帮助贫困儿童

2015年1月2日发布

通过 克里斯·菲茨西蒙

由NC Policy Watch和NC SPIN小组成员Chris Fitzsimon发表于Greenville Daily Reflector,2015年1月1日。

A new report about child and 家庭 贫穷 from the Annie E. Casey Foundation ought to be required reading for new and returning state lawmakers and Governor Pat McCrory and his staff ought to take a long hard look at it too.

It reminds us that twenty-six percent of children in North Carolina live in 贫穷. For children of color, the 贫穷 rate is 40 percent. That’s shocking, but not news. Those shameful statistics were already out there, though somehow were not part of the debate in the recent election.

The new report, “Creating Opportunity for Family; A Two-Generation Approach,” powerfully makes the often forgotten point that to help low-income kids, you must help their 家庭 too.

There are 358,000 low-income 家庭 in North Carolina and in half of them no parent has a full-time, year-round job. And many that do are paid by the hour with no sick leave, no 家庭 leave, no way to get their child to a doctor or an after-school counseling session without losing pay or even putting their job at risk.

And it’s even tougher for poor 家庭 with young children. The report finds that there are more than 400,000 children in North Carolina age 5 and under in low-income 家庭 and 18%的父母报告说,育儿问题影响了他们的就业.

State lawmakers made things worse in that regard last session, changing the eligibility guidelines to make 12,000 low-income children no longer eligible for a child care subsidy. The justification was to reduce the waiting list to serve 穷人est children by ignoring thousands of other low-income kids.

The other choice was to increase 资金 for the program to help more children, not fewer, but tax cuts and other priorities were apparently more important.

Almost a third of young kids in low-income 家庭 are at risk for developmental delays, yet 大会不断削减幼儿方案 that can help and offering fewer at-risk kids the chance to enroll in NC PreK which increases their chances of succeeding in school.

In 79 percent of 穷人 家庭, no parent has at least an associate degree. That means low-wage and unsteady work is all that is available if they are fortunate enough to find work at all.

Last year the General Assembly ended the state Earned Income Tax Credit that helps low-wage workers and their 家庭. It was part of “tax reform” that gave corporations a huge tax break and millionaires a $10,000 windfall, costing the state at least $704 million this year.

That’s a lot of day care subsidies and PreK slots and tax credits for hard-working low-income 家庭.

Expanding Medicaid would help too and Governor McCrory and outgoing House Speaker Thom Tillis seem to finally be realizing that it makes sense, though Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger shows no sign of softening his rigid ideological opposition to expansion, no matter how many 家庭 and children it would help and how many jobs it would create.

And then there’s education, where to no one’s surprise, low income students often struggle because of hurdles their 贫穷 creates. Yet cuts continue to teacher assistants and school counselors. Teachers have larger classes and fewer people to support their students.

It’s not only a scandal that 26 percent of our state’s children live in 贫穷–with thousands more in 家庭 with meager incomes just above the arbitrary line — it’s the defining issue of our time.

The most well-known publication of the Annie E. Casey Foundation is called Kids Count. This latest report makes it clear that 家庭 count too.

现在,如果我们只能让我们的决策者理解这一点,并开始对此有所作为,而不是使事情变得更糟。

http://www.reflector.com/opinion/fitzsimon/fitzsimon-helping-poor-children-2747769

2015年1月2日,上午8:48
理查德·邦斯 说:

将纳税人的钱花在政府官僚人员配备的政府计划上,与帮助贫困儿童不同。

2015年1月2日,上午11:55
范凯莉 说:

理查德·邦斯(Richard Bunce):要点。与任何lib的思想无关。他们的计划和外观比实际完成任何事情都重要。

在我们州,有超过1/4的孩子生活在贫困中?哇!令人难以置信的统计数据。太高了'几乎令人难以置信-难以置信。的解释是什么'poverty' for this survey? Does the 家庭 have Internet service, cable TV service, cell phones, flat-screen tv? How much of that is provided for them by the rest of us? What is the reason these kids are living in 贫穷? Is there a solution besides giving them MORE benefits? I know, Chris is a die-hard, thru-and-thru lib, and with libs there are no OTHER solutions besides increasing the size of the benefits given to 'the poor'。如果他们可以要求它'对于孩子们来说,那么从我们那里拿出来给他们的金额绝对没有限制!

Among children of color, the rate of those living in 贫穷 approaches 40%! Wow! Even more incredible than the prior stat. What'根本原因是什么?多少责任'family'有产生这个统计?我再一次知道,因为克里斯是一个自由主义者,而从他那里得到的任何解决方案都将以自由主义者为中心。'responsibility' on the part of the 家庭. The only 责任 is upon those of us who don't already do enough!

库忽略的主要问题。在过去的100年中,几乎由谁控制'对里约琳达的人来说是一个世纪,可以创建此统计数据? LIBS!库的哪个程序做了什么减少此数量? lib方案从生产者那里拿走了多少钱给'the poor' in the last 100 years that this 问题 hasn'还没解决? lib方案失败的确切原因是什么?图书馆究竟建议采取什么行动来对这些统计数据产生积极影响?而如果大多数选民,法律和否则,选择了把在总统办公室(大部分)的黑人男子,他做了什么来改变这个统计?运行罗利的图书馆采取什么计划减少了这个数字?当我浪费时间回头读完这篇文章时,克里斯(Chris)是否会指出lib计划以前曾多么出色地减少了这个数目?我对此表示怀疑,因为没有可以减少该数目的lib方案'significantly'.

'18%的父母报告说,育儿问题影响了他们的就业'。为什么?图书馆实施的计划意味着他们有资格为孩子享受补贴的日托。而且,谈到个人责任,为什么'families' who can'不能让孩子生孩子?为什么是这些'families'相信他们可以生孩子,而且将会是其他人'支付他们的责任?克里斯(Chris)或其他任何诽谤者会考虑充分的财富转移来声称我们做得足够?没有lib回答过的两个问题。首先,多少税适合'the wealthy'支付?任何级别的政府应从产生收入的人那里获得多少个人收入'被认为是盗窃或不道德的行为?第二,应该制定多少种方案来支付未能承担个人责任的费用?应该制定多少政府计划以支持那些'不能照顾自己并期望别人为他们做?例如,在此之前有多少人需要盖印'被认为有足够资金或足够广泛?

'大会不断削减幼儿方案'。您的意思是那些显示到三年级的人,那些参加了补贴的日托的人(我的意思是儿童课程)与'regular'孩子们消失了吗?应该'难道每个政府计划都针对我们当中最需要帮助的人吗?还是应该如此广泛,以至于几乎任何人都可以胜任。除了那些负责支付账单的人!

如果我们只能让我们的决策者意识到允许私营部门创造不受政府干预阻碍的工作,那么也许我们可以减少在赠品计划上的支出!增加政府补贴到更好'families'还是为其中一些人提供机会,使他们实际获得一份体面的报酬工作?在像快餐店这样的地方提高最低工资,会使申请者的薪水过高且不合格,这可能只会减少其中一些人获得工作机会的机会!想想这些少年'families'他们希望有一份工作来赚钱而不是依靠政府的生活津贴。 (我想他们中的一些人宁愿工作,但这可能是我自己对自给自足的偏见!)如果这些孩子没有技能(libs告诉我们),那么他们就没有资格做其他事情。如果他们可以'自己赚不到钱,他们将如何负担上大学的费用?打彩票?

除了在我们国家增加社会主义以外,还有其他答案。这是由恶魔党,媒体中的诽谤者和克里斯这样的社论作家提出的唯一答案。这些库中有其他任何其他解决方案吗?提供替代方案时,它们的反应方式似乎并非如此。金达就像没有资格的社区组织者想将社会化医学强加于大众,并虚假地声称共和党没有其他选择一样。他们提供了他殿下没有的替代方案't like, didn'为了将更多的权力集中在华盛顿,他只是说没有其他选择。一个可证明的谎言,但是从什么时候起,任何lib或大多数pols都会停止!当自由主义者和克里斯正在思考他们讨厌,鄙视,反对保守派的程度时,要求他们考虑一些替代社会主义的办法是否过多?要求libs提出一个有限制,结束日期和成功程度的计划是否太多?与缺乏对社会主义计划的资金支持相比,世代相传的贫困,世代相依的政府生活计划,更令人担忧和尴尬。还是应该的!不断增加的政府付款额应表明,根本原因是花钱才赢了'解决。有点喜欢教育机构。 libs提出的唯一解决方案是增加'funding'. There is NO correlation between money spent and results, but they ALWAYS, ceaselessly, continuously, tell us that increasing education establishment 资金 will 'solve'问题。也许库只是在错误地定义问题。也许他们'problem' is 解决d by spending more, but the actual root cause 问题 of the failures of government monopoly schools has NOTHING to do with money and everything to do with EDUCATING! Is there a relationship between spending on education, spending on 贫穷, and libs failure to accurately define the 问题?