----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNIFICANT RISE IN U.S. POVERTY
Poverty is making a big comeback in the United States after a temporary decline during the boom decade that ended with last year's recession and this year's preoccupation with starting new wars. According to the Census Bureau Sept. 24, the proportion of adults and children living in poverty "rose significantly last year" to 11.7% of the population. Simultaneously, for the first time since the end of the previous recession of 1991, middle-income families also suffered a decline in earnings.
The new statistics show that the gap between the wealthiest 1% of American households (which control nearly 40% of the nation's total wealth) and the "bottom" 80% (which control 17%) reached a record high by the end of 2001.
The census bureau reported that the recession was responsible for plunging an additional 1.3 million Americans into poverty last year, increasing the total to about 33 million. This was the biggest one-year expansion in the number of poor people in recent years. Progressive analysts and think-tanks, incidentally, say the Census Bureau figures traditionally undercount the actual percentage of poor families. (Here are the current government poverty levels: under $18,104 for family of four; under $14,128 for three; under $11,569 for a married couple; under $9,039 for an individual.)
The poverty rate for 2002, not included in the Census report, is undoubtedly higher because unemployment averaged almost 6% in 2002, compared to 4.8% in 2001. In addition, two million more workers are defined as having "dropped out" of the labor force in the last two years because they cannot find decent jobs and their benefits have been terminated. As "drop outs," they are not counted as unemployed. True unemployment is thus considerably higher than government statistics reveal. In another blow to those in poverty, several states have reduced social service programs for poor families in order to cut budget deficits, replicating the same indifference to their plight evidenced by the federal government in recent years,
Inevitably, a decline in income and an increase in unemployment results in a greater pool of Americans without health insurance, particularly at a time when private insurance costs are skyrocketing out of reach for more and more workers. The Census Bureau reported Sept. 30 that 1.4 million people lost their insurance during the past year, boosting the total to 41.2 million. Some ndependent analysts maintain that the actual increase may be some 2.5 million people, but appeared lower because the bureau readjusted past figures. Among poor people who work full time, 50.3% are without health insurance.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), "the depth, or severity, of poverty increased in 2001," as well as the overall number of poor people. The average amount by which the poor fell below the poverty line rose to $2,707 per person. This represents the largest "per-person poverty gap" on record. The average amount by which poor children were pushed into poverty also reached the highest point on record, going back to figures kept since 1979. The main reason, CBPP reported, was that federal social service programs "did less to reduce the severity of poverty last year than any time since 1979."
Median household income for all American families (not individuals), adjusted for inflation, declined by 2.2% -- nearly $1,000 -- to $42,000. (Median means half are above, half below). Most of the decrease hit the working class, the poor and families of "middle" income. The median income for non-Hispanic white households was $46,305, a drop of 1.3%. The median income for African-American households was $29,470, a drop of 3.4%. For Hispanics of any race, it was $33,565, a drop of 1.6%. Interestingly, these decreases took place during a period when families were putting in more hours on the job than ever before.
It was different for the rich. The wealthiest 5% saw its share of the national household income reach an all-time high. The average income of the top 5% increased by $1,000 in 2001 to $260,464. The average income for the remaining 95% fell, with the bottom 60% of the population registering the biggest losses. (The wealthiest Americans may have gained in income last year, but the very, very richest suffered a slight setback. Fortune Magazine reports that the net worth of the 400 richest Americans declined from $946 billion to $872 billion due to stock market losses. This leaves "only" an average $2.35 billion -- that's 2,350 times 1 million -- for each member of the 400 club.)
Another Census Bureau report in August determined that the rich-poor gap in New York State during the 1990s increased by 5.6%. The biggest gap is in New York City. This report also indicated that a number of upstate New York cities had large low-income populations, such as Utica, Buffalo, Binghampton, Ithaca, and Jamestown, where median household earnings were between $21,400 and $25,850.
Commenting on increasing in poverty in the U.S., weeks before the Census Bureau report was released, the Economic Policy Institute declared: "Unless we head back to full employment -- with unemployment in the 4% neighborhood -- low-wage workers are unlikely to have the needed bargaining power to claim their fair share of the added growth" in national productivity. (In the U.S., 4% is considered full employment. Unemployed workers in this 4% category are viewed as a backup workforce ready to fill low-wage jobs in a pinch, and to serve as a pointed reminder to an employed worker that a desperate jobless worker is ready to take her or his place at the impulse of management.) For the future, according to the EPI, unemployment, plus "continuing pressures from globalization, more losses of manufacturing jobs, deunionization, high average unemployment, or a fall in the real value of the minimum wage could weaken wages and exacerbate inequality."
This appears to be exactly what is happening to an extent not seen in the U.S. in many years -- and the political system shows no inclination to adopt the measures necessary to reverse the trend. Virtually every step taken by the Bush administration and Congress has been to accelerate this trend -- from the suffocation of social spending by the dead weight of military and "homeland defense" expenditures to the tax reduction giveaway to the wealthiest households; from "globalizing" jobs to low-wage countries to a total failure of government to pursue job-creation alternatives to the whim of the marketplace.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BUSH'S DOUBLE STANDARD
George Bush is threatening to launch a major war against Iraq if it does not fully comply with 16 UN Security Council resolutions.
"Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence?" he asked in his recent UN speech. "We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced." Last Saturday, Bush declared that "the demands of the UN Security Council must be followed... or they will be enforced," meaning the U.S. will launch a devastating war.
But Washington -- so anxious, evidently, to punish those who violate the sanctity of Security Council mandates -- is hardly consistent on this score. Its closest ally, Israel, has violated or ignored 68 resolutions, and the U.S. has taken no action to force compliance. In addition, the U.S. has used its veto power to defeat some three dozen other resolutions critical of Israeli actions over the years.
On Sept. 24, the Security Council adopted a resolution insisting that Israel lift the siege of President Yasir Arafat's Ramallah compound -- to no avail because Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government said it had "difficulty in accepting" portions of the ruling. President Bush went so far as to state that the shelling of Arafat's complex was "not helpful," but ordered his UN delegation to abstain from the voting. Israel ignored the UN, but eventually removed its tanks Sept. 29 at the behest of the Bush administration so as not to compromise Secretary of State Colin Powell's efforts to obtain UN backing for a new war.
The U.S., of course, is not in violation of any resolutions. It simply vetoes those it doesn't like.