We are the Liberal Blog From Hollywood
L.A.'s Premier Post Facility

L.A.'s Premier Post Facility

Photographer in L.A.

Hot Pics & Gossip.

Archive for September 14th, 2011

Known Clowns

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on September 14th, 2011 4:46 am by HL

Known Clowns
Not much is a better compliment for a person than the quality of the individuals they offend.

On Sunday — as we all must know by now — Paul Krugman had the temerity to say something too truthful for the right wing:

And then the [9/11] attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

This got the author of “Known and Unknown” and other crimes against logic all perturbed:

Why would Krugman possibly state such a thing?

CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

Maybe we should give Pat Tillman’s family or a few others with similar stories a chance to offend the poor man alone in a small room?


22 Percent of American Children Live in Poverty

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on September 14th, 2011 4:45 am by HL

22 Percent of American Children Live in Poverty
The Census Bureau reports that in 2010, more Americans descended into poverty than in any other time since the government started keeping track in 1959. The 2010 poverty threshold for a family of four was a mere $22,314 a year, and 46.2 million of us have been surviving on that or less. As a percentage of the total population, the poverty rate of 11.7 percent was the highest it has been since 1993. According to the census, 22 percent of American children live in poverty. Poverty numbers may be skewed by the millions of adult children and other family who have been forced to move in with relatives and friends. The Census Bureau refers to this as “doubling up,” and reports that since the recession began, about 2 million additional adults have doubled up. Here’s the problem, as outlined by the bureau: “Young adults age 25-34, living with their parents, had an official poverty rate of 8.4 percent, but if their poverty status were determined using their own income, 45.3 percent had an income below the poverty threshold for a single person under age 65.”  The full news brief from the Census Bureau is reprinted below.  —PZS U.S. Census Bureau:           FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  TUESDAY, SEPT. 13, 2011             Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2010                     Summary of Key Findings      The U.S. Census Bureau announced today that in 2010, median household income declined,  the poverty rate increased and the percentage without health insurance coverage was not statistically different from the previous year.      Real median household income in the United States in 2010 was $49,445, a 2.3 percent decline from the 2009 median.      The nation’s official poverty rate in 2010 was 15.1 percent, up from 14.3 percent in 2009,  the third consecutive annual increase in the poverty rate.  There were 46.2 million people in poverty in 2010, up from 43.6 million in 2009, the fourth consecutive annual increase and the largest number in the 52 years for which poverty estimates have been published.      The number of people without health insurance coverage rose from 49.0 million in 2009 to 49.9 million in 2010, while the percentage without coverage – 16.3 percent – was not statistically different from the rate in 2009.      This information covers the first full calendar year after the December 2007-June 2009 recession. See section on the historical impact of recessions.      These findings are contained in the report Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2010. The following results for the nation were compiled from information collected in the 2011 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC): Income   Since 2007, the year before the most recent recession, real median household income has declined 6.4 percent and is 7.1 percent below the median household income peak that occurred prior to the 2001 recession in 1999. The percentages are not statistically different from each another. Race and Hispanic Origin (Race data refer to people reporting a single race only. Hispanics can be of any race.)   Among race groups, real median income declined for white and black households between 2009 and 2010, while changes for Asian and Hispanic-origin households were not statistically different. Real median income for each race and Hispanic-origin group has not yet recovered to the pre-2001 recession all-time highs. (See Table A.) Regions   Households in the Midwest, South and West experienced declines in real median income between 2009 and 2010. The apparent change in median household income for the Northeast was not statistically significant. (See Table A.) Nativity   Median income for households maintained by native-born householders declined between 2009 and 2010 in real terms. The change in the median income of all foreign-born households was not statistically significant. (See Table A.) Earnings   In 2010, the earnings of women who worked full time, year-round were 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round, not statistically different from the 2009 ratio.  The 2010 real median earnings of these men and women were not different from the 2009 earnings.   Since 2007, the number of men working full time, year-round with earnings decreased by 6.6 million and the number of corresponding women declined by 2.8 million. Income Inequality   Based on the Gini Index, the change in income inequality between 2009 and 2010 was not statistically significant, while the changes in shares of aggregate household income by quintiles showed a slight shift to more inequality. The Gini index was 0.469 in 2010.   (The Gini index is a measure of household income inequality; zero represents perfect income equality and 1 perfect inequality.) Poverty   The poverty rate in 2010 was the highest since 1993 but was 7.3 percentage points lower than the poverty rate in 1959, the first year for which poverty estimates are available.  Since 2007, the poverty rate has increased by 2.6 percentage points.   In 2010, the family poverty rate and the number of families in poverty were 11.7 percent and 9.2 million, respectively, up from 11.1 percent and 8.8 million in 2009.   The poverty rate and the number in poverty increased for both married-couple families (6.2 percent and 3.6 million in 2010 from 5.8 percent and 3.4 million in 2009) and female-householder-with-no-husband-present families (31.6 percent and 4.7 million in 2010 from 29.9 percent and 4.4 million in 2009).  For families with a male householder no wife present, the poverty rate and the number in poverty were not statistically different from 2009 (15.8 percent and 880,000 in 2010). Thresholds   As defined by the Office of Management and Budget and updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the weighted average poverty threshold for a family of four in 2010 was $22,314.   (See <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html> for the complete set of dollar value thresholds that vary by family size and composition.) Race and Hispanic Origin (Race data refer to people reporting a single race only. Hispanics can be of any race.)   The poverty rate for non-Hispanic whites was lower in 2010 than it was for other racial groups. Table B details 2010 poverty rates and numbers in poverty, as well as changes since 2009 in these measures, for race groups and Hispanics. Doubled-Up Households   Doubled-up households are defined as households that include at least one “additional”  adult: a person 18 or older who is not enrolled in school and is not the householder, spouse or cohabiting partner of the householder. In spring 2007,  prior to the recession, doubled-up households totaled 19.7 million. By spring 2011, the number of doubled-up households had increased by 2.0 million to 21.8 million and the percent rose by 1.3 percentage points from 17.0 percent to 18.3 percent.   In spring 2011,  5.9 million young adults age 25-34 (14.2 percent) resided in their parents’  household, compared with 4.7 million (11.8 percent) before the recession, an increase of 2.4 percentage points.   It is difficult to precisely assess the impact of doubling up on overall poverty rates. Young adults age 25-34, living with their parents, had an official poverty rate of 8.4 percent, but if their poverty status were determined using their own income, 45.3 percent had an income below the poverty threshold for a single person under age 65. Age   The poverty rate increased for children younger than 18 (from 20.7 percent in 2009 to 22.0 percent in 2010) and people 18 to 64 (from 12.9 percent in 2009 to 13.7 percent in 2010),  while it was not statistically different for people 65 and older (9.0 percent).   Similar to the patterns observed for the poverty rate in 2010, the number of people in poverty increased for children younger than 18 (15.5 million in 2009 to 16.4 million in 2010) and people 18 to 64 (24.7 million in 2009 to 26.3 million in 2010) and was not statistically different for people 65 and older (3.5 million). Nativity   The 2010 poverty rate for naturalized citizens was not statistically different from 2009, while the poverty rates of native-born and noncitizens increased. Table B details 2010 poverty rates and the numbers in poverty, as well as changes since 2009 in these measures, by nativity. Regions   The South was the only region to show statistically significant increases in both the poverty rate and the number in poverty—16.9 percent and 19.1 million in 2010—up from 15.7 percent and 17.6 million in 2009. In 2010, the poverty rates and the number in poverty for the Northeast, Midwest and the West were not statistically different from 2009. (See Table B.) Health Insurance Coverage   The number of people with health insurance increased to 256.2 million in 2010 from 255.3 million in 2009. The percentage of people with health insurance was not statistically different from 2009.   Between 2009 and 2010, the percentage of people covered by private health insurance declined from 64.5 percent to 64.0 percent, while the percentage covered by government health insurance increased from 30.6 percent to 31.0 percent. The percentage covered by employment-based health insurance declined from 56.1 percent to 55.3 percent.   The percentage covered by Medicaid (15.9 percent) was not statistically different from 2009.   In 2010, 9.8 percent of children under 18 (7.3 million) were without health insurance.  Neither estimate is significantly different from the corresponding 2009 estimate.   The uninsured rate for children in poverty (15.4 percent) was greater than the rate for all children (9.8 percent).   In 2010, the uninsured rates decreased as household income increased from 26.9 percent for those in households with annual incomes less than $25,000 to 8.0 percent in households with incomes of $75,000 or more. Race and Hispanic Origin (Race data refer to those reporting a single race only. Hispanics can be of any race.)   The uninsured rate and number of uninsured in 2010 were not statistically different from 2009 for non-Hispanic whites and blacks, while increasing for Asians. The number of uninsured Hispanics was not statistically different from 2009, while the uninsured rate decreased to 30.7 percent. (See Table C.) Nativity   The proportion of the foreign-born population without health insurance in 2010 was about two-and-a-half times that of the native-born population. The 2010 uninsured rate was not statistically different from the 2009 rate for native-born, the foreign-born overall and noncitizens but rose for naturalized citizens. Table C details the 2010 uninsured rate and the number of uninsured, as well as changes since 2009 in these measures, by nativity. Regions   The Northeast and the Midwest had the lowest uninsured rates in 2010. Between 2009 and 2010,  there were no statistical differences in uninsured rates for any of the regions.  The number of uninsured increased in the Northeast, while there were no statistically significant changes for the other three regions. (See Table C.) Historical Impact of Recessions Since 2010 represents the first full calendar year after the recession that ended in June 2009, one can compare changes in income, poverty and health insurance coverage between 2009 and 2010 with changes during the first year after the end of other recessions:   Median household income declined the first full year following the December 2007 to June 2009 recession, as well as in the first full year following three other recessions (March 2001 to November 2001, January 1980 to July 1980 and December 1969 to November 1970). However, household income increased the first full year following the November 1973 to March 1975 recession, and the changes following the July 1990 to March 1991 and July 1981 to November 1982 recessions were not statistically significant.   The poverty rate and the number of people in poverty increased in the first calendar year following the end of the last three recessions. For the recessions that ended in 1961 and 1975, the poverty rate decreased in the next full calendar year.        After the most recent recession, there was no significant difference in the uninsured rate during the first full year after the recession. However, in the year following the recessions that ended in 1991 and 2001, the uninsured rate increased. Supplemental Poverty Measure      The Census Bureau’s statistical experts,  with assistance from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, the Economics and Statistics Administration and other appropriate agencies and outside experts, are now developing a Supplemental Poverty Measure. The Supplemental Poverty Measure, for which the Census Bureau expects to publish preliminary estimates in October 2011, will provide an additional measure of economic well-being. It will not replace the official poverty measure and will not be used to determine eligibility for government programs. See Income, Poverty,  and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2010 for more information.      The Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement is subject to sampling and nonsampling errors. All comparisons made in the report have been tested and found to be statistically significant at the 90 percent confidence level, unless otherwise noted.      For additional information on the source of the data and accuracy of the estimates for the CPS, visit <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/p60_239sa.pdf>.           Table A. Median Household Income               2009     2010     Percent change in real median income               (in 2010 dollars)                     Region                           U.S.     $50,599     $49,445     *-2.3         Northeast     $53,949     $53,283     -1.2         Midwest.     $49,684     $48,445     *-2.5         South     $46,368     $45,492     *-1.9         West     $54,722     $53,142     *-2.9                 Race and Hispanic Origin of Householder         White     $52,717     $51,846     *-1.7            White, not Hispanic     $55,360     $54,620     -1.3         Black     $33,122     $32,068     *-3.2         Asian     $66,550     $64,308     -3.4         Hispanic origin     $38,667     $37,759     -2.3                   Nativity of Householder         Native-born     $51,337     $50,288     *-2.0         Foreign-born     $44,648     $43,750     -2.0            Naturalized citizen     $52,833     $52,642     -0.4            Not a citizen     $36,685     $36,401     -0.8         *Change statistically significant at the 90 percent confidence level.                   Table B. People in Poverty               2009     2010     Change in poverty               Number     Percent     Number     Percent     Number     Perecnt         Region         U.S.     43,569     14.3     46,180     15.1     *2,611     *0.8         Northeast     6,650     12.2     6,987     12.8     336     0.6         Midwest.     8,768     13.3     9,148     13.9     380     0.6         South     17,609     15.7     19,072     16.9     *1,463     *1.2         West     10,542     14.8     10,973     15.3     431     0.5                 Race and Hispanic Origin         White     29,830     12.3     31,650     13.0     *1,819     *0.7            White, not Hispanic     18,530     9.4     19,599     9.9     *1,070     *05         Black     9,944     25.8     10,675     27.4     *732     *1.6         Asian     1,746     12.5     1,729     12.1     -17     -0.4         Hispanic origin     12,350     25.3     13,243     26.6     *893     *1.3                   Nativity         Native-born     36,407     13.7     38,568     14.4     *2,161     *0.7         Foreign-born     7,162     19.0     7,611     19.9     *450     0.9            Naturalized citizen     1,736     10.8     1,906     11.3     *169     0.5            Not a citizen     5,425     25.1     5,706     26.7     281     *1.5         *Statistically different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level.                   Table C. People Without Health Insurance Coverage               2009     2010     Change               Number     Percent     Number     Percent     Number     Perecnt         Region         U.S.     48,985     16.1     49,904     16.3     *919     0.2         Northeast     6,434     11.8     6,779     12.4     *345     0.6         Midwest.     8,368     12.7     8,605     13.0     237     0.4         South     21,576     19.2     21,665     19.1     88     -0.1         West     12,606     17.7     12,855     17.9     249     0.2                 Race and Hispanic Origin         White     37,124     15.3     37,385     15.4     261     —            White, not Hispanic     22,715     11.5     23,093     11.7     378     0.2         Black     7,838     20.3     8,132     20.8     294     0.5         Asian     2,317     16.5     2,600     18.1     *284     *1.6         Hispanic origin     15,450     31.6     15,340     30.7     -110     *-0.9                   Nativity         Native-born     36,305     13.6     36,881     13.8     576     0.2         Foreign-born     12,680     33.7     13,023     34.1     343     0.4            Naturalized citizen     2,951     18.4     3,356     20.0     *405     *1.6            Not a citizen     9,729     45.1     9,667     45.1     -62     —         *Change statistically significant from zero at the 90 percent confidence level.      

The Census Bureau reports that in 2010, more Americans descended into poverty than in any other time since the government started keeping track in 1959. The 2010 poverty threshold for a family of four was a mere $22,314 a year, and 46.2 million of us have been surviving on that or less.

As a percentage of the total population, the poverty rate of 11.7 percent was the highest it has been since 1993.

According to the census, 22 percent of American children live in poverty.

Poverty numbers may be skewed by the millions of adult children and other family who have been forced to move in with relatives and friends. The Census Bureau refers to this as “doubling up,” and reports that since the recession began, about 2 million additional adults have doubled up. Here’s the problem, as outlined by the bureau: “Young adults age 25-34, living with their parents, had an official poverty rate of 8.4 percent, but if their poverty status were determined using their own income, 45.3 percent had an income below the poverty threshold for a single person under age 65.”?

The full news brief from the Census Bureau is reprinted below.? —PZS

U.S. Census Bureau:

? ? ? ? ?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:? TUESDAY, SEPT. 13, 2011

?
? ? ? ? ?

Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2010

?
? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ?

Summary of Key Findings

?????The U.S. Census Bureau announced today that in 2010, median household income declined,? the poverty rate increased and the percentage without health insurance coverage was not statistically different from the previous year.

?????Real median household income in the United States in 2010 was $49,445, a 2.3 percent decline from the 2009 median.

?????The nation’s official poverty rate in 2010 was 15.1 percent, up from 14.3 percent in 2009,? the third consecutive annual increase in the poverty rate.? There were 46.2 million people in poverty in 2010, up from 43.6 million in 2009, the fourth consecutive annual increase and the largest number in the 52 years for which poverty estimates have been published.

?????The number of people without health insurance coverage rose from 49.0 million in 2009 to 49.9 million in 2010, while the percentage without coverage – 16.3 percent – was not statistically different from the rate in 2009.

?????This information covers the first full calendar year after the December 2007-June 2009 recession. See section on the historical impact of recessions.

?????These findings are contained in the report Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2010. The following results for the nation were compiled from information collected in the 2011 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC):

Income

    ?
  • Since 2007, the year before the most recent recession, real median household income has declined 6.4 percent and is 7.1 percent below the median household income peak that occurred prior to the 2001 recession in 1999. The percentages are not statistically different from each another.

Race and Hispanic Origin (Race data refer to people reporting a single race only. Hispanics can be of any race.)

    ?
  • Among race groups, real median income declined for white and black households between 2009 and 2010, while changes for Asian and Hispanic-origin households were not statistically different. Real median income for each race and Hispanic-origin group has not yet recovered to the pre-2001 recession all-time highs. (See Table A.)

Regions

    ?
  • Households in the Midwest, South and West experienced declines in real median income between 2009 and 2010. The apparent change in median household income for the Northeast was not statistically significant. (See Table A.)

Nativity

    ?
  • Median income for households maintained by native-born householders declined between 2009 and 2010 in real terms. The change in the median income of all foreign-born households was not statistically significant. (See Table A.)

Earnings

    ?
  • In 2010, the earnings of women who worked full time, year-round were 77 percent of that for men working full time, year-round, not statistically different from the 2009 ratio.? The 2010 real median earnings of these men and women were not different from the 2009 earnings.
    ?
  • Since 2007, the number of men working full time, year-round with earnings decreased by 6.6 million and the number of corresponding women declined by 2.8 million.

Income Inequality

    ?
  • Based on the Gini Index, the change in income inequality between 2009 and 2010 was not statistically significant, while the changes in shares of aggregate household income by quintiles showed a slight shift to more inequality. The Gini index was 0.469 in 2010. ? (The Gini index is a measure of household income inequality; zero represents perfect income equality and 1 perfect inequality.)

Poverty

    ?
  • The poverty rate in 2010 was the highest since 1993 but was 7.3 percentage points lower than the poverty rate in 1959, the first year for which poverty estimates are available.? Since 2007, the poverty rate has increased by 2.6 percentage points.
    ?
  • In 2010, the family poverty rate and the number of families in poverty were 11.7 percent and 9.2 million, respectively, up from 11.1 percent and 8.8 million in 2009.
    ?
  • The poverty rate and the number in poverty increased for both married-couple families (6.2 percent and 3.6 million in 2010 from 5.8 percent and 3.4 million in 2009) and female-householder-with-no-husband-present families (31.6 percent and 4.7 million in 2010 from 29.9 percent and 4.4 million in 2009).? For families with a male householder no wife present, the poverty rate and the number in poverty were not statistically different from 2009 (15.8 percent and 880,000 in 2010).

Thresholds

    ?
  • As defined by the Office of Management and Budget and updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the weighted average poverty threshold for a family of four in 2010 was $22,314.
    ? (See <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html> for the complete set of dollar value thresholds that vary by family size and composition.)

Race and Hispanic Origin (Race data refer to people reporting a single race only. Hispanics can be of any race.)

    ?
  • The poverty rate for non-Hispanic whites was lower in 2010 than it was for other racial groups. Table B details 2010 poverty rates and numbers in poverty, as well as changes since 2009 in these measures, for race groups and Hispanics.

Doubled-Up Households

    ?
  • Doubled-up households are defined as households that include at least one “additional”? adult: a person 18 or older who is not enrolled in school and is not the householder, spouse or cohabiting partner of the householder. In spring 2007,? prior to the recession, doubled-up households totaled 19.7 million. By spring 2011, the number of doubled-up households had increased by 2.0 million to 21.8 million and the percent rose by 1.3 percentage points from 17.0 percent to 18.3 percent.
    ?
  • In spring 2011,? 5.9 million young adults age 25-34 (14.2 percent) resided in their parents’? household, compared with 4.7 million (11.8 percent) before the recession, an increase of 2.4 percentage points.
    ?
  • It is difficult to precisely assess the impact of doubling up on overall poverty rates. Young adults age 25-34, living with their parents, had an official poverty rate of 8.4 percent, but if their poverty status were determined using their own income, 45.3 percent had an income below the poverty threshold for a single person under age 65.

Age

    ?
  • The poverty rate increased for children younger than 18 (from 20.7 percent in 2009 to 22.0 percent in 2010) and people 18 to 64 (from 12.9 percent in 2009 to 13.7 percent in 2010),? while it was not statistically different for people 65 and older (9.0 percent).
    ?
  • Similar to the patterns observed for the poverty rate in 2010, the number of people in poverty increased for children younger than 18 (15.5 million in 2009 to 16.4 million in 2010) and people 18 to 64 (24.7 million in 2009 to 26.3 million in 2010) and was not statistically different for people 65 and older (3.5 million).

Nativity

    ?
  • The 2010 poverty rate for naturalized citizens was not statistically different from 2009, while the poverty rates of native-born and noncitizens increased. Table B details 2010 poverty rates and the numbers in poverty, as well as changes since 2009 in these measures, by nativity.

Regions

    ?
  • The South was the only region to show statistically significant increases in both the poverty rate and the number in poverty—16.9 percent and 19.1 million in 2010—up from 15.7 percent and 17.6 million in 2009. In 2010, the poverty rates and the number in poverty for the Northeast, Midwest and the West were not statistically different from 2009. (See Table B.)

Health Insurance Coverage

    ?
  • The number of people with health insurance increased to 256.2 million in 2010 from 255.3 million in 2009. The percentage of people with health insurance was not statistically different from 2009.
    ?
  • Between 2009 and 2010, the percentage of people covered by private health insurance declined from 64.5 percent to 64.0 percent, while the percentage covered by government health insurance increased from 30.6 percent to 31.0 percent. The percentage covered by employment-based health insurance declined from 56.1 percent to 55.3 percent.
    ?
  • The percentage covered by Medicaid (15.9 percent) was not statistically different from 2009.
    ?
  • In 2010, 9.8 percent of children under 18 (7.3 million) were without health insurance.? Neither estimate is significantly different from the corresponding 2009 estimate.
    ?
  • The uninsured rate for children in poverty (15.4 percent) was greater than the rate for all children (9.8 percent).
    ?
  • In 2010, the uninsured rates decreased as household income increased from 26.9 percent for those in households with annual incomes less than $25,000 to 8.0 percent in households with incomes of $75,000 or more.

Race and Hispanic Origin (Race data refer to those reporting a single race only. Hispanics can be of any race.)

    ?
  • The uninsured rate and number of uninsured in 2010 were not statistically different from 2009 for non-Hispanic whites and blacks, while increasing for Asians. The number of uninsured Hispanics was not statistically different from 2009, while the uninsured rate decreased to 30.7 percent. (See Table C.)

Nativity

    ?
  • The proportion of the foreign-born population without health insurance in 2010 was about two-and-a-half times that of the native-born population. The 2010 uninsured rate was not statistically different from the 2009 rate for native-born, the foreign-born overall and noncitizens but rose for naturalized citizens. Table C details the 2010 uninsured rate and the number of uninsured, as well as changes since 2009 in these measures, by nativity.

Regions

    ?
  • The Northeast and the Midwest had the lowest uninsured rates in 2010. Between 2009 and 2010,? there were no statistical differences in uninsured rates for any of the regions.? The number of uninsured increased in the Northeast, while there were no statistically significant changes for the other three regions. (See Table C.)

Historical Impact of Recessions

Since 2010 represents the first full calendar year after the recession that ended in June 2009, one can compare changes in income, poverty and health insurance coverage between 2009 and 2010 with changes during the first year after the end of other recessions:

    ?
  • Median household income declined the first full year following the December 2007 to June 2009 recession, as well as in the first full year following three other recessions (March 2001 to November 2001, January 1980 to July 1980 and December 1969 to November 1970). However, household income increased the first full year following the November 1973 to March 1975 recession, and the changes following the July 1990 to March 1991 and July 1981 to November 1982 recessions were not statistically significant.
    ?
  • The poverty rate and the number of people in poverty increased in the first calendar year following the end of the last three recessions. For the recessions that ended in 1961 and 1975, the poverty rate decreased in the next full calendar year.
    ?
  • ?????After the most recent recession, there was no significant difference in the uninsured rate during the first full year after the recession. However, in the year following the recessions that ended in 1991 and 2001, the uninsured rate increased.

Supplemental Poverty Measure

?????The Census Bureau’s statistical experts,? with assistance from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, the Economics and Statistics Administration and other appropriate agencies and outside experts, are now developing a Supplemental Poverty Measure. The Supplemental Poverty Measure, for which the Census Bureau expects to publish preliminary estimates in October 2011, will provide an additional measure of economic well-being. It will not replace the official poverty measure and will not be used to determine eligibility for government programs. See Income, Poverty,? and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2010 for more information.

?????The Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement is subject to sampling and nonsampling errors. All comparisons made in the report have been tested and found to be statistically significant at the 90 percent confidence level, unless otherwise noted.

?????For additional information on the source of the data and accuracy of the estimates for the CPS, visit <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/p60_239sa.pdf>.

?
?
?
? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

?

?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

?

?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

?

?

?

Table A. Median Household Income
? 2009 2010 Percent change in real median income
? (in 2010 dollars) ? ?
Region
? ? ?
U.S.
$50,599 $49,445 *-2.3
Northeast
$53,949 $53,283 -1.2
Midwest.
$49,684 $48,445 *-2.5
South
$46,368 $45,492 *-1.9
West
$54,722 $53,142 *-2.9
Race and Hispanic Origin of Householder
White
$52,717 $51,846 *-1.7
???White, not Hispanic
$55,360 $54,620 -1.3
Black
$33,122 $32,068 *-3.2
Asian
$66,550 $64,308 -3.4
Hispanic origin
$38,667 $37,759 -2.3
?
Nativity of Householder
Native-born
$51,337 $50,288 *-2.0
Foreign-born
$44,648 $43,750 -2.0
???Naturalized citizen
$52,833 $52,642 -0.4
???Not a citizen
$36,685 $36,401 -0.8
*Change statistically significant at the 90 percent confidence level.

?

?
?
?
? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

?

?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

?

?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

?

?

?

Table B. People in Poverty
? 2009 2010 Change in poverty
? Number Percent Number Percent Number Perecnt
Region
U.S.
43,569 14.3 46,180 15.1 *2,611 *0.8
Northeast
6,650 12.2 6,987 12.8 336 0.6
Midwest.
8,768 13.3 9,148 13.9 380 0.6
South
17,609 15.7 19,072 16.9 *1,463 *1.2
West
10,542 14.8 10,973 15.3 431 0.5
Race and Hispanic Origin
White
29,830 12.3 31,650 13.0 *1,819 *0.7
???White, not Hispanic
18,530 9.4 19,599 9.9 *1,070 *05
Black
9,944 25.8 10,675 27.4 *732 *1.6
Asian
1,746 12.5 1,729 12.1 -17 -0.4
Hispanic origin
12,350 25.3 13,243 26.6 *893 *1.3
?
Nativity
Native-born
36,407 13.7 38,568 14.4 *2,161 *0.7
Foreign-born
7,162 19.0 7,611 19.9 *450 0.9
???Naturalized citizen
1,736 10.8 1,906 11.3 *169 0.5
???Not a citizen
5,425 25.1 5,706 26.7 281 *1.5
*Statistically different from zero at the 90 percent confidence level.

?

?
?
?
? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

?

?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

?

?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

?

?

? ?

?

?

?

Table C. People Without Health Insurance Coverage
? 2009 2010 Change
? Number Percent Number Percent Number Perecnt
Region
U.S.
48,985 16.1 49,904 16.3 *919 0.2
Northeast
6,434 11.8 6,779 12.4 *345 0.6
Midwest.
8,368 12.7 8,605 13.0 237 0.4
South
21,576 19.2 21,665 19.1 88 -0.1
West
12,606 17.7 12,855 17.9 249 0.2
Race and Hispanic Origin
White
37,124 15.3 37,385 15.4 261
???White, not Hispanic
22,715 11.5 23,093 11.7 378 0.2
Black
7,838 20.3 8,132 20.8 294 0.5
Asian
2,317 16.5 2,600 18.1 *284 *1.6
Hispanic origin
15,450 31.6 15,340 30.7 -110 *-0.9
?
Nativity
Native-born
36,305 13.6 36,881 13.8 576 0.2
Foreign-born
12,680 33.7 13,023 34.1 343 0.4
???Naturalized citizen
2,951 18.4 3,356 20.0 *405 *1.6
???Not a citizen
9,729 45.1 9,667 45.1 -62
*Change statistically significant from zero at the 90 percent confidence level.

Related Entries



U.S. Prepares To Release BP Oil Spill Report

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on September 14th, 2011 4:44 am by HL

U.S. Prepares To Release BP Oil Spill Report
— A key federal report into what caused the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history was being readied for release as early as…

Republican easily wins Nevada House election
By Timothy Pratt LAS VEGAS (Reuters) – Nevada Republican Mark Amodei easily won a special election on Tuesday to fill a vacant House of Representatives…

Elizabeth Warren: I’m Running!
Our hard-working families deserve someone who believes in them, someone who is going to stand up and fight for their interests. That’s why I’m running for the United States Senate.

Fight Over Offsets For Emergency Aid Hangs Over House
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Tuesday took a step forward in moving a nearly $7 billion disaster aid bill through Congress, though the proposal could…


Like Clockwork, Right-Wing Media Cry Voter Fraud In Advance Of NY Election

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on September 14th, 2011 4:43 am by HL

Like Clockwork, Right-Wing Media Cry Voter Fraud In Advance Of NY Election

In advance of a special election in New York’s Ninth Congressional District, Fox News and National Review Online are raising the specter of voter fraud in case a Democrat wins the seat. In fact, the evidence they are citing has been debunked, and right-wing media regularly cry voter fraud when elections are close.

Fox, National Review Use Decades-Old Grand Jury Probe To Raise Specter Of Voter Fraud

National Review Online: “Watch Out For Voter Fraud In The New York Ninth.” In a post on National Review Online’s The Corner blog headlined “Watch Out for Voter Fraud in the New York Ninth,” conservative blogger Hans von Spakovsky cited a 1984 New York grand jury report to suggest that Democrats may try to steal a special election in New York’s Ninth Congressional District scheduled for September 13:

A source within the Turner camp tells me the campaign sent a letter and campaign literature to all the voters on the permanent list maintained by the Board of Elections who are automatically mailed absentee ballots. They have received hundreds of pieces of returned mail marked “address unknown” or “return to sender” and at least five marked “deceased.” They were contacted by another voter who received an absentee ballot he had not even requested.

As I described in a Heritage case study, Kings County was a hub of organized voter fraud that cast thousands of fraudulent ballots in elections. In 1984, former Democratic Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, who had become the Brooklyn district attorney, released a state grand jury report that detailed a successful 14-year conspiracy to steal election. The grand jury found evidence of fraud by Democrats in “two primary elections for Congress held in 1976 and 1982, four primary elections for the Assembly in three different assembly districts, three primary elections for the State Senate in one senatorial district and two elections for state committee in two different districts.”

[…]

Let’s hope that the fear of losing control over a Democratic congressional district will not entice anyone to repeat this kind of illegal behavior in tomorrow’s election.  But given the sordid history of this congressional district and what is at stake politically, election officials should be extremely vigilant for any signs of possible wrongdoing in the election. [National Review Online, 9/12/11]

Hannity Panel Gins Up Fear That Democrats May “Steal [The] Election To Win It.” During a panel discussion on the September 12 edition of Fox News’ Hannity conservative commentator John Fund also brought up the 1984 grand jury report and co-panelist Andrea Tantaros opined that Democrats might “steal” the election:

SEAN HANNITY (host): You sent me an e-mail today, and it was a link to the — to National Review and The Corner about — and you’ve talked about, written extensively about voter fraud. You’re concerned in this district because it has a long history of voter fraud.

FUND: A Democratic district attorney, Elizabeth Holtzman, in the 1980s uncovered an amazing voter fraud scandal in that state involving absentee votes and also the bureaucracy.

HANNITY: But this was in the late 70s, early 80s.

FUND: Yes, but I’m simply saying right now you have a lot of permanent absentee voters whose returns are coming back, addresses are bad, people are registered in vacant lots.

HANNITY: Dead people.

FUND: At least a few people have gotten absentee ballots that they never requested. Absentee ballots are the preferred way of fraud. And I think we just have to keep an eye on this, given the history of this district.

TANTAROS: Which is still bad news because that means that Democrats literally have to steal any election to win it. So is that their strategy for 2012? Just steal the election, funnel a bunch of money to ACORN under a different name. [Fox News, Hannity, 9/12/11]

Instances Of Voter Fraud Are Actually Very Rare

Justice Department Report Shows Very Few Prosecutions For Illegally Casting Ballots. According to a report by the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department, from October 2002 through September 2005, the Justice Department charged 95 people with “election fraud” and convicted 55. Among those, however, just 17 individuals were convicted for casting fraudulent ballots; cases against three other individuals accused of casting fraudulent votes were pending at the time of the report. In addition, the Justice Department convicted one election official of submitting fraudulent ballots and convicted five individuals of registration fraud, with cases against 12 individuals pending at the time of the report. Thirty-two individuals were convicted of other “election fraud” issues, including Republicans convicted of offenses arising from “a scheme to block the phone lines used by two Manchester [New Hampshire] organizations to arrange drives to the polls during the 2002 general election.” In other words, many of these convictions were connected to voter suppression efforts, not voter fraud. Several other people listed in the report were convicted of vote-buying. [Department of Justice, accessed 9/12/11]

NYU’s Brennan Center: Allegations Of Voter Fraud “Simply Do Not Pan Out” And Distract From “Real [Election] Problems That Need Real Solutions.” From a 2007 report by New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice:

Perhaps because these stories are dramatic, voter fraud makes a popular scapegoat. In the aftermath of a close election, losing candidates are often quick to blame voter fraud for the results. Legislators cite voter fraud as justification for various new restrictions on the exercise of the franchise. And pundits trot out the same few anecdotes time and again as proof that a wave of fraud is imminent.

Allegations of widespread voter fraud, however, often prove greatly exaggerated. It is easy to grab headlines with a lurid claim (“Tens of thousands may be voting illegally!”); the follow-up — when any exists — is not usually deemed newsworthy. Yet on closer examination, many of the claims of voter fraud amount to a great deal of smoke without much fire. The allegations simply do not pan out.

These inflated claims are not harmless. Crying “wolf” when the allegations are unsubstantiated distracts attention from real problems that need real solutions. If we can move beyond the fixation on voter fraud, we will be able to focus on the real changes our elections need, from universal registration all the way down to sufficient parking at the poll site. Moreover, these claims of voter fraud are frequently used to justify policies that do not solve the alleged wrongs, but that could well disenfranchise legitimate voters. Overly restrictive identification requirements for voters at the polls — which address a sort of voter fraud more rare than death by lightning — is only the most prominent example. [Brennan Center for Justice, accessed 9/12/11]

Decades-Old Grand Jury Probe In New York Has Very Little Relevance Today

Voting Law Expert On The Grand Jury Report: “The Way In Which The Fraud Was Done Almost Certainly Could Not Happen Today.” University of California law professor Rick Hasen, who runs  the Election Law Blog, examined the grand jury report cited by Spakovsky and Fund and wrote:

It is not clear to me why von Spakovsky did not respond to requests to turn over the grand jury report because the report contains the only apparently successful effort in the last 40 years of which I’m aware to actually affect election results through impersonation fraud.  Perhaps the reason is that the way in which the fraud was done almost certainly could not happen today, thanks to basic safeguards put in place by election officials (such as checking the names and addresses of new registrants and ensuring greater security of voter registration materials).  And of course when election officials collude with those committing fraud, a voter i.d. requirement would not help in the slightest.

The fact that most of this fraud took place 40 years ago and nothing like it has been discovered since is a good argument that schemes like these cannot  successfully be done anymore. Vote buying schemes, fraudulent registration schemes, and absentee ballot fraud do get discovered and prosecuted.  There’s no reason to think this kind of fraud, if it happened, would not at least occasionally be discovered and prosecuted as well.  At most we find a handful of isolated cases — nothing organized, and certainly nothing to swing elections. [ElectionLawBlog.org, 6/23/11]

Conservatives Routinely Push Voter Fraud Myth To Cast Doubt On Possible Democratic Victories

Conservatives Push Voter Fraud Myth Whenever An Election Is Close.

  • Conservatives Pushed Voter Fraud Myth After Initial Results In Wisconsin Supreme Court Election. [Media Matters, 4/7/11]
  • Conservatives Pushed Voter Fraud Myth In Anticipation Of 2010 Midterm Elections. [Media Matters, 10/6/10]
  • Conservatives Pushed Voter Fraud Myth In Anticipation Of Massachusetts Special Senate Election. [Media Matters, 1/19/10]
  • Conservatives Pushed Voter Fraud Myth In Anticipation Of New Jersey Gubernatorial Election. [Media Matters, 11/2/09, 11/2/09]
  • Conservatives Pushed Voter Fraud Myth After Minnesota Elected Franken To The Senate. [Media Matters, 9/29/09]
  • Conservatives Pushed Voter Fraud Myth In Anticipation Of 2008 Presidential Election. [Media Matters, 10/18/08]
  • Conservatives Pushed Voter Fraud Myth After 2004 Washington State Gubernatorial Election. [Media Matters, 6/9/06]
  • Conservatives Pushed Voter Fraud Myth In Anticipation Of The 2000 And 2004 Presidential Elections. [Media Matters, 10/16/08]
  • Conservatives Pushed Voter Fraud Myth After 2002 South Dakota Election. [Media Matters, 1/19/10]

For more on Fund’s dubious claims about possible voter fraud, see here, here, here, and here.

For more on Spakovsky’s dubious claims about possible voter fraud, see here.


Wikileaks Cable: Kyrgyzstan’s Former President Can Be Bought For A Trip To Paris, Apparently

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on September 14th, 2011 4:42 am by HL

Wikileaks Cable: Kyrgyzstan’s Former President Can Be Bought For A Trip To Paris, Apparently
The United States may have paid Kyrgyzstan a pretty penny for the right to keep its Afghan supply lines open, but when it comes to France, the Kyrgyz government was little more than a cheap date. Kyrgyz officials rebuffed French…


GOP Rep: Voter Fraud ‘Happening Everywhere,’ But Prosecutors Wouldn’t Take Cases (VIDEO)
An interesting side note to the Senate hearing on voter rights laws from last week: the author of Indiana’s photo voter ID law is now a member of Congress.


Perry is the New GOP Frontrunner by a Wide Margin

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on September 14th, 2011 4:40 am by HL

Perry is the New GOP Frontrunner by a Wide Margin


Obama Approval Plummets on Economy

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on September 14th, 2011 4:39 am by HL

Obama Approval Plummets on Economy
A new Bloomberg poll finds President Obama’s job approval rating at the lowest of his presidency — 45%.

The poll also hands Obama new lows in each of the categories that measures his performance on the economy: only 36% of respondents approve of his efforts to create jobs, 30% approve of how he’s tackled the budget deficit and 39% approve of his handling of health care.

Troubling signs for the White House: “Of the respondents who said they’ve supported Obama at one point since he launched his presidential campaign in 2007, fewer than half say they still support him as fervently. Thirty- seven percent say their support has waned and 19% say he lost their backing because they’ve grown disappointed or angry with his leadership.”

Turner Upsets Weprin in NY-9
The AP reports that Bob Turner has defeated David Weprin (D) in the special election for former Rep. Anthony Weiner’s (D-NY) seat, with Turner taking 54% of the vote to Weprin’s 46%.

New York Post: “Take that, Mr. President!”

The results are a clear upset for Democrats and David Weigel wonders aloud “on an alternate reality wherein Democrats gritted their teeth and let Anthony Weiner wait out his scandal… Could Democrats have gritted their teeth, asked for a censure, and let Weiner fill out his term as a disgraced back-bencher? Possibly! That certainly looks less painful than the double-dip of the scandal and this new cycle of explaining how they fumbled away his seat.”

Lewis Back on Ballot in New Jersey
Five months after he declared his candidacy for New Jersey state Senate, Olympic gold medalist Carl Lewis (D) finally made it onto the November ballot, the Newark Star Ledger reports.

“After a legal battle that overshadowed Lewis’s candidacy, a three-judge federal appeals court panel voted 2-1 to overturn Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno’s April decision that he did not meet the four-year residency requirement for state Senate candidates, and a lower federal court decision upholding it.”


Border Security After 9/11: Wasteful Policy Fueling New Drug Wars

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on September 14th, 2011 4:38 am by HL

Border Security After 9/11: Wasteful Policy Fueling New Drug Wars
The criminal justice system is overwhelmed, our prisons are crowded with immigrants, and the flagging "war on drugs" has been given new life at home and abroad.


Fareed Zakaria’s Problem — and Ours

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on September 14th, 2011 4:37 am by HL

Fareed Zakaria’s Problem — and Ours
Many people defer to Fareed Zakaria’s virtuosity and ubiquity as the neo-liberal consciousness-shaper of the moment. An immigrant from India and a Muslim by background whose parents have been prominent in Indian politics and news media, he owes a lot…


9/13, Then and This Tuesday….
Two days after the attacks 10 years ago, I said a few things in a 3-minute NPR commentary, broadcast on Sept. 13, 2001, that I think have stood the test of time. Now I’m thinking them again, but with a…



Even Redstate Can?t Ignore Michele Bachmann?s Constitutional Ignorance

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on September 14th, 2011 4:36 am by HL

Even Redstate Can?t Ignore Michele Bachmann?s Constitutional Ignorance
The core of the Tea Party’s bizarre belief that everything from Social Security to Medicare to the Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution is tentherism — the belief that the 10th Amendment renders the United States as a whole almost completely impotent and leaves the most basic governance decisions up to the states. Rep. Michele […]

The core of the Tea Party’s bizarre belief that everything from Social Security to Medicare to the Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution is tentherism — the belief that the 10th Amendment renders the United States as a whole almost completely impotent and leaves the most basic governance decisions up to the states. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), however doesn’t even understand how this phony tenther constitution works and she has repeatedly insisted that laws such as the Affordable Care Act are unconstitutional even at the state level. Indeed, Bachmann’s failure to understand the Tea Party’s fake constitution is so striking that the leading conservative blog RedState has had it with her “constitutional ignorance.” Bachmann’s failure to understand tentherism “is either ignorance on display or dishonest pandering,” according to RedState.