Census data shows 48 percent of Americans are either “poor” or “near poor,” the Associated Press reported yesterday, perplexing everyday people and delighting the nation’s harshest critics here and abroad.
The AP story implied this staggering news was the result of deteriorating economic conditions. In fact, though, the number of “near poor” Americans increased dramatically because the Obama administration dramatically (but quietly) changed the official definition of poverty.
Traditionally, a U.S. household was considered “low income” or “near poor” if it had income below 200 percent of the official poverty income thresholds. The Obama administration has raised those income thresholds and thereby transformed the way the government measures poverty and near poverty.
Under President Obama’s new definitions, a family of four in Oakland is “near poor” if their annual pre-tax income is less than $89,700 plus medical insurance. In metropolitan Washington, D.C., the near-poverty line became $80,500. In New York, it’s now $78,500; in Boston, $68,900; and Chicago, $68,600.
One result: The income level for “near poverty” is now very close to the median household income in most communities. (Median income means half the households have more income and half have less.)
So it should be no surprise that, with these new standards, the Census Bureau “discovered” that almost half the U.S. population lives in or “near” poverty. The system is designed to produce that result.
The Obama administration’s new poverty measures are high-octane political propaganda. By dramatically expanding the definition of poverty (and near poverty), the administration furthers the president’s agenda to “spread the wealth.” By artificially inflating the number of Americans counted as poor or near poor, the administration expects to generate political pressure to expand the welfare state and raise taxes
Obama already has permanently increased welfare spending by nearly a third. The government will spend over $900 billion this year on means-tested welfare programs to provide cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services to poor and low-income Americans. That total does not include Social Security, Medicare, or unemployment insurance.
Under the government’s old definition of poverty, this $900 billion–plus comes to around $9,000 for each lower-income American. That’s apparently not nearly enough for Obama — hence a new measure of “poverty” calculated to convince voters that they need to support more welfare spending.
— Robert Rector is a senior research fellow in domestic policy at the Heritage Foundation. His recent papers include “Understanding Poverty in the United States.”
This should be used against Obama. "Over the last four years, the number of people poor or near poor doubled. The employment rate is at record lows. And Obama will be the first president in history to have the lowest unemployment rate of his presidency be the month he was inaugurated."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI suppose the logical stopping point of this process will be when "near poor" is defined to mean "the lower 90%," thereby justifying even more punitive, redistributive taxation of the top earners.
Remember Candidate Obama's line during the campaign? "Come on! I mean, words mean something, you can't just make stuff up."
Apparently, once you're in office, you can.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSpeaking as someone blessed with a job that pays six figures but cursed to live in the D.C. area where six figures buys one a sixty-year-old duplex and a rusting 2002 Mazda, I would be the first to acknowledge that the cost of living here is far, FAR different than, say, middle-of-nowhere Iowa.
That said, the thought that an $80,500 salary, even for a family of four, is *poverty* in the D.C. area isn't just ridiculous, it's insulting. One need only drive through Southeast (during the day, always during the day) to discover what true poverty looks like, and it ain't an eighty g salary.
Sure, $80,500 won't buy you a house-- might not even buy you a townhouse-- but it'll pay the rent outside the Beltway and clothe the kids for public school. It won't be easy, but poverty it's not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf I choose to drop out of school because I'd rather party than study, become an unwed mother at 17 and live the remainder of my life dependent upon welfare and other entitlement programs, am I poor, low-income or lazy?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou would be a liberal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama's American is sort of a reverse Lake Woebegone: everyone is below average.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Rector,
Can we get a source for the new poverty definitions? Your links all just to heritage.org.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe very notion of what is poor is more convoluted than ever, My 80-year-old mom lives on SS and tiny annual IRA withdrawals and would fit the government's definition of poor. Yet, she has a low-mileage 7-year-old Buick, a beautiful two-bedroom apartment with all the amenities (including pool access) and a time share at the beach.More than half her income goes to rent (a government no-no), yet she eats well and gets in a couple of flights a year to visit her kids. How is that poor?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a huge unforced error on the part of the administration, and an early Christmas gift for the eventual Republican nominee.
"The president's own numbers show that poverty has skyrocketed during his administration. He'll tell you that the problem is with the American financial system. But the American people know the problem is him."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd if the President is re-elected, you can be assured that the poverty baseline will be adjusted downward again. That way, in one fell swoop, the President can claim to have reduced poverty in one afternoon (while playing golf, no less).
In any event, this adjusted uptick can go both ways. The President, after all, has governed for 3 years. And in those three years, and by his own definition, more people have "fallen into poverty". It's not like he can easily come out and blame the statisticians. That would create more answers than questions. Perhaps some GOP political operative will wake up and use this against the Anointed One.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll of this is, of course quite silly. Looking at poverty here in the U.S. and comparing it to the poor in other nations is the ultimate in apples and oranges. Cars, HDTVs, microwaves, air-conditioners, etc. are all owned in large percentages by the U.S. poor. In some countries, ownership of a chicken puts you in the middle class.
However, part of the reason that "the near poor" has grown is the increase of the uncounted unemployed. These are people who have been unemployed for over 99 weeks (including myself) who can no longer collect unemployment, but cannot find full time employment. If counted, the unemployment rate would be 16 to 20 percent. These households have seen their reasonably robust incomes drop to barely getting by - the same rate that the government conveniently changes the definition of "near poverty" to.
In my own case, my income has gone from a comfortable six figures to around Obama's definition of near poor for the greater NYC area funded only by inconsistent consulting gigs (I was actually laid off the day after Barry's election). But I have assets that I've sold and I have retirement funds that I have cut into.
But classifying us as poor or near poor is silly. We are still living what anyone would define as a middle to upper middle class lifestyle in this area of NJ. I know many other people who are in exactly the same boat.
But we can't keep it up forever. We just want to survive until the Obama years blow over. If he's re-elected, we're doomed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGeesh, talk about owning it. These true believers bought the entire farm.
I'm not certain this question is even rhetorical: Why the hay would the White House go out of their way to redefine a socio-economic class which in turn reinforces that the President and the Political Party he represents has done a horrible job with the economy?
The only logical answer is that these folks have such little respect for half the citizens of the United States that they believe they can get them all to pull (D) by calling them poor. Impressive.
Republicans should in turn tell the remaining residents of say Detroit thet they're rich. No reason required.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo apparently starting lawyer salaries are in the poverty level now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAside from the fact that all the links in this post (including the one for the AP article) are useless because they all lead to some Heritage Foundation article from September, the numbers quoted are questionable at best.
The current poverty level for a family of 4 is $22, 350.
External Link
All of the hypothetical incomes quoted here (such as $89,700) are in no way below 200%. 200% of $22,350 is $44,700. Fabricating numbers is not any way to advance your argument. You'd think after being roundly ridiculed in the media for the last assertions about how poor people shouldn't own coffee makers, etc. you'd be a little more careful about making another preposterous declaration.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour link isn't current. It was last revised in January 2011; the new guidelines, to which the post refers, were issued in September 2011.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
This is the poverty brief released by the government on September 13, 2011.
The poverty level for a family of four is $22,314.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObviously, no one has been paying attention. The "poor" are "the 99 percent" and the rich are the "1 percent."
Ours is the first civilization in history to have (1) 99 percent poor people and (2) 99 percent of the people with comfortable housing, clothing, food, transportation, and other amenities that exceed those of most of the world.
No thanks to Zerobama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSurprise, surprise -- this is the European approach to defining poverty. The U.S. system is -- or was -- essentially based on the concept of absolute poverty, i.e., can a family afford the basic necessities? The European system does not measure absolute poverty, it measures what they call "income poverty," in which anyone who falls below the median income is defined as poor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRead this '50 Economic Numbers from 2011--Almost too Crazy to Believe'. Not vouching for the accuracy but all linked. Pretty scary.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmong the many problems with this redefinition of poverty, should this not be highly offensive to the actual poor throughout the developing world? I'm waiting to hear outrage. I think it will be a long wait.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse