Could you elaborate anything more about what she said, Joe? As I remember it, the story is much better than that.
She produced a study based on several kinds of food budgets by family size. One was for basic necessities, apparently intended to be one measure of poverty standards. But she also included a less expensive, "emergency" food budget intended to tide people over for a few days, like, for example, at the end of the month if assistance money was running out. Why this was included I don't know, but your point gives a clue. Orshansky was doing a general study of various food budgets for different purposes.
Johnson's people, however, seized on the emergerncy food budget and made that the basis for the national poverty line. They then multiplied the food spending by 3 (based on misuse of spending patterns, which have in any case changed a lot) to get the full budget. As a bonus the number came out to $3,000 for a family of 4, which made a great headline in announcing the program.
All of this ignores the fact that back then the Labor Dept. already compiled an Urban Family Budget Index for all spending that was a much more accurate estimate of poverty. Johnson wanted no part of it; it yielded much higher numbers. It became the basis for George Wiley's National Welfare Rights Org. demand, a few years, later for a guarenteed income of $6,500 for a family of 4.
In any case, these are the basic facts as to why anyone looking at the poverty line fresh comes out with estimates considerably higher than the "official" numbers. They were fabricated right from the start. Replace the emergency budget and use a more realistic multiplier and you get much higher numbers, numbers, it turns out, that would be similar to the UFBI, if it were still being done (the Reagan crowd killed it).
As far as I know, Orshansky said little about this back then, being an obscure staff person. Did she give any sense of this now? Did she say anything about her current circumstances, or give any idea about how to reach her?
RO