Tag Archive for: United States

Posts

,

Has the Rwandan Genocide Taught Us to Say ‘Never Again?’

Rwandan Genocide

The Borgen Project sat down with Brian Endless, a political science professor at Loyola University Chicago and an academic expert on the Rwandan genocide. Since 2007, Endless worked closely with Paul Rusesabagina, the inspiration for the film “Hotel Rwanda,” to raise awareness about misconceptions surrounding the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

How and why did you initially become interested in the Rwandan genocide?

“[My interest] started around the time I started grad school. I had always focused on the Security Council, and I had a lot of experience with it. I was immersed in the genocide from the beginning from an international perspective. I knew what was happening and saw it as a huge failure of the U.N. I saw everything from the perspective of the outside world.

I didn’t really know how little I knew about Rwanda until 2007 when I met Paul Rusesabagina, who had become an international spokesperson for Rwanda. I had no idea about the history of the civil war and internal conflicts that led up to the genocide. From 2007 on, I went on a pretty steep learning curve, picking up everything that I could about what was happening inside of Rwanda.”

Can you summarize your experience learning about and advocating for awareness of the genocide after 2007?

“From extensive talks with Paul and members of the Rwandan expatriate community, I learned that while the international public saw the situation as Hutus killing Tutsis, what was actually happening was the latest in a series of civil wars. I was surprised by the fact that an enormous number of Hutus died during the genocide, and that a Tutsi dictatorship had replaced a Hutu dictatorship, and that a small percentage of Tutsis was ruling and committing substantial human rights violations.

I did an enormous amount of academic reading and I followed a lot of court cases as things came into the public press. I started actively working with Paul and writing speeches for him and things to be published and publicly disseminated. The Hotel Rwanda Paul Rusesabagina Foundation was first campaigning to inform the public that there were still problems. The situation was really just, ‘meet the new boss, same as the old boss’ with a population that was being discriminated against. Rwanda was also a very friendly government to the United States, so it was difficult getting information out and advocating for truth and reconciliation in Rwanda.”

What were the biggest driving factors behind the genocide?

“It’s a story that dates back to pre-colonial times. By 1990, a Hutu government was in charge but didn’t have enormous control over the country. Tutsi groups in Uganda started a civil war to take back the country. Tutsis were largely winning the war in 1993, and there was a peace plan. By early 1994, the peace plan was breaking down. Hutu extremists started to bring out negative views against the Tutsis. In part, it was a plan to try to stop the Tutsi invasion by encouraging Hutus to demonize Tutsis. They focused especially on internally-displaced youth who were pushed out of their homes as the Tutsis invaded.

That’s effectively where the genocide started. The genocide officially started when the plane carrying the president of Rwanda and the president of Burundi was shot down in early April 1994. That triggered the genocide, and Hutu Power radio began to say, ‘It’s time to chop down the tall weeds,’ which was code to kill the Tutsis.”

How did the international community fail to become involved in the Rwandan genocide?

“We had just come out of Somalia, where 18 U.S. army rangers had been killed. The Clinton Administration used this as an excuse to pull us out. What happened was the U.S. public became more against using forces in places they didn’t understand or that weren’t strategic. Rwanda was a place where nobody had close ties. There were really no great natural resources, thus we let it happen and let it go on. People in the U.S. and in Europe didn’t realize it until we saw it on CNN, and our politicians had no interest in getting us involved in another war that could end up like Somalia.”

What do you think should have been done?

“Really the question is: If we’re going to say ‘never again’ after a genocide, we have to decide if we mean it or not. So far, we haven’t meant it. We’re not willing to put resources on the ground even when we know what’s happening, and in the case of Rwanda, we absolutely knew that genocide was happening.”

What do you think can be done to prevent future genocides around the globe?

“I think in the future, a piece of it is: how can we make the American people more interested and more knowledgeable about what happens in other parts of the world? If the press chose to highlight these things, they would become more important. Advocacy groups need to convince both press and politicians that these are issues of interest to Americans. People need to understand that we have some culpability because we have our fingers pretty much every place in the world. People too often think, ‘Oh, that’s not our problem,’ or, ‘Oh, they should solve their own problems.’ A big piece of our own problem is that we don’t look at things from a humanitarian perspective.”

Endless continues to advocate for the elimination of genocide by working with Paul Rusesabagina’s foundation and teaching classes at Loyola University Chicago. Endless’ insights into the Rwandan genocide offer a path to an international community that can genuinely say “never again” to genocide.

– Peyton Jacobsen

Photo: Flickr

, , ,

Studies Find Americans Overestimate Foreign Aid Spending

Foreign Aid Spending
Much of what Americans believe about foreign aid spending is wrong. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll of 1,505 people found most couldn’t accurately place the percentage of its federal budget the U.S. spends on foreign aid. The average amount they guessed is 26 percent; the answer is less than 1 percent. Only one in every 20 people answered the question correctly.

Where do these misconceptions come from?

The U.S. spends more in net amount than any other country on foreign aid; the total came to some $32 billion in 2014. However, when looking at aid spending as a percentage of gross national income (GNI) , the amount the country and residents abroad take in as income, the U.S. spends a mere 0.19 percent of the wealth it receives each year in aid.

The American contribution falls flat behind larger benefactors like Sweden which donates 1.1 percent of its GNI, or Luxembourg at 1.07 percent and Norway at 0.99 percent.

The misconceptions of Americans regarding foreign aid are showing no signs of clearing up on their own. Another poll conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org in 2010 found the median estimate Americans believe their country spent on foreign aid was 25 percent. When the poll asked them what would be an “appropriate” amount, the median answer was 10 percent.

These findings might even be humorous if so many people around the world weren’t living amid crushing levels of poverty. The erroneous views Americans hold of foreign aid spending have a direct impact on millions of people who struggle each day with hunger and a lack of economic opportunities.

Americans also host conflicting views regarding foreign aid based on their party affiliation. A survey conducted by yougov.com in 2016 revealed 49 percent of Americans identifying as Democrats believed U.S. aid should go to the poorest countries, while 59 percent of those identifying as Republicans believed aid should go to countries who support U.S. foreign policy.

Overall, 39 percent of Americans believed in aid for poor countries and 41 percent believed aid should be directed based on foreign policy support.

Our misconceptions of foreign aid influence how we think about the topic. In the Kaiser Family Foundation poll, 56 percent of those interviewed believed the U.S. spends too much on foreign aid.

However, when presented with the actual situation, namely the fact that the U.S. spends less than 1 percent of its $4 trillion federal budget on foreign aid, the poll found the number of Americans who think the U.S. is overspending on the aid dropped to 28 percent.

The wording of the questions also makes a difference. When the poll posed the question to Americans, “Do you think the U.S. is now spending too much, too little, or about the right amount on foreign aid?” 56 percent of respondents said too much.

However, when researchers modified the question to ask, “Do you think the U.S. is now spending too much, too little, or about the right amount in efforts to improve health for people in developing countries?” the percentage of those saying too much dropped to 28 percent.

Despite perceptions of corruption, elected officials tend to act in accordance with public opinion when faced with overwhelming support for spending measures. By dispelling the myths surrounding U.S. foreign aid spending, aid legislation will face less opposition as more Americans come forward to support it.

– Will Sweger

Photo: Flickr

, ,

STAND for Ukraine

STAND for Ukraine
Back in 1991, the Ukrainian Parliament declared independence from the U.S.S.R. A level of tension has existed between Russia and Ukraine fueling a variety of conflicts in time since.

February 2014 marks one of the most violent months in the past 70 years, with 88 killed in Kiev during a protest. The next month President Obama urged Russia to withdraw, making the conflict truly a global affair after Crimea annexed to Russia.

Fast-forward to April of this year and the STAND for Ukraine Act is introduced to deter Russian aggression and help Ukraine transition into a more democratic government process. STAND, is an acronym meaning Stability and Democracy for Ukraine Act and is sponsored by Rep. Eliot Engel, D-NY. STAND for Ukraine has now become law and now the United States is providing Ukraine with weapons to deter continued interference from Russia.

While Ukraine has activists on both sides at this point, the country is actively moving toward self-betterment and real independence. The goal now is to empower Ukraine into choosing its future that benefits the people living there instead of what benefits Russia.

Since 2014, Ukraine has made economic progress despite the circumstances, with the country’s GDP expected to grow 1.5 percent this year. Aid in the form of $25 billion has fueled what Natalie Jaresko, a Ukrainian investment banker, has called Ukraine’s “longest and most successful reform process.”

While many factors such as vested interests and populism present obstacles to progress, more donors are willing to back Ukraine and ensure a fair election process and optimized wellbeing. Current issues needing support include modernizing educational facilities and hospitals, upgrading technology used by governmental organizations, as well as general updating of all urban infrastructure.

As recently as 2009, Ukraine’s multitude of political and foreign policy issues also led to a sharp 15 percent decline in Ukraine’s GDP. This economic comeback is truly a triumph of foreign aid and STAND for Ukraine as well as those that supported its plan to assist Ukraine’s path further out of semi-periphery.

– Aaron Walsh

Photo: Flickr

Five Myths about Social Safety Nets Debunked!

Five Myths about Social Safety Nets-Debunked!
When it comes to social safety nets, many myths and half-truths about the efficacy of these programs exist among citizens and political leaders. Social safety nets are programs that aid the poor by increasing their incomes, improve school attendance, provide access to basic health care and implement employment opportunities.

Even though some of these myths are inoffensive, they do have the potential to harm people who rely on governmental assistance programs. The New York Times reports, “One billion people in developing countries participate in a social safety net. At least one type of unconditional cash assistance is used in 119 countries.” Here are some of the top myths about social safety nets debunked:

Myth #1: The economy will do better if social programs are cut.

When governments decide to cut their social safety nets, many sectors within the economy begin to suffer. Governments inadvertently increase the unemployment rates within their countries when social programs are cut.

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan signed the Recovery Act, which cut social programs such as payments for individuals with disabilities and school-lunch programs. As a result, the largest projected deficit in U.S. history occurred leading the U.S. economy to its worst recession since the Great Depression. The American economy struggled to combat the resulting 14% inflation rate as well as the increased interest rates of the Federal Reserve Board.

With fewer citizens being able to afford goods and services, overall manufacturing decreased while layoffs and unpaid taxes increased. It is recorded that in 1982, those unemployed reached a staggering nine million, 17,000 businesses had failed, farmers across the nation began to lose land and the poor, elderly and sick became homeless.

Instead of aiding the economy, social budget cuts on social safety nets result in a decrease in the overall finical health of a country’s economy.

Myth #2: Reducing government assistance benefits will make people get a job.

This myth is usually perpetrated by those who do not understand the demographics of social safety nets. More than half of all people who are enrolled in government assistance programs are those who cannot physically or mentally work such as the elderly and people with disabilities. Even if governments were to reduce benefits for those who can work, it still would not make a significant difference in employment rates.

According to the Housing Alliance of Pennsylvania, many people who are working and receive housing assistance still live in homeless shelters simply because they still do not make enough currency to afford a place to live. The Wall Street Journal further states that the four largest welfare recipients are those who labor as fast-food workers, home-care workers, child-care workers and part-time college faculty.

Reducing government assistance will not make people get a job simply because those who receive these benefits are either unable to work or are currently working in a low-paying occupation.

Myth #3: Welfare makes people lazy.

Though the majority of persons benefiting from welfare are employed, surveys show that individuals from around the globe believe that social safety nets waste revenue and make people lazy. However, in 2014, The World Bank reported that contrary to public opinion, individuals on financial assistance in countries such as Asia, Latin America and Africa rarely wasted money on alcohol and tobacco.

In addition, Abhijit Banerjee, the director of the Poverty Action Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, released a scholarly paper that tracked and documented the cash-transfer programs in seven countries. The results from this paper determined that out of the seven countries, Mexico, Nicaragua, Morocco, Honduras, Indonesia and the Philippines, these programs did not discourage people from working.

Moreover, people who receive benefits from social safety nets do not become lazy. Rather, people who did receive these benefits continued to work diligently while also not wasting funds on items such as tobacco and alcohol.

Myth #4: People can benefit from social safety nets for as long as they want.

Most government assistance programs have a limited amount of time that someone can use unemployment benefits. For instance, the U.S. used to allow people 99 weeks of unemployment assistance.

In recent years, states have limited the amount of time that citizens can use unemployment benefits to around 26-30 weeks. Currently, the only state that gives citizens 30 weeks of unemployment benefits is Massachusetts.

Myth #5: Certain demographics make social safety nets benefit one group and disadvantage the rest.

A majority of people believe that social safety nets benefit a particular kind of demographic while disadvantaging other groups within a society. Particularly, U.S. citizens feel that groups, comparatively liberals, benefited the most from social assistance programs. Yet, details from a 2012 survey from the Pew Research Center show that in regard to politics, liberals and conservatives used governmental assistance programs almost equally. There are 42% of liberals and 40% of conservatives using at least one governmental assistance program.

Despite these myths being detrimental to those who rely on social safety nets, it is worth noting that the U.S. economy is slowing improving. As of August 2016, unemployment rates in the U.S. are as low as 4.9%. Additionally, average hourly wages have increased between five cents and $25.59, with average weekly wages at around $880.30.

However, the best way to eradicate these myths about social safety nets is to advocate for legislation that protects these programs. Pay attention to laws that pertain to social safety nets and meet with local representatives about how social safety nets benefit society. Information about U.S. elected officials can be found on Common Cause.

– Shannon Warren

Photo: Flickr

10 Facts About Cuban Refugees

10 Facts About Cuban Refugees
Following Fidel Castro’s disposal of the Batista regime, Cuba became known as a refugee state. Thereafter the United States began receiving the majority of Cuban refugees.

  1. There are more than 1.5 million Cuban refugees living in the United States.
  2. The Cuban Adjustment Act (CAA) was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson in 1966. The law allowed any Cuban citizen the legal right to become a U.S. permanent resident after being in the U.S. for at least two years.
  3. The first type of Cuban refugee consisted of mostly middle and upper social classes. They left Cuba in the 1950s to 1970s following the dictatorship take-over of Fidel Castro. In fear of reprisals from the Communist party, they left everything in search of political asylum.
  4. The second type of Cuban refugee consisted mostly of poor Cubans seeking economic opportunities in the 1980s.
  5. The majority of Cuban refugees fled to Florida because of the state’s close proximity. Currently, approximately 68% of Cuban refugees live in Florida.
  6. To counteract the emigration, Castro began incarcerating and executing those he perceived as opponents.
  7. Between 1960 and 1962, over 14,000 Cuban children were sent to the U.S. by their parents in what was known as Operation Peter Pan. These children were placed in foster homes and cared for by the Catholic Church in an effort to avoid indoctrination into the Communist party.
  8. In order to go to war with Cuba, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff drafted a plan to trick the American public into supporting a war against Castro. This project was code-named Operation Northwoods and included plans to sink boats filled with Cuban refugees and then blame the violence on Castro. The plan was rejected by the Kennedy administration.
  9. In 1980, frustrated with the lack of help, a group of Cubans drove a bus through the gates of the Havana Peruvian Embassy to request asylum. The Peruvian ambassador refused to return the asylum-seeking Cubans to the Cuban authorities. Eventually, these Cubans were allowed to seek asylum in the U.S.
  10. Currently, many organizations focus on giving aid to Cuban refugees and immigrants. Their mission is to search for Cuban refugee rafters in the Florida seas.

Since 2012, the Cuban government began easing its restrictive immigration policies. A visa is no longer required to leave the country. Because of this, there has been an influx of Cuban refugees entering the United States and more are expected this year.

– Marcelo Guadiana

Photo: Flickr

Talking About Poverty: What is the Definition of Global Poverty?

Global Poverty Definition
How does one define global poverty? The term is often used in news programs detailing hunger and disease in third-world countries, but what exactly does living in poverty mean?

Merriam-Webster defines poverty as, “The state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions.” Based on this definition, the true definition of poverty actually varies from country to country, from city to city, and from town to town based on socially constructed benchmarks for wealth.

Statisticians in the United States and India describe living on less than $1.90 a day (which approximately 702 million people worldwide do) as “extreme poverty.”

Other statisticians prefer to also factor access to health care, education, clean water, and food when assessing global poverty rates. In particular, lack of access to clean water and food are seen as primary symptoms of poverty in developing countries.

Again, this lack of access is seen as a symptom of poverty in relation to the United States and other first-world countries, where access to freshwater and food is a comprehensive widespread system across the nation.

 

Current State of Global Poverty

 

Currently, 1.1 billion people in developing countries have inadequate access to clean drinking water. The population of the United States was 319 million people in 2014, where a family of four has the ability to use up to 400 gallons of water each day.

Furthermore, around 27 percent of all children in developing countries are classified as underweight or stunted as a result of living in poverty. Being underweight and stunted growth is particularly prevalent in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia.

Global poverty still proves to be difficult to quantify without comparing living standards between countries. However, it’s important to note that poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa can look vastly different from extreme poverty in the United States. Developed countries typically have more safety nets and welfare structures in place to assist their poor while developing countries continue to struggle to support large quantities of impoverished citizens. Thus, while it’s important to prioritize domestic poverty in the U.S., it’s equally important to prioritize the world’s poor who live in worse living conditions.

– Bayley McComb

Photo: Flickr

Seven Facts About Poverty in Poland

Poverty in Poland Facts
Poland is not a poor country by any means, but the region has historically possessed little wealth due to occupation, wartime and political mistreatment. As such, alleviation of poverty in Poland has been a focal point of recent Polish governments. Discussed below are the leading facts about poverty in Poland, and how the issue is addressed at the national and international level.

 

7 Key Facts About Poverty in Poland

 

  1. Poverty in Poland has been steadily decreasing since 2004. Over the past decade, the country has cut the population of people living on less than $5 a day in half, from 20 percent to 10.
  2. Poland’s government spends heavily on social resources, with a quarter of the nation’s GDP spent on pensions, public health care, public education and other social services.
  3. Compared to other parts of the world, poverty in Poland is shallow. There are very few people living in dangerously extreme poverty or hunger. Less than a tenth of the population live on $2 a day or less.
  4. Income inequality in Poland is also relatively low. In a World Bank ranking of income inequality, Poland scored significantly better than the United States and Russia with stratification levels near the U.K. and France.
  5. While they are rarely in extreme poverty, many young people in Poland live on very little due to a lack of employment. Overall unemployment in Poland is at 14 percent, but is 25 percent for those who primarily seek industrial jobs.
  6. Poland’s heavily industrial economy is something of a double-edged sword. GDP growth was mildly hindered by the 2008-9 global economic downturn when compared with other European nations. This growth, however, has proven slow with an average of a one percent annual increase.
  7. Poland seeks to both decrease rural poverty and increase its economic productivity by improving the agricultural sector. The EU has been a major benefactor in this cause, revamping the nation’s agricultural policy in 2004 and annually contributing large sums of money. In 2014, Polish farmers received three billion euros in direct payments from EU funding.

These facts about poverty in Poland only begin to scratch the surface of such a complex region. This eastern European nation exudes fiscal prosperity amidst underlying unemployment and rural poverty, a conundrum that needs to be solved.

– John English

Photo: Flickr

Lower Mekong Initiative Launches New Infrastructure Plan

Lower Mekong InitiativeThe Lower Mekong Initiative (LMI), established in July 2009, expanded its original focus to include a Sustainable Infrastructure Partnership in response to this year’s historic drought that devastated the Mekong region. With support from the U.S., the new partnership aims to promote economic development, environmental conservation, and climate resilience.

Through LMI, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam and the U.S. collaborated to create sub-regional cooperation that fosters economic growth and aims to narrow the development gap between the Lower Mekong countries.

At this year’s annual meeting, LMI designed the Sustainable Infrastructure Partnership, a training platform with two main goals: to help LMI countries identify training deficiencies in infrastructure planning and to develop a strategy to enhance the planning process and improve efficiency. This new partnership comes as a result of a crippling drought in the Lower Mekong. The region produces 13 percent of the world’s rice, centering its economic stability on agriculture. However, the current Mekong River levels are at their lowest point of the past century, putting millions of farmers that depend on this water source at risk.

The Sustainable Infrastructure Partnership aims to lessen the region’s vulnerability to climate change and strengthen its infrastructure. This new element adds to the existing six pillars of LMI: agriculture and food security, connectivity, education, energy security, environment and water, as well as health. The success of LMI can be attributed to the targeted approaches of each pillar’s program.

The Lower Mekong Initiative fosters agriculture and food security by expanding trade and investment in the region. Encouraging community engagement in the industry is also key. Similarly, the connectivity pillar draws upon U.S. strengths to promote physical, institutional, and people-to-people connectivity across the region.

The education pillar encourages the sharing of best practices between countries; supporting programs that encourage English language proficiency and teacher training. LMI health pillar combats transnational challenges, such as infectious diseases, as well as supporting the enforcement of International Health Regulations.

Both the Energy Security and Environment and Water Programs work to develop a regional strategy to create sustainable environmental management and access to energy.

The U.S. has played a central role in the success of LMI, having founded a U.S.-Singapore Third Country Program that has trained regional officials on cybercrime and water management. The U.S. has also helped Cambodia launch a women’s business center, with plans to launch another in Vietnam this year.

Through the Lower Mekong Initiative, the region has seen growth in several sectors. The adoption of the Sustainable Infrastructure Partnership will further benefit Lower Mekong countries, continuing to narrow the development gap across the region.

– Anna O’Toole

Photo: Pixabay

,

So You Want to Become a Senator?

How to Become a Senator
How do you become a Senator? For many people in the United States, the steps to becoming a senator may seem mysterious and inaccessible for the common citizen. In reality, there are few requirements insisted on by the Constitution. Being a senator can be challenging and rewarding, especially for one advocating for the world’s poor. During the six-year term after the election, a senator reviews specific bills and votes on whether or not they should become laws. One could even propose global poverty focused bills! Sound fascinating? Here are the requirements and recommendations on how to become a senator, for all of our budding politicians out there who want to help the world.

 

3 Eligibility Requirements in the Constitution:

  1. One must be at least 30 years old before being sworn into office.
  2. One must inhabit the state they want to represent.
  3. One must have U.S. citizenship for 9 years prior to running for Senate.

 

How to Become a Senator

 

  • Get Established in the Community: Many senators recommend participating in local politics first, called “coming up through the chairs,” before going for the big leagues. Run for smaller offices such as a local government committee member or as town mayor. See how the U.S. government processes work on a community level where you can gain a positive reputation and good credentials. Build up to running for higher positions such as your state’s governor. If you are then ready for the challenge, try and get elected as a senator.
  • Educational Background: Though it’s certainly not a requirement, a Bachelor’s degree or higher in law, political science, and/or business has proven to be important for senators. In our current congress, almost 40% of senators are lawyers, and 20% are bankers or businessmen. It’s possible to be elected without a background in these subjects, but the numbers don’t lie.
  • Make Sure to Have Party Backing: Gaining support from a political party is a gigantic help. People from the “party machine” will endorse you and help you to get elected into office in ways that would be challenging to do alone. Consider who will align with your goals of wanting to increase poverty-focused aid, and partner up with them!
  • Don’t Forget the Details: Did you remember to file candidacy with the state’s Secretary of State? In addition, signatures from people in one’s political party will be necessary to get on the ballot. Contact the state government to find out the minimum number needed.
  • Round Up a Campaign Committee and then Campaign: A good campaign can’t run without people working to support it. Campaigning is an expensive and time consuming process. A manager, fundraising person, and public relations professional will all be needed to get your ideas out there and to keep the campaign running smoothly. Advertise, participate in interviews, and give speeches. Inform your possible constituents about the importance of foreign aid, and get them all riled up and wanting to create change with you. All that’s left to do is campaign with all one’s heart!
  • Be Ready to Answer Foreign Aid FAQ’s: Military leaders, business leaders and humanitarian groups all recognize the importance of reducing global poverty. While it’s tempting to speak out against foreign aid while campaigning, many leaders quickly change their stance once confronted by military leaders on the role helping reduce human suffering plays in national security.

Finally, what is the one thing of importance that veterans of the Senate can all agree upon? “What matters… is a willingness to work and learn, to stand up for values, and most important, to earn trust.”

– Caylee Pugh

Sources: NY Times, How Stuff Works, US Senate
Photo: Maid in DC

Five Ways to Help End Poverty in the United States

Poverty in the United States
According to the U.S. Census Bureau in 2014, 47 million people — or 15% of the U.S. population — were living in poverty. Additionally, poverty in the United States is 2.3 percentage points higher than in 2007, the year before the recession hit in 2008.

Furthermore, 2014 was the fourth consecutive year that the poverty rate has remained stagnant. While conditions are not worsening, they are not improving either.

What Defines Poverty in the United States?

The federal government’s official poverty threshold for 2015 was as follows:

  • Household of four (two children, two adults): $24,444
  • Household of three (one child, two adults): $18,540
  • Household of two (over 65): $14,326
  • Household of two (under 65): $15,871
  • One person (over 65): $11,376
  • One person (under 65): $12,331

Click here to see additional information regarding the poverty threshold.

Who Lives in Poverty in the United States?

Poverty does not affect all demographics equally. Numbers from 2014  show that 13% of men lived in poverty, as compared to 16% of women. Poverty numbers for married couples were at six percent, while single-parent families with no wife were at 16%. Single-parent families with no husband saw a poverty rate of 31%.

As of 2014, 21% of all children in the United States lived in poverty. About 15.5 million children, more than the entire population of Ecuador, lacked the required resources to ensure even a basic level of comfort and freedom from distress.

What Can We Do To End Poverty in the United States?

There are several things that can be done to help bridge the gap between the richest and poorest Americans. Here is a list of five tips to help get you started:

1. Volunteer

Be giving of yourself. Find a local Open Heart Kitchen to work in. You can also volunteer with an organization that provides tutoring or afterschool programs for children living in impoverished areas. Your compassion can help immensely.

2. Donate

Find an organization that helps fight poverty in the United States. Additionally, it is important to find one that expresses values and a mission that you care about. The Borgen Project may be focused on fighting poverty abroad, but the work that they do helps create jobs and stimulate the already-struggling American economy. As nonprofits, these organizations also rely heavily on donations to fund their philanthropic and humanitarian endeavors.

3. Contact Your Congressional Representatives

Congress is supposed to represent its constituents, so contacting them can make a difference. Writing a simple letter or email, or making a phone call to your representative’s office lets them know that you are a concerned citizen. If enough people contact a representative in support of a particular issue, it sends the message that it is something that he or she should fight for. Above all, representatives speak for the people who elected them, so your voice does matter.

4. Support Local Small Businesses

Shopping local helps stimulate the economy in your area. When independent businesses are successful, they create jobs. Donating and volunteering are great ways to help fight poverty, and they can be very fulfilling. But providing a person with the opportunity to work and learn business skills sets that person up for future success.

5. Support and Use Public Transportation

For many people, buses and trains are a primary means of transportation. Getting to and from work and school would be impossible without these things. It is also an industry that employs over 400,000 people and generates $58 billion in revenue annually. According to publictransportation.org, every dollar invested in public transportation yields around $4 in economic returns. In addition, public transportation also creates and sustains 1.1 million each year.

In order to eradicate poverty in the United States, we need to work together. We need to invest in people, providing them with the necessary skills and resources. As a result, they can better provide for themselves and their families. Contact your congressional representatives, serve your community or buy from a local small business. These are all simple things that you can do to assist in the fight against poverty at home.

-Aaron Parr

Photo: Ivarfjeld