by Frank James
The Census Bureau released its annual report on income, earnings and poverty today. It contained no surprises.
The one statistic some Democratic presidential candidates might seize on and run with was the rise in Americans without health insurance. The ranks of the uninsured rose by more than two million in 2006 to 47 million compared with 44.8 in 2005, a trend for which no one would be shocked to see Democrats blame on President Bush.
Other than that, the poverty rate was essentially unchanged in 2006 from 2005. It came in at 12.3 percent for 2006, compared with 12.6 percent in 2005, not a statistically significant difference, according to the Census Bureau.
Meanwhile, median household income rose 0.7 percent to $48,200, still less than what it was before the recession at the end of the Clinton and start of the Bush administrations. The median is the point at which half the U.S. households are above and half below.
The White House claimed the Census report as proof that its economic polices, particularly its tax cuts, are responsible for lifting many Americans' economic boats.
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
When we keep taxes low, spending in check, and our economy open — conditions that empower businesses to create new jobs — all Americans benefit. Census Bureau data released today confirms that more of our citizens are doing better in this economy, with continued rising incomes and more Americans pulling themselves out of poverty.
The Census data shows that income gains in 2006 were substantial and widespread across all income categories. And the largest percentage income gains occurred for people in the bottom 20% of incomes.
The data also shows that poverty levels improved significantly, with nearly half a million fewer people living below the poverty line in 2006 than in 2005. Moreover, the poverty rate in 2006 was lower than all but one year in the 1980s and 1990s.
The Census data also shows that challenges remain in reducing the number of uninsured Americans. Containing costs and making health insurance more affordable is the best way to reverse this long-term trend. I have put forth a reform proposal that would fairly distribute the tax advantages to purchasing health insurance – encouraging more workers to purchase their own health insurance.
What American workers do not need right now are tax increases to fuel excess spending by the Congress. I encourage Democratic leaders in Congress to resist their urge to increase taxes on Americans and to live within the budget limits I’ve proposed. It’s vital that we do not undermine an economy that has created more than 8.2 million new jobs over the past four years and is improving standards of living for so many American families.
# # #
Meanwhile, the progressive Center for American Progress issued a press release as well. Not surprisingly, it came to a conclusion diametrically opposed to White House's.
By Peter Edelman, Angela Glover Blackwell, Co-Chairs and Mark Greenberg, Executive Director of CAP's Task Force on Poverty
The Census Bureau announced this morning that 36.5 million Americans were in poverty in 2006, down since last year but nearly 5 million more than were poor in 2000. The number of Americans without health care coverage was 47 million, up by 2 million since last year and up by 8.5 million since 2000. In addressing both poverty and health coverage, our nation has gone backwards over this period.
The nation’s poverty rate in 2006 was 12.3 percent, compared with 12.6 percent in 2005. In 2000, after seven consecutive years of falling poverty, the poverty rate was 11.3 percent, and 31.6 million Americans were poor. Not only have we failed to make progress since then, but the nation remains far behind where it was six years ago, with 4.9 million more people in poverty in 2006 than 2000. This underscores that economic growth alone—especially when the benefits are not evenly shared—will not be enough to make meaningful progress in reducing poverty. There needs to be a serious national commitment, and that commitment has been wholly lacking in recent years.
In 2006, children remained, by far, the poorest age group. There was no statistically significant change in the child poverty rate (17.4 percent, compared with 17.6 in 2005). The poverty rate remained 20 percent for children under age six. By contrast, the poverty rate for 18- to 64-year-olds was 10.8 percent, statistically unchanged from 11.1 percent in 2005. The elderly remain the least-poor age group, with a statistically significant decline for people age 65 and over from 10.1 percent to 9.4 percent.
The continued high poverty rates for children impose enormous costs both for them and for our nation. Recent research finds that persistent child poverty costs our economy $500 billion a year in lost productivity, higher health care costs, and crime-related costs.
The racial poverty gap remains severe. In 2006, poverty rates for blacks (24.3 percent) and Hispanics (20.6 percent) remained far higher than the rates for whites (8.2 percent) and Asians (10.3 percent). The poverty rate remained statistically unchanged for the native born—11.9 percent in 2006, and fell for the foreign-born population from 16.5 to 15.2 percent.
The poverty line itself falls far short of the amount of income that families need to make ends meet. In 2006, the poverty threshold for a family of four was $20,444. In many communities, the amount of income needed by a family to get by is often twice that figure or more. In 2006, 90.5 million Americans—30.5 percent—had incomes below twice the poverty line.
Income inequality in the United States remains at historically high levels. In 2006, the share of income for the bottom 20 percent of U.S. households remained at 3.4 percent, while the share for the highest quintile was 50.5 percent. While median household income grew by less than 1 percent in 2006, the real median earnings of full-time workers fell for the third year in a row.
The new Census data on health care coverage is alarming. The Census Bureau also reported that the share of Americans without health insurance grew from 15.3 percent to 15.8 percent while the number of uninsured Americans increased from 44.8 million to 47.0 million, with declines in both the percentage of people covered by employment-based coverage and the percentage covered by government programs. The number and percentage of uninsured children grew (from 10.9 percent and 8 million children in 2005 to 11.7 percent and 8.7 million children in 2006), with children in poverty far more likely to be uninsured (19.3 percent).
The United States should not tolerate sustained high poverty and deteriorating access to health care. We can do better. Earlier this year, our Task Force on Poverty issued a report calling for a national commitment to cut poverty in half in 10 years and proposed a strategy to accomplish the goal. Today’s new poverty, income, and health care data underscores the need for the nation to take action and move forward.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Strange. The lead sentences on the census data in the NY Times and Washington Post was that the POVERTY RATE HAD FALLEN! In the Tribune, it's "essentially unchanged" and relegated to secondary treatment. Man, the Tribune comes in with a more liberal interpretation of data than the recognized liberal Times and Post? Wow.
Posted by: Damen | August 28, 2007 4:17 PM
If not for my wife's union, my family insurance at work would run me $789.86 per month, or $394.93 per two week pay period. If that was my only option, my leftover pay would not come close to covering the mortgage. Look at the profits the insurance companies run up each year. The only way they can keep these tidy profits is to continue raising rates, and catering (polite word for what I really mean) to the wealthy.
To put this on any one politician is a joke. The Dem's are just as guilty as the Rep in making it extremly difficult for the average joe to get adequate insurance.
Posted by: Rob s | August 28, 2007 4:34 PM
The Democrat's stance on the uninsured and average wages has always confused me when the issue of illegal immigration is mentioned. When millions of uneducated people come here, what do they think the average wage is going to do? Do they think the migrants come here insured?
Posted by: whatnow | August 28, 2007 4:42 PM
I'd like toknow more about the definition of the Poverty Rate relative to the cost of living over the years.
It's probaby like the unemployment rate. Once you're no longer eligible for compensation, you're no longer unemployed.
Rebublican blue smoke and mirrors slight of hand stuff. Anything to keep the little guy down.
Posted by: Doug Zook | August 28, 2007 4:47 PM
Whoa Damen,
The headline on the home page of the Trib's web edition is "Poverty Rate Declines". I saw that, piqued my interest and checked it out, and when I read it I had the same kind of reaction that Frank James does in this blog post (emphasis -- blog post). Does the Post and Times trumpet this decline as overly signifcant, and if so for what reasons, or simply state the fact that it went down. Do you feel that poor people are significantly better off than they have been, and this story is not being told?
Posted by: kb | August 28, 2007 4:49 PM
Incomes rose, poverty decreased.
Frank James tries to spin this as bad, or "not significant", news.
The reality is that the US economy is booming everywhere but in the dead-tree media conglomerates such as the Tribune Co.
Posted by: Bruce | August 28, 2007 4:51 PM
Bruce,
If poverty decreased, did raises in the minimum wage have anything to do with it?
Posted by: Doug Zook | August 28, 2007 5:18 PM
"Incomes rose, poverty decreased."
Not really Bruce.
Median Household incomes rose. However, according to the statistics, that rise comes more household members working, not actual income rising.
Individual Earnings, for both men and women, actually decreased over 1%.
Meanwhile almost all of the decrease in poverty was accounted for by decreasing the number of people over 65 who were in poverty. There was no change in the rate of children in poverty, and the total actual number of people in poverty remained the same as 36.5 million.
That doesn't sound like a "booming" economy to me.
Posted by: Tony | August 28, 2007 5:30 PM
Doogie, considering the minimum wage increase didn't take effect until this past July, it had nothing to do with it. Anyway, most jobs have paid higher than the minimum wage rates anyway and most workers who do make minimum wage or slightly above are high school students or folks with no skills.
I will give Frank James one bit of kudos, though, as he accurately reports the recession began at the end of Clinton's presidency. Hip Hip Hooray!!!! A media person finally admits Clinton handed Bush a recession!!!
Posted by: John D | August 28, 2007 5:58 PM
Rob S.,
Re-read your own post.
"Your wife's union..."
Union's mostly support Democrats who mostly support unions. Which means you're not forking out the $$$$ for your health insurance.
Such is the nature of back scratching.
Posted by: Doug Zook | August 28, 2007 5:59 PM
The economy is just FINE. Unemployment is near all-time lows. Work is available for those who want it and are willing to put in effort. Taxes are low so workers keep more of their money than they used to, as well. It's a good time to be a worker. For those who don't work, who are are lazy or on drugs, they face very difficult times. But, remember it is their choice.
Posted by: Jon C. | August 28, 2007 6:09 PM
Rob S, you sir, are a moron.
Why don't you get yourself a job instead of sucking off your wife's? Even better, why don't you go back to 11th grade where we learned about 40 hour work weeks and child labor.
Your stupid Limpbaugh talking points won't fly here. Wake up.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | August 28, 2007 6:27 PM
Zook,
I know what you are saying, but her union is the American Federation of Teachers. My experience with this union has been much different than others I have encountered over the years. I do not dispute your comment, but both parties are as ignorant as the other. I have three kids, and have to do what I can. We all know that neither party cares about us, the everyday citizen.
Posted by: Rob S | August 28, 2007 6:31 PM
John D.,
Is Bruce capable of speaking for himself? Or do you two have some kind of "arrangement?"
Posted by: Doug Zook | August 28, 2007 6:31 PM
Doug, Bruce is more than capable of speaking for himself. Just thought I would point out an obvious fact.
Now, I ask is your good buddy John E capable of speaking for himself? Oh, never mind that one. It's worldwide knowledge he's not capable of anything worthwhile.
Posted by: John D | August 28, 2007 7:59 PM
Strange. The lead sentences on the census data in the NY Times and Washington Post was that the POVERTY RATE HAD FALLEN! In the Tribune, it's "essentially unchanged" and relegated to secondary treatment. Man, the Tribune comes in with a more liberal interpretation of data than the recognized liberal Times and Post? Wow.
Posted by: Damen | August 28, 2007 4:17 PM
Bruce Whinerdyce,
I think it's funny when you make up minority sounding post names for yourself, but you give yourself away with your usual Republican knuckledragging sloganeering.
You're not fooling anyone you clown.
Posted by: John E | August 28, 2007 10:41 PM
Rob S, you sir, are a moron.
Why don't you get yourself a job instead of sucking off your wife's? Even better, why don't you go back to 11th grade where we learned about 40 hour work weeks and child labor.
Your stupid Limpbaugh talking points won't fly here. Wake up.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | August 28, 2007 6:27 PM
OK weinerdog43, your post is the most retarded thing I have read this year. In light of this, use your infantile internet skills to look up what QMRP means. I have been a Registered QMRP for 22 years, which is why I can read things you write with a chuckle. Maybe I'll just go back to my Master's program and expand on my Master's Degree. You sound like quite an expert of 11th grade. With some hard work, maybe you can get yourself up to 11th grade before the end of the year. Oh yea, my wife has a Master's Degree as well and has been a Special Ed.Teacher for 22 years, working with children that are hearing impaired. So her Special Education bakcground also allowed her to chuckle and your feeble attempt at an insult. I will give you a free sign language lesson. I want you to make a fist with your right hand, extend your index and pinky finger straight up, then rotate your fist counter clockwise 3-4 times. If you are able to look up sign language symbols, you will see why I thought of you. If this proves too hard, make a peace sign, it looks like a "v", and put it horizontally on your forehead. This is a perfect sign to describe your intellectual abilities. OR better yet, make the "OK" sign with your hand, and put your thumb and index finger on your chin. This way you can compare yourself to Oedipus.
Posted by: Rob S | August 28, 2007 11:34 PM
Doug, "John D." beat me to it in pointing out that 2006 and 2005 numbers couldn't possibly be effected by a 2007 law change. Doug, how you come up with such bizarre notions is beyond me.
For more analysis of the numbers, see Robert Rector's article published by the Heritage Foundation. An excerpt:
"Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.
Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, a third of poor households have both cellular and landline telephones. A third also have telephone answering machines. At the other extreme, however, approximately one-tenth have no phone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly 30 percent do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care."
In essence, the "poor" American lives as good as the average European.
The full report can be read at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg2064.cfm
Posted by: Bruce | August 29, 2007 12:24 AM
In essence, the "poor" American lives as good as the average European.
The full report can be read at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg2064.cfm
Posted by: Bruce | August 29, 2007 12:24 AM
Ahh Compassionate Conservatism at it best!
Bruce you report never mentions the conditions of the average european. Are you making up facts yet again?
Posted by: Tony | August 29, 2007 9:46 AM
[quote]
I will give Frank James one bit of kudos, though, as he accurately reports the recession began at the end of Clinton's presidency. Hip Hip Hooray!!!! A media person finally admits Clinton handed Bush a recession!!!
Posted by: John D | August 28, 2007 5:58 PM
[/quote]
So when will you have the backbone to admit that George H.W. Bush gave Clinton a recession in 1992?
Posted by: BC | August 29, 2007 10:46 AM
In the posting style of Bruce, Bruce forgot to mention that Robert Rector is not an unbiased source since records show that he donated:
- $1000 to the Bush re-election campaign in 2004
- $200 to the National Republican Congressional Committee in 2003
- $300 to the National Republican Congressional Committee in 2006
- $700 to the Republican National Committee in 2000
- $300 to the Bush-Cheney 2000 Compliance Committee Inc in 2000
Posted by: BC | August 29, 2007 11:21 AM
Well wienerdog43 where are you? Did my challenge prove too tough for your infantile intellect. From here on, if you have a reply, stick to the point. If you simply want to sling pre-pubescent drivel, save it for you classmates at school.
In todays society, the need to survive and thrive is often at odds with political beliefs. Yes, I understand the issues with unions. As I work for a not-for-profit agency, insurance benefits are through the roof. SO, with my wife's benefit package, we are able to provide reliable health/dental care to our 3 children and ourselves. But as I stated before, my experiences with the AFT has been different that many other unions I have encountered.
By the way, the sign language challenge I gave to ol' dog face involve an animal name often used to strongly disagree, a measure of ones true intelligence, and lastly, a reference to Oedipus and his behavior.
Posted by: Rob S | August 29, 2007 2:34 PM
An interesting sts on Pg 17 is which Class of Worker, only employees, earns the mosts - both men and women - federal gov't worker; second place - state gov't worker and in third - local gov't workers. Add on top of that great benefits and lower probablity of losing ones job due economic downturn, M & A activity, or incomptence - and being a gov't worker ain't bad. At least our tax dollars are being spent well
Posted by: Terry | August 29, 2007 8:34 PM
BC,
The Recession Bush41 had ended in 1991. President Clinton inherited an economy that had recovered from the recession for over a year.
Posted by: Terry | August 30, 2007 8:08 AM