7
Why the annual poverty numbers matter
The U.S. Census Bureau released the latest figures on the nation's poverty rates. Nothing much has changed, and that's not a good thing for the economy.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
Sarah Gardner: A new census report out today has the latest poverty figures. More than 46 million Americans were living in poverty in 2011. About the same as the year before -- a surprise to many economists, who'd expected the poverty rate to go up.
From our Wealth and Poverty Desk, Shereen Marisol Meraji reports.
Shereen Marisol Meraji: The Los Angeles Regional Food Bank is a mad house. Fork lift drivers zig-zag in and out of the warehouse balancing stacked pallets with cans of whole tomatoes and peaches. Michael Flood runs the place.
Michael Flood: Our distribution last year was up 80 percent compared to the pre-recession days.
And he says there's no sign demand will go down. The poverty rate is holding steady at 15%, same as last year, according to the new Census data.
Sheldon Danziger: It's the only time that we as a nation focus on the poor.
Sheldon Danziger directs the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan, he says it's important to focus on the poverty numbers because they show that even during a recovery, rising economic tides don't lift all boats. Danziger adds that:
Danziger: If deficit reduction frenzy leads to cutting the earned income tax credit, cutting back unemployment insurance, cutting back food stamps...
...Even more Americans could fall into poverty. Robert Rector from the Heritage Foundation agrees that we should focus on these statistics, but in a different way.
Robert Rector: I do think we should be very much talking about the growth of the welfare state and the growth of the people dependent on welfare.
Rector believes poverty is a drag on the economy because, he says, the government spends a trillion dollars on programs that benefit the poor and nothing is changing.
That debate is taking place back at the L.A. Regional food bank, too. Scott Wilderman is picking up food for his church's pantry. He says it's one thing for the church to help the poor but:
Scott Wilderman: Food stamps is socialism and we're not a socialist country.
Inside, LaRonda Simes, who has a full-time job there, says without government child care subsidies:
LaRonda Simes: I will be in a shelter or somewhere because I wouldn't be able to make rent or to make gas to come to work.
She says she's been poor -- and never wants to be there again.
I'm Shereen Marisol Meraji for Marketplace.
Ms. Simes does not get it. She is still poor. If you are only able "survive" because you are getting help from the tax payer (without government child care subsidies: I will be in a shelter") then you are poor.
This is what the poverty numbers miss, the large number of people who would be unable to make ends meet with out direct government aid.
A little clarification, please. "...the government spends a trillion dollars on programs that benefit the poor..." - is this a year?!? Is this "ever"?!? With less than 50 million people classified as "poor" this is over $200,000 spent on each individual! The piece implies that the USG does this on an annual basis. If that's the case, give them each $50k and cancel the programs. The poor won't be poor and my taxes will go down.
Don't they teach fact checking anymore?
I agree with everything Jesse Austin said above ^^. I thank my lucky stars that the 'dreaded' "Big Government" put into place during the Great Depression to successfully and spectacularly revive our economy is still an integral part of American society, though it's been picked apart, misrepresented and mutilated by the trickle-down mafia like the ghouls at the Heritage Foundation.
Scott Wilderman's flippant statement about the 'socialism' of food stamps boggles the mind. He appears to be that special type of conservative who wants to off-load complex and sensitive social welfare administration to well-meaning but often criminally inexperienced and incapable/unqualified church groups; the sort of "faith-based" agencies that our last president, George W, ideally wanted to entrust with about 95% of all government functions.
Mr. Wilderman, let me tell you about what it's really like to receive those "socialist" food stamps and how sadly inadequate, though well-meaning, your church pantries are, as I am a current recipient of California's EBT (Scott, they don't call them 'food stamps' anymore) which is administered by the USDA, and I've also once had to reach out to my neighborhood Baptist Church's twice-monthly food boxes in a time of personal crisis.
I am completely and permanently disabled, and I'm pending in the application process for my SSDI benefits, but currently have absolutely zero income coming in. I receive $200 every month in EBT and I have no dependents. I'm able to use my EBT, which is an ATM-like card that eliminates having everyone in your checkout line know that you are using 'food stamps', at every supermarket, Farmer's Market, health food store, Trader Joe's and many smaller mom'n'pop stores to purchase whatever food I choose. I am an avid cook, and I buy next to zero processed foods, or pricey frozen meals, stretching my $$ by cooking everything from scratch. I eat very well because I'm able to plan my own very healthy and epicurian menus and then shop accordingly. I even have enough EBT $$ to occasionally have friends over for dinner and to bake my famous pies to share with my flatmates.
Last year, after my refrigerator broke and most of my food spoiled before my landlord installed a new one, I found myself at the end of the month totally out of EBT money and with very little to eat other than pantry staples like sugar and flour, spices and etc. I went to the neighborhood Baptist church which distributes boxes of free food twice a month. I was incredibly grateful for their charity in that emergency time of need--so much so that I felt like a real twat for essentially looking a gift horse in the mouth when I got home and saw what was in my box. My bounty included a box of generic brand Apple Jacks cereal, generic Pop Tarts, chocolate pudding cups, two loaves of Wonder-style white bread, a large jar of generic Jif-style sweetened/processed peanut butter, a large jar of grape jelly, 3 cans of beef raviolis in sauce, 5 boxes of mac'n'cheese, some fruit roll-ups, a block of Velveeta-style processed cheese, Uncle Ben's style minute rice, 3 cans of tuna, a box of Tuna Helper, a jar of off-brand Miracle Whip, instant mashed potatoes, packets of gravy mix, spaghetti noodles, jarred marinara sauce and a package of hot dogs. Many would call me an ungrateful foodie snob, but with the exception of the tuna, every single item was highly processed, and exceedingly high in salt, sugar, high glycemic carbs and fat: an express train to obesity and Type II diabetes. And I remember looking at the line of glum people waiting for their food boxes and seeing an unusually high number of very overweight adults and children--we're talking over 75%, and there were 2 morbidly obese diabetes sufferers who had to use a scooter/wheelchair due to the leg and foot circulation issues that plague people of that size.
As someone who really enjoys cooking, I would sorely miss the freedom of being able to plan and prepare my own menus and shop at my own favorite stores for quality healthy ingredients. It seems rather ironic that the anti-socialism church pantry crowd actually quite curtails my freedom to make my own consumer choices as they make the executive decisions of what their clients will consume. And though I was exceedingly grateful for the church getting me out of a very tight situation, I was keenly aware of my charity status as I stood in the rather sad, glum line. I actually love shopping for food, and when I slide my EBT card whilst paying at the supermarket checkout, I often forget that I'm a welfare-using, disability-having poor person--and now a dreaded socialist as well. The current slash and burn climate in regards to our federal government is producing too many Scott Wildermans who just aren't thinking things through. There are certain things that centralized governments of wealthy industrialized countries do much better than the private sector, and administering food programs is definitely one of them.
Wow... talking about the welfare state? Bad time to talk about the welfare state. I'm surprised that the poverty stats haven't grown. Everything costs more and unemployment still exists. I have friends in high tech who have been unemployed for long lengths of time, some for over a year. These talented hard working women and men have diligently been looking for work the entire time too. I've been laid off twice in the past three years and am grateful for finding work again. It is tough out there. Sure there are going to be some taking the hand out, so you're going to punish the masses for bad practices of a few? After the Lehman brothers failure, if there weren't a government (aka Bernanke) to back stop the mess made by corporate welfare, there wouldn't be a state, let alone a welfare state. Those who don't think government should play a role, walk a mile with the unemployed, underemployed and poor. I've certainly altered my tune the past three years.
It is hard to believe that Scott is picking up food for his church's food pantry and then says something derogatory about food stamps. Where is his compassion?
And, if taking care of our poor means that we are a socialist country, and I say more power to us—we should be one.
I especially love how Scott Wilderman is a a public food bank, picking up food for his church pantry, and decrying socialism. How about your church pantry go it alone? As for Rector, maybe you've missed what happened to the economy in the last few years, mainly due to policies endorsed by your organization? Try getting out of your comfy envelope and doing some real work for a change and you might realize that your world view is unsustainable.
I have grown increasingly frustrated by the ill-informed comments of people such as Robert Rector and Scott Wilderman. In the midst of the worst financial crisis since the depression of the 1930s, simplistic talk about "the welfare state" and "Socialism" reflects the height of foolishness. In 2008, the world was hit, not with a recession, but with another depression; the only reason it did not reach 1930s disaster levels was because of the regulatory safeguards put into place after that dreadful collapse - safeguards which are today under constant attack by Rector's fellow-travelers. Contrary to Wilderman's bumper-sticker response, the government has a vested, *capitalist*-oriented interest in helping to keep the poor and unemployed afloat: Everyday people provide the majority of demand for products, which, in turn, spurs business. If middle-class, working-class and poor people don't have money in their pockets to spend on stuff, it doesn't matter how many gleaming factories teeming with fancy equipment are built by "job creators." It is tiring to hear national media interviews with people who don't appear to have even a rudimentary grasp of supply-and-demand economics.
