The Woefully Distorted Federal Policies on Child Abuse
Here’s something just in from the world of grossly distorted government policy:
Every year, roughly 680,000 children are reported victims of neglect or abuse by their parents in this country – a tragic statistic reflective of troubling societal, psychological and economic problems. Even worse, 1,520 children died from maltreatment in 2013, nearly 80 percent of them at the hands of their own parents.
Related: Feds Blow $100 Billion Annually on Incorrect Payments
Federal and state authorities over the years have developed a large and costly system for reporting and investigating maltreatment, removing endangered children from their homes, and preventing and treating problems of parents and children.
But as a new study touted on Wednesday by the Brookings Institution concludes, the federal government provides states with far more money to support kids once they have been removed from their homes and placed in foster care than it provides for prevention and treatment programs to keep the kids out of foster homes in the first place.
And the disparity is startling.
Two of the largest grant programs in Title IV-B of the Social Security Act provide states with funding totaling around $650 million annually for “front end” services designed to prevent or treat parent and child problems that contribute to abuse and neglect. They address problems such as substance abuse, family violence and mental health issues.
Related: Time to Stop Social Safety Net Child Abuse
Yet another series of programs in Title IV-E of the Social Security law provides states with open-ended funding that totaled about $6.9 billion in 2014. Those funds pay almost exclusively for out-of-home care for children from poor families, along with the administrative and training expenses associated with foster care, adoption, and guardianship.
That’s a 10 to 1 disparity in funding for the two efforts – one to try to hold families together and the other to move children out of their homes and into foster care.
“Congress has the opportunity to change the funding formula under Title IV of the Social Security Act so that states have the flexibility to put money where it will be most effective at keeping at-risk children safe, ensuring that they have a permanent home, and promoting their well-being,” wrote Ron Haskins, Lawrence M. Berger and Janet Currie, the authors of the study.
In their policy brief, “Can States Improve Children’s Health by Preventing Abuse and Neglect,” Haskins, a Senior Fellow in Economic Studies at Brookings, Currie of Princeton University and Berger of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, write that revising the grant programs could improve the welfare of children who are at risk of abuse or neglect.
This is something else that lawmakers might consider later this year when they begin to focus on disability insurance and other programs within the Social Security law.
You’ve Got to See This GOP Hawk’s Grisly Ad Opposing the Iran Deal
A group led by John Bolton, the aggressively hawkish Republican insider who served as George W. Bush's ambassador to the United Nations, has released an unusually grisly ad that vividly portrays a nuclear attack on the United States.
The 30-second video was produced by the Foundation for American Security and Freedom, which Bolton leads. It shows an all-American family of four sitting down to a dinner of pasta and red sauce. The father kindly asks, “How was your day?” As his wife and children enthusiastically reply, a blinding flash rips through the scene to the sound of burning and destruction. The screen fades to black, and then we see and hear Sen. Rand Paul speaking, with his words also written on the screen: “Rand Paul: ‘our national security is not threatened by Iran having one nuclear weapon’.” The screen fades to black again, and then we see a nuclear explosion, with the words: “It only takes one.” As the nuclear cloud boils up into the sky, we see the final message: “A nuclear threat is a threat to our national security.”
The 30-second video seems to consciously mimic Lyndon Johnson's infamous "Daisy" ad from the 1964 presidential election. That ad was widely criticized for using a nuclear explosion to frighten the audience into believing that, if elected, Republican nominee Barry Goldwater would risk all-out war with the Soviet Union. The ad was shown only once (on September 7, 1964) but that proved to be enough.
Several differences between the Bolton group’s ad and “Daisy” stand out. For one, the new ad shows a family being destroyed by a nuclear blast. By contrast, the Johnson ad implied the death of a small girl and many others, but without showing the blast and its victims together.
Another difference is the target. The “Daisy” ad took aim at a hawkish Republican candidate for president, implying that an aggressive attitude toward a major enemy could lead to the destruction of the world. The Bolton group’s ad takes aim at a dovish Republican candidate — and, by implication, a dovish American president — while suggesting that a diplomatic approach toward a major enemy could lead to war on American soil.
A final difference: The Johnson campaign withdrew the “Daisy” ad as the criticism poured in. The Bolton group’s ad is on the Internet, where it can be seen over and over again. And thanks to the dynamics of social media, it will likely reach a larger audience than “Daisy” ever did — though to what effect, it remains to be seen.
Here’s the Daisy ad:
Fast Cars and Rampaging Dinosaurs Help Universal Shatter Box Office Record
High-speed car chases, dinosaurs run amok and yellow, pill-like creatures helped Universal Pictures bring in more money this year than any other studio in movie history.
Universal announced Wednesday that the studio has grossed $5.53 billion in worldwide box office so far this year, setting an industry record. The Comcast-owned studio has pulled in $3.59 billion internationally and $1.94 billion domestically.
Related: ‘Jurassic World’ set to become fastest film to gross $1 billion
Three global box office hits -- “Furious 7,” “Jurassic World” and “Minions” -- were the most successful films for the studio. “Furious 7” and “Jurassic World” have each brought in over $1 billion already, with “Minions” expected to top $1 billion after its Sept. 13 debut in China. Universal is expected to become the first studio to release three films in one year that each took in over $1 billion.
And there are still some big films slated to be released by Universal before the year is out, including the N.W.A. biopic “Straight Outta Compton,” “Steve Jobs,” and the Tina Fey and Amy Poehler comedy “Sisters.”
20th Century Fox held the previous record for annual box office, grossing $5.52 billion in 2014.
These Women Are Now Earning Almost as Much as Men
That women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man makes has been chronicled and discussed at length, but a new analysis by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York finds a far smaller gap among recent grads.
The country’s youngest (ages 22 to 27) female workers earn roughly 97 cents on the dollar compared to their male peers, when controlling for major and field of employment. For many majors, they actually earn more.
Any early advantage disappears, however, once workers hit mid-career, with men earning 15 percent more than women across the board. Even in majors where women earned more during the early years of their careers, men earn more by age 35.
Related: 10 Worst States for Working Mothers
Researchers point to several potential reasons for the reversal, including possible gender discrimination and women’s tendency to scale back their careers to bear and raise children.
“Because raising a family often requires more flexible schedules, those with family responsibilities who have difficulty satisfying time-sensitive work demands may face lower wages in these types of jobs,” the authors write. “In fact, in jobs where such time demands are largely absent, and more flexibility is possible, the pay gap has been found to be much smaller.”
For some women, that means leaving the workforce entirely. The percentage of women age 25 to 54 who are working has fallen to 69 percent since peaking in 1999 at 74 percent, following a 60-year climb.
Top Reads From The Fiscal Times:
Facebook Patents a Technology That Could Use Your Social Network Against You
All that data Facebook has been gathering on you and your friends could someday be used to approve -- or deny -- your application for a loan.
Facebook was just granted an updated technology patent for “authorization and authentication based on an individual's social network.” This innocent-sounding technology can no doubt be applied in a multitude of ways, many of them benign. But one troubling use of the technology consists of assisting lenders in discriminating against a borrower based on his or her social network connections.
The patent application explains that a lender can use the technology to examine the credit ratings of members of the social network of the individual who is applying for a loan. If the average credit rating of the social network reaches a minimum, pre-defined level, the lender moves forward with the loan process. If the average credit score is too low, the loan application is rejected.
Related: Now Facebook Wants to Know Where You Buy Your Toothpaste
The new technology raises concerns about potential unjust bias, but banks would most likely use it as an additional factor in the loan approval process, not as an end-all metric. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act imposes strict guidelines as to what factors creditors can use when determining whether to approve a loan. It’s unclear if Facebook’s new technology falls under the criteria the federal law defines – things like income, expenses, debt and credit history.
Another fear involves predatory lenders. People rejected for loans through this process would make a nice customer list for unscrupulous financial operators.
Some of the less worrisome uses of the technology include preventing spam email and inappropriate content and improving the accuracy of searches. At this point, it’s not clear how Facebook plans to implement the new technology. Let’s hope the social networking giant stays on the sunny side of the street on this one.
Top Reads from the Fiscal Times:
- The 10 Fastest-Growing Jobs Right Now
- Teens Are Having Much Less Sex Than Their Parents Did at That Age
- 9 Social Security Tips You Need to Know Right Now
Facebook Patents a Technology That Could Use Your Social Network Against You
All that data Facebook has been gathering on you and your friends could someday be used to approve -- or deny -- your application for a loan.
Facebook was just granted an updated technology patent for “authorization and authentication based on an individual's social network.” This innocent-sounding technology can no doubt be applied in a multitude of ways, many of them benign. But one troubling use of the technology consists of assisting lenders in discriminating against a borrower based on his or her social network connections.
The patent application explains that a lender can use the technology to examine the credit ratings of members of the social network of the individual who is applying for a loan. If the average credit rating of the social network reaches a minimum, pre-defined level, the lender moves forward with the loan process. If the average credit score is too low, the loan application is rejected.
Related: Now Facebook Wants to Know Where You Buy Your Toothpaste
The new technology raises concerns about potential unjust bias, but banks would most likely use it as an additional factor in the loan approval process, not as an end-all metric. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act imposes strict guidelines as to what factors creditors can use when determining whether to approve a loan. It’s unclear if Facebook’s new technology falls under the criteria the federal law defines – things like income, expenses, debt and credit history.
Another fear involves predatory lenders. People rejected for loans through this process would make a nice customer list for unscrupulous financial operators.
Some of the less worrisome uses of the technology include preventing spam email and inappropriate content and improving the accuracy of searches. At this point, it’s not clear how Facebook plans to implement the new technology. Let’s hope the social networking giant stays on the sunny side of the street on this one.
Top Reads from the Fiscal Times:
- The 10 Fastest-Growing Jobs Right Now
- Teens Are Having Much Less Sex Than Their Parents Did at That Age
- 9 Social Security Tips You Need to Know Right Now