BUSH TO ALTER ECONOMIC STATS AGAIN
Find a Conversation
| Thu, 09-02-2004 - 2:41pm |
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. 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.
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." 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.
Sources:
1. "Census: Poverty up in 2003," The Olympian, 9/01/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2254501&l=52819.
2. Census Bureau press release, 8/31/04.
3. "Monthly report on mass layoffs dropped," Shawnee News-Star, 1/05/03, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2254501&l=52820.
4. "Inventing The 'Clinton Recession'," Business Week Online, 2/23/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2254501&l=52821.

Pages
It seems the percentage of those in poverty is EXACTLY the same percentage as it was for 7 of 8 years under Clinton.
However, don't just take my word for it.
*****************************************
http://www.insightmag.com/news/525768.html
Insight on the News - Features
Issue: 10/28/03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Last Word
Rigging the 'Poverty' Rate as a Political Ploy
Phony economic statistics always have been an effective political weapon - and with a presidential election coming up the let's-get-Bush media have been having a high old time. Alan Reynolds, in a recent piece for the Washington Times, tells it like it is:
"Consider first the headline estimate that 43.6 million people are without health insurance." The facts: This is only an "instant snapshot" of a given day. The Survey of Income and Program Participation notes that people come on and off economic and participation levels, so on an annual basis the figure of those without medical insurance for the year always is roughly one-half of that. The largest group not on health insurance is young people who figure that paying medical bills is cheaper than the cost of health insurance and the premiums that go with it. Many young people don't have health insurance because they don't want it.
Similar games are played with the "poverty" rate. We are informed with horror by the Washington Post that the poverty rate rose to 12.1 percent last year. But it was 15.1 percent in President Bill Clinton's first year and 12.7 percent in 1998. In the Bush recession year of 2002, the poverty rate was lower than in the Clinton "prosperity" year of 1998.
Just what is "poverty"? The Census Bureau's last available statistic noted that there were 37 million "poor" Americans. At the same time, government reports showed that poor Americans were better housed and fed, and had more personal property, than the average American had throughout most of the century.
But what do the available statistics show as to the nature of American "poverty"?
Nearly 40 percent of all "poor" households owned their own homes, and the average home of those classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with a garage. More than 750,000 of the "poor" owned homes worth more than $100,000, and 71,000 owned $300,000 homes. Nearly 60 percent of "poor" homes have more than two rooms per person. That means that the "poor" have twice as much living space as the average Japanese. And the same percentage have air conditioning.
64 percent own a car; 14 percent own two or more.
74 percent own microwave ovens; 23 percent have automatic dishwashers; 91 percent have color television and 29 percent have two or more TVs.
"Poor" Americans are better off than the general population of Europe. "Poor" children eat more meat than do higher-income children and, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, have protein intakes 100 percent higher than middle-class children. The obesity rate is higher among the "poor" than among the middle class. The same report notes that the daily intake of such vitamins as E, C and thiamin among children in families below 75 percent of the poverty threshold is greater than among children in families 300 percent above that threshold.
There also are some strange contradictions in the poverty statistics. In 1993, the Census Bureau reported that the lowest one-fifth of U.S. households had an average income of $7,263. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Labor showed that the same group of households spent $13,486 - a neat trick the rest of us would like to learn. But a similar gap between alleged income and spending has been reported steadily year by year.
The reason is that in ascertaining the income of those below the poverty level, the Labor Department does not include public-housing or health-care subsidies through Medicaid, Medicare and other federal, state and local programs.
Analysis of Census reports by the Heritage Foundation notes three areas in which the government statistics are "radically" wrong:
1. "The Census Bureau fails to count most welfare benefits as income. For example, if a family received $4,000 in food stamps and $5,000 in housing aid, these benefits are treated as having zero income value."
2. "The Census Bureau also undercounts household income because it fails to count the enormous 'underground economy' ... consisting primarily of persons who perform work 'off the books' to avoid government taxes and regulations," thereby increasing the number of the technically poor. These unreported earnings are estimated to be worth anywhere from $300 billion to $500 billion.
3. "The Census Bureau ignores household assets. In determining if a household is 'poor' the Census Bureau counts only the household's income in the current year. It ignores all assets accumulated in prior years. Thus a businessman who has suffered losses and as a result has a zero or negative income for the current year will be counted officially as 'poor' even if he owns a home and has several million dollars in the bank." So in a period of recession, when many people suffer a temporary drop in income or take investment losses, the number of "poor" increases substantially, even though it does not reflect national impoverishment.
The "poverty" figures that most of the media so happily brandish have a nonexistent link to economic fact. But those alleged figures make good politics for those who want us to look the other way.
Ralph de Toledano is the dean of Washington columnists and a contributing writer to Insight magazine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.insightmag.com/news/525768.html
Comments welcome.
What does that have to do with the topic on hand? Just a reminder but it's Kerry who keeps on bringing up the past (in case you haven't noticed).
Apparently those with opposing views are not worthy of simple courtesy on your part. That's my observation regarding most of your posts as well as being on the receiving end of your attempts at 'enlightening' me about my conservative views.
Some informative sites:
I've read the sterilized version about Ms. Sanger from the PP site but prefer the plain, unvarnished truth to the whitewashed/revisionist version.
http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html
http://www.all.org/issues/pp04a.htm
Want more info? Use any search engine.
Regarding Frist, I believe he has the right to practice his beliefs. For every doctor that won't prescribe birth control, there are others who are willing to do so.
Please at least tell me you're Bears fans... I once made the mistake of promising my husband that if we had a girl we could name her Payton, after Walter. I'm sort of hoping he doesn't remember, although it would make a great middle name. We live in NJ now and are deciding whether to spring for a satellite dish so we can see all the Bears games. You can't even get play by play on the internet. It's frustrating.
I used to hang out around Ravenswood, but have never been into Wrigley Field, it is like me stepping into a cathedral. But I do disinctively remember one night of having fun, spitting on the walls of Wrigley Field! Im a Sox fan thru and thru. For anyone ever going into Chicago, they must visit Clark Street(outside of Wrigley Field), there is everything right there!!
As far as Daly is concerned, I cant help but like him. He is just gruff(no other word), and still waiting to see what is going to happen to him about the Meigs Field debacle. Soldier's Field now is absolutely beautiful, and under Daley he moved Lake Shore Drive and revitalized Navy Pier, Chinatown, and the Taste is larger than ever!! He is so protective of O'hare Airport. He has his moments, but not for one moment can anyone say he doesn't do what he does becaues he doesn't like Chicago. It is his blood and life and it shows. If anyone can't tell, I am absolutely in love with Chicago, there is no better place to be!!
I believe people have a responsibility to plan their families according to their circumstances, so that every child is wanted & provided for. Surely you agree?
< Margaret Sanger was an advocate of eugenics. That is the basis for 'birth control'. To control the population by exterminating the 'unwanted', 'unfit', and 'inferior' races.>
"Consider first the headline estimate that 43.6 million people are without health insurance." The facts: This is only an "instant snapshot" of a given day."
Unlike your author, I'll give a source for anyone looking to cut through the spin.
at http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf
"However, don't just take my word for it."
I'm not going to take your sources word for it either.
"Similar games are played with the "poverty" rate. We are informed with horror by the Washington Post that the poverty rate rose to 12.1 percent last year. But it was 15.1 percent in President Bill Clinton's first year"
The reason it was 15.1 percent in Bill Clinton's first year is because we were coming out of the recession that took place under Bush41 and which resulted in Clinton's election.
"and 12.7 percent in 1998. In the Bush recession year of 2002, the poverty rate was lower than in the Clinton "prosperity" year of 1998."
Interesting that your source stops giving the poverty rate at 1998. Could it be that it fell further and thus the Clinton administration was responsible for the rate of 2002? Did the rate of 2002 rise from 2000 and 2001? Clinton was president for 2 more years after 1998.
Sorry, your source is engaging in the same deceit as the Bush administration.
"At the same time, government reports showed that poor Americans were better housed and fed, and had more personal property, than the average American had throughout most of the century."
This is meaningless smoke and mirrors. The reason the originial food stamp bill was passed is because so many men were being rejected for military service prior to World War II because of malnutrition. So because we aren't still that bad off, poverty doesn't exist? Give me a break.
"Nearly 40 percent of all "poor" households owned their own homes,"
I'd like to see some census bureau stats supporting all of this contention. The poverty rate in the US is $17,000 for a family of 4. I would love an explanation as to how the poor are buying houses, TVs, microwaves, and dishwashers on a budget of $17,000 a year.
The rest of this article is pure spin. The "Underground Economy" is a big contributer to economic health, but your author has no idea who is benefitting from it, he only has a vague idea of the parameters of it, but he's convinced it's enough of a factor to skew the poverty data, but who knows how.
"Blind Faith" and "Spin Doctor" seem to be more than just the names of rock groups.
"The "poverty" figures that most of the media so happily brandish have a nonexistent link to economic fact."
Your author's "facts" would be alot more believable with some links to back them up. But I suspect links would officially reclassify them as "spin"
dablacksox
Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.
Pages