September, 12 2012, 03:08pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Michelle Bazie,202-408-1080,bazie@cbpp.org
Statement of Robert Greenstein, President, on Census' 2011 Poverty, Income, and Health Insurance Data
Today's Census data contained the good, the fair, and the ugly. The good news is that the number of uninsured Americans dropped by 1.3 million and the share of Americans without insurance fell by more than in any year since 1999; the fair news is that the poverty rate stayed flat after rising in the previous three years and seven of the previous 10; and the ugly news is that median household income fell by 1.5 percent after adjusting for inflation while income inequality widened significantly.
WASHINGTON
Today's Census data contained the good, the fair, and the ugly. The good news is that the number of uninsured Americans dropped by 1.3 million and the share of Americans without insurance fell by more than in any year since 1999; the fair news is that the poverty rate stayed flat after rising in the previous three years and seven of the previous 10; and the ugly news is that median household income fell by 1.5 percent after adjusting for inflation while income inequality widened significantly.
The drop in income of the median household -- the household exactly in the middle of the income distribution -- was tied to a substantial rise in income inequality. Put simply, household incomes fell in the middle and rose at the top as income gains from the economic recovery were very unevenly shared. For the 20 percent of households in the middle, average household income fell 1.7 percent, or $876. For the top 20 percent, average income rose 1.9 percent, or $3,286. For the top 5 percent of households, average income rose 5.1 percent, or $15,184. Incomes fell for the bottom four fifths of American households, while rising only for the top fifth.
Economic Improvement and Unemployment Insurance Benefit Declines Offset Each Other, Leaving Poverty Flat
The Census data indicate that modest but significant improvement in the economy put downward pressure on poverty, while a large drop in unemployment insurance (UI) benefits that substantially exceeded the decline in unemployment exerted upward pressure.
UI income fell by $36 billion -- about a quarter -- in 2011, while the number of unemployed workers fell 7 percent and the number of long-term unemployed (those out of work for over half a year and still looking for a job) fell 6 percent. The Census data show that UI benefits lifted 3.2 million Americans out of poverty in 2010, but 2.3 million in 2011 -- a reduction of more than one-fourth (see Figure 1).
UI benefits fell because a temporary benefit increase from 2009 expired, many jobless Americans exhausted their benefits before they found jobs, and (on a positive note) the unemployment rate edged down. The large decline in UI benefit income, combined with the slow recovery, meant lower incomes for many families with workers who still couldn't find employment. The Census data released today suggest that the UI decline added 0.3 percentage points to the poverty rate last year.
The economy showed modest improvement in 2011, with an increase of 1.7 percent or 1.9 million in the number of private-sector jobs, although average weekly wages for nonsupervisory workers edged down by 0.3 percent after adjusting for inflation. These gains and their impact in easing poverty were reduced, however, by the loss of 386,000 public-sector jobs, primarily at the local and state level, as well as by the decline in UI income. (The shrinkage in state and local government jobs included the loss of 110,000 jobs for teachers and other school employees.)
These data suggest that in the absence of the disproportionate decline in UI benefits and loss of state and local government jobs, poverty likely would have fallen modestly in 2011.
The data do show statistically significant declines in poverty for some groups. Poverty fell for Hispanics (from 26.5 percent in 2010 to 25.3 percent in 2011) and for men (from 14.0 percent to 13.6 percent). Poverty also fell in the South (from 16.8 percent to 16.0 percent) and in the suburbs (from 11.9 percent to 11.3 percent). The poverty rate remained statistically unchanged for most other groups and regions.
Gains in Health Insurance Coverage
The main positive news in today's report is the fall in the share of Americans who are uninsured, from 16.3 percent in 2010 to 15.7 percent in 2011, the largest annual improvement since 1999. That improvement was driven in part by gains in coverage among young adults, which appear largely due to a provision of the health reform law allowing them to remain on their parent's health plan until they reach age 26. Forty percent of the decline in the number of uninsured people came among individuals aged 19-25. Some 539,000 fewer 19-25-year-olds were uninsured in 2011 than in 2010.
Largely because more young adults were covered under their parents' employer-based health plans, the overall percentage of non-elderly people with private coverage remained steady, rather than declining, for the first time in 10 years. Private coverage rose among those under 25 while falling among those aged 25-64, with the two effects offsetting each other.
The improvement in health coverage reflected, as well, a significant increase in the number and percentage of Americans with public health insurance -- principally through Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). More people became eligible for these programs as the population aged and employer-based coverage continued to erode among those aged 25-64. A requirement of health reform that states maintain their Medicaid and CHIP eligibility levels and enrollment procedures also played a role.
Much larger reductions in the number of uninsured are expected in 2014, when the major coverage expansions of health reform take effect. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, eventually, 30 million people who otherwise would be uninsured will gain coverage as a result of health reform.
Poverty Looking Backward and Forward
The continuing high level of poverty continues a trend that dates back to the unusually weak economic recovery that started in 2001. That recovery, which lasted until the Great Recession began in late 2007, marked the first sustained expansion on record in which growth was so weak, and income gains so unevenly shared, that poverty was higher by the end of it than at the beginning. (See Figure 2.)
The poverty rate is likely to start falling in 2012. Key labor market data -- particularly the strength of private, non-farm job creation and the drop in the number of unemployed workers -- are more positive so far in 2012 than they were in 2011.
Nevertheless, falling UI payments could place upward pressure on poverty again in 2012 -- and especially in 2013, depending on actions that policymakers take in coming months. The new Census data on the role of UI benefits in reducing poverty underscore the importance of action to prevent federal UI benefits from ending entirely less than four months from now, on December 31 -- as they will if policymakers do not act. At no time since 1958, when policymakers first created federal UI benefits, have policymakers allowed such benefits to expire when the unemployment rate remained above 7.2 percent.
Today's data also underscore the need for those at the top to share in the sacrifices that lie ahead, as the nation moves to address unhealthy mid-term and long-term deficits. Given the need for substantial sacrifice and the skewing of income gains to those at the top, it is difficult to justify extending the rather lavish tax cuts for high-income individuals that policymakers enacted in 2001 and 2003, which average $129,000 a year for people who make over $1 million a year, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.
Impact of the Safety Net
As noted, the Census data show that UI kept 2.3 million people above the poverty line last year. Social Security kept 21.4 million people out of poverty.
The Census data also show how many fewerpeople would be considered poor if two benefits that are not counted in the official poverty data -- the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and SNAP (formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) -- are counted, as many analysts across the political spectrum believe they should be. Census officials said that if counted, the EITC would be seen to have lifted 5.7 million people -- including 3.1 million children -- out of poverty in 2011, and SNAP to have lifted out 3.9 million people, including 1.7 million children. (See Figure 3.)
Under an alternative, more comprehensive measure of poverty that's based on recommendations of a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel and that counts a fuller range of benefits -- including the EITC, SNAP, low-income housing assistance, school lunches, and others -- the increase in poverty was strikingly modest from 2007 to 2010 despite the Great Recession. Later this year, the Census Bureau will release data under this measure for 2011. Using the NAS-based measure, a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analysis found that six temporary income-assistance provisions that policymakers enacted in 2009 and 2010 -- including emergency UI benefits, a SNAP benefit increase, and working-family tax credits -- kept an estimated 6.9 million people above the poverty line in 2010.
These Census data also highlight the impact that sharp cuts in such programs could have on poverty. The House-passed budget of last spring would cut SNAP by more than $133 billion over ten years and convert it to a block grant under which the program would no longer expand automatically when the economy turns down and contract automatically when the economy is again growing robustly. The House budget also would let the 2009 improvements in tax credits for low-income working families -- as well as federal UI benefits -- expire at the end of 2012, even as it would make permanent all expiring tax cuts that benefit high-income households. Such steps could significantly boost poverty rates in future years, especially during times of economic weakness, and exacerbate after-tax income inequality.
Efforts to reduce poverty need not conflict with efforts to reduce budget deficits. The three largest deficit-reduction packages of the last two decades -- those enacted in 1990, 1993, and 1997 -- reduced poverty and hardship even as they reduced deficits, due to increases that those packages included in the EITC (in 1990 and 1993) and food stamps (in 1993) and the creation of CHIP (in 1997).
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is one of the nation's premier policy organizations working at the federal and state levels on fiscal policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families and individuals.
LATEST NEWS
Calls Mount for US to Provide Free School Meals to All Children
"Hiving off a tiny part of the public school bundle and charging a means-tested fee for it is extremely stupid," argues Matt Bruenig.
Mar 20, 2023
Minnesota last week became just the fourth U.S. state to guarantee universal free school meals, triggering a fresh wave of demands and arguments for a similar federal policy to feed kids.
"Universal school meals is now law in Minnesota!" Democratic U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, who represents the state, tweeted Monday. "Now, we need to pass our Universal School Meals Program Act to guarantee free school meals to every child across the country."
Omar's proposal, spearheaded in the upper chamber by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), "would permanently provide free breakfast, lunch, dinner, and a snack to all school children regardless of income, eliminate school meal debt, and strengthen local economies by incentivizing local food procurement," the lawmakers' offices explained in 2021.
Congressional Republicans last year blocked the continuation of a Covid-19 policy enabling public schools to provide free breakfast and lunch to all 50 million children, and now, many families face rising debt over childrens' cafeteria charges.
"The school bus service doesn't charge fares. Neither should the school lunch service."
Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project, highlighted Monday that while children who attend public schools generally have not only free education but also free access to bathrooms, textbooks, computer equipment, playgrounds, gyms, and sports gear, "around the middle of each school day, the free schooling service is briefly suspended for lunch."
"How much each kid is charged is based on their family income except that, if a kid lives in a school or school district where 40% or more of the kids are eligible for free lunch, then they are also eligible for free lunch even if their family income would otherwise be too high," he detailed. "Before Covid, in 2019, 68.1% of the kids were charged $0, 5.8% were charged $0.40, and 26.1% were charged the full $4.33... The total cost of the 4.9 billion meals is around $21 billion per year. In 2019, user fees covered $5.6 billion of this cost."
Bruenig—whose own child has access to free school meals because of the community eligibility program—continued:
The approximately $5.6 billion of school lunch fees collected in 2019 were equal to 0.7% of the total cost of K-12 schooling. In order to collect these fees, each school district has to set up a school lunch payments system, often by contracting with third-party providers like Global Payments. They also have to set up a system for dealing with kids who are not enrolled in the free lunch program but who show up to school with no money in their school lunch account or in their pockets. In this scenario, schools will either have to make the kid go without lunch, give them a free lunch for the day (but not too many times), or give them a lunch while assigning their lunch account a debt.
Eligibility for the $0 and $0.40 lunches is based on income, but this does not mean that everyone with an eligible income successfully signs up for the program. As with all means-tested programs, the application of the means test not only excludes people with ineligible incomes, but also people with eligible incomes who fail to successfully navigate the red tape of the welfare bureaucracy.
The think tank leader tore into arguments against universal free meals for kids, declaring that "hiving off a tiny part of the public school bundle and charging a means-tested fee for it is extremely stupid."
Bruenig pointed out that socializing the cost of child benefits like school meals helps "equalize the conditions of similarly-situated families with different numbers of children" and "smooths incomes across the lifecycle by ensuring that, when people have kids, their household financial situation remains mostly the same."
"Indeed, this is actually the case for the welfare state as whole, not just child benefits," the expert emphasized, explaining that like older adults and those with disabilities, children cannot and should not work, which "makes it impossible to receive personal labor income, meaning that some other non-labor income system is required."
Conservative opponents of free school lunches often claim that "fees serve an important pedagogical function in society to get people to understand personal responsibility" and because they "are means-tested, they serve an important income-redistributive function in society," he noted. "Both arguments are hard to take seriously."
Pushing back against the first claim, Bruenig stressed that right-wingers don't apply it to other aspects of free schooling such as bus services. He also wrote that the means-testing claim "is both untrue and at odds with their general attitudes on, not just redistribution, but on how child benefit programs specifically should be structured."
A tax for everyone with a certain income intended to make up the $5.6 billion in school meal fees, he argued, "would have a larger base and thus represent a smaller share of the income of each person taxed and such a tax would smooth incomes over time," while also eliminating means-testing—which would allow schools to feed all kids and ditch costly payment systems.
As Nora De La Cour reported Sunday for Jacobin: "The fight for school meals traces its roots all the way back to maternalist Progressive Era efforts to shield children and workers from the ravages of unregulated capitalism. In her bookThe Labor of Lunch: Why We Need Real Food and Real Jobs in American Public Schools, Jennifer Gaddis describes how early school lunch crusaders envisioned meal programs that would be integral to schools' educational missions, immersing students in hands-on learning about nutrition, gardening, food preparation, and home economics. Staffed by duly compensated professionals, these programs would collectivize and elevate care work, making it possible for mothers of all economic classes to efficiently nourish their young."
Now, families who experienced the positive impact of the pandemic-era program want more from the federal government.
"When schools adopt universal meals through community eligibility or another program, we see improvements in students' academic performance, behavior, attendance, and psychosocial functioning," wrote De La Cour, whose reporting also includes parent and cafeteria worker perspectives. "Above all, the implementation of universal meals causes meal participation to shoot up, demonstrating that the need far exceeds the number of kids who are able to get certified."
Crystal FitzSimons, director of school-based programs at the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), told Jacobin, "There is a feeling that we can't go back."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Fight Continues' in France as Macron Government Survives No-Confidence Vote
Protests—some of them violently repressed by police—broke out in Paris and cities across the nation after a parliamentary vote following the government's deeply unpopular move to raise the retirement age by two years.
Mar 20, 2023
Fresh protests erupted in Paris and other French cities on Monday after President Emmanuel Macron's government narrowly survived a pair of parliamentary no-confidence votes over bypassing the lower house of Parliament to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64.
The first parliamentary vote of no confidence, called by a small group of centrist lawmakers, fell nine votes short of the 278 needed to pass, Agence France-Presse reports. A second no-confidence vote, brought forward by the far-right National Rally, was also rejected.
The French Senate, which is dominated by right-wing parties, approved the higher retirement age last week. However, faced with the prospect of a vote shortfall in the National Assembly, Macron's government then invoked special constitutional powers to push through the retirement age hike.
The deeply unpopular policy has sparked widespread protests, some of which have drawn hundreds of thousands of people into the streets despite government bans on gatherings in locations including Place de la Concorde and the area of Avenue des Champs-Elysées in Paris.
Protests renewed following Monday's votes, with thousands of demonstrators marching in Paris alone. Videos posted on social media showed police charging protesters, spraying them with pepper spray, and beating them. One video showed officers brutalizing a person who appeared to be a photojournalist while an onlooker repeatedly shouted "it's the press!"
"We are not resigned," the Aubervilliers parliamentary group of the left-wing populist party La France Insoumise (LFI), or France Unbowed, tweeted Monday. "The fight against retirement reforms continues. All together in the street until the retirement of this unjust and illegitimate reform!"
LFI's parliamentary group in Haute-Garonne—which includes the southern city of Tolouse—tweeted that "Macron is more isolated than ever."
"The fight continues tonight," the party group said, previewing a Monday evening demonstration.
French unions are calling for a nationwide general strike on Thursday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Tens of Thousands of LA Teachers to Strike in Solidarity With Support Workers
"How do we properly service our students when we are being overworked and underpaid and disrespected?" asked one special education assistant.
Mar 20, 2023
Demanding "respect and dignity" for tens of thousands of school support workers who help the Los Angeles Unified School District run, the union that represents 35,000 teachers in the city has called on its members to join a three-day strike starting Tuesday as school support staffers fight for a living wage.
Members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 99 "work so hard for our students," said United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) on Monday. "They deserve respect and dignity at work. We will be out in force tomorrow to make sure they get it."
Roughly 65,000 teachers and support professionals including bus drivers, cafeteria workers, teaching aides, and grounds workers are expected to walk out from Tuesday through Thursday this week, nearly a year after SEIU Local 99 entered contract negotiations with LAUSD, the second-largest school district in the United States.
The union is calling for a 30% pay increase for its members, who earn an average of $25,000 per year, or roughly $12 per hour. According to the MIT Living Wage Calculator, a living wage in the Los Angeles area is more than $21 per hour for a single person with no children and far more for people with children.
"I am a single mother and for the past 20 years I have worked two and sometimes three jobs just to support my family," Janette Verbera, a special education assistant, told In These Times Monday. "How do we properly service our students when we are being overworked and underpaid and disrespected?"
The school district offered a 20% overall pay increase spread over several years on Friday, along with a one-time 5% bonus.
Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO, noted that LAUSD has a $4.9 billion surplus and said the district must use those funds to "invest in staff, students, and educators."
SEIU Local 99 members voted to authorize a strike in February, and said the limited three-day action is a protest against the district's negotiating tactics.
LAUSD has claimed the strike is unlawful and that workers are actually staging the walkout over pay without having exhausted all bargaining avenues. A state board over the weekend denied the district's request to block the strike.
As In These Timesreported, negotiations between the district and SEIU Local 99—as well as separate ongoing talks with the teachers' union about educators' contracts—are being led by Superintendent Alberto M. Carvalho, "whose $440,000 salary is nearly 10 times that of a starting salary for a LAUSD teacher."
"LAUSD won't get away with underfunding our schools," tweeted UTLA last week. "This is for our students, for our communities and for our lives."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.