Ending Poverty Starts With Strengthening Wages, Labor Rights

Ending Workplace Discrimination Lowers Barriers To Living Wages

Expanding Educational Opportunities Creates Better Outcomes

Families In Need Cannot Afford To Have The Safety Net Pulled Out From Under Them

Ryan’s Proposed Poverty Reforms Are Infused With Right-Wing Media Myths About The Poor

Core Of Ryan’s Reform Agenda Is The Right-Wing Media Myth That Anti-Poverty Programs Are Ineffective And Counterproductive. House Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) plan to reform American anti-poverty programs is focused heavily on misleading arguments commonly forwarded by right-wing media that the War on Poverty has largely failed to positively impact the circumstances of low-income Americans. Conservative media frequently promoted the false claim that anti-poverty programs trap low-income Americans in poverty, create pervasive disincentives to work, and undermine the fabric of American families. In each case, Ryan’s position has been thoroughly debunked by economic research. [Media Matters, 6/8/16]

Ryan Omitted Minimum Wage Policies From His Plan Altogether, Revealing His Reliance On Debunked Right-Wing Media Myths About Living Wages. During Ryan’s June 7 press conference debuting the plan, two reporters asked him to comment on the anti-poverty impacts he expected from a local initiative in Washington, D.C., to raise the municipal minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2020. Ryan responded by parroting numerous debunked claims about the minimum wage frequently promoted by conservative media. Ryan falsely claimed that increased minimum wages are an ineffective tool for reducing poverty, and he parroted right-wing talking points about how increased wages hurt teenage and entry-level workers and reduce mobility for low-wage workers. Ryan claimed that instead of increasing wages, policymakers should focus on stoking economic growth to lift Americans out of poverty, even though economic research shows that growth alone is an ineffective tool at alleviating poverty thanks in part to the pervasive effects of economic inequality on low-income workers. [Media Matters, 6/7/16]

Ryan’s Poverty Reform Agenda Has Always Been Replete With Right-Wing Media Misinformation. On January 9, Ryan co-moderated a presidential candidate forum focused on conservative solutions to poverty hosted by the Jack Kemp Foundation. Many mainstream outlets promoted the event as a serious discussion of anti-poverty policies “far removed from the tumult of the campaign at large.” In reality, the discussions between Ryan, co-moderator Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) and the Republican presidential hopefuls in attendance frequently used the same poor-shaming and vitriolic rhetoric that right-wing media typically employ when discussing the poor. Several candidates even flatly rejected the idea that the federal government had any role to play in fighting poverty. [Media Matters, 1/11/16, 1/14/16]

Center For American Progress Releases Plan Rivaling Ryan’s “Better Way,” Emphasizing Facts Over Ideology

Wash. Post: Progressives Have “An Existing and Ambitious” Plan To Reduce Poverty. Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent summarized the Center for American Progress’ (CAP) soon-to-be-released anti-poverty plans on June 6. The article quoted economist Jared Bernstein of the Center for Budget Policy Priorities (CBPP) saying that the CAP plan was “an extremely comprehensive collection of ideas” with a “proven track record in terms of reducing poverty and/or expanding opportunity.” Sargent outlined the “ambitious” plans from progressives to reduce poverty by getting at its root causes -- access to education, employment discrimination, decline in worker rights, and low wages:

* Measures to create jobs and improve opportunity and access to employment. These include a national program to subsidize employment, building on state level programs that already have a track record. The idea would be to employ federal subsidies to state programs that create opportunity by directly subsidizing low-paying jobs and/or funding measures to reduce barriers to such employment, such as training and transportation to such jobs for people stuck in high-unemployment areas. Other ideas include increased investments in infrastructure and tax credits to employers to encourage apprenticeships for people over 25 years old.

Measures designed to boost opportunity include both state and federal level reforms that might “break the link between mass incarceration and poverty” by reducing mandatory minimum sentencing for nonviolent offenders and increased funding for programs that assist the transition to post-prison life.

* Increased investments in “human capital.” These include federal matching funds to states in the quest for universal pre-K education; tax credits for child care; and expanded financial support for higher education (albeit not to the degree Sanders supports).

* Measures designed to help economically strained families. These include a tax credit for children, as well as ideas to “ease tensions between work and family life,” such as expanded family and medical leave and sick days.

* An expansion of the safety net. The report calls for expanded Social Security benefits and a push to expand Obamacare to the remaining millions of uninsured (here is one area where Hillary Clinton and Democrats could be a lot more specific). CAP also calls for resistance to the push to block-grant programs to the states and instead for spending more to expand access to food stamps and unemployment insurance, particularly during future economic downturns.

* Measures designed to boost wages. These include raising the minimum wage to $12 per hour; expanding tax breaks for workers (the Earned Income Tax Credit) to childless adults; expanded overtime protections (such as those recently announced by the Obama administration); and pay equity for women. [The Washington Post, 6/6/16]

Ending Poverty Starts With Strengthening Wages, Labor Rights

 

Wages Are Too Low

CAP: Low-Income Americans Need Access To Fair Wages. Counter to Ryan’s approach of looking at poverty solely through the lens of the budgetary cost of government benefits, CAP outlined multiple issues facing working Americans. The report demonstrated that the current federal minimum wage is so low that “many minimum wage workers must turn to public assistance in order to meet their basic needs.” CAP recommended raising the minimum wage to lift millions out of poverty (emphasis added and citations removed):

Raising the federal minimum wage to $12 per hour by 2020 would lift more than 4.6 million Americans out of poverty. Additionally, increasing the minimum wage to $12 per hour would generate significant savings in public assistance programs, including $53 billion in nutrition assistance over the course of a decade. Federal policymakers should also phase out the subminimum wage for tipped workers—which has been stuck at a meager $2.13 per hour since 1991—to bring its value up to that of the regular minimum wage. [Center for American Progress, A Progressive Agenda to Cut Poverty and Expand Opportunity, June 2016]

CBO: A Modest Increase In Minimum Wage In 2016 Would Have Lifted Hundreds Of Thousands Out Of Poverty. In 2013 and 2014, in the midst of debate about proposals to lift the federal minimum wage, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) vetted proposals to raise the federal threshold to either $9 per hour or $10.10 per hour by July 2016. The report found that the lower wage would still lift roughly 300,000 Americans out of poverty, while the higher wage would result in 900,000 Americans being lifted out of poverty. The report also found that families at or near the federal poverty threshold would see an infusion of several billion dollars in increased income:

[Congressional Budget Office, February 2014]

EPI In 2013: Setting Minimum Wage At $10.10 In 2016 Would Put Full-Time Workers Above Federal Poverty Threshold. In 2013, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) reported that the proposal to lift the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour in 2016, with future annual increases indexed to inflation, would be “sufficient to protect a family of three from poverty” and guarantee “full-time minimum-wage workers would never again fall below this threshold.” [Economic Policy Institute, 12/19/13]

 

Workers Are Being Hurt By Misclassification

CAP: Workers Need To Be Classified As Workers. Another barrier to upward mobility CAP identified is the growing problem of worker misclassification as independent contractors; labeling an employee incorrectly as an independant contracter pushes costs onto the employee and may result in loss of benefits. CAP recommended passing stronger employee classification legislation to protect workers from being mislabeled for the benefit of their employer’s bottom line (emphasis added and citations removed):

What’s more, shifts in the labor market have eroded traditional employer-employee relationships. While the U.S. Department of Labor has made clear that “most workers are employees,” many employers nonetheless misclassify their workers as independent contractors or subcontractors—which can leave workers without access to critical benefits such as health care and retirement security. As the nature of work continues to change, labor laws that protect workers against misclassification, such as the Payroll Fraud Prevention Act, are even more urgently needed. [Center for American Progress, A Progressive Agenda to Cut Poverty and Expand Opportunity, June 2016]

EPI: Between 10 And 20 Percent Of Employers Misclassify Workers. According to EPI, “Numerous state-level studies show that between 10 and 20 percent of employers misclassify at least one worker as an independent contractor.” The June 8, 2015, report also found that misclassifying workers creates costs for workers and taxpayer-funded social insurance systems -- unemployment insurance, Social Security and Medicare -- leading to the “loss of billions of dollars in tax revenue.” [Economic Policy Institute, 6/8/15]

 

WorkERS Need Paid Family Leave

CAP: Paid Family Leave And Earned Sick Time Would “Strengthen Families” And Provide Economic Stability. According to CAP, the United States stands alone in the industrialized world for its reluctance to provide basic paid family and sick leave protections to workers. CAP cited research from the American Association of University Women (AAUW) showing that “40 percent of private-sector workers and 70 percent of low-wage workers do not have even a single paid sick day,” and it recommended lawmakers pass legislation like the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act guaranteeing that American workers are not forced to jeopardize job security and a stable income to take time off for medical needs. [Center for American Progress, A Progressive Agenda to Cut Poverty and Expand Opportunity, June 2016]

EPI: Workers And Employers All Benefit From Paid Family Leave. According to economist Elise Gould of EPI, mandating paid sick leave provides employees and businesses “a level playing field with their competitors” and would create significant benefits for low-income workers whose family and medical leave is currently “vastly unequal” with their higher income counterparts:

Family economic security is at risk when workers do not have access to paid leave. Currently, more than one-third of all workers—39%—have no paid sick days. When these workers get sick, they are forced either to go to work, or to stay home without pay and risk losing their job. Access to sick days is also vastly unequal. As shown in the figure below, workers at the top of the scale are nearly four times more likely to have sick days than workers at the bottom of the wage scale. Only one-in-five low-wage workers have paid sick days, compared with 87% of high-wage workers. These low-income workers are the ones who can least afford to lose pay when they are sick.

[Economic Policy Institute, 1/16/15]

 

Fair Scheduling Helps Low-wage workers

CAP: Low-Wage Workers Need Fair Scheduling Notice. CAP called on Congress to pass the Schedules That Work Act, legislation that would give workers advance notice of shift scheduling changes and the right to be paid for being on call. According to CAP’s analysis, unpredictable and short-notice scheduling common in low-wage industries impedes workers’ abilities to arrange child care and even transportation to the workplace:

Compounding the tension between work and family, unpredictable and fluctuating schedules—which are becoming increasingly common for low-wage workers— mean that workers often do not know their schedules until the last minute or can be sent home without pay even though they have already shown up for a shift. This can undercut workers’ ability to arrange transportation or child care, derail education and training, and make it impossible for workers to predict their monthly pay—much less take on a second job to supplement their family income. To address unfair scheduling practices, CAP urges passage of the Schedules That Work Act, which would give employees the right to make scheduling requests, provide for advance notice of schedules, and require that workers receive some compensation when they are sent home without the opportunity to complete a shift. [Center for American Progress, A Progressive Agenda to Cut Poverty and Expand Opportunity, June 2016]

EPI: Irregular Scheduling Sees Higher Levels Of Work-Family Conflict. According to research from EPI, under 11 percent of regularly scheduled workers reported work-family conflict as a result of their work schedule compared to roughly 26 percent of workers on irregular/on-call scheduling. EPI found that “Work-family conflict is worsened not only by longer weekly hours of work, but also by having irregular shift work.” EPI noted that irregular scheduling “contributes to income instability” and is most prevalent for low-income workers. [Economic Policy Institute, 4/9/15]

Ending Workplace Discrimination Lowers Barriers To Living Wages

 

LGBT workers still face discrimination

CAP: Discrimination In Hiring And Firing Stops Workers From Achieving Financial Success. According to CAP, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans can still face employment discrimination because of their sexual orientation, and communities that face such discrimination typically have higher levels of poverty. CAP found that members of the transgender community “are four times more likely than the general population to earn less than $10,000 per year,” and “between 15 percent and 43 percent of lesbian, gay, and bisexual workers and nearly half of all transgender workers report facing employment discrimination.” CAP’s progressive agenda to combat poverty includes making it illegal to discriminate against workers for their gender identity or sexual orientation and passing the Equality Act (citations removed):

A legacy of discrimination has put economic security out of reach for too many LGBT Americans. Transgender people, for example, are four times more likely than the general population to earn less than $10,000 per year, putting them well below the poverty line. This is in no small part due to the fact that LGBT Americans lack certain basic protections under the law. As a result, between 15 percent and 43 percent of lesbian, gay, and bisexual workers and nearly half of all transgender workers report facing employment discrimination. Similarly, LGBT Americans are left vulnerable to housing discrimination. These are only two examples of the areas in which LGBT individuals can legally be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Valuing all families means ensuring that LGBT families have equal opportunities and protections. CAP urges federal lawmakers to pass the Equality Act—a bill that amends nondiscrimination laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories in the areas of employment, housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding, credit, and the jury system. This step would help ensure economically secure futures for all Americans regardless of gender identity and sexual orientation. [Center for American Progress, A Progressive Agenda to Cut Poverty and Expand Opportunity, June 2016]

Williams Institute: “Widespread Discrimination” Against LGBT Employees Continues. According to a study by UCLA's Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, over 7 percent of LGBT workers have lost a job because of their sexual orientation and over 27 percent had “experienced at least one form of sexual orientation-based discrimination” in the five years prior to the study:

[T]his research shows that widespread and continuing employment discrimination against LGBT people has been documented in scientific field studies, controlled experiments, academic journals, court cases, state and local administrative complaints, complaints to community-based organizations, and in newspapers, books, and other media. Federal, state, and local courts, legislative bodies, and administrative agencies and (sic) have acknowledged that LGBT people have faced widespread discrimination in employment. Research shows that discrimination against LGBT people has negative impact in terms of health, wages, job opportunities, productivity in the workplace, and job satisfaction. [Williams Institute, July 2011]

 

Gender discrimination hurts workers

CAP: Women Succeed When They Make Their Own Choices And Are Paid An Equal Wage. According to CAP’s research, the gender pay gap is still a major contributor to income inequality and poverty for American women. CAP reported that women earn only 79 cents for every dollar men make and over a lifetime, “the average woman will earn $430,480 less than the average man.” Another contributor to economic insecurity for American women is a lack of reproductive health options that would allow them “to delay motherhood until they decide the time is right” (citations removed):

Today, the average full-time female worker earns only 79 cents for every dollar earned by the average full-time male worker. This inequity takes a serious toll: Over the course of a lifetime, the average woman will earn $430,480 less than the average man. For women of color, the gender wage gap is even larger, with lifetime losses of $877,480 for African American women and more than $1 million for Latinas.

[...]

Reproductive justice is key to economic security, empowering women to delay motherhood until they decide that the time is right for them and their families. To that end, protecting and building upon the Affordable Care Act, which has eliminated copayments on birth control for millions of Americans, are key to women’s economic security. [Center for American Progress, A Progressive Agenda to Cut Poverty and Expand Opportunity, June 2016]

JEC: Gender Pay Gap Follows Women For A Lifetime, Contributes To Higher Poverty Rates. According to an April 2016 report by the United States Congress’ Joint Economic Committee (JEC), the effects of gender pay disparities linger for decades in the lives of American women, reducing their eventual receipts from Social Security, pension plans, and other retirement benefits. The report also noted that women are more likely than men to struggle with poverty “at every age,” but are also “more likely to live longer and have higher medical expenses” resulting in significantly elevated poverty rates for women 65 and older:

At every age, women are more likely than men to live in poverty. But the disparity is greatest for older women. Not only do they typically have lower earnings than men, they also are more likely to live longer and have higher medical expenses than men. As a result, women are more likely than men to outlive their retirement savings. Women are 1.6 times as likely as men to live in poverty once they reach age 65, and nearly twice as likely to live in poverty once they reach age 75.

[...]

Poverty rates are especially striking among women who live alone. Among women ages 65 and older living alone, nearly 20 percent are in poverty. In comparison, just over 12 percent of men ages 65 and older living alone are in poverty. Women of color also have very high rates of poverty after age 65. African-American and Hispanic women are the most likely to live in poverty in old age as a result of their lower career earnings. One in five women of color ages 65 and older are poor. That share jumps to one in three for women of color ages 65 and older who live alone. [United States Congress, Joint Economic Committee, April 2016]

IWPR: Equal Pay For Women Could Cut Poverty In Half, Add $482 Billion To Economy. According to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR), if American women received equal pay to men in comparable jobs, the poverty rate for working women would fall “from 8.2 to 4.0 percent,” and “the U.S. economy would have added $482 billion” or roughly 2.8 percent of 2014 GDP. [Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Status of Women in the States, accessed 6/15/16]

Jared Bernstein: Lack Of Access To Reproductive Health Care “Is A Potentially Poverty-Inducing Problem For Low-Income Women.” Economist Jared Bernstein wrote about the relationship between women’s economic security and access to reproductive health care in a March 1 op-ed for The Washington Post. Bernstein cited studies on reproductive access that have found positive connections between economic mobility and access to reproductive health services, or conversely, associations between poverty and lack of access to such services:

Thankfully, those dots are compellingly connected in this report from last year, “Two Sides of the Same Coin, Integrating Economic and Reproductive Justice.” If you're thinking the connection should be obvious, I agree. Having a child is much more than an economic event, but it's also very much that, invoking significant direct costs and opportunity costs (and benefits too, of course). Thus, the inability to control such costs due to lack of access to reproductive health care is a potentially poverty-inducing problem for low-income women and their families (and 69 percent of those who seek abortions are low-income). Conversely, increasing use of the birth control pill, for example, has been found to significantly reduce the gender pay gap.

[...]

For low-income women to be able to take control of their economic lives, they must be able to access affordable, comprehensive reproductive health, including contraception and abortion. An anti-poverty agenda that fails to recognize that reality is woefully incomplete. [The Washington Post, via Media Matters, 3/1/16]

Expanding Educational Opportunities Creates Better Outcomes

 

access to Higher Education is vital

CAP: Workers Need More Education To Get Ahead, But Growing College Debts Create New Barriers To Advancement. According to CAP, the employment rate of men with only a high school diploma dropped “from 96 percent in 1970 to just 75 percent in 2011,” and their earnings declined nearly 50 percent over that time. A college degree or technical training greatly improves outcomes, but “Student loan debt has reached record levels, preventing many young people from buying homes” and achieving long-term financial stability. CAP proposes creating “the financial support necessary” to expand low-cost educational opportunities to American students from preschool through to higher education (citations removed):

Having a high school diploma is no longer enough. For example, men who completed high school saw their employment rates drop from 96 percent in 1970 to just 75 percent in 2011, coupled with earnings declines of nearly 50 percent over the same period. Yet higher education has moved farther out of reach for too many families. Student loan debt has reached record levels, preventing many young people from buying homes, jump-starting careers, starting families, and more. Indeed, Millennials face some of the highest levels of economic insecurity.

In order to build an economy in which everyone has the chance to succeed, CAP recommends policies such as putting high-quality, affordable child care and preschool within reach, preparing K-12 students for college and a career, and expanding access to higher education.

[...]

Due to significant shifts in the economy, the United States is projected to face a shortfall of 5 million college-educated workers by 2020. At the same time, higher education remains unaffordable for too many low- and middle-income Americans. To eliminate this barrier to postsecondary education, CAP proposes College for All, a plan in which the federal government provides students with the financial support necessary to attend public two- or four-year institutions of higher education. This proposal would streamline loan repayment and tie it to individuals’ income in order to avoid the pitfalls of loan delinquency and default. College for All would also increase funding to ensure students have more support for all postsecondary expenses—including direct academic charges and living costs. [Center for American Progress, A Progressive Agenda to Cut Poverty and Expand Opportunity, June 2016]

Wash. Post: College Debt Forces Students To Take Jobs “Without Long-Term Prospects.” Danielle Douglas-Gabriel of The Washington Post reported that while hiring continues to improve for recent college graduates, job prospects are still poor, and the increasing debt burden faced by graduates forces them to take jobs -- if they can find one -- that may have no chance of wage growth or career development. While the unemployment rate for recent graduates is “only a tenth of a percentage point” above pre-recession levels, the Post wrote, “nearly 13 percent of young college graduates are currently underemployed, compared to 9.6 percent nine years ago.” The Post reported that it is likely “the average Class of 2016 graduate will leave school with five-figure debt,” and these student debt burdens “likely will force graduates to accept jobs without long-term prospects for career or wage growth.” [The Washington Post, via Media Matters, 5/3/16]

 

Job Training programs are a solution

CAP: Workers Would Benefit From Federal Apprenticeship Incentives, Job Training. CAP finds that “apprenticeships offer a proven strategy to expand opportunities for workers” and provide on-the-job training for higher paying positions. CAP found ”apprentices see gains in lifetime income of more than $300,000 on average compared to their peers” and advocated for the federal government to create tax credits for companies of $1,000 per apprentice over age 25 and $2,000 for each opportunity youth apprentice.” [Center for American Progress, A Progressive Agenda to Cut Poverty and Expand Opportunity, June 2016]

PBS: Apprenticeships Have Worked In Germany For Years. According to a report by PBS NewsHour, American high schools and colleges are looking to Germany’s apprenticeship program for ideas to create better education models that lead to better-paying employment opportunities. Germany’s system involves a combination of classroom instruction and on-the-job apprenticeships that “keeps German industry humming, and youth unemployment down to about 8 percent — less than half of what it is in the United States.” [PBS.org, 8/25/14]

Families In Need Cannot Afford To Have The Safety Net Pulled Out From Under Them

 

The Social Safety Net Plays A Vital Role

CAP: The Social Safety Net Works And Needs To Be Expanded. Without the social safety net -- Social Security, unemployment insurance, and food assistance -- the poverty rate would double, according to CAP’s findings. CAP reported that “the vast majority of Americans—approximately 70 percent—will need to turn to the safety net at some point during their working years.” Because the social safety net has proven capable of reducing poverty, CAP recommends that policymakers focus on expanding existing anti-poverty programs to include more struggling families and low-income workers (citations removed):

[...]

CAP recommends that policymakers significantly increase investments in the housing voucher program in order to reach more families and couple this investment with a much-needed federal law that prohibits landlords from rejecting prospective tenants just because they carry a voucher. And in order to increase the supply of affordable housing, lawmakers should expand the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, a program that offers landlords tax incentives to keep units financially accessible to very low-income renters for at least three decades. Finally, policymakers must do away with exclusionary zoning that effectively bars affordable housing construction from high-opportunity neighborhoods.

[...]

CAP proposes significantly raising or eliminating asset limits for TANF, SNAP, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and Supplemental Security Income so that recipients are able to build the savings they need to protect their families in the event of financial emergencies and to plan for the future. [Center for American Progress, A Progressive Agenda to Cut Poverty and Expand Opportunity, June 2016]

Jared Bernstein: Federal Programs Are Working, But Growing Economic Inequality Strains The System. Economist Jared Bernstein wrote about the success of the War on Poverty in a January 6, 2014, blog post for The New York Times in recognition of the effort’s 50th anniversary. Bernstein reported that War on Poverty programs had successfully reduced poverty rates for tens of millions of Americans -- especially the elderly, who were particularly susceptible to elevated poverty rates before the creation of Social Security and Medicare. He also noted that growing economic inequality -- among other factors -- was increasing the strain on the programs and causing poverty rates to remain artificially high, making them seem less effective than they really are. But despite these pressures, official poverty rates have fallen thanks to War on Poverty programs, and more precise alternative measures showed that poverty rates had been nearly cut in half since the mid-1960s, before spiking again during the Great Recession:

[The New York Times, 1/6/14]

Stanford: A “Moderate Increase” In Spending Could Significantly Improve Worst-Rated Social Safety Net In The World. According to a February 1 report by researchers at the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality, the United States has the highest levels of wealth and economic inequality in the world in large part due to having the worst-rated social safety net. The report concluded that even a “moderate increase” in public spending on safety net programs would push poverty rates in the U.S. down to the levels of its peers (emphasis original):

The research shows that, among the well-off countries for which comprehensive evidence is available, the U.S. has the lowest overall ranking, a result that arises in part because the U.S. brings up the rear in safety net performance, income inequality and wealth inequality. When the comparison set is expanded to include other less well-off countries, America still ranks 18th (out of 21 countries), with only Spain, Estonia and Greece scoring worse.

[...]

The report also notes some bright spots. It shows, for example, that a relatively moderate increase in U.S. safety net spending would push the poverty rate down to levels observed in other well-off countries. The rate of disposable-income poverty, which is the rate that people actually experience after transfers play out, is especially high not because market incomes are all that low but because the safety net is relatively small. [Stanford News, 2/2/16]

NPR: SNAP Keeps Millions Out Of Poverty At An Average Cost Of Just $5 Per Day. NPR reported on the benefits of the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) in response to Speaker Ryan pushing to weaken the program. NPR reported that Ryan claimed SNAP and other programs are “trapping people in poverty,” but according to the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors (CEA), the program kept almost 5 million Americans out of poverty in 2014, including 2 million children. NPR also reported that the 46.5 million Americans currently receiving SNAP benefits take home an average of just $125 per month, or just less than $5 per day. [NPR, 12/29/15]

 

EITC Remains Crucial For American Families

CAP: The Earned Income Tax Credit Works And Should Be Expanded. According to CAP, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which boosts the wages of low-income Americans, kept 6.2 million Americans out of poverty in 2013, and “mitigated hardship for another 21.6 million.” CAP advocated for the program to be expanded and to increase the frequency for which workers can receive payment of their tax credit (citations removed):

CAP has suggested strengthening the credit in several ways. First, policymakers should lower the eligibility age and boost the credit’s value for childless workers, currently the only group of low-income earners whose incomes are substantially reduced by federal income taxes. CAP also recommends enabling families to access up to $500 of their EITC midway through the tax year through a partial early refund, giving cash-strapped workers greater protection against predatory lending, as well as the opportunity to make mobility-enhancing investments. And CAP recommends making individuals who receive the EITC categorically eligible for the maximum Pell Grant to enable them to gain the skills and qualifications they need to get ahead in the workforce. [Center for American Progress, A Progressive Agenda to Cut Poverty and Expand Opportunity, June 2016]

EPI: EITC Is The “Most Progressive” Provision Of The Tax Code. EPI reported on the benefits of the EITC: It “reduces poverty significantly,” and children make up half of the people it “lifts out of poverty.” The EITC and the Child Tax Credit (CTC) “reduced the number of people in poverty by almost six million in 2011.” EPI found these tax credits are so effective that they also reduce income inequality. [Economic Policy Institute, 9/25/13]