Feds may drop poverty level

[cali]

By DANIEL BARLOW Vermont Press Bureau - Published: December 15, 2009

MONTPELIER – The federal government's poverty level guidelines will drop in 2010 for possibly the first time ever, changing the qualifications for a host of programs ranging from state-subsidized health insurance to food stamps.

The reduction in what the federal government considers poverty could result in Vermonters either losing benefits they now receive or seeing a decrease in their subsidies depending on their annual household income.

For example, for a single person to qualify for a state or federal program that covers up to 100 percent of the federal poverty level they would need to make less than $906 a month. Starting next year, that benchmark changes to $899 a month for a single person.

Seven dollars may not seem like a dramatic shift, but the gap increases for larger families, according to Peter Sterling, the executive director of the organization Vermont Campaign for Health Care Security.

Sterling said the decrease in what the federal government considers poverty could have low-to-moderate income Vermonters paying more for their services or suddenly discovering they make too much to apply for help they are getting now.

"This will impact everything from food stamps to home heating fuel assistance," said Sterling. "How many people are making 299 percent of the federal poverty level and will soon find out that they no longer qualify for services?"

<snip>

http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/BT/20091215/NEWS01/912150361/0/NEWS02

[chimpymustgo]

1. Is this a bad dream?

Shit, I'm going back to sleep.

[Hannah Bell]

2. the rationale being....? other than to squeeze the labor force, of course...

yes we can....eat shit & die.

[inna]

3. christ.

[newfie11]

4. Nothing surprises me any more

Where the hell did all this insanity come from!!!!
From the BS with health care to the wars I cannot understand what is happening to this country.

[theHandpuppet]

5. It's the War on Poverty turned on its head

It's now called the War on the Poor.

[chimpymustgo]

8. War on the Poor. Hey, got to make sure the ruling class has enough private planes and beachfront

homes.

:puke:

[Waiting For Everyman]

6. Are they just INSANE, or what?

The smart move would be to raise the poverty level, of course. It's way under reality as it is. But no, we couldn't expect anything like intelligence.

You really have to wonder if this isn't deliberately trying to create insurrection.

WTF???

[Jamastiene]

7. The War on Poverty is really War on the Poor.

We are taking a serious beating right now.

[regnaD kciN]

9. This is especially important, since the subsidies in the HCR bill...

...are based on the poverty level guidelines. A lot of people may suddenly find they won't get help in paying those legally-mandated premiums after all. :-(

[marmar]

10. I'm looking for the link to this Onion story.....

..... Because this is just too ridiculous to be true.

[cali]

11. OK, in all fairness, I've been looking for confirmation of this story

and I can't find anything but this story. The Rutland paper is pretty reliable, but....

I'll keep looking.

[Jamastiene]

15. Another source:

http://www.timesargus.com/article/RH/20091215/NEWS04/912150366/1004/SPORTS

[cali]

17. no, that's the same story. also the same source

herald and times argus are sister papers.

[snot]

12. ARE YOU F*CKING SH*TTING ME???

Could someone pls fill me in . . . hasn't the poverty level been held unrealistically low for at least a decade or two, already??? (Links to authority appreciated . . . )

[cali]

13. please see my post above.

this is the only thing I could find, and I only found it because I review the VT news every morning.

[regnaD kciN]

14. Actually, it makes perfect sense...

Everyone is poorer, so to be really poor, you must be poorer than you used to need to be. :crazy:

Seriously, that's what a recession is all about.

[Selatius]

16. If the government is aiming to trim social spending, they're doing it at the wrong time.

In a recession, you don't cut safety net programs like food stamps or TANF benefits. Cutting them will punch consumer demand for products and services down a notch. There are a lot of people hurting out there, and social programs do make a difference. Eliminating or curtailing them would generate a net negative impact on aggregate spending, and that would only hurt producers in the end, who are liable to respond by laying off even more workers or being encouraged to find more reasons to fire them.

[FBaggins]

21. Why does everyone assume this is at all nefarious?

They would have to play games with the calculation to AVOID this result. CPI and other baskets used for poverty calculations have been slightly negative over the last year.

It's fine to disagree with how CPI is calculated... or to argue that the basket of goods that approximates a poverty level of existence is innadequate, but that doesn't mean that anyone wenr out and said "let's artificially reduce the number of people in poverty without actually changing reality".

[Yuugal]

27. perhaps it is perceived as nefarious

because the govt is giving its employees a 2% raise while telling everyone else prices have gone down? :shrug:

[FBaggins]

29. They aren't based on the same things

The poverty level calculation isn't a matter of legislation, incomes for federal employees IS.

[Yuugal]

32. SS, SSD, and SSI aren't going up

Can you explain why the govt employees need 2%?

[girl gone mad]

18. LOL..

Banksters and Warlords gotta eat. All those poor folks are taking too much of the pie.

[chill_wind]

19. If futher proven to be true, this is very worrisome.

And crazy!

[varelse]

20. This will kill people

it is going to be especially threatening to the elderly poor, and to children.

[AllentownJake]

22. OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA!

[Unvanguard]

23. From the article, it appears to be a (lack of) inflation thing. It's not a policy decision.

Like the COLA for Social Security. Congress will probably intervene to prevent it from dropping.

[Kitsune]

24. ....wow. Just... wow. I... I cannot believe they're seriously considering this.

This is beyond stupid, it's downright malicious.

[Edweird]

25. What fresh hell is this?

[Odin2005]

26. Please tell me this is a bad dream or something.

WTF?

[laughingliberal]

28. There you have it. For those who thought the expansion of Medicaid would make HCR worthwhile...

you didn't really think they were going to let more poor people have access to health care, did you?

[KillCapitalism]

30. This is fuckin insane!

:grr:

Feels like George W. Bush is still in the white house.

[amborin]

31. otherwise, prolly over 50% of the masses would qualify?

[earthboundmisfit]

33. Should they do this, the administrative costs to change everything would be horrendous

Recalculating, reevaluating, postage, manpower - implementing a change like this would have a huge cost in the background...

[Blasphemer]

34. What convenient timing.... those health "care" subsidies look better and better every day... nt

[anarch]

35. hey, this is great!

think of all those people who no longer have to live in poverty!

[jgraz]

36. Please Note: This is the executive branch doing this.

See? No act of Congress necessary when it comes to fucking over the poor. :banghead:

[Cetacea]

37. Any other sources yet? n/t