

Can children born into poverty defy the odds, realize their potential, and lead fulfilling lives? Conservatives will point to stories of people who cleared all the obstacles created by child poverty as proof that the real solution is hard work. But let’s be clear: poor children shouldn’t have to find themselves on a tilted playing field from the first moments of their lives. Individual success stories aside, Americans raised in poor families do markedly less well compared to those from middle class or affluent homes -- and it doesn’t matter whether you choose college attendance, employment rates, or future household income as your measure. And the longer they live in poverty the worse the odds that they’ll escape it in adulthood; for one thing, they’re far less likely to finish high school or attend college than their more fortunate peers.

Conversely, as Harvard economist Raj Chetty and his colleagues have shown, kids’ life prospects improve when parents with low incomes are given the financial wherewithal to move to neighborhoods with higher social-mobility rates (thanks to better schools and services, including health care). As in that imaginary footrace, the starting point matters. But here the news is grim. The Social Progress Index places the United States 75th out of 149 countries in “access to quality education” and 70th in “access to quality health care” and poor kids are, of course, at a particular disadvantage.

Yet childhood circumstances can be (and have been) changed -- and the sorts of government programs that conservatives love to savage have helped enormously in that process. Child poverty plunged from 28% in 1967 to 15.6% in 2016 in significant part due to programs like Medicaid and the Food Stamp Act started in the 1960s as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. Such programs helped poor families pay for housing, food, child care, and medical expenses, as did later tax legislation like the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. Our own history and that of other wealthy countries show that child poverty is anything but an unalterable reality. The record also shows that changing it requires mobilizing funds of the sort now being wasted on ventures like America’s multitrillion-dollar forever wars.

Certainly, an increase in jobs and earnings can reduce child poverty. Wall Street Journal odes to Donald Trump’s tax cuts and deregulation policies highlight the present 3.5% unemployment rate (the lowest in 60 years), a surge in new jobs, and wage growth at all levels, notably for workers with low incomes who lack college degrees. This storyline, however, omits important realities. Programs that reduce child poverty help even in years when poor or near-poor parents gain and, of course, are critical in bad times, since sooner or later booming job markets also bust. Furthermore, the magic that Trump fans tout occurred at a moment when many state and city governments were mandating increases in the minimum wage. Employers who hired, especially in heavily populated states like California, New York, Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan, had to pay more.

As for cutting child poverty, it hasn’t exactly been a presidential priority in the Trump years -- not like the drive to pass a $1.5 trillion corporate and individual income tax cut whose gains flowed mainly to the richest Americans, while inflating the budget deficit to $1 trillion in 2019, according to the Treasury Department. Then there’s that “impenetrable, powerful, beautiful wall.” Its estimated price ranges from $21 billion to $70 billion, excluding maintenance. And don’t forget the proposed extra $33 billion in military spending for this fiscal year alone, part of President Trump’s plan to boost such spending by $683 billion over the next decade.

As for poor kids and their parents, the president and congressional Republicans are beginning to slash an array of programs ranging from the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program to Medicaid -- $1.2 trillion worth over the next 10 years -- that have long helped struggling families and children in particular get by. The Trump administration has, for good measure, rewritten the eligibility rules for such programs in order to lower the number of people who qualify.

The supposed goal: to cut costs by reducing dependence on government. (Never mind the subsidies and tax loopholes Trump’s crew has created for corporations and the super wealthy, which add up to many billions of dollars in spending and lost revenue.) These supposedly work-ethic-driven austerity policies batter working families with young kids that, for example, desperately need childcare, which can take a big bite out of paychecks: 10% or more for all households with kids, but half in the case of poor families.  Add to that the cost of unsubsidized housing. Median monthly rent increased by nearly a third between 2001 and 2015. Put another way, rents consume more than half the income of the bottom 20% of Americans, according to the Federal Reserve. The advent of Trump has also made the struggle of low-income families with healthcare bills even harder. The number of kids without health insurance jumped by 425,000 between 2017 and 2018 when, according to the Census Bureau, 4.3 million children lacked coverage.

Even before Donald Trump’s election, only one-sixth of eligible families with kids received assistance for childcare and a paltry one-fifth got housing subsidies. Yet his administration arrived prepared to put programs that helped some of them pay for housing and childcare on the chopping block. No point in such families looking to him for a hand in the future. He won’t be building any Trump Towers for them. 

Whatever “Make America Great Again” may mean, it certainly doesn’t involve helping America’s poor kids. As long as Donald Trump oversees their race into life, they’ll find themselves ever farther from the starting line. 

Rajan Menon, a TomDispatch regular, is the Anne and Bernard Spitzer Professor of International Relations at the Powell School, City College of New York, senior research fellow at Columbia University’s Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies, and a non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. His latest book is The Conceit of Humanitarian Intervention.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer’s new dystopian novel (the second in the Splinterlands series) Frostlands, Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power and John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II.

Puerto Rico's Disasters After the Earthquakes

By Monique Dols, Jacobin

03 February 20

Puerto Rico has been repeatedly battered with hurricanes and, most recently, massive earthquakes. The disasters have been worsened by the government’s lack of response to the earthquake’s devastation — especially on the island’s schools.

chools are starting to reopen after a 6.4 magnitude earthquake rocked Puerto Rico in the early morning hours of January 7, the day after Three Kings’ Day. Entire neighborhoods of cement structures shifted and crumbled, leaving thousands of people homeless and many more living in precarious situations. Similar to the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, the earthquakes and aftershocks in Puerto Rico are revealing the decidedly unnatural tragedies of disaster capitalism and colonialism.

And now there’s a new wave of struggle on the island calling for the resignation of government officials who have failed — yet again — to meet the needs of people who lost everything in a natural disaster. People took to the streets starting in mid-January to call for the resignation of Governor Wanda Vásquez Garced and the President of the Senate Thomas Rivera Schatz after supplies meant for victims of Hurricane Maria were found collecting dust in several warehouses.

As a part of this public outcry and call for accountability, parents and educators are denouncing the Department of Education’s (DOE) rushed inspection process that doesn’t fully certify the safety of schools. The Frente Amplio en Defensa de la Educación Pública (FADEP), a coalition of educator unions, community groups, and parent associations, is demanding that the government take the safety of school communities more seriously. Mercedes Martínez Padilla, president of the Federation of Teachers of Puerto Rico (FMPR) explains:

The authorities must understand that what we are talking about here are the lives of our students, teachers, and school personnel. Any excuse to avoid a transparent process that reflects the real state of the schools and seeks to protect the school community will constitute an act of criminal negligence .?.?. We simply will not let the experience of Hurricane Maria, in which so many people suffered and died unnecessarily, happen again.

As educators and students plan to go back to school, they are haunted by the images of the Agripina Seda School, which collapsed while students were on break for the holidays. The turquoise and cream-colored, three-story building, which is located in the southern part of the island most affected by the tremors, fell like a deck of cards, each story flattening the one under it.

According to the College of Engineers and Surveyors, the Agripina Seda School collapsed due to a cost-saving construction shortcut called a “short column” which buckles instead of bending in the case of an earthquake. Hundreds of other Puerto Rican schools have this defect and could collapse as a result of another strong earthquake.

“Our recommendation is that these structures shouldn’t be used .?.?. If this defect hasn’t been fixed yet, the structures simply shouldn’t be used under any circumstances,” Juan F. Alicea, the president of the College of Engineers and Surveyors, told Primera Hora. According to Alicea, these repairs are straightforward and can be done within six to eight weeks with the required resources.

Unfortunately, the DOE has a different plan in mind. They are paying $1,200 per school for subcontractors to conduct walk-through inspections that assess visible signs of structural damage from past earthquakes. Despite the fact that earthquakes are ongoing, and that Secretary of Education Eligio Hernández Pérez admitted in a radio interview that 95 percent of schools are not earthquake-resistant, these inspections do not look for design flaws that make the buildings vulnerable to future earthquakes.

Incredibly, the now-collapsed Agripina Seda School passed this kind of inspection the day before it collapsed. An engineer from the University of Puerto Rico in Mayagüez, José A. Martínez-Cruzado, visited the school between earthquakes, when it was still standing. In his own unofficial inspection, he identified the school’s short-column design and recommended that the school be repaired before being used again. Martínez-Cruzado explained to Metro PR how a building could pass a DOE inspection one day but fall to the ground the next:

You can inspect a structure and see if it is cracked or not, but that does not mean that in the future it can necessarily withstand a larger earthquake. If there aren’t any cracks, it means that the previous earthquake didn’t cause damage, but [based on that kind of inspection] I cannot guarantee that it can resist a bigger or future earthquake.

As educators returned to school to get ready for classes, many of them were presented with building certifications from the DOE that left many more questions open than were answered. Martínez Padilla, who has been collecting reports from schools all over the island, explained, “These certifications are a disaster, a completely botched job. There isn’t even a format that the engineers are supposed to follow. The engineers just write what they want to write, some of them are blank, some are more specific, others more general. How is this possible?”

Members of the FADEP aren’t waiting around for the DOE to do the right thing. “All faculty and personnel need at least five days of preparation and training in order to get up to speed with the new reality in schools and in order to establish and roll out protocol for the case of another emergency,” explained the president of the National Union of Educators and Education Workers (UNETE), Liza Fournier Córdova, who is also an elementary school English teacher.

This must include: first aid training; emotional support services for staff; emergency and earthquake management workshops; discussions of the specific emergency protocols in each school with their unique circumstances; a reevaluation and reworking of school structures in order to create smaller class sizes that are more manageable in the case of an emergency; a familiarization with evacuation routes and meet-up points at each campus; as well as a discussion of the walk-through inspections that were done.

Between 2017 and 2018 the DOE under twice-indicted ex–secretary of education Julia Keleher spent millions of dollars on school inspections. But the DOE is unable to provide any kind of comprehensive description of the findings of these inspections or of earlier repairs which were carried out in the early 2000s.

Keleher, who is charged with corruption, bribery, and fraud, is now under investigation for giving away school land in San Juan to a developer in exchange for an apartment in a gentrifying neighborhood that she lived in for six months for $1 a month before buying it below market value.

Keleher also closed hundreds of structurally sound schools while cramming children into inferior, overcrowded facilities. The Luis Muñoz Rivera School in Dorado is still shuttered despite having been the only tsunami-ready structure in its coastal neighborhood. The FMPR, along with community groups, is demanding that the school and others like it be reevaluated and, if it is confirmed to be earthquake-resistant, reopened immediately.

The FADEP has requested meetings with representatives of the House and the Senate, the secretary of education, as well as Carlos Pesquera, the engineer who advises the governor, in order to present and discuss their concerns. To date, they have received no response despite the in-depth proposals that they crafted with engineers and experts in the field.

The inspections and repairs that the FADEP is calling for may take longer and cost more money. But in Puerto Rico, where there is a severe economic crisis, high unemployment, low wages, and a very high cost of living, there is also a fight underway over where the vast resources of society should be spent.

Since the imposition of the PROMESA act under President Obama, Puerto Rico has been pressured to prioritize paying the debt over investment in public services. This has had a devastating impact on many sectors including health, communication, electrical, as well as education. The attacks on working people have also created a backlash and a resurgence of struggle which hold the promise of a different future for Puerto Rico, one in which the needs of ordinary people are prioritized over profits.

“The problem is a lack of transparency, not a lack of funds,” twelfth-grade physics teacher Hugo J Delgado-Martí told me. “As we saw with the ex–secretary of education Julia Keleher and the government of Ricardo Rosselló, the money was always there for the subcontractors, the privatization schemes, and the buying and selling of political favors. We have seen [in this most recent government scandal] that the government could spend $10,000 a month to warehouse supplies which were supposed to be distributed after Hurricane Maria. There’s an unlimited budget for repression, but when it comes to financing our schools they claim bankruptcy.”

“We can’t be trembling with fear and anguish every time the earth shakes out of fear that our children’s school might collapse,” science teacher Anés Cedeño Soto told me. “This is about prioritizing the lives of the people, of our children. The life of any Puerto Rican child is worth more than any amount of money in the world.”