Bipartisan on Child Poverty
Published: March 8, 2013
To the Editor:
Connect With Us on Twitter
For Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow@andyrNYT.
Sheila C. Bair is right (“Grand Old Parity,” Op-Ed, Feb. 27): income inequality should concern both parties. In Britain, it does, at least when it comes to children.
Ms. Bair also rightly identified America’s political problem: the tendency to trip over ideology when it comes to solutions. The British lowered that barrier by taking a different approach. They began by uniting the Tories and Labour around a broad goal, setting a national child poverty reduction target.
That made honest and productive conversations about policy solutions easier, because the parties already agreed on where they wanted to go and could focus on how to get there.
The resulting policies — like investments in education and tax credits that both reward work and value family — were pro-growth as well as pro-child. We should take a lesson from our ally and bring Democrats and Republicans together in a shared commitment to end child poverty.
BRUCE LESLEY
Washington, Feb. 27, 2013
Washington, Feb. 27, 2013
Protecting Child Health by Embracing Its Success
March 20, 2013
By Bruce Lesley
By Bruce Lesley
One of the biggest mistakes that advocates make is their failure to embrace and publicize success.
Message Discipline: Ignore it at Your Own Risk
February 25, 2013
By Ed Walz
By Ed Walz
When I was a congressional staffer, we Democrats routinely lost the co
The writer is president of First Focus, a bipartisan advocacy group for children and families in federal policy and budget decisions.
Unemployment from a Child's Perspective
Monday, March 25, 2013
Senate Budget Much Better for Kids than House
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Republican Budget Redux
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
