9 May 2024

House Speaker Mike Johnson survived a motion to vacate. Here’s why his job is far from safe.

by | posted in: News | 0

By FARNOUSH AMIRI (Associated Press)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Mike Johnson’s job isn’t safe yet.

In a stunning show of unity in the often divided House, Democrats joined a majority of Republicans on Wednesday to save the GOP speaker from an attempt by fellow Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene to remove him from his post.

But while Democrats in the minority threw the Louisiana congressman a life raft by voting on his side, they made clear they might not do so again. That means the threat for Johnson still lingers as Greene and other lawmakers can at any time call up another motion to oust him.

The episode highlights the increasingly precarious situation for Johnson, who faces the same conservative forces that took down his predecessor, Kevin McCarthy, but with an even smaller majority that has forced him to continuously rely on Democratic support to carry out the most basic functions of legislating. Republicans control the House by the barest of margins, 217-213.

Here’s what to know about how the House can remove a speaker and what’s ahead for Johnson:

WHAT IS A MOTION TO VACATE?

The current rules of the House allow any lawmaker — Democrat or Republican — to put forward a resolution declaring the speaker’s chair vacant. If the House approves the resolution, it has the effect of ousting the speaker from office.

The “motion to vacate” has existed for most of congressional history. But it had never been deployed successfully until last October when a rebel band of Republicans joined with Democrats to oust McCarthy as speaker.

McCarthy’s removal came, in part, as the result of the concessions he was forced to make to win the speaker’s gavel in the first place. Among the concessions was agreeing that a motion to vacate could be triggered by a single member — the threshold that historically has been the norm, but that had been abandoned by Democrats in the majority.

Proponents of allowing a single lawmaker to file the motion said it promotes accountability, noting its long history in the House.

HOW DOES IT WORK?

At any point, a member of the House can introduce a privileged resolution — a designation that gives it priority over other measures — to declare the office of the speaker of the House of Representatives vacant.

Once the motion is introduced, the lawmaker sponsoring it can request a vote on the House floor. Such a request forces House leaders to take action within two legislative days.

But there are procedural motions that members of either party can make to slow or stop the process — and that’s exactly what happened when Greene called for a vote Wednesday on removing Johnson.

The No. 2 House Republican, Steve Scalise, immediately made a motion to “table” Greene’s resolution, which defeats it if successful. The vote to table was fast and overwhelming, with lawmakers voting 359-43 to defeat her effort and keep Johnson in the job.

WHO IS TRYING TO OUST JOHNSON AND WHY?

The speaker had fought for months to navigate an increasingly fractured Republican conference, which has — in effect — been operating in the majority in name only since January 2023.

Republicans unanimously chose Johnson late last year to replace McCarthy after several candidates for the job failed to gain enough support. His conservative bent was seen as a welcome departure by the most extreme members of his party who had accused McCarthy for years of being too moderate.

But Greene, who became a McCarthy ally late in his tenure, has been skeptical of Johnson’s speakership from the beginning. While she criticized her fellow far-right colleagues for toppling McCarthy, she had warned Johnson for months that she would try to remove him in a similar fashion if he were to push ahead with a package to support Ukraine as it battles Russia’s invasion.

“He should not bring funding for Ukraine,” Greene had told reporters.

But Johnson did just that last month when he advanced a foreign aid package for Ukraine to the floor where it was overwhelmingly approved and signed into law.

Other Republicans are also critical of Johnson, including Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who was a co-sponsor of Greene’s resolution to oust him.

COULD THERE BE ENOUGH VOTES TO OUST JOHNSON?

It remains to be seen, but the vote Wednesday showed Johnson’s job is far from safe.

Without Democratic help, Johnson could have easily been ousted. Eleven Republicans voted to proceed with Greene’s effort, more than the number of GOP votes it took to oust McCarthy last fall. Seven Democrats voted present and all but 32 of the others voted with Republicans to block the effort to oust him.

“Our decision to stop Marjorie Taylor Greene from plunging the country into further chaos is rooted in our commitment to solve problems,” Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said after the vote.

Asked what they might do if there were another attempt to oust the speaker, Jeffries said, “Haven’t given it a thought.”

Some Republicans are frustrated by the threats to Johnson and were dismissive of Greene. Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., said of those trying to remove the speaker, “They’re pretty good at getting attention, but they have not been recognized for their ability to get things done.”

He said if they keep pushing to oust the speaker, “I think you can expect more of the same: Failure.”

IF JOHNSON IS OUSTED, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN NEXT?

The speaker of the House, under the rules of the chamber, is required to keep a list of individuals who can act as speaker pro tempore in the event a chair is vacated. The list, which is oddly written by the sitting speaker at any given time, remains with the House clerk and would be made public if the speakership were vacant.

The first person on that list would be named speaker pro tempore and their first order of business would be to hold an election for a new speaker. The House then would vote as many times as it took to elect a speaker.

In the case of McCarthy, the role of speaker pro tem fell to his close confidant Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., the chair of the House Financial Services Committee. He was in the role for three weeks, until Johnson’s election.

___

Associated Press writers Lisa Mascaro, Kevin Freking and Stephen Groves contributed to this report.

9 May 2024

Ship loaded with aid heads for US-built Gaza pier, but it’s unclear when or how it will be delivered

by | posted in: Society | 0

By JOSEPH KRAUSS, SAM MEDNICK and MENELAOS HADJICOSTIS (Associated Press)

JERUSALEM (AP) — The first aid ship bound for an American-built floating pier to be installed in Gaza departed early Thursday. But it’s unclear when the corridor will be up and running, and humanitarian groups say there are still major obstacles to getting food to starving Palestinians in the war-ravaged enclave.

Cyprus announced the ship’s departure even though the U.S. military has not yet installed the pier and questions remain as to how the aid will be distributed. Even when the route is up and running, it won’t be able to handle as much aid as Gaza’s two main land crossings, which are currently inaccessible.

The U.N. says most of the territory’s 2.3 million Palestinians suffer from hunger and that northern Gaza is already experiencing “full-blown famine.”

Humanitarian workers fear an even more dire situation if Israel launches a long-promised invasion of the southern city of Rafah, which is the main distribution point for aid and where some 1.3 million Palestinians have sought refuge, most having fled from fighting elsewhere.

Related Articles


US says Rafah offensive would jeopardize cease-fire talks as Biden threatens to halt more Israel aid


Thomas Friedman: Why the campus protests are so troubling


Palestinians flee chaos and panic in Rafah after Israel’s seizure of border crossing


Israel says it reopened a key Gaza crossing after a rocket attack but the UN says no aid has entered


Stephen Mihm: Comparing Gaza protests to the ’60s is wrong — and dangerous

Israel seized the Gaza side of the Rafah crossing with Egypt on Tuesday, and it’s unclear when it will reopen. Israel reopened its side of the nearby Kerem Shalom crossing — Gaza’s main cargo terminal — after a rocket attack over the weekend, but the U.N.’s main provider of humanitarian assistance says aid cannot be brought in on the Palestinian side because of the security situation.

A recently reopened route in the north is still functioning, but only 60 trucks entered on Tuesday, far below the 500 that entered Gaza each day before the war.

International aid groups warned this week that a distribution network is at risk of collapse across the territory because of the closure of Rafah, which was used to import fuel. The U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees said it only has enough stocks to maintain operations for a few days and has started rationing.

The threat of a full-scale invasion of Rafah, where many aid groups have warehouses and staff, is also disrupting distribution.

President Joe Biden said Wednesday that the United States would not supply offensive weapons for an all-out invasion, in the latest escalation of tensions between the two close allies.

There was no official response to the move from Israel, but the country’s far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir wrote a post on the platform X with a heart between the words “Hamas” and “Biden.” He and other ultra-nationalist members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition support a large-scale Rafah operation and have threatened to bring down his government if it doesn’t happen.

Israel’s limited military incursion into Rafah has meanwhile already complicated what had been months of efforts by the U.S., Qatar and Egypt to broker a cease-fire and the release of hostages captured in Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack that triggered the war.

Hamas has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, Canada and the European Union.

CIA Director William Burns headed back to the United States as planned on Thursday after attending talks in Cairo and meeting with Netanyahu this week, a U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the closed-door international efforts.

Hamas also said its delegation had left Cairo and was returning to Qatar, where it maintains a political office.

Egypt’s state-owned Al-Qahera TV said that the Cairo negotiations were continuing. It did not say whether Israel’s delegation was still there, and there was no comment from the Israeli government.

The war began with Hamas’ surprise attack into southern Israel, in which it killed some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and took another 250 hostage. The group is still holding some 100 captives and the remains of more than 30 after most of the rest were released during a cease-fire last year.

The war has killed over 34,800 Palestinians, mostly women and children, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. Israel’s offensive, waged with U.S.-supplied munitions, has caused widespread devastation and forced some 80% of Gaza’s population to flee their homes.

Biden announced the construction of the floating pier two months ago as part of efforts to ramp up humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Maj. Pete Nguyen, a Pentagon spokesman, said Thursday that parts of the pier are still in the Israeli port of Ashdod awaiting more favorable seas before being moved into position off Gaza. He said the U.S. vessel Sagamore, which left Cyprus, would transport aid to another ship, the Roy P. Benavidez, which is off the coast of Gaza.

“In the coming days, the U.S. will commence an international community-backed effort to expand the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza using a floating pier,” he said.

Hadjicostis reported from Nicosia, Cyprus. Associated Press writers Ellen Knickmeyer and Lolita Baldor in Washington contributed to this report.

9 May 2024

Try It Out: City Limits’ NYC ‘Good Cause’ Rent Calculator

by | posted in: News | 0

Tenants who believe they may be covered by New York’s new Good Cause Eviction Law can plug in their current rent to see the maximum rent that would be deemed reasonable. Anything above that, the landlord could have to justify in court.

Adi Talwar

Apartment buildings in upper Manhattan.

When it comes to New York’s newly-minted Good Cause Eviction Law, there are a lot of unknowns.

In general, covered tenants in New York City should be able to stay in their apartments from year to year without fear of sudden upheaval, so long as they’ve kept up with their rent and lease terms. Tenants can also dispute rent hikes above a certain level—this year, 8.82 percent—though landlords can try to justify larger increases in court.

The law, which serves market-rate tenants, is also rife with carve outs, including a 30-year exemption for buildings constructed since 2009. Owner-occupied buildings with up to 10 units are also exempt, as are buildings owned individually or collectively by “small landlords,” who have a stake in no more than 10 apartments statewide, potentially across multiple properties. 

Tenants whose rent exceeds a specific threshold are also excluded from the protections. The threshold is pegged to the local Fair Market Rent, and varies based on apartment size. This year, it’s $5,846 for a studio, $6,005 for a one-bedroom, $6,742 for a two-bedroom, $8,413 for a three-bedroom, and $9,065 for a four-bedroom. 

Adding another wrinkle, even though the law took effect April 20, landlords aren’t obligated to notify tenants if they’re covered by Good Cause—in paperwork accompanying leases and housing court or rent increase notices—until Aug. 18. 

In an effort to help New Yorkers navigate at least part of this complicated terrain, City Limits has created a simple rent calculator. Tenants who believe they may be covered by Good Cause can plug in their current rent to see the maximum increase that would be deemed reasonable under the law. 

Anything above that, your landlord may have to justify in court. Just be mindful of the high-rent threshold—surpass it, and you’re out of luck. 

Is That Rent Increase ‘Reasonable’ Under ‘Good Cause’ Legislation?

Please note that the following tool is only accurate until the next Consumer Price Index adjustment, expected in 2025. Apartments renting above the following thresholds are NOT covered by Good Cause: $5,846 for a studio, $6,005 for a one-bedroom, $6,742 for a two-bedroom, $8,413 for a three-bedroom, $9,065 for a four-bedroom.

Ellen Davidson, a staff attorney with the Legal Aid Society, offered a scenario in which the tool might come in handy: a tenant lives in a building with at least 11 units that predates 2009 (you can check that here), and is notified of a rent increase over 8.82 percent, which is 5 percent plus the change in the regional Consumer Price Index (CPI) from 2022 to 2023.  

“Those people don’t have to do a lot of research into their landlords to figure out if they’re covered,” she said. “The first thing I would do is just write back to your landlord and say, ‘Hey, there’s this new law, I’m covered by it, this rent increase is too high.’”

Tenants in smaller buildings may have a harder time determining their landlord’s eligibility, given the prevalence of Limited Liability Company, or LLC, ownership. But Davidson suggested JustFix’s Who Owns What tool as a way to start exploring a landlord’s holdings. 

She also acknowledged that landlords may not be responsive to direct communication, and warned that tenants should be prepared to be sued for eviction, landing the dispute in a borough-based housing court. New York City’s Right to Counsel law is supposed to provide free lawyers to low-income tenants, but it’s currently stretched thin. 

“To the extent that you are faced with a very big rent increase that you think is unreasonable, and your landlord won’t speak to you, one thing you might do is put aside that additional money, so that when you go to court, if you do not win the case, you have the ability to pay your landlord,” she added. “That is, you know, the safest way to do things. Which not everybody can do.” 

The Good Cause law is also written in such a way that landlords can potentially justify an increase in excess of 8.82 percent. (Homes and Community Renewal will have to update that percentage threshold next year, on or before Aug. 1, 2025, reflecting the CPI change from 2023 to 2024 but not exceeding 10 percent.)  

Courts can consider “all relevant facts,” the law states, including property taxes, 

fuel, insurance and maintenance costs. Landlords can also point to “significant repairs” they’ve done to the building—non-cosmetic work like electrical and plumbing replacements and lead or asbestos removal. 

The law seeks to exclude bad faith attempts to raise the rent, stating that the work can’t stem from the landlord failing to maintain their building properly. 

That means it’s in a tenant’s best interest to keep a close eye on the conditions in their building, according to Davidson. “Is there a leak that starts small and they call their landlord and three months later their landlord comes and patches it up?” she said. “That’s obviously not how you handle a leak.” 

Lisa Faham-Selzer, who represents landlords at the firm Kucker Marino Winiarsky & Bittens LLP, predicted that this part of the law will be “heavily litigated.” 

“Let’s say I want to raise the rent 10 percent and they [the tenant] are saying that’s unreasonable,” she said. “And I say this is not unreasonable because I did all of this work and the building has not been in complete disrepair.” 

Rather than go to court, landlords might just increase rents by 8.82 percent across the board, she added: “I feel that every landlord is going to be compelled to raise the rent to the max threshold, right? Because what if next year it’s lower?” 

Chris Janaro

Tenants at a rally in April pressing for passing of the Good Cause bill.

Faham-Selzer likened the Good Cause law to the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA), a multi-part 2019 law that made it more difficult for landlords to exit rent stabilization, a separate long standing regime that puts a hard cap on annual rent adjustments for about 1 million New York City apartments. 

“We litigated the HSTPA to figure out what the law should be interpreted as, we’re still litigating it to this day, and I think the same thing is going to happen here,” she said. 

In the meantime, she’s urging her clients to inform tenants of their Good Cause coverage status, before the notice rules officially kick in: “If my clients are drafting leases today they’re adding them onto leases today.”

Tenants who believe they are covered by Good Cause but are nervous about how to proceed should start talking to their neighbors, said Esteban Girón, an organizer with the Crown Heights Tenant Union. 

“When you’re acting as one unit, just like if you’re doing collective bargaining with labor [unions], you can share information,” he said. “You can have a lawyer come in and talk to your whole building.” 

This moment is both exciting and frustrating for tenants who can now fight large rent hikes for the first time, according to Girón. 

“I think there’s potential for a sort of budding of a new phase of the tenant movement,” he said. But facing a large rent increase that’s “presumed” unreasonable—even though a judge could be convinced otherwise—isn’t as reassuring or straightforward as an explicit maximum allowable adjustment, which is what stabilized tenants get. 

The language in the law—“it shall be a rebuttable presumption that the rent… is unreasonable”—just “doesn’t sound as sexy as a right,” Girón said.

To reach the reporter behind this story, contact Emma@citylimits.org. To reach the editor, contact Jeanmarie@citylimits.org

Want to republish this story? Find City Limits’ reprint policy here.

9 May 2024

Presupuesto estatal incluye crédito tributario por hijos, pero defensores advierten oportunidad perdida para combatir pobreza

by | posted in: Society | 0

Las familias serán elegibles para un pago suplementario este otoño si recibieron el Empire State Child Credit cuando presentaron sus declaraciones de impuestos de 2023. Sin embargo, los expertos dicen que la fórmula utilizada para calcular los pagos no es equitativa y excluye a las familias de ingresos más bajos de obtener el crédito máximo.

William Alatriste/NYC Council Media Unit

El senador estatal Andrew Gounardes, promotor de un proyecto de ley que crearía un crédito tributario más amplio para las familias trabajadoras, en una en un encuentro para presionar para que se adoptara en 2023.

Este artículo se publicó originalmente en inglés el 7 de mayo. Traducido por Daniel Parra. Read the English version here.

La reciente revelación del presupuesto de $237.000 millones de dólares del Estado de Nueva York ha suscitado polémica, sobre todo en torno a la estabilidad de los inquilinos y cuestiones medioambientales. Además, los defensores locales están añadiendo otro elemento a la lista de decepciones presupuestarias: la oportunidad para reducir la pobreza infantil en Nueva York.

Aunque el acuerdo presupuestario de este año incluye aproximadamente $350 millones de dólares para pagos suplementarios en el marco del Empire State Child Credit (ESCC por sus siglas en inglés) de Nueva York —al que pueden optar las familias con estatus migratorio mixto y aquellos que declaran con su número de identificación personal del contribuyente (ITIN por sus siglas en inglés)—, deja fuera un plan más amplio que muchos defensores de la lucha contra la pobreza venían impulsando.

Esa propuesta crearía un nuevo Working Families Tax Credit (crédito tributario para familias trabajadoras o WFTC por sus siglas en inglés) que sustituiría al ESCC y ofrecería a los hogares un crédito mínimo de $500 dólares por hijo, independientemente del nivel de ingresos (comparado con el actual ESCC, según el cual el crédito máximo que puede obtener un hogar con un solo hijo es de $330 dólares).

Los defensores recibieron la asignación de $350 millones como una buena noticia, ya que las familias con necesidades recibirán el dinero en otoño. Un pago suplementario por el ESCC similar se incluyó en el presupuesto de 2022-2023. 

“El pago suplementario fue la forma en que pudieron decir: ‘Todavía vamos a incluir algo para las familias en este presupuesto’”, dijo Liza Schwartzwald, directora de justicia económica y empoderamiento familiar de New York Immigrant Coalition, el 19 de abril, mientras se ultimaban los detalles del acuerdo presupuestario.

Una cuarta parte de los niños de la ciudad vivían en la pobreza en 2022, así como el 23 por ciento de los adultos, según un informe de Robin Hood, duplicando la tasa nacional de pobreza del 12 por ciento. Esto supone un aumento de casi 500.000 personas con respecto al 2021, un repunte que los investigadores atribuyen al cese de las prestaciones públicas propias de la pandemia.

Durante las últimas negociaciones presupuestarias en Albany, los expertos y defensores de derechos en materia de pobreza se enteraron que no se incluirían cambios permanentes a los créditos tributarios para familias. En su lugar, los legisladores estaban considerando un pago suplementario del ESCC, que se había incluido en la propuesta de presupuesto de la Asamblea.

Para distribuir el pago suplementario, la Asamblea había propuesto una opción (ilustrada por la línea naranja del siguiente gráfico) que aumentaba o disminuía en función de los ingresos. Sin embargo, los defensores en materia de pobreza propusieron una alternativa que consideraron más equitativa: un pago fijo a todas las familias que ganaran unos $80.000 dólares o menos, con pagos reducidos para las familias con ingresos más elevados en proporción a sus ingresos (ilustrado por la línea azul del gráfico a continuación).

Liza Schwartzwald/New York Immigrant Coalition.

La opción de la Asamblea (ilustrada por la línea naranja) para distribuir los $350 millones de dólares en pagos suplementarios del ESCC comparada con la presentada por los defensores de la lucha contra la pobreza (línea azul) que, según ellos, habría sido más equitativa.

Esa opción “es probablemente la más comprensible de las dos en lo que respecta a las familias, y la que tendría un mayor impacto en la reducción de la pobreza”, dijo Schwartzwald. 

Eso está en consonancia con el compromiso del estado de reducir la pobreza infantil en un 50 por ciento en 10 años, aprobado como parte de la Ley de Reducción de la Pobreza Infantil en 2021.

Sin embargo, el presupuesto final incluyó el plan de distribución de la Asamblea, que comprende sólo un pago único que puede variar significativamente –y de manera arbitraria, en opinión de varios expertos y defensores– en función de los ingresos, con un pago que oscila entre 25 y el 100 por ciento del crédito que reciben con sus impuestos de 2023.

Además, excluye a las familias con más necesidades de obtener el beneficio más alto posible debido a un requisito de ingresos “escalonado” que el ESCC heredó del Crédito Tributario por Hijos federal, señalan los críticos.

El elemento escalonado significa que “ninguna familia que gane menos de $9.667 dólares al año puede recibir el crédito completo”, lamenta Pete Nabozny, director de políticas de The Children’s Agenda. “Las familias con varios hijos no reciben el crédito tributario completo hasta que sus ingresos sean más altos”. 

Como parte del Consejo Asesor para la Reducción de la Pobreza Infantil (Child Poverty Reduction Advisory Council o CPRAC por sus siglas en inglés) del estado de Nueva York, investigadores del Center on Poverty and Social Policy de la Universidad de Columbia hicieron siete recomendaciones para cambiar el ESCC, entre ellas eliminar el componente de introducción escalonado.

Nabozny calcula que la mayoría de las familias recibirán un monto de entre $82.50 y $247.50 dólares por hijo. La oficina de la gobernadora Kathy Hochul calcula que más de 1.5 millones de neoyorquinos recibirían una subvención media de $223 dólares.

Desembolso total suplementarioNúmero de hijosIngreso bruto ajustado1234$5.000$100$200$300$400$20.000$248$495$631$631$45.000$165$330$495$660$65.000$83$165$248$330$85.000$0$124$206$289$105.000 individual$0$0$124$206$105,000 pareja en matrimonio$83$165$248$330Datos facilitados por Pete Nabozny, director de políticas de The Children’s Agenda.

Nabozny y Loris Toribio, asesora política de la organización contra la pobreza Robin Hood, también señalan que, con el plan de distribución, sólo un dólar adicional de ingresos podría costarle a algunas familias cientos de dólares.

Una familia de tres hijos que gane $24.999 dólares al año podría recibir un suplemento de $743 dólares. Sin embargo, si la familia gana sólo un dólar adicional, únicamente recibirá $495 dólares, gracias a la drástica reducción en la fórmula de los pagos.

“Un cambio muy drástico”, señaló Toribio. “No es la forma más elegante de diseñar el desembolso suplementario”.

La oficina de la gobernadora Hochul, el presidente de la Asamblea Carl Heastie y el líder de la mayoría del Senado Andrea Stewart-Cousins no respondieron a preguntas sobre la estructura de pago incluida en el acuerdo presupuestario. 

El senador estatal Andrew Gounardes, quien presentó el proyecto de ley que establecería el Working Families Tax Credit (Crédito Tributario para Familias Trabajadoras, WFTC por sus siglas en inglés) –que consolidaría el Empire State Child Credit, Crédito Tributario por Ingreso del Trabajo, y las exenciones para los dependientes en un crédito fiscal integral– tampoco proporcionó muchos detalles sobre cómo se tomó la decisión.

“A medida que las negociaciones presupuestarias llegaban a su fin y quedaba claro que no íbamos a conseguir el crédito completo, nos enteramos de que lo que se incluía en el presupuesto final era la línea naranja”, dijo Gounardes en un correo electrónico.

“Luchamos hasta el último momento para cambiar el crédito a la línea azul, porque como señalas, es más equitativo. Pero no pudimos conseguir ese cambio”, añadió. “Volveremos a luchar por esto el año que viene”.

El 24 de abril, el grupo NY Can End Child Poverty emitió un comunicado en el que reconocía algunas victorias en el presupuesto, incluyendo $50 millones de dólares para Buffalo, Rochester y Syracuse, pero dijo que aún se queda corto para lo que se necesita. 

“La falta de inversión en medidas de lucha contra la pobreza no es sólo una frase que hace falta en el presupuesto”, dice la declaración enviada por correo electrónico. “Lo sienten las familias que se esfuerzan por pagar el alquiler y la guardería, lo sienten los niños que se quedan sin almuerzo escolar y lo sienten las familias que deciden si Nueva York es un lugar donde puedan pagar la crianza de sus hijos”.

Expertos consultados por City Limits dijeron que los legisladores y la gobernadora deberían haber aprovechado la oportunidad de corregir algunos de los problemas estructurales del ESCC, en lugar de adoptar un torpe suplemento único por segundo año consecutivo.

“Para cambiar realmente la tendencia de la pobreza infantil, familiar y comunitaria será necesaria una inversión sostenida”, dijo Dorothy (Dede) Hill, directora de política del Schuyler Center for Analysis and Advocacy.

“Así también, para cumplir… el objetivo acordado en Nueva York en virtud de la Ley de Reducción de la Pobreza Infantil de recortar la pobreza infantil a la mitad en una década, se requerirá una inversión estatal significativa y sostenida, no aumentos puntuales en el crédito tributario estatal por hijo”, dijo Hill por correo electrónico.

Para ponerse en contacto con el reportero de esta noticia, escriba a Daniel@citylimits.org. Para ponerse en contacto con la editora, escriba a Jeanmarie@citylimits.org