Significant Rise in U.S. Poverty

[jacdon at earthlink.net]

The source of an article posted on this list earlier today -- "The
Democrats and the Dogs of War" -- was accidently omitted.   It was
written by Jack A. Smith and the article, along with the following, is
from the Oct. 1 issue of the Mid-Hudson Activist Newsletter, published
in New Paltz,N.Y., by the Mid-Hudson National People's Campaign/IAC,
jacdon at earthlink.net.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.