I have a hard time believing that Elayne Clift is lamenting the treatment of the poor, particularly children, in the United States. One would almost think she has never seen a UNICEF commercial, where children overseas are shown literally starving to death for lack of food.
It is insulting the way people in our very privileged nation compare our “poor” with the poor of the world.
Most of our “poor” have shelter (or the ability to get it, whether through subsidized housing or charity-run shelters); they have food (through food stamps and/or charities), clothing, and more. They can go to any hospital emergency room and receive medical treatment the same day. In a lot of poor nations, their people do not even have potable water to drink. To even bathe is often to take a gamble with one's health.
As to her view of the death penalty, I offer Clift a different perspective: If the logic for eliminating it is because it is cruel, I suggest she read up on the crimes these individuals committed (look up what Clayton Lockett did to his victim) and tell me she genuinely wants these violent criminals to live supported by her tax money.
Also, she is correct that the death penalty does not “work” as a deterrent; but I do not believe that is its purpose. It is the only way a law-abiding society has to guarantee that particular violent criminal will never kill again. No prison is escape-proof, after all, and taxpayer money can (and should) be much better spent other than by keeping violent killers alive indefinitely.
We are a nation that cares about its poor and its innocent, which is why we have many government and charity programs to help people, and also why we have such a thing as the death penalty, sparingly applied by our fellow citizens on those who are a danger to the innocent.