State-Level Data Show Recovery Act Protecting Millions From Poverty

[Political Heretic]

I wanted to post this because I am (a) a strong critic of current insurance care reform efforts and (b) a strong critic of the national political system, including both political parties.

While those things are true, I also believe in supporting policy when it meets the criteria of having sufficient benefits to ordinary Americans without having critical defects - as far as I'm concerned there's nothing contradictory about believing that this system is broken and needs replaced and tactically supporting any policy that has the net effect of helping people in need more than it harms them along the way.

To that end, while I oppose this senate health care bill in its current form because I believe that it does more harm than good for poor and working class families in the long run, I supported the stimulus bill - despite its many flaws - because I believed it would do more good than harm for poor and working class families in the long run.

And it appears that some data now bears that out:

State-Level Data Show Recovery Act Protecting Millions From Poverty - Act Also Saving and Creating Jobs, Boosting Economy

By Arloc Sherman
December 17, 2009

While the recession is expected to drive states’ poverty rates up for 2009, new analysis based on Census data shows that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) is keeping large numbers of Americans out of poverty in states across the country. In addition to boosting economic activity and preserving or creating jobs, the recovery act is softening the recession’s impact on poverty by directly lifting family incomes.

The Center’s analysis, which covers 36 states and the District of Columbia, examines the effect on poverty of seven ARRA provisions: the expansion of three tax credits for working families, two provisions that strengthen unemployment insurance assistance, a provision that boosts food stamp benefits, and a one-time payment for retirees, veterans, and people with disabilities.<1> Nationally, these provisions are keeping more than 6 million Americans out of poverty and reducing the severity of poverty for 33 million more. (These figures include both people whom ARRA has lifted out of poverty and people whom ARRA has kept from falling into poverty.)

...

Act Also Reduces Severity of Poverty for Millions of Americans

In addition to keeping more than 6 million Americans out of poverty in 2009, ARRA is reducing the severity of poverty for 33 million additional Americans who are poor by lifting their incomes, typically by more than $700. Due to data limitations, these figures are conservative and underestimate the number of people that the seven ARRA provisions examined here have helped in 2009.

(more)
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3035

[aquart]

1. Bankers who would otherwise have been unemployed?

[Political Heretic]

3. No. But way to not read the evidence-based report.

[Don Caballero]

2. Another win for our President

The Right Wing was jumping all over our President about this. They can eat crow now.

[Political Heretic]

5. It's a win for people in or on the brink of poverty. That ought to be the first concern.

Screw wins for the president and screw political gamesmanship.

[Don Caballero]

7. Of course it is a win for the people

But we must consider this a win for our President as well. Another plus in the win column.

[Political Heretic]

8. I really don't give a shit about political wins for politicians.

That's not the game I'm playing.

So you can take your "wins" and "losses" column and go play that pathetic game somewhere else.

Something about characterizing what's going on in our society as "wins for my team / losses for their team" is just disgusting.

[Don Caballero]

9. You should support our President

We are finally in control of the White House and can use his feats as things to attract more to the Party. I am looking at this win as a win for the Party, not just our President.

[Political Heretic]

12. I support working class families. I don't owe anything to any political elite.

When politicians prioritize the needs of the low income and working class individuals and families ahead of the wants and whims of the financial elite, then they get my "support" i.e. my thanks to them for acting like basic morally responsible human beings instead of wastes of air.

The stimulus bill has had a net effect of helping some people stay out of the most desperate poverty - primarily from extending unemployment benefits and increased funding to some other basic social services. It was the absolute minimum that could possibly be done by a political leadership that believes in trickle-down economic policy. Help Wall Street first, and the benefits will trickle down to everyone else.

These are all things that could have been passed in other ways, and have little to do with economic stimulus, only crisis prevention. I supported passage of ARR as a tactical choice, to get that money for crisis prevention out there so that more people facing desperate poverty could get assistance. But that doesn't change the fact that the bill represents the complete fallacy of modern "trickle-down Democrats" thinking.

It's largely failed to create jobs at the pace promised or the scale needed and failed to translate into robust infrastructure development because it was laden down with hundreds of billions of dollars of giveaways to business interests - tax breaks being one of the major gifts, among others. The very same institute that describes the benefits of certain aspects of AAR to poor people, also describes the total failure of provisions such as business tax breaks to translate into assistance to the jobless or people struggling with poverty.

In my opinion, AAR was worth support because its too difficult to sit by and watch desperately poor people suffer when a bill will do things like put more money into food stamps and unemployment benefits and medicaid. But in terms of economic stimulus for the country, it has been mired and bogged down by all of the caveats and handouts given to the business and investor class - keeping "stimulus" from working like it could and should.



....So coming in and flippantly going "Yay a win for our president" is so transparently childish to the point of being offensive. The trivialization of the serious - in some cases life or death - issues going on by conflating it all into a "game" of is "our" President winning or losing is extremely sad.

[Don Caballero]

13. Very good post

Great points. I agree with much you had to say but still find it imperative to support our President coming up on his Sophomore year in office. If his base is constantly nickering about he will be seen as weak and ineffectual and we will have to deal with another Republican administration in three years. That is something this country must resist on all levels.

[Political Heretic]

15. I understand. But I'd suggest to you that there are worse things possible than simply Republicans.

Something to keep in mind. Question the idea that is always best to support any Democrat no matter what simply because they have a "D" after their name out of fear that a Republican might win.

I'm not saying form conclusions.... just keep asking the question as events unfold.

[laughingliberal]

17. He's the one who said, "make me do it." How productive is it to offer up unconditional support?

If his base does not make its wishes known, who fills the void? Does he just rely on advisers taking the country toward a goal we don't share while we sit by and 'support' him? I would like someone to tell me just what he meant by "make me do it," if it wasn't to pressure him with our priorities. Or, was it just political play talk?

[malaise]

18. Can't be - everything he's done is a failure

They told me that :sarcasm:

[Don Caballero]

19. Precisely why we must keep track of all the good things our President does for us

Scorecards may seem childish but it is the only thing Right Wing reactionaries understand.

[bobbolink]

4. What about us EXTRAORDINARY 'Murkins who have been poor all along?

Any likely "protections" for us?

Not damned likely, is it?

[Political Heretic]

6. That would include me.

And our condition doesn't really change the reality of whether or not a specific piece of legislation has net-gains or net-losses for poor people.

Of course it doesn't fix a system that is broken. Hence, my entire italicized preamble.

But there is nothing contradictory about tactically supporting certain policy or even certain politicians when it serves the interests of a movement. See signature.

It's not about knee-jerk rejection of everything any more than its about knee-jerk endorsement of anything.

It's about working for and supporting things that will ease the difficulties of marginalized populations along the way while at the same time standing up against a system of corruption and exploitation that needs to be deconstructed and rebuilt.

AAR did little harm and did some good. Pretty simple choice to support its passage, unless one is so wrapped up in ideological entrenchment that the "game" becomes more important than the people.

[bobbolink]

10. I'm past the point of working for issues that have nothing to do with me, given that I don't have

support from other people.

And, I would be naive to assume that your "knee-jerk" denigration wasn't aimed at me, right?

You see, with attacks like that, I have lost any interest in "supporting" policies which ignore so many of us.

[Political Heretic]

14. I didn't mean that at you, no.

Sorry, sometimes I respond to someone with five past exchanges still fresh in my mind, and that can bleed into whatever I'm saying.

I'm not sure about what issues you are referring to that "have nothing to do with me." I don't completely agree - insofar that I'm interested in issues that affect not just me, but other individuals and families like me. If you seriously meant that you only care about the things that affect you directly and personally and nothing else, then please clarify that for me.

I'm interested in issues as they effect poor and working class individuals and families. AAR was one of those things that cost working class individuals and families nothing but included marginal benefits that actually would assist some folks in very important ways.

I'm of the opinion that you can both be an outspoken critic of a corrupt and failing system and still take whatever you can get from whatever policy the "players" decided to put forth. Stimulus had enough sweetheart deals for legislators sending pork back to their own districts, and enough tax breaks and side benefits for businesses that a little bit of social spending was allowed to squeeze through. At at time when crisis is so severe, I was of the mind to take that, and the OP seems to suggest that AAR functioned pretty much like I thought it would: helping some people on the brink, even while not doing as much as it should.

[bobbolink]

16. Here's the clarification you asked for....

AFter DECADES of working for other issues, I now find myself the victim of policies that keep me poor, suffering, and homeless. All the efforts I have made to try to get "progressives" to care about homelessness, and actively work for its eridication, have gotten me either zero or attacked.

So, yes, I'm now out for myself and other homelesspeople ONLY unless and until "progressives" decide to care about those of us who are so ignored.

Don't like it?

Then help to put an end to homelessness! No, I don't mean volunteering at some "shelter".... I mean taking action to create sufficient homes for EVERYONE!

THEN we can talk.

edited to say.... I'm glad you clarified that snark wasn't aimed at me... However, if that is your pattern, you might give some thought to how it can hurt those who have NOTHING TO DO with your past exchanges. Some of us have been hurt enough.

[Political Heretic]

20. As long as we're giving thought to things....

Might I suggest that you too give some thought, specifically to how you engage people that you know nothing about.

For example, did you know that I am currently classified as homeless? There's something in common. Prior to that, I worked for El Ada Community Action Partnership, the entire mission of which was to provide direct services - including housing services to low income and no income individuals and families who were on the street. The job included both direct services and public policy advocacy in the fight to create real affordable housing for everyone and end homelessness in our community.

Since then I have gotten more education, with the specific focus on income inequality and poverty - with the goal of working full time at the local, city or state level (I don't want to work any higher than state at the absolute maximum, because any higher than that and its all horse shit and nothing gets done) fighting poverty and homelessness.

Did you know I'm also gut bustingly poor? Currently I have zero income and zero money of my own - no assets worth over maybe 1000 bucks (that mostly in my used car, which was a gift, which I need to have any hope of finding work.) I've been through bankruptcy, and I've accessed the very social welfare services I now seek to improve, because I had nowhere else to turn.

You say "THEN we can talk." I think we can talk right now.

AFter DECADES of working for other issues, I now find myself the victim of policies that keep me poor, suffering, and homeless. All the efforts I have made to try to get "progressives" to care about homelessness, and actively work for its eridication, have gotten me either zero or attacked.

I would suggest that perhaps you're trying to engage the wrong people? "Progressive" these days have become a rather perverse label. Such a wide spectrum of people apply it to themselves that it hardly means anything. Nine times out of time when you are talking to a "progressive" you are talking to a white, upper-middle class suburban Democrat comfortable enough to be thoroughly detached from the reality of poverty and our exploitative system but not quite rich enough utterly ignore it wholesale.

"Progressive" today has become equivalent with "Democrat" and agenda of the Democratic party has little or nothing to do with prioritizing the elimination of poverty or the eradication of homelessness as a serious issue. You might try talking to different people in different places... they might take poverty more seriously.

If you've been seeing to engage people on DU, you're really barking up the wrong tree. Short of a Christmas fund drive, a serious organized effort or genuinely concerned attitude toward poverty is tough to find. Poverty is little more than a slogan - something to be brought up for convenience when some party point needs to be made. "Yeah yeah, we're better on poverty," then the word "poverty" is retired back to the cellar of irrelevant terms, once the talking point has been given and the word has been used as a prop.

Daily KOS allowed a study to be done a while back, and it had some very interesting results. It found that something like 60% of its members were comfortably upper middle class, with incomes of 75 thousand dollars a year or higher. As expected, the majority were white and the majority were also male.

I can't guarantee that demographics her are similar - but if I were betting man, I'd take that bet. It's going to impact how poverty gets talked about...

[bobbolink]

21. So, was that a hidden message that I should leave DU?

You DO know it is against the rules to suggest such, right?

What I DO know is that often poor people internalize the ugliness they receive from the muddleclass and turn it on each other. Hence, when poor folk REALLY understand being poor, they stop doing that kind of stuff.

And if upper-muddleclass "progressives" can't engage and begin to understand poverty, then they need to be confronted on that.

Just a few thoughts, on the run because I have limited computer, time to your speech.

Here's a clue.... if you were actually to want to understand rather than to correct, YOU would find the "engagement" much more productive.

But, I'm guessing that doesn't fit in with your mindset.

[Political Heretic]

22. You're pulling my leg, right?

So, was that a hidden message that I should leave DU?

You DO know it is against the rules to suggest such, right?

Are you calling me fat? You know there are rules against personal attacks, and I don't think you bringing my weight into things is appropriate.

And if upper-muddleclass "progressives" can't engage and begin to understand poverty, then they need to be confronted on that.

Hmm... wouldn't it be great of there was a way to check and see if I agree with you or not. Hey, what's this search feature up there at the top, oh wait a minute:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Political%20Heretic/39

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Political%20Heretic/40

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Political%20Heretic/38

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Political%20Heretic/43

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Political%20Heretic/46

Here's a clue.... if you were actually to want to understand rather than to correct, YOU would find the "engagement" much more productive.

Pot, Kettle. :shrug:

[bobbolink]

23. .

"If you've been seeing to engage people on DU, you're really barking up the wrong tree. "

That's a dog whistle, right?

We all know people use hidden messages like this to skirt the rules.

And, yes, what you did was to correct me. Rather than understanding.

[Political Heretic]

25. Except you misquoted me.

YOU said,

"All the efforts I have made to try to get "progressives" to care about homelessness, and actively work for its eridication, have gotten me either zero or attacked."

To which I replied:

"I would suggest that perhaps you're trying to engage the wrong people? "Progressive" these days have become a rather perverse label. Such a wide spectrum of people apply it to themselves that it hardly means anything"

And..

"If you've been seeing to engage people on DU, you're really barking up the wrong tree."

And..

"Daily KOS allowed a study to be done a while back, and it had some very interesting results. It found that something like 60% of its members were comfortably upper middle class, with incomes of 75 thousand dollars a year or higher. As expected, the majority were white and the majority were also male.

I can't guarantee that demographics her are similar - but if I were betting man, I'd take that bet. It's going to impact how poverty gets talked about..."

See ALL of that context matters. To not quote that context is the same is misquoting.

If there was anything to get out of such statements, it was a criticism of DU attitudes - and trying to read into that some backhanded suggestion that you leave is ridiculous. It's as ridiculous as me reading you calling me fat into anything you've said.

Not to mention the fact that I bark up that "wrong tree" all the time. I haven't asked myself to leave yet, have it?

Further, this is a discussion forum - I didn't "correct" you. I questioned one element of your point of view, and chose to expand on it with my perspective. That's pretty much what goes on here.

Ironic though, since all you've done in post after post is try to "correct" me and make it personal.

Rather than understanding? Like the understanding you gave when you jumped to conclusions and assumptions about who I was or what my circumstances are? Hmmm?

Pot, Kettle again.

[jwirr]

11. I can personally testify that fed money this year has helped my brother

and sister-in-law with weatherization money and us with energy assistance. The weatherization is going to help them for years to come and was a very good expenditure.

[Nikki Stone1]

24. The analysis is an extrapolation, based on potential FUTURE data.

While that might good for predictive purposes when deciding upon a program, it's not proof that what will happen HAS happened. I know they're trying to put a good face on this. In truth, most of the money is still making its way out of Federal agencies. I know someone whose job it is to push billions in Recovery Act money out, and they are just getting it out now.

[Political Heretic]

27. You are actually completely wrong. Like wow.... I don't see that level of wrongness often.

I'm sort of impressed.

And all you'd have to do is actually read the second paragraph to see that this particular study is not talking about projections for major areas of AAR still being rolled out... its talking about the spending already done in key social welfare areas that has already translated into protection from poverty.

Just read.... its very clear and uncomplicated.

I understand that there are major parts of AAR where its success cannot be measured yet, and much information is based on projections. Particularly when it comes to infrastructure projects. But that's not what this is talking about..... which you could have noticed had you read literally like one paragraph down.

:crazy:

[Nikki Stone1]

29. They are taking very small rollouts and predicting from them.

It's small news. Positive, but small.

[Political Heretic]

30. That's just not true.

This particular report is not predicting anything. It is reporting on what has already happened.

Look I get it. Stimulus bad. That's fine, I'm not married to AAR and I'm happy to talk about its missteps and future potential failures. But you're ignoring what's written to perpetuate your own meme in this case, and that's just lame.

Its not really any sort of endorsement of the broader stimulus aims, but it does point out exactly why AAR was worth passing - and that is that it included so much direct aid into key programs that are essential to keep robust during an economic crisis (not to mention the record breaking amount of money given to public education, I'm still not entirely sure how that got through as "stimulus" but it did, and its a good thing.) That specific spending, those specific provisions like extending unemployment and pouring more money into social investment programs - made a difference.

You call the news small. I call it the only news I care about, and the only news that matters.

If you are insistent on seeing only negative when it comes to ARR, then we could talk about the fact that almost everything this report describes that was included in ARR really isn't "stimulus." It's just things that need to be done by default and could have been done separately from any sort of stimulus bill. They aren't things that are going to help rebuild the economy long term - they are simply things that help save some people from falling all the way off the cliff in the short run. Not really "small" as you called it, but not the long term goal of stimulus spending either.

The "big ticket" ideas in ARR that area really supposed to help reset employment for main street are barely getting started, and its too soon to know how that is going to work. Though I for one am skeptical, because

(1) I don't think it was nearly enough spending
(2) It was too open to state by state interpretation so that many states actively work against the goals of the bill
(3) It's watered down by too much wasteful spending on ineffective stimulus, namely business tax cuts rather than spending on direct employment and infrastructure.

But when it comes to this report, it simply does not say or do what you say it does. And anyone can see this, just by reading the report.

[Political Heretic]

31. Perhpas you're confused because of the word "estimate."

This report is looking at these specific provisions of AAR:

QUOTE

The Center’s analysis, which covers 36 states and the District of Columbia, examines the effect on poverty of seven ARRA provisions: the expansion of three tax credits for working families, two provisions that strengthen unemployment insurance assistance, a provision that boosts food stamp benefits, and a one-time payment for retirees, veterans, and people with disabilities.

1. Expansion of Tax Credits for working families
2. Improvements to Unemployment Insurance
3. Improvements to Food Stamp benefits
4. One time payment to retirees, veterans and persons with disabilities

All things which have happened. It then speaks of "estimates."

Quote:

Nationally, these provisions are keeping more than 6 million Americans out of poverty and reducing the severity of poverty for 33 million more. (These figures include both people whom ARRA has lifted out of poverty and people whom ARRA has kept from falling into poverty.)

These estimates are conservative. The seven provisions examined cover only about one-fourth of the recovery act’s total spending.

The estimates are about the literal number of people presented lifted from poverty or prevented from falling into poverty . It's not a "projection" of the future. But it is an estimate of the past/current effect because no one can say to the number exactly how many people have been helped. Statistical estimates are required. But in this particular case, this is an estimate based on data that exists now about actions already taken. It is not a projection about the future.

The other 3/4 of AAR spending - well perhaps that's where there would be projections, about programs and spending that have not been fully implemented yet and need more data to fully evaluate. But that's not what this report is about.

The report even goes on to literally explain its methodology to you:

QUOTE

In brief, the analysis uses Census data to examine how these policy changes will affect family income and poverty status by state. The estimates start with data collected in March 2004, March 2005, and March 2006 through the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey. Data for three years are combined to increase the reliability of the state-by-state estimates.

We make three adjustments to these Census data. First, we correct the tendency of Census and other surveys to undercount receipt of certain public benefits, using the data and methods for making such adjustments that are reflected in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ TRIM model. <4> Next, we adjust the data to approximate recent economic and demographic conditions in each state, including labor-market conditions and state population levels in April through June of 2009. Finally, we adjust the food stamp participation data to approximate actual food stamp participation levels by state in May 2009. For each family in the resulting data, we estimate the family’s 2009 income with and without the seven recovery act provisions.

The analysis considers a family to be kept out of poverty if its estimated income is below the poverty line without the recovery act provisions but above the poverty line with the provisions. We use a measure of poverty that adheres to National Academy of Sciences poverty measurement recommendations by including after-tax cash and non-cash income, while subtracting child care and work expenses and out-of-pocket medical expenditures.

We provide estimates for 36 states and the District of Columbia. For the remaining 14 states, our data are insufficient to show reliable results. <5> Given the uncertainty associated with using a sample of the population, we show a range of estimates for each state. This range can be substantial, particularly for states with the smallest survey samples. For example, estimates for Iowa range from 25,000 to 55,000 residents kept out of poverty, with our best estimate falling in the middle (40,000).

The CBPP is estimating how many people have been lifted out of poverty of prevented from slipping into poverty. It is not, however, "projecting" about parts of ARR that have not been implemented yet. It's discussing seven provisions already implemented and their effects.

[CBR]

26. It is helping. I work with a stimulus program that is directly

helping renters at 50% or below AMI stay in their homes. The program is able to pay rent, arrears, utilities, moving, credit services etc...

[Political Heretic]

28. Where is this, and what is the program?

How is it funded and who has oversight?

I'm really interested... sounds great!

[CBR]

32. The Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Act...

funded through HUD. HUD filtered the money to state and local governments who, in turn, contracted with local service providers. It is a 3 year program and households can receive up to 18 months of assistance.