MEXICO INVADES, LOOTS OUR JOBS, “FREE” EMERGENCY ROOM MEDICAL, “FREE” ANCHOR BABY BIRTHING = 18 YEARS OF WELFARE, AND ENDLESS DREAM ACTS HANDED TO THEM BY THE DEMOCRAT PARTY ALONG WITH PROMISES OF AMNESTY, LA RAZA SUPREMACY= SANCTUARY CITY/STATES, LIKE MEXIFORNIA, OR CONTINUED NON-ENFORCEMENT.
THE ILLEGALS HAVE ELECTED A SIGNIFICANT FACTION OF LA RAZA SUPREMACIST TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE WHICH HAS PASSED A LAW MAKING IT ILLEGAL FOR EMPLOYERS TO USE E-VERIFY!!!
THERE ARE ONLY EIGHT (8) STATES WITH A POPULATION GREATER THAN LOS ANGELES COUNTY WHERE HALF OF ALL JOBS ARE HELD BY ILLEGALS USING STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS! THIS SAME COUNTY PAYS OUT $600 MILLION PER YEAR IN WELFARE TO ILLEGALS! Not one legal voted to be mexico’s welfare state!
THE MEXICAN INVASION AND OCCUPATION DEPRESSED WAGES FOR LEGALS FROM $300 TO $400 BILLION PER YEAR! THAT’S WHY OBAMA AND HIS LA RAZA DEMS ARE DETERMINED TO SABOTAGE E-VERIFY! KEEPING WAGES DEPRESSED KEEPS THEIR CORPORATE PAYMASTERS HAPPY AND GENEROUS!
Map: The 12 States of America
Mar 8 2011, 8:00 AM ET 123
Since 1980, income inequality has fractured the nation. Click each icon to see each of the dozen states, which counties belong to them and how median income has changed over the last 30 years.
The 12 States Of America
Since 1980, income inequality has fractured the nation.
Most stories about inequality in America miss an important point: rising disparities are not just about investment bankers versus auto workers. They’re about entire communities of “winners” and “losers.” And as these communities continue to diverge, the idea of “an American economy” looks more and more like an anachronism.
Interactive Map: "Income Inequality"
See how your county compares to the rest of the country.
Interactive Map: "Income Inequality"
See how your county compares to the rest of the country.
We analyzed reams of demographic, economic, cultural, and political data to break the nation’s 3,141 counties into 12 statistically distinct “types of place.” When we look at family income over the past 30 years through that prism, the full picture of the income divide becomes clearer—and much starker.
Seven of our 12 county-types saw their median family incomes fall. “Immigration Nation” counties fared the worst, as Latino immigrants, many with little education, moved in. The “Service Worker Centers” also saw steep declines, as manufacturing dried up. Leading in growth were the well-educated “Monied Burbs,” where white-collar positions bloomed in office parks. Income in the “Industrial Metropolises” also rose, driven by gentrification and new wealth in inner-ring suburbs.
THE ENTIRE REASON THE BORDERS ARE LEFT OPEN IS TO CUT WAGES!
"We could cut unemployment in half simply by reclaiming the jobs taken by illegal workers," said Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, co-chairman of the Reclaim American Jobs Caucus. "President Obama is on the wrong side of the American people on immigration. The president should support policies that help citizens and legal immigrants find the jobs they need and deserve rather than fail to enforce immigration laws."
Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal
CA MAKES E-VERIFY ILLEGAL! COURTESY THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA!
Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal
Here is an example of why hiring illegal aliens is not economically productive for the State of California...
You have 2 families..."Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal". Both families have 2 parents, 2 children and live in California.
"Joe Legal" works in construction, has a Social Security Number, and makes $25.00 per hour with payroll taxes deducted...."Jose Illegal" also works in construction, has "NO" Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".
Joe Legal...$25.00 per hour x 40 hours $1000.00 per week, $52,000 per year
Now take 30% away for state and federal tax
Joe Legal now has $31,231.00
Jose Illegal...$15.00 per hour x 40 hours $600.00 per week, $31,200.00 per year
Jose Illegal pays no taxes...
Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00
Joe Legal pays Medical and Dental Insurance with limited coverage
$1000.00 per month
$12,000.00 per year
Joe Legal now has $19,231.00
Jose Illegal has full Medical and Dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year
Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00
Joe Legal makes too much money is not eligible for Food Stamps or welfare
Joe Legal pays for food
$1,000.00 per month
$12,000.00 per year
Joe Legal now has $ 7,231.00
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for Food Stamps and Welfare
Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00
Joe Legal pays rent of
$1,000.00 per month
$12,000.00 per year
Joe Legal is now in the hole... minus (-) $4,769.00
Jose Illegal receives a $500 per month Federal rent subsidy
Jose Illegal pays rent
$500.00 per month
$6,000.00 per year
Jose Illegal still has $25,200.00
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch.
Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same Police and Fire Services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
Don't vote/support any politician that supports illegal aliens...
Its WAY PAST time to take a stand for America and Americans!
OBAMA HAS PROMISED HIS LA RAZA “THE RACE” PARTY BASE of ILLEGALS AMNESTY, NO E-VERIFY, NO I.D. FOR REQUIRED OF ILLEGALS VOTING… OR AT LEAST CONTINUED NON-ENFORCEMENT!
OBAMA HANDS MASSIVE WELFARE TO ILLEGALS, ALONG WITH OUR JOBS TO BUY THE ILLEGALS' ILLEGAL VOTES!
The truth about the DREAM Act
Published March 20, 2012
The DREAM Act has become a rallying cry for President Obama, members of his administration, and liberal Democrats everywhere. President Obama has vowed to “keep fighting for the DREAM Act,” which would grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.
It’s true when listeners or those polled don’t know the facts that the DREAM Act has some appeal. After all, we are all naturally sympathetic when children are involved.
But the descriptions of the DREAM Act voiced by President Obama and his cohorts are not accurate. And the consequences are never told.
DREAM Act supporters claim that only children would benefit from such a bill, but the facts tell another story. Under most DREAM Act proposals, amnesty would be given to individuals up to the age of 30—not exactly children. And some other proposals don’t even have an age limit.
These supporters also maintain that illegal immigrants can’t go college without the DREAM Act. But the truth is that illegal immigrants can already go to college in most states.
And ultimately, most versions of the DREAM Act actually don’t even force illegal immigrants to comply with all the requirements in the bill, such as going to college or joining the military. The administration can waive requirements because of “hardship”at its complete discretion.
DREAM Act proposals are also a magnet for fraud. Many illegal immigrants will fraudulently claim they came here as children or that they are under 30. And the federal government has no way to check whether their claims are true or not.
Unfettered Immigration =POVERTY FOR AMERICANS
By Robert Rector Heritage.org | May 16, 2006
This paper focuses on the net fiscal effects of immigration with particular emphasis on the fiscal effects of low skill immigration. The fiscal effects of immigration are only one aspect of the impact of immigration. Immigration also has social, political, and economic effects. In particular, the economic effects of immigration have been heavily researched with differing results. These economic effects lie beyond the scope of this paper. Overall, immigration is a net fiscal positive to the government’s budget in the long run: the taxes immigrants pay exceed the costs of the services they receive. However, the fiscal impact of immigrants varies strongly according to immigrants’ education level. College-educated immigrants are likely to be strong contributors to the government’s finances, with their taxes exceeding the government’s costs. By contrast, immigrants with low education levels are likely to be a fiscal drain on other taxpayers. This is important because half of all adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. have less than a high school education. In addition, recent immigrants have high levels of out-of-wedlock childbearing, which increases welfare costs and poverty. An immigration plan proposed by Senators Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) would provide amnesty to 9 to 10 million illegal immigrants and put them on a path to citizenship. Once these individuals become citizens, the net additional cost to the federal government of benefits for these individuals will be around $16 billion per year. Further, once an illegal immigrant becomes a citizen, he has the right to bring his parents to live in the U.S. The parents, in turn, may become citizens. The long-term cost of government benefits to the parents of 10 million recipients of amnesty could be $30 billion per year or more. In the long run, the Hagel/Martinez bill, if enacted, would be the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years. Immigration and Crime Historically, immigrant populations have had lower crime rates than native-born populations. For example, in 1991, the overall crime and incarceration rate for non-citizens was slightly lower than for citizens. On the other hand, the crime rate among Hispanics in the U.S. is high. Age-specific incarceration rates (prisoners per 100,000 residents in the same age group in the general population) among Hispanics in federal and state prisons are two to two-and-a-half times higher than among non-Hispanic whites. Relatively little of this difference appears to be due to immigration violations. Illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly Hispanic. It is possible that, over time, Hispanic immigrants and their children may assimilate the higher crime rates that characterize the low-income Hispanic population in the U.S. as a whole. If this were to occur, then policies that would give illegal immigrants permanent residence through amnesty, as well as policies which would permit a continuing influx of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants each year, would increase crime in the long term. The Fiscal Impact of Immigration One important question is the fiscal impact of immigration (both legal and illegal). Policymakers must ensure that the interaction of welfare and immigration policy does not expand the welfare-dependent population, which would hinder rather than help immigrants and impose large costs on American society. On the other hand, amnesty would greatly increase the receipt of welfare, government benefits, and social services. Because illegal immigrant households tend to be low-skill and low-wage, the cost to government could be considerable. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has performed a thorough study of the federal fiscal impacts of amnesty. This study found that illegal immigrant households have low education levels and low wages and currently pay little in taxes. Illegal immigrant households also receive lower levels of federal government benefits. Nonetheless, the study also found that, on average, illegal immigrant families received more in federal benefits than they paid in taxes. Granting amnesty would render illegal immigrants eligible for federal benefit programs. The CIS study estimated the additional taxes that would be paid and the additional government costs that would occur as a result of amnesty. It assumed that welfare utilization and tax payment among current illegal immigrants would rise to equal the levels among legally-admitted immigrants of similar national, educational, and demographic backgrounds. If all illegal immigrants were granted amnesty, federal tax payments would increase by some $3,000 per household, but federal benefits and social services would increase by $8,000 per household. Total federal welfare benefits would reach around $9,500 per household, or $35 billion per year total. The study estimates that the net cost to the federal government of granting amnesty to some 3.8 million illegal alien households would be around $5,000 per household, for a total federal fiscal cost of $19 billion per year. Granting Amnesty is Likely to Further Increase Illegal Immigration The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 granted amnesty to 2.7 million illegal aliens. The primary purpose of the act was to decrease the number of illegal immigrants by limiting their inflow and by legalizing the status of illegal immigrants already here. In fact, the act did nothing to stem the tide of illegal entry. The number of illegal aliens entering the country increased five fold from around 140,000 per year in the 1980s to 700,000 per year today. Illegal entries increased dramatically shortly after IRCA went into effect. It seems plausible that the prospect of future amnesty and citizenship served as a magnet to draw even more illegal immigrants into the country. After all, if the nation granted amnesty once why wouldn’t it do so again? The Hagel/Martinez legislation would repeat IRCA on a much larger scale. This time, nine to ten million illegal immigrants would be granted amnesty. As with IRCA, the bill promises to reduce future illegal entry but contains little policy that would actually accomplish this. The granting of amnesty to 10 million illegal immigrants is likely to serve as a magnet pulling even greater numbers of aliens into the country in the future. If enacted, the legislation would spur further increases in the future flow of low-skill migrants. This in turn would increase poverty in America, enlarge the welfare state, and increase social and political tensions. Is your elected special interests pimp getting rich off elected office? CALIFORNIA’S SURE ARE!
Since the 1986 “amnesty” give away, there have been yearly 1.5 million illegals walk over our borders waving their Mexican flags, and slipping right into our jobs, welfare lines and hospital emergency rooms to give birth.
Meanwhile every year there are 1.5 million Americans that fall into poverty.
Daily there are 12 Americans murdered by illegals. In California alone there have been 2,000 Americans murdered by illegals that fled back to Mexico.
Foreclosure is the highest in states with the heaviest Mexican occupation. The highest foreclosure rate in this country is in La Raza Harry Reid’s Nevada where 25% of the population are ILLEGALS.
In Mexican occupied Los Angeles, 47% of those employed are illegals. L.A. county pays out $50 MILLION PER MONTH in welfare to illegals.
And yet hispandering Barack Obama and his banksters’ LA RAZA DEMS are at this very moment working for bit by bit amnesty.
In fact hispandering OBAMA just took 400 border patrol guards off the border with NarcoMex. Pelosi, Feinstein and Boxer have all vowed quick amnesty, NO WALL, no e-verify, and NO ID for illegals to vote dem!
Wsws.org…. GET ON THEIR FREE EMAIL NEWS
One in nine Americans uses food stamps
By Tom Eley
20 August 2009
20 August 2009
One in nine Americans relied on food stamps in May, the highest proportion ever, according to recently released data from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). In all, 34.4 million people used the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a federal program that provides assistance to low-income people, an increase of more than 2 percent from the previous month, and a staggering increase of 6 million over the past year.
May’s increase was the sixth consecutive month that set a new record in food stamp use. Government food assistance increased in every state, with Florida registering the sharpest gain at 4.2 percent.
The year-over-year percentage increase in food stamp use is more striking, with 13 states, representing every region of the country, registering a spike of more than 25 percent. These were Utah (45.5 percent), Nevada (39 percent), Idaho (36.3 percent), Washington (34.5 percent), Florida (34.2 percent), Vermont (33.6 percent), Wisconsin (31.3 percent), Arizona (29.7 percent), Colorado (28.9 percent), Georgia (28.3 percent), Maryland (27.2 percent), Massachusetts (25.3 percent), and Oregon (25 percent).
“Food stamp enrollment is rising because the economy is having a devastating impact on low-income families and they need this program to eat,” said Stacy Dean of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said. “Every single state has been affected.”
The food stamp program is largely funded by the federal government and administered by the states. Historically, recipients could redeem stamps or coupons for food assistance at grocery stores, but in recent years paper stamps have been phased out in favor of a debit card system called Electronic Benefit Transfer.
The program aims to assist the desperately poor. According to the USDA, the average gross monthly income of food stamp-receiving households was $640, with nearly 80 percent of all benefits going to households with children.
The program provides an average of $133 monthly per person requesting food assistance. By way of comparison, according to the USDA’s own estimates, a “low-cost” monthly nutritional scheme for a single teenage boy requires a minimum of $220 spending on food per month.
Federal food assistance for the poor was a Great Society measure created during the the Lyndon Johnson administration (1963-1969). Since the late 1970s, it has weathered round after round of cuts at the hands of both Democratic and Republican administrations and congresses, who claimed to be creating a “culture of responsibility” among the poor.
The most savage of these cuts came in 1996, through Bill Clinton’s “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act,” which eliminated eligibility for legal immigrants (these restrictions have since been only slightly relaxed), limited stamp use for “able bodied” adults without dependents to three months during a 36-month period, and substantially reduced maximum food benefits.
The result is a food stamp program that, even in more favorable economic conditions, fails to meet basic nutritional needs and shuts out the vast majority of the working class from any assistance whatsoever. The economic crisis has laid bare the woefully inadequate character of the program and the “social safety net” as a whole.
In Texas, demand is such that in July the state was delinquent in processing nearly 40 percent of new requests. Rachel Cavazos, who has four children, is jobless, and is in the midst of a divorce, applied for food stamps in April and has not yet heard back on her request. “It’s very hurtful, especially when somebody doesn’t give you the benefit of the doubt,” the 32-year-old Houston native recently told the Houston and Texas News. “The help is not for me. It’s for my babies. I don’t want my children to suffer.”
Recently at a Dallas, Texas, food stamp office, a line of the desperate and hungry formed before 5 a.m. “I got a four, a five and a 15-year-old. And right now I got $2.27. So we’re going to have some Ramen noodles tonight,” Kenyadda Momanyi told a local news station. A class action lawsuit has been filed against the state of Texas to force it to process applications more swiftly.
Mickey Warren, food directer of Christian Life Food Pantry in Knox County, Kentucky, recently went before the local Chamber of Commerce in a desperate bid for charitable contributions. “It’s toward the end of the month and people are starting to look for more and more food, because by now the ones that draw food stamps, they’re gone, the kids are hungry,” he said.
“Warren recalled [recently watching] a small girl rip open a whole pound cake package in the pantry parking lot, grasping it with both hands and eating it like a candy bar, because she had been hungry,” the local TimesTribune.com reported.
In Wichita, Kansas, a grandmother summed up her plight in a word. “The most simple word would be we’re hungry,” Kathi Boggs told a local news station, as she sat with her 6-year-old grandson, Alex, at a soup kitchen. “At the end of the day there’s not enough for food.”
“People are desperate,” said Gary Madden, a charity worker who assists people in gaining access to food stamps in San Bernardino County, California. “People calling now are saying things like ‘I’ve never asked for help in my life. I don’t know what I’m going to do. I’ve lost my job and I’m about to lose my home.’ More men are calling. Families are doubling up in homes.”
“Callers are saying, ‘bank bailouts, auto company bailouts, where’s my bailout?’,” Madden told BlackVoiceNews.com.
from the March 30, 2006 edition – CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
MEXICO PREFERS TO EXPORT ITS POOR, NOT UPLIFT THEM
Mexico prefers to export its poor, not uplift them At this week's summit, failed reforms under Fox should be the issue, not US actions.
By George W. Grayson
WILLIAMSBURG, VA. - At the parleys this week with his US and Canadian counterparts in Cancún, Mexican President Vicente Fox will press for more opportunities for his countrymen north of the Rio Grande. Specifically, he will argue for additional visas for Mexicans to enter the United States and Canada, the expansion of guest-worker schemes, and the "regularization" of illegal immigrants who reside throughout the continent. In a recent interview with CNN, the Mexican chief executive excoriated as "undemocratic" the extension of a wall on the US-Mexico border and called for the "orderly, safe, and legal" northbound flow of Mexicans, many of whom come from his home state of Guanajuato. Mexican legislators share Mr. Fox's goals. Silvia Hernández Enriquez, head of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for North America, recently emphasized that the solution to the "structural phenomenon" of unlawful migration lies not with "walls or militarization" but with "understanding, cooperation, and joint responsibility." Such rhetoric would be more convincing if Mexican officials were making a good faith effort to uplift the 50 percent of their 106 million people who live in poverty. To his credit, Fox's "Opportunities" initiative has improved slightly the plight of the poorest of the poor. Still, neither he nor Mexico's lawmakers have advanced measures that would spur sustained growth, improve the quality of the workforce, curb unemployment, and obviate the flight of Mexicans abroad. Indeed, Mexico's leaders have turned hypocrisy from an art form into an exact science as they shirk their obligations to fellow citizens, while decrying efforts by the US senators and representatives to crack down on illegal immigration at the border and the workplace. Insufficient revenues mean that Mexico spends relatively little on two key elements of social mobility: Education commands just 5.3 percent of its GDP and healthcare only 6.10 percent, according to the World Bank's last comparative study. Transparency International, a nongovernmental organization, placed Mexico in a tie with Ghana, Panama, Peru, and Turkey for 65th among 158 countries surveyed for corruption. Geography, self-interests, and humanitarian concerns require North America's neighbors to cooperate on myriad issues, not the least of which is immigration. However, Mexico's power brokers have failed to make the difficult decisions necessary to use their nation's bountiful wealth to benefit the masses. Washington and Ottawa have every right to insist that Mexico's pampered elite act responsibly, rather than expecting US and Canadian taxpayers to shoulder burdens Mexico should assume.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SPENDS 37 MILLION... ONE MONTH... WELFARE FOR ILLEGALS!
Welfare and food stamp benefits soar $3 million higher than September payout. New statistics from the Department of Public Social Services reveal that illegal aliens and their families in Los Angeles County collected over $37 million in welfare and food stamp allocations in November 2007 – up $3 million dollars from September, announced Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich. Twenty five percent of the all welfare and food stamps benefits is going directly to the children of illegal aliens. Illegals collected over $20 million in welfare assistance for November 2007 and over $16 million in monthly food stamp allocations for a projected annual cost of $444 million. “This new information shows an alarming increase in the devastating impact Illegal immigration continues to have on Los Angeles County taxpayers,” said Antonovich. “With $220 million for public safety, $400 million for healthcare, and $444 million in welfare allocations, the total cost for illegal immigrants to County taxpayers far exceeds $1 billion a year – not including the millions of dollars for education.”
40 MILLIONS AMERICANS LIVING IN POVERTY WHILE 40 MILLION MEXICANS HAVE CLIMBED OUR BORDERS AND JOBS AND ARE LOOTING US TO THE TUNE OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS YEARLY!
LOS ANGELES COUNTY ALONE PUTS OUT $600 MILLION PER YEAR IN WELFARE TO ILLEGALS (source: JUDICIAL WATCH)!
US Census Bureau report: 40 million living in poverty
By Kate Randall
30 September 2009
30 September 2009
The overall poverty rate in the US rose to 13.2 percent in 2008, as workers across all sectors of the economy became jobless and increasing numbers of families were forced into destitution, according to a new government report. Real median household income also declined by 3.6 percent.
The report released Tuesday, part of the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, is the most recent to measure the recession’s impact on working class families and the poor. Based on the changes between 2007 and 2008, the first full year of the recession, its findings do not reflect increases in poverty and joblessness this year as the consequences of the crisis have become even more acute.
The official poverty rate of 13.2 percent in 2008 was up from 12.5 percent in 2007. This figure translates into 39.8 million people in poverty across America. The official poverty level is set at $22,000 annually for a family of four with two children or $12,000 for an individual, an absurdly low threshold. This means that far more people than indicated by the survey do not have adequate resources to pay for food, shelter, medical care and other basic necessities.
The poverty rate rose across virtually all demographic groups. Poverty among Hispanics climbed from 21.5 percent in 2007 to 23.2 percent in 2008. Non-Hispanic whites saw poverty rise from 8.2 percent in 2007 to 8.6 percent in 2008, while poverty among Asians was up from 10.2 percent in 2007 to 11.8 percent in 2008. African-Americans were the only group where poverty remained statistically unchanged at a staggering 24.7 percent, or about one in four people.
The Census Bureau reported a rise in poverty in 31 states and the District of Columbia. Two of the four most populous states—California and Florida—saw poverty rates rise by 1 percent, to just over 13 percent in each state.
Connecticut saw the largest increase in poverty, rising to 9.3 percent, with an additional 1.4 percent of the state’s population living in poverty. Connecticut’s proximity to Wall Street, the center of the financial collapse, contributed to the state’s poverty as spending cuts by bankers and other financial employees in the New York City suburbs were reflected in declines in income for the lowest paid workers.
William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, commented in an interview, “People don’t go from being a CEO or a hedge fund manager into poverty, but there is a trickle-down effect when these groups of people start to cut back on their spending. In many places, the first people to go when things get tight are the lowest-earning workers.”
Michigan, which has been devastated by the collapse of the auto industry, is the only state that has seen poverty increase for two years in a row, with the rate now standing at 13 percent. The industrial states of Pennsylvania and Indiana also saw significant increases in poverty, along with Oregon and Hawaii.
The South remained the most impoverished, at 14.3 percent, up slightly from 14.2 percent in 2007. Mississippi, with 21.2 percent in poverty, saw the highest rate of any state, while poverty in Kentucky, West Virginia and Arkansas hovered around 17 percent.
The Midwest poverty rate rose to 12.4 percent from 11.1 percent the previous year. The West saw the largest increase in poverty, up by 1.5 percent, rising from 12 percent in 2007 to 13.5 percent. The Northeast, which saw an increase in poverty in 2007, saw the rate remain statistically unchanged, at 11.6 percent in 2008.
The rate of poverty among America’s children is alarming, with 19 percent—14.1 million children—affected in 2008, up a full percentage point from a year earlier. This rate increased in 26 states and in Washington, DC. Children in families headed by a single female suffered the highest rates of poverty: 43.5 percent of those under 18 years of age live in poverty, while 53.3 percent of children under 6 years are poor.
Increasing numbers of families, both the jobless and workers facing shrinking hours and paychecks, are turning to food pantries and the Food Stamp program. Food Stamp use in 2008 jumped 13 percent to nearly 9.8 million US households, led by Louisiana, Maine and Kentucky. Two cities—Pharr, Texas, and the former General Motors production center, Flint, Michigan—each had more than a third of their residents on food stamps. Families with two or more workers accounted for 28.4 percent of food stamp recipients in 2008, up 1.5 percent from 2007.
Following three years of annual income increases, real median income declined in the US by 3.6 percent between 2007 and 2008, falling from $52,163 to $50,303. The Midwest and South saw the biggest declines in median income, 4 percent and 4.9 percent respectively.
The gap between the richest and poorest Americans is also widening as the economic crisis ravages household budgets. An Associated Press analysis of the Census Bureau statistics shows that the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans, those making $138,000 or more a year, earned 11.4 times the $12,000 made by individuals living below the poverty line in 2008. In 2007, the richest 10 percent made 11.2 times more.
The jump in poverty and income inequality comes as the job market continues to shrink, even as government and economic analysts speak of a turnaround. According to US Labor Department figures from July, job seekers now outnumber openings six to one, with only 2.4 million full-time, permanent jobs open while 14.5 million people are officially unemployed and looking for work.
Many companies remain cautious about hiring new workers in the uncertain economic environment. Having trimmed back workers’ hours and laid off temporary workers, even if businesses do expand in the future they are likely to increase output by increasing the workload on existing employees.
Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, told the New York Times, “They have tons of room to increase work without hiring a single person. For people who are out of work, we do not see signs of light at the end of the tunnel.”
From December 2007 through July 2009, job openings have declined in every area of the country: 45 percent in the West and South, 36 percent in the Midwest, and 23 percent in the Northeast. According to the Times, since the end of 2008 virtually every sector of the economy has been hit by the collapse in job openings, which have shrunk 47 percent in manufacturing, 37 percent in construction, 22 percent in retail, and 21 percent in education and health services.
While it is estimated that the government could spend in excess of $23 trillion to bail out the banks, and hundreds of billions to pursue its military conquests in Iraq and Afghanistan, nothing of any substance is being done to help the millions of Americans being plunged into joblessness and poverty.
The National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group, estimates that 400,000 Americans nationwide could exhaust their unemployment benefits by the end of September and 1.4 million long-term unemployed could stop receiving checks by the end of the year.
In some states, such as California, where the unemployment rate hit 12.2 percent in July—the highest level since 1940—workers laid off early in the recession have received three extensions on the regular 26 weeks of benefits, bringing them to a maximum of 79 weeks of payments.
The US House recently passed a $1.4 billion bill to provide another 13 weeks of jobless benefits in high unemployment states like California. The legislation still faces a vote in the Senate. The extension in benefits, however, would not cover many of the newly unemployed, or those yet to lose their jobs.
In California, for instance, hundreds of thousands who filed claims after June 14 of this year would be eligible for no more than 39 weeks of benefits. A House bill that would have provided longer extensions through 2010 was scrapped because it would have cost $70 billion, a price tag the lawmakers were unwilling to authorize.