No wonder the GOP wanted to kill the census report

Earlier this year, the Bush administration announced that it no longer saw any reason for the [tag]Census[/tag] Bureau to keep producing its annual report on poverty and income. It may be the only government survey that researchers how income changes affect their poverty status, health coverage, and use of government services, but the Bush gang decided policy work could be done just as well without it.

Fortunately, the report survived administration opposition and was released today. Given the results, it’s not hard to understand why Bush wanted to keep the results hidden.

* In 2005, 46.6 million people were without [tag]health insurance[/tag] coverage, up from 45.3 million people in 2004.

* The percentage of people without health insurance coverage increased from 15.6 percent in 2004 to 15.9 percent in 2005.

* The median earnings of men declined 1.8 percent to $41,386. The median [tag]earnings[/tag] of women declined 1.3 percent to $31,858.

* In 2005, 37.0 million people were in [tag]poverty[/tag], not statistically different from 2004.

I’d only add that the report also explained that the top 20% of income earners saw their real median household earnings increase 1.2% — while everyone else saw their median earnings drop.

As for the statistically unchanged poverty rate, which was the only modicum of decent news, this is the first time since Bush took office that the poverty rate did not go up. That’s the good news. The bad news is 37 million people in poverty is 12.6% of the population — and we’re still looking at an economy that has as many people living in poverty as there have been since the government started keeping track.

And I’d be remiss if I didn’t note the timing of the report’s release.

For years, including the first three years of Bush’s first term, the Census Bureau released its poverty data in late-September. In election years, that meant the public learned about the number of families in poverty about five weeks before going to the polls. Starting in 2004, the administration moved the release up to August, when Congress is out of session, DC has crawled to a stop, and a lot of journalists (and regular voters) are on vacation.

Moreover, in 2004, the Census Bureau also changed the location of the poverty report’s release. Instead of using the traditional National Press Club in downtown DC, where the numbers have been released in years past, officials moved the release to a harder-to-reach office in Suitland, Md.

And just to further raise eyebrows, the poverty numbers used to be released by a career Census official. In 2004, that changed, too — the report was released by the bureau’s director, a political appointee of the Bush White House.

To be fair, maybe these changes were innocuous and had nothing to do with softening the report’s blow. But it’s not as if the administration has earned the benefit of the doubt.

This fits with Mark Kleiman’s post on “blinding the beast”.

  • If America’s middle class wasn’t “in debt up to their eyeballs,” most Americans would be living in poverty.

  • “. . . .the report survived administration opposition and was released today.

    I think there’s something wrong with my calendar. I could’ve sworn today was Tuesday. Did the bureau’s director screw up and release the report early? I thought bad information wasn’t supposed to be released until Friday afternoon?

  • “[T]he report also explained that the 20% of income earners saw their real median household earnings increase 1.2%…

    I assume you mean the top 20% of income earners.

    Does this consider those who make a substantial portion of their earnings from unearned income, e.g. investment returns, interest on holdings, etc.? If not, the figures could be even more skewed.

  • Rick caught one.

    “It may be the only government survey that researchers how income changes affect their poverty status…”

    Maybe?

    “It may be the only government survey that researches how income changes affect their poverty status…”

    Cowardly Bushites. Not willing to admit their prevasive failures.

  • “… maybe these changes were innocuous and had nothing to do with softening the report’s blow ….”

    And maybe the Pope has a love child with Brigitte Bardot.

    The only reason the Bush Crime Family hasn’t done more damage to the Census Bureau and its statistical records is that they don’t know how.

  • I thought bad information wasn’t supposed to be released until Friday afternoon?

    Perhaps they think they can pretend it is good news by releasing it on a Tuesday? I know it sounds crazy, but given this adminstrations track record, I wouldn’t put it past them.

  • been hanging onto this since the end of march: ‘US Census Bureau to Hide Poverty’

    The Census Bureau is playing with numbers to hide growing poverty rates, suggests a new report published jointly by the non-partisan Economic Policy Institute (EPI) and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).

    The new measures will discard expert analysis developed by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which created a rigorous statistical method in 1995 for measuring poverty as accurately as possible…

    …The new method, according to the report, will no longer count child care costs or out-of pocket medical expenses as part of working families’ expenses. Additionally, the new Census Bureau method will grossly exaggerate potential home equity as part of family income, even when families do not own homes…

    read it and weep.

  • … and CB only quotes the ’05-’06 numbers. When you look at the ’00-’06 numbers (the total result of Bush’s “efforts” up to now), they’re worse. And we have 2 more years to go, unless we whop ’em but good in November

  • Go to Southern Mexico, Go to South America, go to rural China, go to Sub-Saharan Africa. Go to these places and then look me in the eye and tell me there’s poverty in the United States. If you were honest, you’d admit that if John Kerry were president, you’d dismiss this report as ‘incomplete’ or unrepresentative of the true picture – you’d say everything that this administration is going to say. The real problem is that you think you can somehow manage a 10 Trillion dollar economy to create equality of outcome. If it were not for the Democrats and their union puppetmasters we’d have a much better educational system which would produce people capable of earning more in the new knowledge economy. Further, you all need to grasp the notion that just because I make $100 million dollars doesn’t mean that there is $100 million dollars less out there for others to earn. We fought a 50 year cold war against communism – and it looks like we’re going to fall prey to it right here at home. God save the Republic!

  • While I agree that these numbers are alarming, I think it should be noted that the survey the administration proposed to cut has basically nothing to do with the report released this week. This report is a supplement to the Current Population Survey, which uses broad samples of the population that change from year to year. The survey that Bush, et al, proposed to cut (even according to the link on this page) was the Survey of Income and Program Participation, which tracks the same individuals over time. The data noted above are not from the saved SIPP, but from a different survey entirely. Just for the record.

  • So poor people should be happy? Just like how blacks during Jim Crow should have been happy they weren’t slaves anymore?

    And I don’t care if Christ Himself was sitting in the White House, a report like that would have generated the same response here.

    And who here has advocated communism?

  • I think what Voolfie is trying to say is that because people are not starving and begging in the streets, everything is okay and we’re commies to suggest otherwise. That is like saying “Well, your house burned down, but at least your entire family wasn’t killed, so it’s not a big deal.”
    And “equality of income” isn’t so much the issue as making sure that hardworking people can pay for hospital bills and college educations without selling a kidney.
    Just think of what kind of press this report would get if it proved that Bush’s economic policies decreased poverty by the same amount. It would be splashed over front pages, discussed as the downfall of liberalism, etc.

  • Comments are closed.