Here's an interesting tid bit from today's news. In this poll, released Friday, January 21, 2011, it was found that the majority of Americans did NOT want Congress to put Health Care at the top of their agenda, and only 40 percent of them wanted to see it repealed. The majority does NOT want to repeal the health care act of 2010. It turns out that the numbers for repealing the act have never been high, and they have been going down steadily.
It's helpful to point that out because it is not something one would surmise from hearing the heated debate about this in Congress or even the reports on it in the media. This is similar to this CBS poll that came out in September, and this one that came out in December, the week before the vote in Congress to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the very wealthy. In both instances, people did NOT want an extension of the tax cuts. For all of the heated rhetoric about how the "American people" want this because they don't want taxes for anyone to go up, the surprising fact was that people said just the opposite. The"American people" did NOT want the tax cuts extended to the wealthy and they were even pretty lukewarm about whether their own cuts should be extended.
But, in both cases, members of Congress (frankly, I mean just Republicans, but I'm trying to be fair) still voted against the will of the people, claiming to be voting for what the "American people" wanted. And there are other examples. People want one thing and Congress votes for the opposite claiming a mandate from the people. It is not uncommon.
But how does that happen? How can Congress ignore public opinion and continue to get away with it?
Well, though it has probably happened to some extent since the ancients first began tinkering with voting for their representatives. But it is considerably easier today, for two reasons.
First, the districts for Congressional representatives have been drawn in such a way that the vast majority of the people in their districts are of only one party. So, a Republican, let's say, can know that for the time being in the conceivable future, a will ALWAYS be elected in District "X." Second, the reality of politics today are that in each of the primaries (which have become the only places were meaningful elections are taking place), the largest majority of voters are the true believers, the activists. And for the Republicans, that means a very large number from the radical right wing fringes, the Tea Party, the gun lobby, the religious conservatives, etc. So, when a Republican is running for office, he or she does not need to be concerned about the general national opinions of "Americans." Or even of the more moderate opinions of general Republicans. All he or she needs to appeal to are the far right voters who are going to show up in the primaries. In fact, in Today's climate if a Representative decides to vote too often with the opinions of the vast middle of America, he or she would probably lose out in the next primary because the middle does not represent the voting block that shows up to vote.
Doesn't bode well for Democracy, but then, what else is new?
Stay warm and safe. It's getting cold out there.
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Revised formula puts 1 in 6 Americans in poverty
By HOPE YEN (AP) – 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON — The level of poverty in America is even worse than first believed.
A revised formula for calculating medical costs and geographic variations show that approximately 47.4 million Americans last year lived in poverty, 7 million more than the government's official figure.
The disparity occurs because of differing formulas the Census Bureau and the National Academy of Science use for calculating the poverty rate. The NAS formula shows the poverty rate to be at 15.8 percent, or nearly 1 in 6 Americans, according to calculations released this week. That's higher than the 13.2 percent, or 39.8 million, figure made available recently under the original government formula.
That measure, created in 1955, does not factor in rising medical care, transportation, child care or geographical variations in living costs. Nor does it consider non-cash government aid when calculating income. As a result, official figures released last month by Census may have overlooked millions of poor people, many of them 65 and older.
According to the revised NAS formula:
_About 18.7 percent of Americans 65 and older, or nearly 7.1 million, are in poverty compared to 9.7 percent, or 3.7 million, under the traditional measure. That's due to out-of-pocket expenses from rising Medicare premiums, deductibles and a coverage gap in the prescription drug benefit.
_About 14.3 percent of people 18 to 64, or 27 million, are in poverty, compared to 11.7 percent under the traditional measure. Many of the additional poor are low-income, working people with transportation and child-care costs.
_Child poverty is lower, at about 17.9 percent, or roughly 13.3 million, compared to 19 percent under the traditional measure. That's because single mothers and their children disproportionately receive non-cash aid such as food stamps.
_Poverty rates were higher for non-Hispanic whites (11 percent), Asians (17 percent) and Hispanics (29 percent) when compared to the traditional measure. For blacks, poverty remained flat at 24.7 percent, due to the cushioning effect of non-cash aid.
_The Northeast and West saw bigger jumps in poverty, due largely to cities with higher costs of living such as New York, Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco.
The Census Bureau said it expedited release of the alternative numbers for this month because of the interest expressed by lawmakers and the Obama administration in seeing a fuller range of numbers. Legislation pending in Congress would mandate a switch to the revised formula, although the White House could choose to act on its own.
Arloc Sherman, a senior researcher at the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said that because the revised formula factors in non-cash government aid, the amount of increase in poverty from 2007 to 2008 was generally smaller compared to the current measure.
"Food stamp participation rose during the first year of recession and appears to have softened what could have been an even greater increase in financial hardship," he said.
Sherman said the revised formula could take on greater importance in measuring poverty for 2009 as more Americans take advantage of tax credits and food stamps under the federal stimulus program. Food stamp assistance currently is at an all-time high of about 36 million.
On the Net:
* Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
WASHINGTON — The level of poverty in America is even worse than first believed.
A revised formula for calculating medical costs and geographic variations show that approximately 47.4 million Americans last year lived in poverty, 7 million more than the government's official figure.
The disparity occurs because of differing formulas the Census Bureau and the National Academy of Science use for calculating the poverty rate. The NAS formula shows the poverty rate to be at 15.8 percent, or nearly 1 in 6 Americans, according to calculations released this week. That's higher than the 13.2 percent, or 39.8 million, figure made available recently under the original government formula.
That measure, created in 1955, does not factor in rising medical care, transportation, child care or geographical variations in living costs. Nor does it consider non-cash government aid when calculating income. As a result, official figures released last month by Census may have overlooked millions of poor people, many of them 65 and older.
According to the revised NAS formula:
_About 18.7 percent of Americans 65 and older, or nearly 7.1 million, are in poverty compared to 9.7 percent, or 3.7 million, under the traditional measure. That's due to out-of-pocket expenses from rising Medicare premiums, deductibles and a coverage gap in the prescription drug benefit.
_About 14.3 percent of people 18 to 64, or 27 million, are in poverty, compared to 11.7 percent under the traditional measure. Many of the additional poor are low-income, working people with transportation and child-care costs.
_Child poverty is lower, at about 17.9 percent, or roughly 13.3 million, compared to 19 percent under the traditional measure. That's because single mothers and their children disproportionately receive non-cash aid such as food stamps.
_Poverty rates were higher for non-Hispanic whites (11 percent), Asians (17 percent) and Hispanics (29 percent) when compared to the traditional measure. For blacks, poverty remained flat at 24.7 percent, due to the cushioning effect of non-cash aid.
_The Northeast and West saw bigger jumps in poverty, due largely to cities with higher costs of living such as New York, Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco.
The Census Bureau said it expedited release of the alternative numbers for this month because of the interest expressed by lawmakers and the Obama administration in seeing a fuller range of numbers. Legislation pending in Congress would mandate a switch to the revised formula, although the White House could choose to act on its own.
Arloc Sherman, a senior researcher at the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said that because the revised formula factors in non-cash government aid, the amount of increase in poverty from 2007 to 2008 was generally smaller compared to the current measure.
"Food stamp participation rose during the first year of recession and appears to have softened what could have been an even greater increase in financial hardship," he said.
Sherman said the revised formula could take on greater importance in measuring poverty for 2009 as more Americans take advantage of tax credits and food stamps under the federal stimulus program. Food stamp assistance currently is at an all-time high of about 36 million.
On the Net:
* Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)