Ranks of poverty, uninsured rose in 2003
Find a Conversation
| 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/







Pages
C
LOL I am planning to turn the convention coverage off next week a first for me.
Same here, I can't sit through those BS speeches, the whole thought of listening to and looking at Cheney the CEO from he!! or GWB and his endless smirk is just to much. But I must admit hearing him say on NBC today that to him Kerry is a War hero was rather shocking. Even more shocking was him admiting that Kerry willing went into harms way. What was not so shocking was Bush ending the statement by saying that if his unit had been called up he would have gone willing also. That's great, too bad he was learning to pilot a jet that never would be used in combat.
KEYNOTER ZELL SET TO RIP KERRY
By STEFAN C. FRIEDMAN
August 29, 2004 -- John Kerry's "miserable record" over the course of his 19-year Senate career will be a focus of Sen. Zell Miller's highly anticipated speech at the Republican National Convention, the renegade Georgia Democrat told The Post.
The 72-year-old Miller, who next Wednesday will become the first member of an opposing party to deliver the keynote address at a national convention, plans to hit Kerry over his political career — one that Miller claims has been spent pushing and voting for far-left issues.
"John Kerry's record in the Senate is a miserable one — it is a disgraceful one," Miller charged. "His record is far from the mainstream on nearly every issue. He is where 15 or 20 percent of people are."
Miller said many Americans are still in the dark about Kerry's voting patterns — primarily because the candidate himself has avoided discussing it.
"Watching the Democratic convention, the bio of John Kerry seemed to be 'I was born. I served in Vietnam. I am running for president,' " Miller said.
"They overlooked 20 years in the Senate. That's where you'll see the real John Kerry."
Miller called Kerry a flip-flopper, adding: "I want a president who is decisive, like a Harry Truman or a Ronald Reagan — and I think that's the kind of president George Bush is."
As for the details of the speech, Miller said he didn't want to give anything away.
Just 12 years ago, Miller, then governor of Georgia, stood in the same arena and gave the same keynote address — but at the Democratic convention, and in support of Bill Clinton's candidacy.
Now Miller nearly always steps across the aisle to vote with President Bush.
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/29543.htm
I started switching channels whenever Bush came on so I didn't see the incident you describe. I am not to proud of that fact, but don't want to make myself sick either.
I quite litterally detest the man.
Before they could have sent GWB to Vietnam they would have had to find him.
Doctors are neglent in patroling their profession; usually they are aware which doctors are incompetant but but they never report them, so suits are filed. Only a small portion of doctors have the majority of cases filed against them. One would think if doctors had pride in their profession they would act to protect its integrity.
Otherwise I agree with you completely.
Oh, I agree that they are negligent in patrolling their ranks...but I also believe that too many families of patients expect miracles...and when the reality that those miracles aren't going to happen set in, they file an unwarranted suit.
Also, those who have numerous suits filed against them should be denied insurance (malpractice insurance should be mandatory to maintain a license
http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2004/09/09_400.html
"As for the broader "lawsuit crisis," a report from the nonprofit National Center for State Courts found that tort filings have been falling steadily over the past decade, dropping by 9 percent between 1992 and 2002. In Texas, the rate of tort filings fell by 37 percent between 1990 and 2000; in California, it plummeted 45 percent. What's more, plaintiffs lose about half the time they go to trial in state courts, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics; in medical malpractice cases, doctors win almost three-quarters of the time.
"When plaintiffs do win, the "jackpot" is getting smaller all the time. New data released in April by the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that in jury trials in state courts, the median award fell by almost half during the 1990s -- from $65,000 to $37,000. Punitive damages, the tort reform campaign's top target, were awarded in only 6 percent of all jury trials in 2001, and the median award was $50,000.
"Michael McCann, the director of the Comparative Law and Society Studies Center at the University of Washington, says anti-lawsuit rhetoric works in spite of the facts because it feeds into well-established stereotypes. "The image of the irresponsible plaintiff is right up there with the welfare queen," says McCann. "That's why Americans respond to this because it's a morality tale." Pollster Frank Luntz once told Republican members of Congress that "it's almost impossible to go too far when it comes to demonizing lawyers."
Last week, the Census Bureau released statistics showing that for the first time in years, poverty had increased for three straight years, while the number of Americans without health care increased to a record level.1 But instead of changing its economic and health care policies, the Bush administration today is announcing plans to change the way the statistics are compiled. The move is just the latest in a series of actions by the White House to doctor or eliminate longstanding and nonpartisan economic data collection methods.
In a Bush administration press release yesterday, the Census Bureau said next week it "will announce a new economic indicator" as "an additional tool to better understand" the economy. The change in statistics is being directed by Bush political appointees and comes just 60 days from the election. It will be the first modification of Census data in 40 years.2
This is not the first time the White House has tried to doctor or manipulate economic data that exposed President Bush's failed policies. In the face of serious job losses last year, the Associated Press reported "the Bush administration has dropped the government's monthly report on mass layoffs, which also had been eliminated when President Bush's father was in office."3 Similarly, Business Week reported that the White House this year "unilaterally changed the start date of the last recession to benefit Bush's reelection bid." For almost 75 years, the start and end dates of recessions have been set by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a private nonpartisan research group. But the Bush administration decided to toss aside the NBER, and simply declare that the recession started under President Clinton.4
Sources:
"Census: Poverty up in 2003," The Olympian, 9/01/04.
Census Bureau press release, 8/31/04.
"Monthly report on mass layoffs dropped," Shawnee News-Star, 1/05/03.
"Inventing The 'Clinton Recession'," Business Week Online, 2/23/04.
http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df09012004.html
Pages