The USFG should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty

The thesis of this case is that the poverty standard was inadequate when it was established in the early 1960s, and has continued to be used despite its obvious flaws. The federal income standard used to determine the poverty line should be adjusted to the cost of living in the different regions in the United States. Eligibility procedures for federally-funded social service programs for persons living in poverty should be simplified. Therefore my partner and I affirm today's resolution: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States. Observation I: Significance/Harms A.Millions of Americans are living in poverty. Edward Royce 2009 The amount of poverty in the United States is substantial by any measure. In 2005, according to the calculations of the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly 37 million Americans were poor, 12.6 percent of the population. The rate of poverty is even higher for selected subgroups: 17.6 percent for children, 24.9 percent for African Americans, 34.5 percent for black children, 21.8 percent for Hispanics, 28.3 percent for Hispanic children, and 28.7 percent for female-headed households. . Approximately 50 million people reside in households with incomes below 125 percent of the poverty line; over 90 million, close to a third of the country, have incomes below twice the poverty line, less than $40,000 a year for a family of four B.Poor children have life-long disadvantages. Pearce 2007 At birth, a poor child is 1.8 times as likely to be premature, 1.9 times to be low birth weight, and 2.8 times as likely to have had inadequate prenatal care as the nonpoor child. A poor child is 1.6 times more likely to die as an infant, and 8 times as likely to live in a family that has had too little food in the last four months. A poor child is twice as likely to repeat a grade, about 3.5 times as likely to be expelled or drop out of school, and only half as likely to finish college as a nonpoor child. The impacts do not end with childhood, as various studies have documented that childhood poverty is associated with higher rates of teenage childbearing, juvenile delinquency, and adult poverty. C.Confusing eligibility requirements exclude persons living in poverty from accessing necessary social services Handler and Hasenfeld 2007 Many applicants would qualify for other programs (e.g., food stamps, Medicaid, child care, and housing subsidies but have to go to several offices to apply. Food stamp and Medicaid enrollment have dropped (although recent state efforts to increase the latter have started to take effect). Applicants must meet more requirements such as appointments, filing forms, and verifying job searches. If an applicant fails to file the proper form or the agency computer system fails to record the filing accurately, then an automatic penalty can result. Recipients often do not know why they are being sanctioned and often drop out of the process because of the hassle. Observation II: Inherency A. THE CURRENT FEDERAL POVERTY STANDARD EXCLUDES MANY PERSONS LIVING IN POVERTY. The federal government now determines eligibility for social services based upon a shamefully outdated measure of poverty. Polakow 2007 The federal poverty threshold, developed by Mollie Orshansky of the Social Security Administration in the early 1960's was, as she herself pointed out, a crude criterion of income adequacy and assumed that poor families spent one-third of their income on food. That figure was multiplied by three (for housing and personal needs) and adjusting for family size; yet, as Orshansky has stated, this was designed to serve a temporary or emergency use and was certainly not indicative of an adequate living standard! In the past four decades, the Census Bureau has continued to use this inadequate measure unchanged, and each year, using the Consumer Price Index, sets the poverty threshold, adjusted for family size and number of children in the family. The poverty threshold fails to take account of urban/rural differences and the changing needs of families for child care, as well as transportation and increased housing and health costs; moreover, the threshold artificially depresses the number of people living in poverty. B. The federal government does not account for the cost of living in different geographic locations. Halbur, 08 For the federal government, the concept of poverty is simple. If a typical family of four earns less than $21,100 a year, they're poor. If a single working woman makes less than $10,787, she's in poverty. It doesn't matter whether these people live in Omaha, Neb., where the average apartment rents for $600 a month, or in New York City, where a similar apartment costs $1,600 a month. That's the way it's been since the federal government decided how to measure poverty in the mid-1960s. To solve for the above mentioned harms, my partner and I offer the following plan: Plank I: Adjust the current income base of poverty for geographic differences in the cost of living Plank II: Add an online registration to the options available for applying for federal assistance. Plank III: Enforcement will be the federal Department of Health and Human Services. Plank IV: Funding will come from a .5 % sells tax on all goods non food and medicine resulting in 50 billion dollars. Observation III: Solvency A.A poverty line that fluctuates with geography is the best standard. Berg, Nate, 2008. A steadily growing number of experts and policymakers argue that the poverty line should look like a wave, fluctuating with geography. "If you're serious about tackling poverty, you've got to have good information," Gibbs says. "You've got to be willing to test and innovate and try new ideas. And if you have a measure that doesn't allow you to have the knowledge to understand whether what you're trying is working, you can't seriously try to tackle poverty." B. Online registration programs in states prove solvency. Hicks, Nancy 2009. State Health and Human Service leaders are pleased with the first-year success of online applications, which they say give Nebraskans greater access and save staff time. The online application is a benefit to applicants since it allows people to apply in the comfort of their home rather than go to an HHS office. About one-third of the 35,000 online applications sent during the first 11 months (September 2008 through July) were sent at night, after HHS offices closed. C.Expanded access to food stamps will reduce the impact of poverty on children. Robert Dostis,2007, Not only do food stamp benefits increase food security and help stimulate Vermont's economy, but they also improve children's health. While studies have shown that food insecure children have twice the risk of poor health, food stamps reduce this risk by 50%. D.Expanded access to Medicaid will reduce the health impacts of poverty. Diane Rowland, (Vice President, Kaiser Family Foundation), Health Policy: Crisis and Reform in the U.S. Health Care Delivery System, 5th Edition, 2008, 293. For adults, those with Medicaid are less likely to report not receiving needed care and more likely to use preventive services than those who are uninsured. This achievement is particularly striking given that Medicaid serves both a sicker and poorer population than private insurance. Within the low-income population, those with Medicaid are predominately from families with income below the FPL (69 percent), nearly one-half (48 percent) report their health as fair or poor and 61 percent have health conditions that limit work; compared to 27 percent poor, 16 percent in fair or poor health, and 15 percent with conditions that limit work with private coverage.