Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26081399
label
Welfare - EITC [Earned Income Tax Credit]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26081399
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Welfare - EITC [Earned Income Tax Credit]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)
Eric Liu's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26081399
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7367466-20130717S-018-015-2015
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
9936d0d846d26f76
ocrText
Welfare - EITC
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 31, 2000
MEMORANDUM TO GENE SPERLING AND BRUCE REED
CC:
John Podesta
Maria Echaveste
Eric Liu
FROM:
Mickey Ibarra Wines
In his remarks to the mayors at the White House event last Friday morning, the President
called on them to help us expand participation of those eligible for both the EITC and
CHIP.
The President asked me to seek your assistance in working with the Conference of
Mayors to build an outreach campaign to get results in both areas. Attached is a
description of the Chicago EITC initiative that the President mentioned in his remarks.
I suggest we convene a strategy meeting with the USCM and White House staff to
discuss how best to procede together once we agree on our framework. Maria Soto of
IGA will be assigned to coordinate this effort. Please ask the appropriate staff from your
office to contact her at x6-5080.
SERVI
(5MC)
DATE
CHICAGO
:
1-13-
U
S:SIFM
912024562215:# 2/3
TO
INCURE
STATE
City of Chicago
Richard M. Daley, Mayor
January 13, 2000
VIA FAX
Office of the Mayor
Ms. Ann Lewis
Counscior to the President
Judith A. Gold
Ground Floor West Wing
Chief of Policy
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20502
City Hall, Room 509
121 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Dear Ann,
(312) 744-4310
(312) 744-2324 (FAX)
11 was great to talk with you this afternoon. The following outlines Mayor Dalcy's outreach
http://[email protected]
initiative about the federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). This may be relevant as you
cran the State of the Union Address.
Last year in Illinois, an estimated 250,000 families failed to claim some $300 million owed to
them under the EITC. More than $100 million that could have been returned to Chicago
residents and back into our cconomy was Ich on the table. (And that is just for one year the
credit may bc claimed retroactively for three years.)
Faced with these facts, Mayor Daley decided to launch :1 city-wide outreach campaign to
educate working families about the credit and cncourage them to apply. As a result, the City
of Chicago created a partnership that includes the business and foundation community ( the
Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, the Chicago Partnership for Economic Development,
and The Civic Committee; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Steans
Family Foundation, the Woods Fund of Chicago) and not-for-profit tax preparers. This is the
only city-driven c(fort in the country to get the word out about the EITC. We are drawing
upon the resources and networks of the City's business leaders and grass-roots community
organizations to ensure that as many cligible families as possible get the word - and gcl the
credit. The outreach initiative will use television, radio, print media, direct mail - even
grocery bags - to bring information about the EITC to the Chicago audience. In addition, we
will be studying the barriers to filing, in an cffort 10 better understand the ways in which they
can bc overcome. (A Fact Sheet about the program is attached.)
Our message is simple: WC want to reward work, and make work pay. Our citizens earned
this moncy, and they should keep it. The Mayor's effort could be mirrored across the country,
and bring nuch-nceded, hard-carned dollars back to hardworking families nationwide.
1 hope this information about our EITC Outreach Initiative is useful. If you have any
questions, or if 1 can be of help in any way, please lct mc know.
All the best for a great year!
Sincerely,
Jrde Gald
Judy Gold
Chief of Policy
NEIGHBORHOODS
CHICAGO
BUILDING CHICAGO TOGETHER
SENT CHICAGO
: 1-13- 0 : 5:51PM MAYORS EXECUTIVE OFCH
912024562215:# 37 3
Mayor Daley's Earned Income Tax Credit Outreach Initiative
Fact Sheet
The Federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) provides moderate and lower-income
working families and individuals with tax relief and an incentive to work. The EITC can
provide a cash refund even to families whose incomes are low enough that they do not owe
any Federal taxes.
As of 1999, the EITC can provide as much as $3,816 per year to working families with
incomes up to $30,580. The average refund in 1998 was about $1,500. In addition, if you
were eligible for EITC but did not receive it in past years, you may claim up to three years
retroactively. 1999 qualifying income levels include:
$30,580 with more than one qualifying child
$26,928 with one qualifying child
$10,200 with no qualifying children
(A Qualifying Child includes a natural, adopted, grand-, step- or eligible foster child, children under age
19 or under age 24 if a full-time student, or children any age, if permanently/totally disabled.)
Eligible workers often aren't getting the credit-either because they haven't heard about it,
don't know they're eligible or don't know how to apply.
EITC refunds are often used as asset building opportunities. Reported uses for EITC
benefits range from payment of bills, especially rent and utility bills, to begin checking
accounts, begin or supplement savings accounts, or use for specific social mobility
purposes according to a survey by the Center for Law and Human Services.
In Illinois, an estimated 250,000 families failed to claim some $300 million in tax credits.
More than $100 million could potentially be returned to Chicago residents and back into our
economy¹.
The City of Chicago-in partnership with the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, the
Chicago Partnership for Economic Development, and the Civic Committee, The John D.
and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, The Steans Family Foundation, The Woods Fund
of Chicago, the Tax Counseling Project and The Tax Assistance Program-It Adds Up
launching a city-wide outreach campaign to educate workers about the Earned Income Tax
Credit to help more people take advantage of this credit.
By working with business leaders and community organizations as partners to help their
employees obtain this money, the City's campaign will increase the region's economic
development and to help make work pay.
Join other Chicago area companies and organizations that are working to help lower-wage
employees get this important federal tax benefit.
1 As estimated by the Tax Counseling Project, 1999
01/10/00 21:50 FAX 202 456 7431
DPC
001/009
CO:CR
THE WHITE HOUSE
WELFARE
EITC
Domestic Policy Council
DATE:
1/10
FACSIMILE FOR: Bruce Rced/Eric 44/Jeff
FAX:
6-2878 6-2870 6-5709 6-2223
PHONE:
FACSIMILE FROM: Andrea Kane
FAX:
202-456-7431
PHONE:
202-456-5573
9
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER):
Per Email, :
COMMENTS:
Seep.2 + Fig. 2 for almost
nine-fold grawin in supports for law-income
families not on wilfare from 84 to '99,
1
01/10/00 21:50 FAX 202 456 7431
DPC
002/009
no-2
November 1999
David T. Ellwood
Children's Round
n the decades right after World War II, the fortunes of American workers across the economic
spectrum rose and fell more or less together. Since 1979, however, that pattern has changed
for full-time male workers employed year-round-the segment traditionally considered the
heart of the U.S. labor force.
Figure 1 displays the changes in the inflation-adjusted earnings of workers at different points along
the national income distribution scale since 1961. In earlier times, when the nation was
prosperous, the rising tide lifted all boats; wages for workers at all levels grew at roughly the same
rate, a trend that continued into the 1960s. But beginning in the 1970s and accelerating through
the '80s and early '90s, the fortunes of working Americans at the opposite ends of the income
ladder have panned out very differently. By 1994, full-time male workers in the bottom 10 percent
of the national income scale were carning no more than their counterparts of nearly 35 years
before. Workers with incomes in the top 10 percent, meanwhile, were doing far better than the
same group did in decades past. The strong economy of the last few years has sparked some
rebound in the wages of bottom-tier working men, but a substantial gap remains between their
incomes and those of male workers whose earnings are closer to the national average.
1775 Massachusetts Avc. N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-2188
Tel: 202-797-6105
www.brookings.edu
01/10/00 21:50 FAX 202 456 7431
DPC
003/009
David I. Ellwood
The Quest for Policies TO Help
These ongoing disparities in the fortunes of American workers have inspired
considerable economic research, most of which suggests that today's technological
David T. Ellwood is
advances, declines in heavy industry, weakened unions, growing international trade,
Lucius N. Littaner
Professor of Political
and demographic changes due to immigration all work to the disadvantage of less
Economy at Harvard
skilled jobholders. Nearly all the studies agree that more, better, and earlier education
University's John F.
Kennedy School of
is critical to solving these inequities, but there is little consensus on how to make real
Government.
improvements. A successful program would take a generation even to begin to make
an impact. Meanwhile, the more immediate concerns are what current policies have
done to aid low-income working families, and what additional efforts ought to be
considered.
From Welfare to Work
The much-heralded welfare reforms of the past five years signaled a sharp change in
U.S. social policy. Time limits were imposed on benefits. The Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC) program was transformed into Transitional Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF). Considering the already weak financial condition of so
many low-skilled workers, analysts feared that this new set of aid cutbacks would only
The Brookings
make the situation worse.
Roundtable on
Children, established
However, at the same time that welfare reform was being implemented, various other
in 1998 under the
changes in policy were combining with the exceptional strength of the U.S. economy
direction of Senior
to improve the lot of low-wage workers. Within days of President Bill Clinton's signing
Fellow Isabel V.
the wide-ranging 1996 welfare reform bill providing for welfare through block grants
Sawhill, focuses on
to the states and ending guaranteed federal subsidies to poor people with children, a
improving the
higher minimum wage was enacted. More important, the federal government
lifetime prospects
dramatically increased non-welfare supports for low-income working families with
of children.
children. As Figure 2 shows, federal spending on low-income families not on welfare
*
We gratefully
soared from less than $6 billion in 1984 to a projected $51.7 billion in 1999.
acknowledge the
generosity of the
The biggest growth occurred in the federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The
Alcoa Foundation
EITC functions like a pay raise for the working poor. A family with two children and
and the Foundation
one adult working at a low-paying job gets as much as a 40 percent boost in income
for Child
from this refundable federal tax credit-up to a limit topping $3,800. A family earning
Development for
$9,500 qualifies for the full credit, which is gradually phased out as the family's
their support of the
annual income grows. Families with earnings up to around $30,000 still qualify for
Roundtable on
minimum assistance under the EITC.
Children.
The federal Medicaid program providing health care to the poor also has been
2
CHILDREN'S ROUNOTABLE REPORT
ROVEMBER 1999
NO. - 2
01/10/00 21:51 FAX 202 456 7431
DPC
004/009
Low-Income Working Families
dramatically expanded. Today, every state must cover at least children under 15 in
families with incomes below the federal poverty levels of roughly $13,000 for three-
member families and just under $17,000 for families of four. The recently enacted
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) gives still more money to states to
cover children in families with incomes up to twice the poverty levels, through either
Medicaid or a separate CHIP program.
Figure 1
Taken together, these policy
Distribution of Real Wape and Salary Earnings for Full-Year.
changes have had a major
Full-Time Male workers as Compared with 1961 (Constant Dollars)
positive impact on the economic
60%
prospects of many families at
90th percentile
high risk of financial collapse. In
50%
1986, a two-parent family of
75th percentile
four with a single minimum-
40%
wage worker averaged an effec-
Median
tive after-tax income of less than
30%
$13,000 (in inflation-adjusted
25th percentile
1997 dollars), including food
20%
stamps, and their children rarely
10th percentile
qualified for Medicaid. By 1997
10%
such a family earned more than
$16,000 on average-thanks in
0%
large part to the expanded
-10%
EITC-and the children did
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
qualify for Medicaid.
Source: Author's tabulations of annual March Current Population Survey data
As shown in Figure 3, the changes in Medicaid eligibility have been even more striking
for single-parent families. In 1986, a non-working single mother with two children
would have received roughly $8,500 in welfare and food stamps in an average state, and
the whole family would have been covered by Medicaid. But if she took a full-time,
minimum-wage job, after accounting for the loss of welfare, the cost of child care, and
additional taxes, her family's income would have grown by only about $2,000, and she
and her children would have lost their Medicaid coverage. Working or not, the family
would be poor. In 1997, by contrast, the non-working mother would qualify for only
$7,500 in benefits and for only a limited time. But if she got a full-time, minimum-wagc
job, her net income would jump to $14,600 and her children would keep their Medicaid
coverage. By working, such a mother can now pull her family above the poverty line, if
not far above it.
CHILDREN'S ROUNDTABLE REPORT
NOVEMBER 1899
no.
2
3
01/10/00 21:51 FAX 202 456 7431
DPC
005/009
Single parents have responded to the opportunity by working more-much more. In
the mid-1970s and for the 20 years thereafter, between 50 and 55 percent of single
parents were working. Starting in the mid-1990s, however, their employment rates
began to soar reaching 67 percent in 1998. The change was particularly dramatic
among low-skilled single
Figure 2
parents, whose employment
Federal Outlays II Low-income Families not Receiving Cash Assistance
rates rose from less than 35
(BIIIIODS of 1999 Dollars)
percent throughout the 1980s
60
Children's Health
and early '90s to more than 50
Insurance Program
percent today.
50
Medicaid
The Fragility 01
40
Child Care
Low-Income Working
Families and Their
30
Child Tax Credit
Chlidren
Earned Income
The news is not all good. One
20
Tax Credit
August 1999 study from the
Center on Budget and Policy
10
Priorities suggests that people
whose family situations make
0
working outside the home
1984
1999
difficult have been left behind
Note: Figure 2 is modeled on B greph created with Jata from the August 1998 Congressional Budget Office
report "Policy Changes Affecting Mandatory Spending for Low-Income Workers Not Receiving Cash Welfare," by
by the recent welfare reforms,
Ran Haskins for "Welfare in a Society of Permanent Work," Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. 1 louse of
and the plights of many are
Representatives. August 1999.
growing increasingly bleak. Yet
even for the group that is the focus of this brief-those able to work and find jobs-
the financial outlook may be less rosy than it first appears.
It is true that low-income working families now qualify for the Earned Income Tax
Credit, food stamps, Medicaid, and sometimes subsidized child care. To get the EITC,
working parents need only file a tax return with the appropriate form. Information
about the credit, which once seemed hard to come by, is now readily available in low-
income communities, and participation rates are very high-in sharp contrast to those
for Medicaid and food stamps.
In the past, Medicaid was linked to welfare; eligibility was generally automatic for
welfare recipients. Recent policy changes have sought to "de-link" the two programs,
so that the working poor can get Medicaid as well. Yet this is where the problem comes
in: as welfare caseloads have dwindled, so too has participation in Medicaid, even
though eligibility theoretically has been greatly expanded. In most states, Medicaid and
CHIP remain a hodgepodge of interlocking programs reflecting incremental expansions.
Over time people in need find themselves shunted from program to program, sometimes
4
CHILDREN'S ROUNDTABLE REPORT
NOVEMBER 1999
no. 2
01/10/00 21:51 FAX 202 456 7431
DPC
006/009
facing very different rules and administrative requirements, sometimes losing aid alto-
gether, and often failing to realize that they might qualify for support under yet another
program. Low-income working families applying for Medicaid usually still must provide
considerable docu-
Figure 3
mentation of their
Earologs, Taxes, and Benellts under Different Scenarios
income, assets, living
for work and marriage In 1986 and 1997
arrangements, and
(1997 Dollars)
family relationships.
1986
1997
The process is frus-
Single Parent
Single Parent
Single Parent
Works Full-
Single Parent
Works Full-
trating, time-consum-
Marriage and Work Scenario
Does Not
Time at
Difference
Docs Not
Time at
Difference
ing, and all too often
Work
Minimum
Work
Minimum
Wagc
Wage
humiliating.
Tocal Earnings
0
9,820
9,820
0
10,300
10,300
Similarly,
Federal Taxes: Social Security,
0
-861
-861
0
-788
-788
even
Medicare, and Income Taxes
though virtually every
Other than EITC
poor and near-poor
Means-Tested Benefits:
8,459
2,578
-5,881
7,501
2,462
-5,039
American qualifies
TANF(AFDC) and Food
Stamps
for food stamps,
participation in the
Child Care Expense
0
-2,000
-2,000
0
-2,000
-2,000
program has dropped
Earned Income Tax Credit
0
768
768
0
3,656
3,656
much faster than the
Child Care Support
0
159
159
0
1,000
1,000
poverty rate. As
welfare offices have
Total "Disposable" Income
$8,459
$10,464
$2,005
$7,501
$14,630
$7,129
pushed to get people
Government-Paid Health
Adult
Loses All
Children
Yes
No
Insurance (Medicaid)
Yes
off government-
Coverage
Under 15
Only Lases
Coverage
funded assistance,
Source: David Ellwood, "Antipoverty Policy in the Next Century: From Welfare ID Work and Worries," Journal of Economic Perspectives,
forthcoming.
many families appar-
ently have dropped off food stamps as well, even though they remain eligible for the
program. In addition, some low-income workers who know they are eligible may avoid
applying because of the continuing stigma attached to food stamps as well as the
hassles of procuring them.
In the case of Medicaid in particular, there is a lesson to be learned from the success
of the Earned Income Tax Credit. If the process is simple, people will enroll. At a
minimum, the program should be straightforward and seamless within every state.
Making this so may well mean starting from scratch on the procedures for determining
Medicaid eligibility for working families. Perhaps the same tax form now used to
assess EITC eligibility could be put to use for a national Medicaid program as well.
In any case, without major changes Medicaid may never escape its welfare roots, and
thus will continue to fail at providing health care to poor working families.
CHILDRER'S ROUNDTABLE REPORT
NOVEMBER 1999
NO. 2
5
01/10/00 21:51 FAX 202 456 7431
DPC
007/009
As more and more households send all their adults out to work, the question of child
care becomes paramount. At present, the arrangements low-income working parents
make for their children's day care are often informal, unreliable, and even unsafe.
Meanwhile, the evidence mounts that high-quality, developmentally oriented child
care can go far to enhance the prospects of the children lucky enough to get it.
Nevertheless, an odd schism exists among policymakers that is reflected in the
programs they craft for children: those who promote work for poor parents often regard
child care primarily as a means to that end; the implicit goal is to remove an excuse
for not working by providing adequate care, but at the lowest possible cost.
Policymakers concerned with child development, on the other hand, look first to the
best ways to meet the needs of the child, often with little regard for the work situation
of the parent. These contrasting concepts collide not only on the question of cost, but
also on that of coverage. The generally successful federal Head Start program, for
example, was built on a part-day child care model requiring heavy parental
involvement, which may not be practical for many working parents.
At the very least, today's growing emphasis on supporting working parents will require
increased spending on child care. Both the federal and many state governments are
starting to boost their funding for such initiatives. Programs like Head Start are
beginning to create all-day "wrap-around" services to better accommodate the needs
of working parents. Ultimately, however, Americans will have to answer a critical
question: Do we simply want to ensure the minimum custodial care for children in
low-income working families, or are we willing to pay for the kind of day care that
opens brighter futures to these children?
The Perils of Economic Downturns and Unemployment
When the economy stumbles, the working poor fall. Among the greatest dangers in the
recent strategy of doing more to support low-income working families and less for
those without workers is that the employed but poor will become the unemployed and
destitute in bad times for the overall economy.
The United States' primary means of supporting its out-of-work citizens is
unemployment insurance (UI). Unfortunately, this system has not proven very effective
at helping low-wage workers. To qualify for UI, formerly employed workers must
meet minimum income levels over several quarters and satisfy a number of other
requirements, including an appropriate reason for separation from their last job. A
1998 study by Cynthia Gustafson and Philip Levinc estimated that only about a third
of low-skilled men over 21 who had recently separated from a job met all the
conditions for receiving unemployment benefits. An even smaller percentage of
low-skilled female workers passed the tests.
6
CHILDREN'S ROUNDTABLE REPORT
NOVEMBER 1999
NO. 2
01/10/00 21:51 FAX 202 456 7431
DPC
008/009
One possible alternative to UI would be the provision of some form of community or
public service jobs, at least to welfare recipients whose benefits are running out
during an economic downturn. A number of states already have modest programs in
place to support welfare recipients who can't find private sector work in hard times.
Unfortunately, the fiscal demands on state welfare systems are apt to skyrocket in the
event of a falloff in the nation's economy. Most observers think that in such
circumstances the federal government's modest Transitional Assistance for Needy
Families reserve fund would quickly prove inadequate, just as the states would be
facing dwindling resources for all programs. It is disturbing how little evidence there
is that either the states or the federal government are doing any serious planning for
a future recession and its likely impact on poor working families.
Accumulating Adverse Incentives
The new emphasis on supporting low-income workers has created another set of
potential problems: work and marriage penalties. The push to accord more benefits
to poor but working families is without doubt a strong incentive for households to send
at least one adult into the workforce. But these benefits are designed to phase out as
income rises, which sometimes creates a powerful disincentive to work extra hours or
send another family member into the job market. In fact, some evidence suggests that
this disincentive for second workers may be encouraging some mothers in two-parent
families not to work. Some policymakers may actually welcome this development if the
EITC allows some married mothers to stay home with their children. Still, the
accumulating incentives are a legitimate source of concern.
Another consequence of targeted benefits is marriage penalties and rewards. Programs
The views expressed in this
like the EITC support low-earning families with children. Thus they offer a reward for
Children's Roundtable Report
are those of the author and are
marriages between non-working mothers and working men-her children and his
not necessarily those of the
trustees, officers, OT other staff
earnings allow the couple to qualify for the EITC-and among childless couples
members of the Brookings
contemplating getting married and raising a family for the first time. But for low-
Institution.
income adults who are already working parents, these supports can actually serve as
Copyright © 1999 the Brookings
Institution
a deterrent to marriage: a working single parent who marries another worker usually
will suffer a substantial reduction in benefits, because the couple's combined income
reduces what they can receive. The loss can range as high as 15 percent or more of
their combined income. Although there is little evidence that the EITC and other
Brookings gratefully
worker supports have had much if any impact on marriage rates, Congress was
acknowledges the
sufficiently concerned about marriage penalties in the tax system that it recently
generosity of the
sought to eliminate them-for everyone but low-income working taxpayers. The idea
Cabot Family
that the nation should use its budget surplus to remove marriage penalties for all but
Charitable Trust
the most vulnerable workers seems both morally questionable and foolish.
and B. Francis
Saul Il for their
Supports for the Future
support of the
Increased government support for low-income workers has been critical in shoring up
Policy Brief series.
CHILDREN'S ROUNDTABLE REPORT NOVEMBER 1999 NO. 2
7
01/10/00 21:52 FAX 202 456 7431
DPC
009/009
NONPROFIT ORG.
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
BOWIE, MD
PERMIT NO. 4434
Upcoming Policy Briefs
economically marginal families in the face of growing income
The Use and Abuse of Military Force
Richard N. Haass, November 1999
inequities and welfare reforms aimed at getting recipients off public
Elections in India and
assistance and into the workforce. Despite these programs, however,
Uphereval in Pakistan
many working families remain poor or close to it. To help them out of
Stephen P. Cohen, November 1999
poverty, a number of states have begun to adopt EITCs of their own
Recent Policy Briefs
and to expand other supports. At the federal level, another push is on
The Plans Truth
Michael E. O'Hanlon, September 1999
to raise the minimum wage, which could help at least some working
Greenhouse Cas Emissions
families.
Jeffrey A Frankel, June 1999
The International Financial Architecture
Jeffrey A Frankcl, June 1999
Now it is time to look for ways to make existing support programs such
as Medicaid and food stamps work better for employed recipients. We
Related Books
ought to seek to reduce marriage penalties. The next recession will
Savings for the Poor: The Hidden
Benefits of Electronic Banking
force Americans to confront the unpleasant features of a social policy
Michael Stegman (1999)
focused primarily on assisting those with jobs. More to the point, if
Bootstrup Capital: Microenterprises and
the American Poor
the income disparities of the 1980s and '90s continue to widen into
Lisa J. Servon (1999)
the next century, the financial stability of the nation's low-wage
New Markets, New Opportunities?
working families will become ever more tenuous.
Economic and Social Mobility in a
Changing World
Nancy Birdsall and Carol Graham,
editors (1999)
Tourrd an End to Hunger in America
Peter Eisinger (1998)
This and all previous Policy Briefs are also posted on the
World Wide Web and linked to the Brookings home page at
www.brookings.edu
If you have questions or comments about this Policy Brief,
please send an email message to [email protected]
Authors' responses will be posted on the Brookings website.