Poverty, Public Policy, and Child Poverty in America
This paper examines the relationship between public policy and poverty in the United States, drawing on Charles Blow's New York Times commentary on child poverty. It argues that the U.S. performs poorly on poverty measures compared to other OECD nations not because of a lack of wealth, but because of political and fiscal priorities that favor the affluent. The paper explores several policy pathways to reduce poverty, including lowering barriers to entrepreneurship, expanding access to higher education, raising the federal minimum wage, and shifting the public narrative away from blaming the poor. The central claim is that child poverty, in particular, offers a rhetorically powerful case for reform, and that targeted policy interventions could substantially reduce poverty rates at a modest cost.
- Introduction: Can Poverty Be Ended?: Blow's realistic framing of poverty's persistence
- Child Poverty and U.S. Policy Failures: U.S. child poverty compared to OECD nations
- Removing Barriers to Wealth Creation: Policy reforms to enable entrepreneurship and mobility
- Education as a Pathway Out of Poverty: Higher education funding as an anti-poverty tool
- Minimum Wage and Economic Tradeoffs: Minimum wage effects on poverty and employment
- Conclusion: Poverty as a Political Priority: Poverty persists due to political, not economic, limits
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper effectively uses Charles Blow's op-ed as an anchor to launch a broader policy analysis, demonstrating how to integrate a secondary source as a springboard rather than a subject.
- It applies rhetorical analysis (ethos, pathos, logos) to explain why the child poverty framing is strategically powerful in public discourse, adding an analytical dimension beyond simple policy description.
- The paper maintains a consistent argument throughout — that poverty persists because it is not a political priority — and returns to this thesis in the conclusion, giving the essay structural coherence.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates how to synthesize policy evidence with rhetorical analysis. By identifying the "deserving poor" narrative as a political obstacle, and then explaining why the child poverty frame rhetorically counters it, the author connects public discourse to concrete policy outcomes — a useful technique in political science and social policy writing.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens with a framing of the poverty debate and introduces Blow's argument. It then presents comparative data on U.S. child poverty, followed by three discrete policy sections: entrepreneurship access, education, and minimum wage. The conclusion ties all three back to the central claim that fiscal and political priorities — not a lack of resources — explain America's high poverty rates.
Introduction: Can Poverty Be Ended?
Charles Blow, writing in his New York Times op-ed column, addresses the issue of child poverty with a notably realistic outlook: he acknowledges upfront that poverty can never truly be ended. There are many different causes of poverty, not the least of which is that poverty is, ultimately, relative. What is considered poverty today in America would be regarded as relative wealth in many other countries around the world. His central point, however, is that even if one accepts that some level of poverty will always exist, there remains a societal obligation to keep the poverty rate as low as possible. Blow argues in particular against children living in poverty.
References
Blow, C. (2015). Reducing our obscene level of child poverty. New York Times. Retrieved March 22, 2015 from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/charles-blow-reducing-our-obscene-level-of-child-poverty.html
Borjas, G. (2011). Poverty and program participation among immigrant children. The Future of Children, 21(1), 247–266.
Hall, D., & Cooper, D. (2012). How raising the federal minimum wage would help working families and give the economy a boost. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved March 22, 2015 from http://www.jobsnowcoalition.org/reports/2012/federal-minimum-wage-9-80-boost_epi2012-08.pdf
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.