Posted on 08/26/2004 12:04:02 PM PDT by big bad easter bunny
The Last Word Posted Oct. 13, 2003
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.
If they did, liberals would claim that poverty would skyrocket if welfare was cut.
3. "The Census Bureau ignores household assets.
This is the killer; it needs to change.
And the homeless rate, the pollution rate, the starvation rate, the illiteracy rate, the foster child rate, the out of wedlock birth rate, the school drop out rate.......
The article is dated 10/23/03, and the numbers released today show another increase over last years numbers. These numbers were released earlier than normal (before the RNC). They usually are released in September-October.
I wonder if any dem candidate/spinmeister will mention these numbers.
Understanding Poverty in America (Putting latest Census Numbers into Context)
If poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the 35 million people identified as being "in poverty" by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor. While material hardship does exist in the United States, it is quite restricted in scope and severity.
The average "poor" person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
*** Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
*** Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
*** Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
*** The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
*** Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
*** Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
*** Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
*** Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
*** 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.
Poverty......
"And the homeless rate, the pollution rate, the starvation rate, the illiteracy rate, the foster child rate, the out of wedlock birth rate, the school drop out rate......."
NONE OF WHICH ARE THE PURVIEW OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!
Not yelling at you Ron, just used your list.......Thanks
Poverty in our USA is heaven to the other 95% of the world...Seen any em---igration stats?????
Our local newspaper had coverage a couple days ago of the yearly "Poverty Day" event, where welfare recipients get to role-play as bosses, welfare dept. workers, etc, and the other attendees play the poverty-stricken clients, so they can pretend to walk a mile in the poor person's shoes. Absolutely P.C., socialist, barf-inducing crap.
Ping!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the "Bush recession year" in 2001? It's these kinds of screwy datapoints that make me squeamish in relaying the other figures...
The local liberal newspaper (surprisingly) reported several years ago that a single parent with 3 children could receive more than $40,000 in government benefits.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.