The Corner

How Obama’s ‘Other Half’ Lives

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.”

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Did Flynn Lie?

At the outset, let’s get two things straight: First, there is something deeply disturbing about the Obama administration’s decision to open a counterintelligence investigation on retired lieutenant general Michael Flynn while he was working on the Trump campaign — and, ultimately, about the Justice ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Where Is the Flynn 302?

Better late than never (I hope), my weekend column has posted on the website. It deals with the question whether General Michael Flynn actually lied to the FBI agents — including the now infamous Peter Strzok — when they interviewed him in the White House on his third day on the job as national security ... Read More
U.S.

G-File Mailbag: The Results of a Bad Idea

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Jonah Goldberg’s weekly “news”letter, the G-File. Subscribe here to get the G-File delivered to your inbox on Fridays. Dear Reader (Including those of you just standing there eating Zarg nuts), I had a bad idea. It wasn’t a terrible idea, like asking a meth addict ... Read More
Politics & Policy

The Collusion Scenario

It has become an article of faith in some quarters on the right -- well, most -- that the Mueller investigation has found no evidence of collusion with Russia and has accordingly shifted gears to process crimes like lying to the FBI or obstruction of justice. Having decided that this must be true, many have ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Who’s in Charge Here?

In the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump was asked on many occasions whether he would “accept the results” of the election if he were to lose. Democrats and their media allies demanded that he make a solemn vow to “accept the results.” It was never entirely clear what anybody thought ... Read More