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
Hi Palak,
I
I am sorry that you got involved in this. I did post one message to the person involved warning him to drop the whole thing but I doubt he saw it. These boards are for entertainment as far as I'm concerned. I left the "politics today" board because of run ins with a certain CL that were ignored. Just remember for some people control of something how ever small, may be all they have in their lives. It is just not worth getting upset over. I hope you come back when you get over this.
Bye for now.
Lori
There isn't anything we can do except try to point out that Bush is appealing to the reptilian brain and emotions. If people can't see what he's doing, they will just have to learn the hard way. Security and emotions are powerful feelings and they trump reason. It is almost like mass hysteria.
I had no idea what you were talking about in the other thread. It wasn't until I read baileyhouse's post that I understood this occurred on the PT board. I too dropped that board because of the mean-spirited post that appeared too often. I hope you decide to come back to this board, for I shall miss talking about India with you. In fact I saw an article on AT online today that says the new PM is doing very well.
U.S. employment glass is either half-empty or half-full
Conservative, liberal think tanks put their own slants on how workers are doing.
Exactly. And maybe 8 years under a Democrat president with higher taxes are what drove companies to send many jobs overseas. At least President Bush is going on the right direction by having lowered taxes.
As far as ranks of poverty and uninsured rising in 2003 how many of those figures are due to families splitting up to due divorce, etc?
There is no way the American worker can compete with foreign workers making cents an hour. The question is whether those jobs that remain in the US should pay a living wage. Corporations are making record profits, but they are not willing to share it with their workers.
As far as corporations moving abroad, it isn't because of taxes. Corporations use to pay 30% of taxes collected, today they pay 7%. Taxes have become a profit center for corporations, which means they have experts looking for ways to avoid taxes. Bush did not give corporations a tax break--he gave a tax break to the very wealthy and those who live off investments. The tax burden for the US government is being shifted to the workers. If you have money Bush will give you more, if you are poor he will take away what you have.
<>
This is an a interesting observation. and I could reply by asking, how many marriages break up because of unemployment in the family? I am sure some move into poverty because of divorce, but certainly not in the numbers that have occurred since 2001.
Edited 9/5/2004 11:07 am ET ET by hayashig
Pages