# Nearly 40 percent of all "poor" households owned their own homes, and the average home of those classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with a garage. More than 750,000 of the "poor" owned homes worth more than $100,000, and 71,000 owned $300,000 homes. Nearly 60 percent of "poor" homes have more than two rooms per person. That means that the "poor" have twice as much living space as the average Japanese. And the same percentage have air conditioning.
For the first 100 years of the development of the United States of America, the federal government operated on a very small budget. It did very little for the people directly. All of the primary duties, to the citizens, were handled by the states. This is the way the constitution was written. The people are supposed to decide what is good for them at the state level. Our Federal government has gotten too big for itself, and States to meaningless.
The United States Senate seats were once held by appointees of the State Governor, confirmed by the State Congress. Senators once worked for the interests of the State, not the people directly. I'm not very sure of when this change happened, ('40's rings a bell). The body with the voice of the people is the House of Representatives.
Now that both houses of Congress are elected by the people it is much easier for the people to vote wealth into their pocket without having to earn the wealth. The Government (State and Federal) is the only entity around that is aloud to use force to seize your stuff.
# 64 percent own a car; 14 percent own two or more.
# 74 percent own microwave ovens; 23 percent have automatic dishwashers; 91 percent have color television and 29 percent have two or more TVs.
All of this is facilitated by the "Income Tax". Once voluntary, the Income Tax has become the "norm". During World War 2, an income tax was established to help pay for the war. It was to last 6 years after the wars end. It did not. At the time, the word "Income" was different from "Wage". "Income" is what you make on Stocks, Bank accounts, Rent, and other stuff you do not have to labor for. A "Wage" is what you get for LABOR. There was NO WAGE TAX. They allowed you to declare your wage on you tax return form, and pay taxes on it, if you wished. Schools began educating how to fill out the Tax forms. They specified that the individual should write in their wages. Eventually the government introduced the concept that businesses withhold your taxes for you. It was voluntary. Finally, a few years ago, the notion of Income vs Wage was fought in the Supreme Court. WE ALL LOST !!!
Anyway, our tax dollars now go toward funding the purchase of horrid pieces of alleged artwork, cover the cost of the poor defaulting on Student loans, credit cards and more, help raise the living conditions of the poor in every way. The problem is, when you give people something, they tend to become expectant of it and ungracious about it.
Here's the rest of the column for posterity.
Rigging the 'Poverty' Rate as a Political Ploy
Phony economic statistics always have been an effective political weapon - and with a presidential election coming up the let's-get-Bush media have been having a high old time. Alan Reynolds, in a recent piece for the Washington Times, tells it like it is:
"Consider first the headline estimate that 43.6 million people are without health insurance." The facts: This is only an "instant snapshot" of a given day. The Survey of Income and Program Participation notes that people come on and off economic and participation levels, so on an annual basis the figure of those without medical insurance for the year always is roughly one-half of that. The largest group not on health insurance is young people who figure that paying medical bills is cheaper than the cost of health insurance and the premiums that go with it. Many young people don't have health insurance because they don't want it.
Similar games are played with the "poverty" rate. We are informed with horror by the Washington Post that the poverty rate rose to 12.1 percent last year. But it was 15.1 percent in President Bill Clinton's first year and 12.7 percent in 1998. In the Bush recession year of 2002, the poverty rate was lower than in the Clinton "prosperity" year of 1998.
Just what is "poverty"? The Census Bureau's last available statistic noted that there were 37 million "poor" Americans. At the same time, government reports showed that poor Americans were better housed and fed, and had more personal property, than the average American had throughout most of the century.
But what do the available statistics show as to the nature of American "poverty"?
# Nearly 40 percent of all "poor" households owned their own homes, and the average home of those classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with a garage. More than 750,000 of the "poor" owned homes worth more than $100,000, and 71,000 owned $300,000 homes. Nearly 60 percent of "poor" homes have more than two rooms per person. That means that the "poor" have twice as much living space as the average Japanese. And the same percentage have air conditioning.
# 64 percent own a car; 14 percent own two or more.
# 74 percent own microwave ovens; 23 percent have automatic dishwashers; 91 percent have color television and 29 percent have two or more TVs.
"Poor" Americans are better off than the general population of Europe. "Poor" children eat more meat than do higher-income children and, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, have protein intakes 100 percent higher than middle-class children. The obesity rate is higher among the "poor" than among the middle class. The same report notes that the daily intake of such vitamins as E, C and thiamin among children in families below 75 percent of the poverty threshold is greater than among children in families 300 percent above that threshold.
There also are some strange contradictions in the poverty statistics. In 1993, the Census Bureau reported that the lowest one-fifth of U.S. households had an average income of $7,263. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Labor showed that the same group of households spent $13,486 - a neat trick the rest of us would like to learn. But a similar gap between alleged income and spending has been reported steadily year by year.
The reason is that in ascertaining the income of those below the poverty level, the Labor Department does not include public-housing or health-care subsidies through Medicaid, Medicare and other federal, state and local programs.
Analysis of Census reports by the Heritage Foundation notes three areas in which the government statistics are "radically" wrong:
1. "The Census Bureau fails to count most welfare benefits as income. For example, if a family received $4,000 in food stamps and $5,000 in housing aid, these benefits are treated as having zero income value."
2. "The Census Bureau also undercounts household income because it fails to count the enormous 'underground economy' ... consisting primarily of persons who perform work 'off the books' to avoid government taxes and regulations," thereby increasing the number of the technically poor. These unreported earnings are estimated to be worth anywhere from $300 billion to $500 billion.
3. "The Census Bureau ignores household assets. In determining if a household is 'poor' the Census Bureau counts only the household's income in the current year. It ignores all assets accumulated in prior years. Thus a businessman who has suffered losses and as a result has a zero or negative income for the current year will be counted officially as 'poor' even if he owns a home and has several million dollars in the bank." So in a period of recession, when many people suffer a temporary drop in income or take investment losses, the number of "poor" increases substantially, even though it does not reflect national impoverishment.
The "poverty" figures that most of the media so happily brandish have a nonexistent link to economic fact. But those alleged figures make good politics for those who want us to look the other way.
Ralph de Toledano is the dean of Washington columnists and a contributing writer to Insight magazine.