Policy & Research INSIGHTS
#TAP out your questions about poverty to the presidential candidates
by Diana Scholl -
While both President Obama and Governor Romney don’t shy away from talking about the economy or the need for “jobs, jobs, jobs,” we'd like to hear substantive talk from the candidates about the poorest Americans.
That’s why we at ICPH are excited about The Nation’s new Talk About Poverty series, which each week will give antipoverty experts a chance to pose questions to the presumptive nominees for president. The Nation will then compile the best questions from the experts and those tweeted to @thenation into a questionnaire that will be given to the candidates.
As The Nation blogger Greg Kaufmann wrote, “The only way we will possibly get the candidates—and Washington—to talk about poverty is if we insist that they talk about poverty.”
First up, Kaufmann profiles author of So Rich, So Poor: Why It’s So Hard to End Poverty in America. Peter Edelman, a Georgetown University law professor and longtime antipoverty crusader both in and out of government, who poses questions to the candidates.
All of Edelman’s questions were spot-on, and we’re particularly interested in hearing from the candidates the answer to Edelman's query, “Investments in early childhood are key to children’s prospects for productive lives. Federal assistance for childcare currently reaches about one in seven of those who are eligible. What will you do to increase the availability of quality childcare to more low-income children?”
See ICPH’s report on Head Start for more on this important issue.
The Nation encourages you to write your own poverty-related questions to the candidates on Twitter. Make sure to include the hashtag #TAP so your question can be considered for the official questionnaire.
Let’s make poverty part of the conversation this election.
Post a Comment
by anonymous -
2/2/2013 12:57:26 PM
Very interesting diussscion. It is of course a serious probelm for unions that using their ultimate industrial weapon the right to strike is very often a PR disaster because of its adverse impact on otherwise uninvolved members of the public. It seems to me that in the interests of their members, unions should only call for strike action as a last resort and that the currently striking unions have played into the Government's hands. More subtle methods, such as funding and publishing research into productivity gains from improved skills and working conditions and the adverse impact of wide pay gaps, would in my view be more effective in the long run.
by Michael Ligon -
8/19/2012 9:52:04 PM
How does one advocate reducing spending now as a necessity for securing a better future for children when the pragmatic result of such a position harms children right now and well into their adulthood? Is the truth summarized in the notion that you view less affluent children's harm as mere collateral?