November 19, 2011 12:00 PM
Follow up to "What is the Name ..."
One of WWs readers suggested that WW should provide an opportunity for readers to suggest solutions to the issues raised in the last issue, and include them in the next issue of the Watch. It seems a good idea, so have at it. If you have an idea you want to share, email it to me at mberman@dubersteingroup.com.Richard Verone – A change of heart
Richard Verone has had a change of heart. You will recall from the last issue of the Watch that Verone robbed a bank for $1 in Gaston, North Carolina. He then waited for the police to come and arrest him. His stated intention was to represent himself in court, “take the sentence handed down to him and take advantage of the food, housing and medical care that would be available in jail.”His behavior and circumstances went viral, and journalists from this country, France, England, and Indonesia called the paper to learn more about the case.
He has now been in jail for five months and clearly has had a change of heart. He is now represented by Counsel, has appealed to the ACLU for a letter of support and legal assistance, and is looking forward to a jury trial.
Verone’s attorney has wisely counseled him not to talk to anyone before trial, but it appears he has now decided to become a spokesperson for an “obsolete” health care system. In a letter he wrote to the reporter at the Gazette who wrote the original story, Verone says in part, “My wish is to expose a health care system to the American people that is obsolete in its structure and I can do this by using my case.” Further he wrote, “ I would not consider this but the importance of this case leads me to be a subordinate to Americans with inadequate medical care.”
WW talked with the reporter who did both the original and follow up stories, Diane Turbyfill. She has not been able to talk to Verone or has she been able to get any information from his lawyer.
Stay tuned.
One reader of the Watch questioned the validity of the statement in the last issue of the Watch that the wealthiest 400 people in America control more wealth than the 150 million Americans at the other end of economic spectrum. The Watch cited The Washington Post. In particular, the statement was included in an Op Ed by Sally Kohn, who is identified as a political commentator and grass-roots strategist. She is also a grassroots organizer and appears on a number of cable channels on a regular basis.
The Watch went looking for the source of that statement.
The first place we found the claim was in a speech given by Michael Moore in Madison,Wisconsin in March 2011. In that speech he said that 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans.
Apparently Moore must have been questioned about the claim because on his website he posted a link to a blog post by Dave Johnson of the Commonweal Institute. Johnson wrote in 2007 that the combined net worth of the 400 wealthiest Americans – citing Forbes Magazine – was $1.5 trillion, and that the combined net worth of the poorer 50% of American households was $1.6 trillion. The problem of the above citation is that it does not make the point.
Two days after his Madison speech, Moore posted another item on his website that used figures for 2009. This item correctly quotes Forbes Magazine as stating that the net worth of the 400 wealthiest was $1.27 trillion.
As to the 150 million Americans at the other end of the economic spectrum, Moore cites the Federal Reserve Board, which finds that the overall networth of all households in American in 2009 was $53.1 trillion. Moore then cites an economist, by the name of Edward Wolff at New York University, who claims that in July 2009, the poorest 60% of U.S. household possessed 2.3% of the nation’s total net worth. Moore then multiplied the total net worth of $53.1 trillion by 2.3% and ended up with $1.22 trillion as being the hands of the lowest 60% of U.S. households, and therefore 50% of all Americans, would be less than the $1.27 trillion in control of the wealthiest 400 people.
Forbes Magazine says that the net worth of the top 400 people in September 2010 was $1.37 trillion. The Federal Reserve estimate of the overall net worth of U.S. households was $54.6 trillion in 2010. If you multiply $54.6 trillion by 2.3% that comes to $1.26 trillion. (WW’s use of the 2.3% number from a year earlier distorts the finding to some extent, although it is not likely that the number grew between 2009 and 2010.)
The bottom line is that there is data available that justifies the quote in the Kohn article. But the reality is that it is based on estimates by Forbes Magazine, academic institutions, and government agencies which are less than precise.
[Note: I should have written to Sally Kohn when the question was first raised. Unfortunately, I did not. I did email Sally Kohn on November 16th as this was being written.]
For any number of years there has been an argument raging as to whether the official poverty figures put out by the Census Bureau are adequate. One of the principal complaints has been that the data used by the Bureau does not take into account various government programs designed to help those in need.
The Census Bureau has now released a Supplement Poverty Measure using different standards. While there was some expectation that the new calculation would lead to a drop in the number of folks in poverty, just the opposite has occurred.
The official 2010 poverty rate, which was 15.2%, has now been raised to 16%. There are 49.1 million people living in poverty, compared to the 46.2 million in the earlier report.
One of the largest jumps is among those 65 years of age and older. Under the original, official estimate, 9% of those in that age group live in poverty. Under the Supplemental version, 15.9% of seniors fall into that class.
There is also information included in the report that shows what would happen to the poverty rate if certain public assistance programs were eliminated.
If the earned income tax-credit (designed to off-set social security taxes) is eliminated, the poverty level jumps to 18%. If SNAP (food stamps) is eliminated, the poverty level grows to 17.7%. If the school lunch program is ended, the poverty level grows to 16.9%. [WP 11/8/11,NYT 11/12/11]
In 1984, the median net worth of households headed by persons 35 years of age and younger was $11,521. In 2009, it was $3,662, a drop of 68%.
On the other hand, the 1984 median net worth of households headed by someone 65 and older was $120,457. In 2009, it was $170,494, an increase of 42%.
Thus, a 10-to-1 net worth advantage enjoyed by households headed by those 65 years and older in 1984, has grown to a 47-to-1 advantage in 2009. [PEW 11/7/11]
The Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (it backs the pension benefits of 44 million private sector workers and retirees) has $81 billion in assets with which to cover $107 billion in pension obligations. [Fox 11/16/11]
Of the 14 million people unemployed in the 3rd quarter of 2011, based on the basic BLS figure, 31.8% had been unemployed for a year or more. [NatJ 11/11]
21.2% of Americans reported that they did not have enough money to buy the food they or their families needed in October. This is only the 2nd time since January 2008 when more than 20% reported this need. [Gallup 11/10/11]
22% of U.S. adults rate their personal finances as poor. This is the highest number recorded since 2001, when Gallup began asking this question. 48% say their circumstance is getting worse. [Gallup 10/11]
76% of Americans agree (60% strongly) that the “current economic structure of the country is out of balance and favors a very small proportion of the rich over the rest of the country.”
36% say that their personal economic situation has gotten worse in the last year, and 28% believe the economy will get worse in the next year.
To add to their misery, 68% of Americans believe that “crime is worsening” in the United States. [Gallup 10/11]
The “Occupy Wall Street” movement has continued and spread around the country. Local authorities are beginning to lose patience, and it is not clear where the movement goes from here. One risk for the movement is that, as its activity begins to adversely impact the lives of the people in the area where they are protesting, the public will become increasingly less sympathetic to the movement. [NBC/WSJ 11/11]
