New Poverty Data Induce Clinton Nostalgia

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Hillary’s speech last night at the Democratic convention wasn’t the only event of the day to inspire a little nostalgia for the Clinton administration. A few hours earlier, the Census Bureau released its 2007 poverty and income report, a snapshot of the nation’s economic well-being. The easy takeaway message might have been this: We never had it so good as we did in Bill Clinton’s second term, when unemployment was low, poverty was low, and the rising tide was lifting all boats. The Census data for 2007 confirm that all future economic progress will be measured by whether the country can get back to the prosperity of 1999. Right now, the Bush administration can’t even get the economy back to where it was during the 2001 recession.

According to the Census Bureau, child poverty, which hit a record low during the Clinton years, went up in 2007, and it’s significantly higher than it was in 2001 (18 percent vs. 16.5 percent). Median income for working-age adults was lower last year than it was during the recession of 2001, and more people were uninsured, too. The numbers were especially grim given that they came at the end of six years of economic expansion. The data for 2008 are likely to be much, much worse.

The happy years of the Clinton administration notwithstanding, the data make clear that the country has made scant little progress in combating poverty since 1980. The percentage of children living in poverty today is 18 percent, slightly more than it was 28 years ago. The percentage of single moms living in poverty stands at 30 percent, almost exactly what it was in 1980. And the median income for black households in 2007 was $33,916. In 1980, it was $32,876. The poverty trends haven’t gone unnoticed by the political class, however, on both sides of the aisle.

A few hours after Census released its report, a cadre of Washington’s policy wonks not in Cape Cod or Denver converged on the Brookings Institution for a briefing on what it all meant and what should be done about it. The general consensus was that the data ought to be a national embarrassment, both because of the way it’s calculated, and for what it says about the country’s priorities.

Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at Brookings and a former Republican White House political adviser on welfare issues who chaired the event, believes that Congress is on the edge of taking action. He said Tuesday that poverty is on the national agenda again in a way that it hasn’t been in many years, in part because of what happened after Hurricane Katrina, and also because of John Edwards, who, before his recent disgrace, had made poverty a major focus of his presidential campaign.

The House Ways and Means committee has held a number of hearings over the last year to consider proposals for reducing poverty that include everything from a major investment in early childhood education to expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit. But the one major congressional action most likely to succeed is a revision of the way the country tallies up the poor—i.e., the very data released by the Census this week. Quoting the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the Casey Foundation’s Michael Laracy said Tuesday, “You can’t solve a problem if you don’t know how to measure it.”

The official poverty measurement hasn’t been updated in decades, and is considered badly flawed. It was developed by a woman in the Social Security Administration in the 1960s who boiled the poverty threshold down to a simple equation: three times a “subsistence food budget.” Back then, Americans spent a third of their income on food, so this wasn’t such a bad thing. But the basic formula hasn’t been altered to include such big-ticket items as housing, health care and childcare that today eat up a much larger share of family income. According to congressional testimony this summer by Douglas Nelson, president of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the current poverty line–$21,200 for a family of 4—is less than 60 percent of what it actually costs a family to meet its basic needs.

The poverty measurement also excludes non-cash income, such as housing vouchers, food stamp benefits, tax credits or Medicaid, which can significantly boost family income. Brookings fellow Rebecca Blank has argued that the failure to include such benefits in the poverty measurement has given politicians the false impression that the poverty rate has remained virtually unchanged since the 1970s, despite the outlay of billions of dollars in federal entitlement programs. “In a very fundamental way, our poverty statistics failed us and made it easy to claim that public spending on the poor had little effect,” she writes. She harkens back to 1988, when Ronald Reagan observed that “some years ago the federal government declared war on poverty and poverty won.”

Yet changing the poverty measurement is rife with political peril. If it’s updated only to include government benefits as income, as the Bush administration wants, the poverty rate could take an immediate plunge on paper and weaken support for further action or government spending. But if it includes a broader assessment of basic needs, millions more people could be classified as officially poor and thus eligible for public assistance. That’s one reason that the official poverty measurement hasn’t been fixed, despite years of criticism. (The fact that it is the only statistical measurement of economic status that is controlled by the White House hasn’t helped, either.) Changing the formula, too, could create a major shift in the way federal funds are allocated to the states. (Haskins, echoing a favorite Republican argument, suggested that a change to broaden the definition of poverty would result in money flowing from poor Clarksdale, Mississippi to San Francisco.)

This year, though, Republicans and Democrats seem to be virtually in agreement that something needs to be done about the poverty measurement, if not poverty itself. At the end of Tuesday’s briefing on the Census data, Haskins predicted optimistically that regardless of who is in the White House, “by the end of the next Congress, we will have a new poverty measure.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate