Thread: Latino Poverty Rate Climbs to 28%

Latino Poverty Rate Climbs to 28%

Due to medical expenses, higher living costs and limited immigrant access to government programs, people 65 or older, Hispanics and urbanites were more likely to be struggling economically under the alternative formula.

California tops the list, hurt by high housing costs, large numbers of immigrants as well as less generous tax credits and food stamp programs to buoy low-income families. It is followed by the District of Columbia, Arizona, Florida and Georgia.

Published November 14, 2012
Fox News Latino

While Latinos are gaining in political clout, they are also falling down the economic ladder, new Census numbers show.

Latinos poverty rates climbed to 28 percent after the census reconfigured its algorithm to take into account medical costs and government programs. The Hispanic poverty level rose after the government took into account safety-net programs such as food stamps and housing, which have lower participation among immigrants and non-English speakers.

Among the Findings:

—If it weren't for Social Security payments, the poverty rate would rise to 54.1 percent for people 65 and older and 24.4 percent for all age groups.

—Without refundable tax credits such as the earned income tax credit, child poverty would rise from 18.1 percent to 24.4 percent.

—Without food stamps, the overall poverty rate would increase from 16.1 percent to 17.6 percent.

"These figures are timely given the looming expiration of two key measures that account for part of these programs' large antipoverty impact: federal emergency unemployment insurance and improvements in refundable tax credits" such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, said Arloc Sherman, a senior researcher at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think-tank. "Letting these measures expire at year's end could push large numbers of families into poverty."

Overall, the ranks of America's poor edged up last year to a high of 49.7 million, based on the new census measure.

The numbers released Wednesday by the Census Bureau are part of a newly developed supplemental poverty measure. Devised a year ago, this measure provides a fuller picture of poverty that the government believes can be used to assess safety-net programs by factoring in living expenses and taxpayer-provided benefits that the official formula leaves out.

Based on the revised formula, the number of poor people exceeded the 49 million, or 16 percent of the population, who were living below the poverty line in 2010. That came as more people in the slowly improving economy picked up low-wage jobs last year but still struggled to pay living expenses. The revised poverty rate of 16.1 percent also is higher than the record 46.2 million, or 15 percent, that the government's official estimate reported in September.

Due to medical expenses, higher living costs and limited immigrant access to government programs, people 65 or older, Hispanics and urbanites were more likely to be struggling economically under the alternative formula. Also spiking higher in 2011 was poverty among full-time and part-time workers.

The portrait of poverty broken down by state notably changed. California tops the list, hurt by high housing costs, large numbers of immigrants as well as less generous tax credits and food stamp programs to buoy low-income families. It is followed by the District of Columbia, Arizona, Florida and Georgia.

In the official census tally, it was rural states that were more likely to be near the top of the list, led by Mississippi, New Mexico, Arizona and Louisiana.

"We're seeing a very slow recovery, with increases in poverty among workers due to more new jobs which are low-wage," said Timothy Smeeding, a University of Wisconsin-Madison economist who specializes in poverty. "As a whole, the safety net is holding many people up, while California is struggling more because it's relatively harder there to qualify for food stamps and other benefits."

Broken down by group, poverty was disproportionately affecting people 65 and older — about 15.1 percent, or nearly double the 8.7 percent rate calculated under the official formula. They also have higher medical expenses, such as Medicare premiums, deductibles and drug costs, that aren't factored into the official rate.

Working-age adults ages 18-64 saw an increase in poverty from 13.7 percent to 15.5 percent, due mostly to commuting and child care costs.

In contrast, the new measure showed declines in poverty for children, from 22.3 percent under the official formula to 18.1 percent. Still, they remained the age group most likely to be economically struggling by any measure.

Hispanics and Asians also saw much higher rates of poverty, 28 percent and 16.9 percent, respectively, compared with rates of 25.4 percent and 12.3 percent under the official formula. In contrast, African-Americans saw a modest decrease in poverty, from 27.8 percent under the official rate to 25.7 percent based on the revised numbers. Among non-Hispanic whites, poverty rose from 9.9 percent to 11 percent.

Economists long have criticized the official poverty rate as inadequate. Based on a half-century-old government formula, the official rate continues to assume the average family spends one-third of its income on food. Those costs have actually shrunk to a much smaller share, more like one-seventh.

The official formula also fails to account for other expenses such as out-of-pocket medical care, child care and commuting, and it does not consider noncash government aid, such as food stamps and tax credits, when calculating income.

In reaction to some of the criticism, the government in 2010 asked the Census Bureau to develop a new measure, based partly on recommendations made by the National Academy of Sciences. It released national numbers based on that formula for the first time last year. This year's release features a 50-state breakdown on poverty, prompted in part by local officials such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg who have argued that the official measure does not take into account urban costs of living and that larger cities may get less federal money as a result.

The goal is to help lawmakers to better gauge the effectiveness of anti-poverty programs, although it does not replace the Census Bureau's official poverty formula.

Based on reporting by The Associated Press.

source: Latino Poverty Rate Climbs to 28% | Fox News Latino

Illegal Immigration Ravages Related ..

The Worst Is Yet To Come For California

forbes.com
11/14/2012 @ 10:38AM |12,195 views

Elections have consequences. There is little doubt that the reelection of President Obama will have far ranging consequences for the country. The last two decades of legislative elections in California have had enormous consequences for California and the U.S. more broadly. After 18 years of spending, taxing and regulating, the most resource-rich state in the Country is facing underemployment in excess of 20%, huge perennial deficits and failing schools. Sadly, the worst is yet to come.

California has unprecedented problems. Estimates suggest that the pensions for the state and local governments are underfunded in excess of $650 billion – over 6 and half times the yearly revenues of the state. The yearly operating budgets the last decade have featured deficits larger than the budgets of twenty states.


California features the 3rd highest unemployment rate in the nation with a million less people working today than 10 years ago, and nearly a 1/3rd of the U.S.’s welfare recipients. California has suffered the worst of the foreclosure crisis, including having 8 of the 10 worst foreclosure areas.

Californians have lost over $2 trillion in homeowner equity since 1997 – a number that exceeds the size of its yearly economy. Amidst such sorry news, since 1998, 4.4 million taxpayers have left the state in search of better economic climes.

The fortunes of the California Democrat Party have far exceeded those of their constituents. For the last 18 years, the Democrats have had majorities in both the Senate and the Assembly. They run the show – regardless of who is governor.

Even so, the Democrats and the press blame the Republicans for quite a list of alleged wrongs – most significantly holding up budgets and taxes. Until two years ago, that was true enough with regard to runaway budgets until voters changed passage of the budget to a simple majority vote – thereby eliminating the need for Democrats to consult with Republicans. Until this year, that was true for tax increases.

Now, with the implementation of California’s massive Global Warming law set to take effect, not to mention the passage of huge sales and income increases, California will be the highest taxed and regulated state in the world. It already ranks last in the U.S. as a place to start a business because of taxes and regulations, and is witness to many employers leaving the state.

In light of that, you can ask yourself some basic questions: Did California get this way because Republicans held up even more taxes? Or more Regulations? Or more Spending?

If you leave your common sense behind, the Sacramento Democrats and their supporting media would have you believe that California is not taxed enough, that spending needs to rise even more and that more regulation is needed. If they get an Assembly super majority to match the Senate Super majority they now have, California will get just what those Democrats want.

The public employee unions, which have paid for the Democrat successes at the ballot box this year with taxpayer derived money, didn’t even wait a day before raising the specter of more business taxes. Their Senate leader wants to give municipalities the right to make it easier for them to raise taxes. Some party elders, i.e. Willie Brown, already have suggested that Prop 13, the historic property tax limitation law that launched a national tax revolution, be “reformed” – read have the cap on increases for commercial property taxes lifted.

Beyond that, keep in mind that every year Democrats call for an increase in school spending. Each year a universal health care law is introduced in the legislature and labor friendly changes to workers compensation laws are constantly sought.

Given all of the above, it is irrational to believe that Democrats will not seek significant new tax increases in the near future – first at the local level along with new business tax increases and then finally, once again, for individuals. More regulations are sure to follow as well.

With them both, more businesses and individuals will leave thereby fulfilling Democrat demographer Joel Kotkin’s chilling assessment that “increasingly the only ones fit to survive in California are the very rich and those who rely on government spending.’ In a nutshell, ‘the state is run for the very rich, the very poor, and the public employees.’”

All of that means the worst is yet to come for California – and the U.S.. You see, California is 16% of the U.S.’s economy and all of those tax increases, deficits and new spending will only sink the its economy more.

Simply put, we cannot have a true national recovery without a California recovery. So put that in your pipe and tax it – I am sure that will happen too.

The Worst Is Yet To Come For California - Forbes