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
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular