Ranks of poverty, uninsured rose in 2003

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Ranks of poverty, uninsured rose in 2003
31
Thu, 08-26-2004 - 10:51am

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1152&slug=Census%20Poverty


Thursday, August 26, 2004 · Last updated 7:36 a.m. PT


Ranks of poverty, uninsured rose in 2003


By GENARO C. ARMAS
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER


WASHINGTON -- The number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year, while the ranks of the uninsured swelled by 1.4 million, the Census Bureau reported Thursday.


It was the third straight annual increase for both categories. While not unexpected, it was a double dose of bad economic news during a tight re-election campaign for President Bush.


Approximately 35.8 million people lived below the poverty line in 2003, or about 12.5 percent of the population, according to the bureau. That was up from 34.5 million, or 12.1 percent in 2002.


The rise was more dramatic for children. There were 12.9 million living in poverty last year, or 17.6 percent of the under-18 population. That was an increase of about 800,000 from 2002, when 16.7 percent of all children were in poverty.


The Census Bureau's definition of poverty varies by the size of the household. For instance, the threshold for a family of four was $18,810, while for two people it was $12,015.


Nearly 45 million people lacked health insurance, or 15.6 percent of the population. That was up from 43.5 million in 2002, or 15.2 percent, but was a smaller increase than in the two previous years.


Meanwhile, the median household income, when adjusted for inflation, remained basically flat last year at $43,318. Whites, blacks and Asians saw no noticeable change, but income fell 2.6 percent for Hispanics to $32,997. Whites had the highest income at $47,777.


Even before release of the data, some Democrats claimed the Bush administration was trying to play down bad news by releasing the reports about a month earlier than usual. They normally are released separately in late September - one report on poverty and income, the other on insurance.


Putting out the numbers at the same time and not so close to Election Day "invite charges of spinning the data for political purposes," said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y.


Census Director Louis Kincannon - a Bush appointee - denied politics played any role in moving up the release date. The move, announced earlier this year, was done to coordinate the numbers with the release of other data.(me:  uh huh...sure...)


"There has been no influence or pressure from the (Bush) campaign," Kincannon said Wednesday.


Official national poverty estimates, as well as most government data on income and health insurance, come from the bureau's Current Population Survey.


This year the bureau is simultaneously releasing data from the broader American Community Survey, which also includes income and poverty numbers but cannot be statistically compared with the other survey.


The figures were sure to generate attention regardless of when they were released since they typically serve as a report card of sorts for an administration's socio-economic policies.


Partisan debate figures to be more heated now, when the economy and health care are big issues in the tight presidential election race between Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry.


Since job growth was slow until the second half of 2003 and wages were relatively stagnant, it was likely the report would show an increase in the number of people in poverty, said Sheldon Danzinger, co-director of the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan. (me:  Seem to remember job growth being pretty slow this summer as well...)


William O'Hare, a researcher with the Annie E. Casey Foundation, a private children's advocacy group, expected increases in the number of kids in poverty and without health insurance. He called the changes in the way data is being released "bothersome."


"It makes me wonder whether this statistical agency is being politicized in some way," said O'Hare, who has studied the poverty and health insurance data for over two decades.


---


On the Net:


Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/

   Kerry/Edwards   cl-nwtreehugger   


Community Leader:  In The News Newspaper 3  & Sports Talk  Olympic 


I can also be found at Washington Washington   ,


TV ShowsTV 2 & QOTW Question Mark   


Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 8:52am

There needs to be an increase in the minimum wage, IMO.


>"Plus, earnings for women age 15 and older working full-time and year-round slipped last year, the first annual decline since 1995, though earnings for comparable men remain unchanged.


Bush, campaigning in Las Cruces, N.M., didn't directly address the Census Bureau reports but reiterated his contention that the economy is improving because of his policies. (Me: Yes for the well-off.)


"We have more to do to make this economy stronger," Bush said. "We've overcome these obstacles because the entrepreneurial spirit is strong and the small business sector of our economy is vibrant. I also think we've overcome it because of well-timed tax cuts." In a statement, Kerry noted that during the years Bush has been in office, 5.2 million people have lost health insurance and 4.3 million have fallen into poverty.


"Under George Bush's watch, America's families are falling further behind," Kerry said.


Republicans noted that the number of people with health insurance also increased - up 1 million to 243 million. And in a conference call, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson placed some of the blame on Congress for failing to adopt Bush's health care plan. "The big failure is not what is happening in the administration," Thompson said.


(Me: Quote from the same article: Nearly 45 million people lacked health insurance, or 15.6 percent of the population. That was up from 43.5 million in 2002, or 15.2 percent, but was a smaller increase than in the two previous years. Maybe they're talking about this year 2004)


Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., countered that Bush supported rollbacks on overtime pay and refused to raise the minimum wage that would have helped middle-class Americans "while lavishing billions of dollars in tax breaks on the wealthiest Americans." "


Update to the article posted.............


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1152&slug=Census%20Poverty

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 10:54am

OT abit. Part of the reason poverty is on the rise work is going overseas. I found this interview to be most disturbing.


"PETER VILES, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): You're looking at half a million postcards -- that's half a million hopes and dreams -- all for 3,000 part-time jobs.

JAMES SPINOSA, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION: We're very pleased with the turnout. It's a sad turnout in a way because it shows the state of this country when you have 400,000 or 500,000 people trying to get in on a very dangerous industry like ours.

VILES: The Long Shoreman's Union is hiring because the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are so congested with Asian imports. Overall traffic in the ports up 15 percent in July and it's not really a two-way street. Imports from Asia outnumber U.S. exports by nearly four containers to one.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've seen the future as it pertains to this issue. The terminals are busting at the seams, ships at anchor, longer term times in port, lack of available labor to supply sufficient crews and many other problems associated with double digit growth.

VILES: A great opportunity for the Long Shoremen, but it comes at a huge cost to the nation, half trillion dollar trade deficit, millions of lost jobs in manufacturing.

ALAN TONELSON, "THE RACE TO THE BOTTOM": It's good honest work that the Long Shoremen are doing, no question about it. But these jobs are only being created and will only be sustained, because the United States buys so much more from the rest of the world than we sell to it. No other country in human history has ever pursued this strategy for long. In the long run, it has to crash and burn.

VILES: The jobs pay nearly $21 an hour, but they're part-time. One union leader, says the huge response is because so many good blue collar jobs have been exported to cheap overseas labor markets. "


Quote from........ http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/25/ldt.01.html

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 12:28pm
<>

This is true, and it has disturbed me for some time. The problem is that economists can't speak to harshley or it will only make matters worse. Economics is linked with psychology.

The increase in poverty made Aljazeera.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/574BF172-2082-4A91-B80D-FA0FEB3895A1.htm

To them our proverty levels must seem strange, if that's proverty they'll take it. If there is poverty in American, why is America spending hundreds of billions killing Iraqis? But then again maybe they understand this better than we do. I feel very sad for today's children, what kind of world are we leaving them?




iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2003
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 12:43pm
How will raising the minimum wage help anything? That move usually ends up hurting the people it was supposed to help--higher hourly wages means employers cut back on the number of employees and the number of hours the employees work.

The wages are usually determined by the job market. Around here the minimum wage is under $6 an hour, but even McDonald's pays far more than that, or they wouldn't attract any employees!

Another thought--if employers are already leaving the U.S. because the costs are too high here, won't raising wages drive even more employers away?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 1:39pm

"I feel very sad for today's children, what kind of world are we leaving them?"


It's strange even though the US is at war "we" as a whole have not asked to sacrifice anything. The hardship that the poor are suffering is because of trade/companies offshore. Not the war.


After WWll, in Britain, we were on rationing until 1953, 8 yrs. after the war ended. I realize it is different, Britain was under attack. I don't think people felt deprived. Thought I'd died & gone to heaven when I saw a chocolate bar on display on a counter. Everything was "under the counter". Ofcourse there were those that bought goods on the

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 2:13pm

"higher hourly wages means employers cut back on the number of employees and the number of hours the employees work."


Myth. #7


Realities: Modest increases in the minimum wage do not cause job loss.




  • A solid body of contemporary research has found no job loss resulting from modest increases in the minimum wage. For example, research by the Economic Policy Institute found that the 1996 and 1997 minimum wage increases did not cause job loss. There was no negative employment effect among either teens or adults. In fact, adults actually experienced a small, though not statistically significant, increase in employment.*
  • EPI found that raising the minimum wage did not reduce the employment of minorities and women. Raising the minimum wage was associated with statistically significant employment increases among teenage Latinas, less-educated adult women and less-educated adult African American women. For whites and for African Americans overall, the minimum wage increase resulted in neither significant positive nor negative employment effects.
  • According to a 1999 study by the Jerome Levy Economics Institute, the last increase in the minimum wage did not affect the overwhelming majority of small businesses. Nine out of 10 (89.1 percent) of the small businesses surveyed said the last increase did not have an effect on their employment or hiring decisions.
  • The fact that the economy was stronger in 1996 and 1997 than it is today does not mean that Congress should not raise the minimum wage. As discussed in EPI’s Step Up, Not Out, David Card’s study of the 1990 and 1991 minimum wage increases (which occurred when the economy was in recession) found that the increases did not have any negative effect on employment.

Source: http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/minimumwage/myths/myths7.cfm


Most minimum wage jobs are in service, therefore, can't export.


Check-out the other myths at this link, 1 thru 9.


Especially telling is #1, even though about 3yrs out of date........


Myth #1 The minimum wage already is high enough.


Realities: The minimum wage is approaching historical lows.<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />



  • The minimum wage in 2001 was 21 percent less than the minimum wage in 1979, and 27 percent less than at its highest point in 1968, after adjusting for inflation.
  • If the minimum wage in 2001 had been worth what it was worth in 1968, the minimum wage in 2001 would have been $7.08.
  • The real value of the minimum wage plummeted during the 1980s, when the Reagan administration refused to support a minimum wage increase (see chart). Although Congress raised the minimum wage in 1990 and 1991 and again in 1996 and 1997, these increases were not large enough to undo the damage. Failure to raise the minimum wage will cause a repeat of the experiences of the early 1980s and early 1990s.
  • If the minimum wage is not increased, its real value will fall to $4.82 by the year 2004—lower than all but one year (1989) since 1955.
cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 3:26pm
I am sorry to admit, but I dont even know what the current minimum wage is, and I run a mid sized business. I guess my starting sallaries are much higher than the minimum wage.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 5:37pm
Glad to hear that. ;) Good for you!
cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 7:15pm
<>

I vaguely remember the war, and how wonderful it was when we could get sugar and we could have cake. Would you believe that we even had black-outs in the US. Your right few have been asked to sacrifice, and some are even benefitting from the war,

I am not so sure that the $144 Billion going into Iraq would have helped ithe economy if it were invested in various public works projects.

"The reduction in the tax rates, the largest of Mr. Bush's tax boons, provided only 59 cents of economic stimulus for every dollar of lost tax revenue. The tax cut for dividends and capital gains produced 9 cents of stimulus for every forgone dollar. (Did someone say, "Deficits as far as the eye can see"?) In contrast, the economic bang for a dollar of aid to state governments is $1.24. Yet such assistance accounted for only 3 percent of the total cost of Mr. Bush's fiscal policies. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/12/opinion/12thu1.html?pagewanted=print&position=

I was also thinking about all that ails this administration, neglect of the environment, growing deficit and the imbalance of trade. Here is a couple of paragraph I read yesterday:

If the war were Bush's only failure, it would be enough to require his departure. But it is not. By withdrawing the United States from international treaties and conventions, mishandling crises in the Middle East and North Korea and diverting resources from the pursuit of al Qaeda, Bush has left America more isolated and less secure. And the detention camps made infamous by the crimes of Abu Ghraib have stripped America of the pride we once had in our country and the role it played, however imperfectly, as a champion of human rights, economic opportunity and the rule of law.

"At home, Bush's failures are equally manifest. He has amassed the worst jobs record of any President since the Great Depression, the worst budget deficits ever and the most precipitous decline in America's fiscal position-from $5 trillion in projected surplus to $4 trillion in projected deficit. Bush's Administration responds to a corporate crime wave with calls for more regulation, embraces the flight of jobs abroad as good for the economy, and exacerbates, with top-end tax cuts, the greatest inequality since the Gilded Age. "

The list goes on; full article at

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0826-07.htm

I am reading so many depressing articles I may have to ask for anti-depressants. :-)

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 08-27-2004 - 9:00pm

"Americans have one recourse: to ignore the costume ball in New York City and fire the worst President in modern history on November 2."


 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages