This was a frustrating book, and not because I disagree with his general take.

The first problem is that it's short. Very short. The text is only 172 pages, and the book is smaller than average, and it tries to cover too much territory in that space. For example, health gets relatively little space and is primarily limited to access to health coverage. Second, while the subtitle is about child poverty, a lot of the book is devoted to the general topic and not specifically about child poverty. It told me very little that I didn't already know.

His general view is not wrong: We underestimate poverty by using flawed measures; we don't provide sufficient assistance to the poor; and we're consumed by an individualist philosophy that seeks to place all blame on the poor for their situation. Our national discourse also skews who is poor--the public overestimates the number of poor non-white, especially black, people. He also takes aim at "culture of poverty" thinkers, which is often a way of blaming people of color in particular: "poverty of culture" can be a thinly veiled euphemism for "black culture." This is untrue, though for those in long term, cyclical poverty (a much smaller percentage than people imagine), some patterns may repeat themselves.

He does himself a disservice here by dismissing family structure. Now, it's true that the Moynihan report became a tool for racism, and that the number of unmarried mothers has risen across all races since then. However, recent research is indicating that familial instability is linked to poverty. American family patterns are diverging, with wealthier families more likely to be stable. This needs to be accounted for--and without simply blaming single mothers. There are multiple social and economic reasons why this trend is occurring.

Madrick's solution is simple: cash transfers. To a point, I don't disagree. Poor people need money. The near-abolition of AFDC has left people to starve if they cannot work, and childless, non-disabled, non-elderly adults qualify for nothing. But money can only help when the good or service is available to be bought. He dismisses universal childcare "because it will take too long to implement." But his proposed $4,000 a year child allowance would pay for only a fraction of childcare. There isn't enough high quality childcare available for purchase. Similarly, in many cities, there aren't enough decent apartments--and if we simply gave people money to rent them, it would only result in price inflation. Further, at current tax rates, such a benefit would not be "largely taxed away" for higher income families.

I agree with a lot of what he said--but his solution isn't completely thought out, and there's much better work on the topic, even as an introduction. ( )