No wonder the White House was so anxious to hide the data; the results are a national disgrace.
Census data released today show that the number and percentage of Americans living below the poverty line increased for the third consecutive year in 2003, and the number and percentage of people without health insurance also climbed for the third straight year, leaving 45 million Americans uninsured in 2003 — the largest number on record, with the data going back to 1987. Median household income stood at $43,318 in 2003, compared with $43,381 in 2002, not a statistically significant change.
Since 2000 — the last year before unemployment began to rise — the number of people in poverty has risen by 4.3 million, median income has fallen by $1,535, after adjustment for inflation, and the number of people with no health insurance has increased by 5.2 million.
The increase in poverty was concentrated among children. The poverty rate among children under 18 jumped from 16.7 percent to 17.6 percent between 2002 and 2003, and the number of poor children rose by 733,000, to 12.9 million. This rise accounted for a majority of the increase of 1.3 million in the overall number of poor people, which climbed from 34.6 million in 2002 to 35.9 million in 2003. More than one in every three poor people in 2003 were children.
In a normal world, this would be the biggest, most devastating domestic story in the country and would dominate the media for weeks. Instead, we’ll be hearing plenty more about some partisan hacks who are still lying about a war hero’s military service.
But media attention aside, the new data reflects a spectacular failure in economic policy. We’ve already learned that the wealthiest Americans are enjoying a windfall from their tax cuts, as the tax burden on the middle class is increasing, but now we’re also learning about just how dramatic the increase in national poverty has been since Bush took office. Indeed, never has the phrase “rich get richer, poor get poorer” meant more.
To borrow one of John Edwards’ lines, it doesn’t have to be this way.
[T]hose who were poor became poorer on average. The number of people living in extreme poverty — those with incomes below half of the poverty line — jumped by 1.2 million in 2003 to 15.3 million people. Some 43 percent of all poor people had incomes this low, as the percentage of poor people living in extreme poverty reached the highest level on record. Another basic measure of the depth, or severity, of poverty — the average amount by which the incomes of those who are poor fall below the poverty line — also was greater in 2003, than in any other year since at least 1975. Consistent with these findings, the share of national income going to the bottom fifth of households was the lowest on record, with data available since 1967.
The rise in poverty and the lack of growth in median income primarily reflect weaknesses in the labor market in 2003. The average number of jobs fell by 410,000 from 2002 to 2003, and the average unemployment rate rose to 6.0 percent, up from 5.8 percent in 2002 and 4.0 percent in 2000. The percentage of Americans age 16 and older with jobs fell to 62.3 percent in an average month of 2003, the lowest percentage since 1993.
Some of the president’s defenders insisted yesterday that these developments were not his fault and that the White House shouldn’t be held responsible for such dramatic failures. They’re wrong.
First, one of Bush’s primary problems is that he continues to believe there is no problem.
“Our economy is strong and getting stronger…. I’ll argue vehemently, we’ve overcome it because of well-timed tax cuts. It helped when we put more money in the people’s pockets. It helped when we said, you know, we hear your cries and you need more money if you’ve got a child in your family.”
Second, while no president is directly responsible for every economic development that happens on his watch, presidents can shape fiscal policies in a way that helps spread the wealth and not just lavish resources on the lucky few. It’s a matter of priorities.
Bush has chosen to champion those who have the most and need the least help. His predecessor, who oversaw the longest/broadest economic expansion in history and created over 22 million new jobs, believed that everyone should benefit when the economy is strong.
During Clinton’s two terms, the median income for American families increased by a solid 15% after inflation, according to Census Bureau figures. But it rose even faster for African Americans (33%) and Hispanics (24%) than it did for whites (14%).
The growth was so widely shared that from 1993 through 1999, families in the bottom fifth of the income distribution saw their incomes increase faster than those in the top 5%. By comparison, under President Reagan in the 1980s, those in the top 5% increased their income more than five times faster than the bottom 20%.
Likewise, the poverty rate under Clinton fell 25%, the biggest eight-year decline since the 1960s. It fell even faster for particularly vulnerable groups like blacks, Hispanics and children. Again the contrast with Reagan is striking. During Reagan’s two terms, the number of Americans in poverty fell by just 77,000. During Clinton’s two terms, the number of Americans in poverty plummeted by 8.1 million. The number of children in poverty fell by 50,000 under Reagan. Under Clinton the number was 4.1 million. That’s a ratio of 80 to 1.
The Bush White House’s policies not only reflect a budget deficit, they reflect something even worse — a deficit of values. Reward the rich, ignore the poor, and squeeze the middle class.
These guys shouldn’t be running for a second term; they should be running for the hills.