>what would the poverty level be if housing, health care, energy,
>transportation, and other modern necessities were evaluated in the
>determination? would there be a practical way to adjust for high cost
>areas like SF, NY, Boston, etc. within the benefit awards?
Most "liberal" efforts to re-think the U.S. poverty line come up with poverty rates about 1.5-2.0 times present official levels. Right now, there's no easy way to adjust for local cost of living differences.
>and the obvious question is why don't the more progressive dems push
>forward with a bill that would redefine poverty to include these obvious
>and necessary costs? seems like a sure fire political winner. can you
>imagine a repug arguing why the costs of housing or health care should
>not be a consideration when figuring out if someone is officially poor
>or not.
Conservatives want to re-define poverty downwards - not the line, but the rate. They argue that current measures don't include the value of food stamps, medicaid, and rent subsidies - and that they undercount the cash income of the poor too. They also argue that if the CPI has long overstated inflation, the poverty line itself (set in the early 1960s, and simply adjusted by the CPI ever since) is too high; a more favorable (i.e., lower) CPI would also mean lower poverty. And since they control Congress and the White House, any redefinition is likely to be in a meaner direction.
There's lots about all this on the Census Bureau website <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html>.
Doug