Americans in Poverty, without Health Insurance up Again

A double dose of bad news for the Bush campaign at the end of last week. It seems that, for the third year in a row, the numbers of Americans living below the poverty line and those without some form of health coverage has risen. Even better, the Census Bureau traditionally releases these numbers in late September rather than in August before a Republican convention. Apparently, if policy isn't working, one doesn't change policy, one hides the proof.

The figures just released are for 2003, and they show that one-eighth of the American population lives in poverty, about 35.8 million, up 1.3 million from 2002. For a family of four, that means living on $18,810 or less. For a couple without kids, the figure is $12,015 a year. Of course, most of the increase hit the kids. Last year, there were 12.9 million Americans under 18 who were living in poverty, 800,000 more than in 2002. That is 17.6 percent of the under-18 population. This is not surprising. According to former Secretary of Commerce Pete Peterson, among others, seniors get 7 times the entitlement spending that the under-18s do (votes do matter, and kids haven't any).

Even more Americans lacked health coverage than lived in poverty. About 45 million couldn't afford to get sick in 2003, around 15.6% of the population, up 1.5 million from 2002. This group is a much different one than those living in poverty. It includes a large number of the self-employed, small businessmen and -women the Republican Party counts as America's bedrock (rightly). Precisely, how private healthcare can be made accessible to the entrepreneurial class remains the unanswered question.

At the same time, the median income in the US was more or less stable at $43,318 per household. An interesting statistical law says that when more households are in poverty, and the median doesn't move, there must be a corresponding increase in the number of households at the top end. Senator Edwards calls it "Two Americas."

An honest defense of this mess is possible. The nation is at war, 9/11 made things very bad in 2002 and its effects lingered in 2003, and perhaps, 2004's statistics will be better. Demographic changes, like the increase in the number of households as more people live alone, may account for some of this deterioration. And such a debate could have occurred after a September release of the figures. Instead, they appeared in August, and it looks like the Census Bureau succumbed to political pressure. So, the debate is not about the economy but about whether the White House tried to hide the facts. When one in eight Americans lives in poverty, surely that is a side issue.


© Copyright 2004 by The Kensington Review, J. Myhre, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent.


Home