+
upworthy

congress

Democracy

Single mom perfectly explains to Congress why the U.S. poverty line needs a total rehaul

"I'm not asking you to apologize for your privilege but I'm asking you to see past it."

Photo by Ev on Unsplash

Nearly 12 percent of the U.S. population lives in poverty. That's more than one in ten Americans—and the percent is even higher for children.

If you're not up on the current numbers, the federal poverty line is $12,760 for an individuals and $26,200 for a family of four. If those annual incomes sound abysmally low, it's because they are. And incredibly, the Trump administration has proposed lowering the poverty line further, which would make more poor Americans ineligible for needed assistance.


However, debates over the poverty line don't even capture the full extent of Americans struggling to make ends meet. For many people, living above the poverty line is actually worse. These are the folks who make too much to qualify for aid programs but not enough to actually get by—a situation millions of working American families find themselves stuck in.

Amy Jo Hutchison is a single mother of two living in West Virginia, and a community organizer for West Virginia Healthy Kids and Families and Our Future West Virginia. She has also lived in poverty and been part of the working poor herself. In an impassioned speech, she spoke to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform about what poverty really looks like for working families—and even called out Congress for being completely out of touch with what it takes for a family to live on while they're spending $40,000 a year on office furniture.

Watch Hutchison's testimony here (transcript included below):

Ms. Hutchison Testimony on Proposed Changes to the Poverty Line Calculation

"I'm here to help you better understand poverty because poverty is my lived experience. And I'm also here to acknowledge the biased beliefs that poor people are lazy and the poverty is their fault. But how do I make you understand things like working full-time for $10 an hour is only about $19,000 a year, even though it's well above the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour?

I want to tell you about a single mom I met who was working at a gas station. She was promoted to manager within 30 days. She had to report her new income the DHHR within 60 days. Her rent bumped from $475 to $950 a month, she lost her SNAP benefits and her family's health insurance, so she did what poor people are forced to do all the time. She resigned her promotion and went back to working part-time, just so she and her family could survive.

Another single mom I know encouraged her kids to get jobs. For her DHHR review she had to claim their income as well. She lost her SNAP benefits and her insurance, so she weaned herself off of her blood pressure medicines because she—working full-time in a bank and part-time at a shop on the weekends—couldn't afford to buy them. Eventually the girls quit their jobs because their part-time fast food income was literally killing their mother.

You see the thing is children aren't going to escape poverty as long as they're relying on a head of household who is poor. Poverty rolls off the backs of parents, right onto the shoulders of our children, despite how hard we try.

I can tell you about my own with food insecurity the nights I went to bed hungry so my kids could have seconds, and I was employed full time as a Head Start teacher. I can tell you about being above the poverty guideline, nursing my gallbladder with essential oils and prayer, chewing on cloves and eating ibuprofen like they're Tic Tacs because I don't have health insurance and I can't afford a dentist. I have two jobs and a bachelor's degree, and I struggle to make ends meet.

The federal poverty guidelines say that I'm not poor, but I cashed in a jar full of change the other night so my daughter could attend a high school band competition with her band. I can't go grocery shopping without a calculator. I had to decide which bills not to pay to be here in this room today. Believe me, I've pulled myself up by the bootstraps so many damn times that I've ripped them off.

The current poverty guidelines are ridiculously out of touch. The poverty line for a family of three is $21,720. Where I live, because of the oil and gas boom, a 3-bedroom home runs for $1,200 a month. So if I made $22,000 a year, which could disqualify me from assistance, I would have $8000 left to raise two children and myself on. And yet the poverty guidelines wouldn't classify me as poor.

I Googled 'congressman salary' the other day and according to Senate gov the salary for Senators representatives and delegates is $174,000 a year so a year of work for you is the equivalent of almost four years of work for me. I'm $24,000 above the federal poverty guidelines definition of poor. It would take nine people working full-time for a year at $10 an hour to match y'all's salary. I also read that each senator has authorized $40,000 dollars for state office furniture and furnishings, and this amount is increased each year to reflect inflation.

That $40,000 a year for furniture is $360 more than the federal poverty guidelines for a family of seven, and yet here I am begging you on behalf of the 15 million children living in poverty in the United States—on behalf of the one in three kids under the age of five and nearly 100,000 children in my state of West Virginia living in poverty—to not change anything about these federal poverty guidelines until you can make them relevant and reflect what poverty really looks like today.

You have a $40,000 dollar furniture allotment. West Virginia has a median income of $43,000 and some change. People are working full-time and are hungry. Kids are about to be kicked off the free and reduced lunch rolls because of changes y'all want to make to SNAP, even though 62 percent of West Virginia SNAP recipients are families with children—the very same children who cannot take a part-time job because their parents will die without insurance. People are working full-time in this country for very little money.


They're not poor enough to get help. They don't make enough to get by. They're working while their rationing their insulin and their skipping their meds because they can't afford food and healthcare at the same time.

So shame on you. Shame on you, and shame on me, and shame on each and every one of us who haven't rattled the windows of these buildings with cries of outrage at a government that thinks their office furniture is worthy of $40,000 a year and families and children aren't.

I'm not asking you to apologize for your privilege but I'm asking you to see past it. There are 46 million Americans living in poverty doing the best they know how with what they have and we, in defense of children and families, cannot accept anything less from our very own government."

In addition to Hutchison's testimony, a coalition of 26 patient organizations, including the American Cancer Society Action Network, American Heart Association, and United Way, wrote a joint letter opposing the proposed lowering of the poverty line, stating:

"The current Official Poverty Measure (OPM) is based on an old formula that already does not fully capture those living in poverty and does not accurately reflect basic household expenses for families, including by underestimating child care and housing expenses. The proposed changes to the inflation calculation would reduce the annual adjustments to the poverty measure and therefore may exacerbate existing weaknesses, putting vulnerable Americans – including those with serious and chronic diseases – at great risk. Further lowering the poverty line would also give policymakers and the public less credible information about the number and characteristics of Americans living in poverty."


This article originally appeared on 03.10.20

Democracy

Powerful PSA uses reverse psychology to drum up support for assault weapons bill

In 90 seconds, it totally nails the absurdity of how we live.

A March Fourth PSA shows how our daily lives are impacted by mass shootings.

Those of us who live in the United States have a strange relationship with gun violence, no matter where we fall on the beliefs-about-guns spectrum. We have to. Our mass shootings statistics are too bizarre, too absurd to be real, and yet here we are, constantly living in a combined state of denial, disbelief, disillusionment and despair.

We don't have to live like this, and yet we do. Thanks to a well-funded gun lobby, our incredibly unhealthy ultra-partisan politics and debatable interpretations of the Second Amendment, most meaningful pieces of legislation put forth to curb our gun violence problem don't get passed. Everything but the guns gets blamed for our mass shooting problem, so we keep reliving the same nightmare over and over and over again.

A group of moms lived that nightmare on the Fourth of July, when a gunman opened fire on a parade in Highland Park, Illinois, killing seven and wounding 48. They immediately banded together with a singular purpose—to convince the government to ban assault weapons, which are increasingly becoming the weapon of choice in mass shootings.


They formed March Fourth two days after the parade shooting and organized a march in Washington, D.C., less than a week later. "I just want to go to DC, scream at the top of our lungs that we want these weapons of war banned, and not shut up until they listen," said founder Kitty Brandtner.

Her quote to WGN9 News was even more succinct: "They f**ked with the wrong moms."

Now March Fourth is holding another march at the Capitol on September 22 and they're inviting anyone and everyone to join them. In a powerful PSA promoting the march, Americans describe what they "love" and "enjoy" about living with mass shootings—a bit of reverse psychology that makes the absurdity of our reality painfully clear.

The truth is no one wants to live this way. And we don't have to. We can choose to take action to at least attempt to prevent mass gun violence. The assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004 had an impact. One analysis shared in The Conversation estimated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the ban.

Before someone swoops in with the "How do you define assault weapon?" argument, the current Assault Weapons Ban of 2021 bill that has passed the House and sits before the Senate offers a lengthy definition of the kinds of firearms it includes right up top. Read it here.

See more information about joining March Fourth's September 22 march at the U.S. Capitol at wemarchfourth.org.

Pop Culture

Watch Mister Rogers totally win over a tough, skeptical senator in 6 minutes

"I'm supposed to be a pretty tough guy, and this is the first time I've had goosebumps in the past two days."

Fred Rogers managed to secure $20 million in PBS funding from Congress.

On May 1, 1969, Fred Rogers sat before the Senate Subcommittee on Communications to make the case for funding children's educational programming. His show, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, had recently become nationally syndicated, and the program relied on the $20 million in government funding allotted to public broadcasting. That funding was on the chopping block, with President Nixon wanting to cut it in half, so Rogers went to Washington, D.C., to advocate for the funding before Congress.

In a video clip of Rogers' testimony, we can see how subcommittee chairman Senator John O. Pastore sat across from Rogers, appearing somewhat disinterested. He had never heard of or seen Mister Rogers' Neighborhood and wasn't familiar with Rogers himself.

"Alright Rogers, you have the floor," he said in an almost condescending tone.


(Side note: Who in their right mind condescends to Mister Rogers? Granted, Senator Pastore didn't know who he was and the world hadn't yet realized his wholesome amazingness yet, so it's somewhat forgivable. Still funny to see it, though.)

For six minutes, we watch Fred Rogers work his calm, compassionate magic on the committee. As he methodically and eloquently made his argument, Pastore became transfixed and ultimately transformed.

Rogers described how he speaks to children on his show and how he felt that showing people working out their emotions was much more dramatic than gunfire.

"I feel that if we in public television can only make it clear that feelings are mentionable—and manageable—we will have done a great service for mental health," he said. "I'm constantly concerned about what our children are seeing, and for 15 years, I have tried—in this country and in Canada—to present what I feel is a meaningful expression of care."

The senator was moved by Rogers' words. "I'm supposed to be a pretty tough guy, and this is the first time I've had goosebumps in the past two days," he said.

By the end, Pastore was totally on board. "I think it's wonderful," he concluded. "I think it's wonderful. Looks like you just earned yourself the $20 million."

Watch how Rogers did it:

It's not just that Rogers explained himself well. According to Jean Greaves, Ph.D., specialist in Industrial-Organizational Psychology and author of "Emotional Intelligence 2.0," Rogers used four specific skills to connect with the committee members and influence their decision-making.

Greaves wrote that Rogers utilized self-awareness by knowing—and sharing—his own expertise and experience with children's programming. He stayed focused and kept his emotions in check, even while sharing his feelings, which used the skill of self-management. Utilizing social awareness, Rogers read his audience and understood what they valued. ("Mr. Rogers understood he was addressing a senator who was more than just the decision maker—he was a man who used to be a boy, a man who had a family, and a senator whose sworn duty was to represent the needs of Americans," Greaves wrote.) Finally, he used relationship management to make a personal connection with the senator, telling him he trusted him to read his statement and acknowledging that they shared the same concern for the quality of children's television programming.

Having watched countless hours of Mister Rogers' programming myself and being a lifelong fan of both the show and the man, my hunch is that those emotional intelligence skills were simply a part of who he was. And thanks to the funding for PBS that he helped procure, his "meaningful expressions of care" helped millions of kids gain greater emotional intelligence themselves.

Just a wonderful, decent, delightful man who loved children just exactly the way they are. What a gift he was to us all.

Democracy

One minute of fed-up celebrities talking about guns is actually worth your time.

There are so many celebrities in this video that I honestly lost count. But I'm SO GLAD they came together to make it, because people tend to listen to celebrities — for better and worse. And this is definitely a case of the better.

Image from YouTube video.

Will Ferrell and Beyonce Knowles-Carter.

This article originally appeared on 06.23.15


There were nearly 100 school shootings in the two years after Newtown.

Despite that, Congress still hasn't found the will to deal with gun violence in the U.S. Suffice it to say a lot of people are angry. Including the pile of celebrities you'll see below.

The plan is simple...


1. Close the loopholes.

Almost anyone can skirt the system by buying from private sellers at gun shows or even on the Internet in a lot of states. Current federal law only requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks. Only 17 states have expanded background checks to require them on all gun sales, including by private sellers.

2. Keep better records — and use them.

Background checks are one of the best ways to keep guns out of the wrong hands, but they can only work if states participate. States should be required — and given the tools they need — to track and log criminal and mental health records in the national criminal background database.

3. Keep assault rifles out of the public.

A 10-year ban on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines expired in September 2004. A lot of gun safety groups have moved away from this strategy for political reasons. But it's still a good idea. When Australia banned assault rifles, reports of mass shootings dropped to, believe it or not, zero.

4. Crack down on gun runners.

The current penalty for gun trafficking is the same as it is for illegally trafficking livestock. Law enforcement should be equipped to find and stop gun traffickers. And when they do, the penalties should be severe enough that others will think twice before doing it.

Let's not hold our breath for Congress to act.

An overwhelming share of voters approve of smarter gun safety rules, and state legislatures can start answering those calls. Just weeks after a school shooting in Washington state, voters passed a ballot initiative for background checks on all gun sales in the state.

Voters, you can make this a priority in your states. If that approval can get translated into state policy around the country, Congress could be left with no choice but to act.

Demand A Plan is a campaign of Everytown for Gun Safety. Join us: https://every.tw/1q7VRZh