What's the right percentage of hungry children?

The Minnesota Budget Project and Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota are calling attention to new state data from the Census Bureau that show "poverty levels and median household income are not as good as would be expected five years into an economic recovery."

In a news release, Budget Project director Nan Madden said: "The rate of poverty among Minnesota children was a surprisingly high 11.8% in 2006. Child poverty has gotten worse since the recession of 2001, when it was 10.1%. Overall, 1 in 12 Minnesotans, or 8.1%, lived in poverty in 2005-06. This means there has been no statistically measurable improvement in the overall rate of poverty since 2001."

The national poverty rate was 12.3% in 2006. Median income for Minnesota households in 2006 was $54,023, well above the national median of $48,201, but still below state median income of $56,753 in 2001 (measured in 2006 dollars). According to the Minnesota State Demographic Center, only the richest 10% of Minnesota households saw their incomes increase more than inflation from 2000 to 2005.

Access to affordable health care is closely related to keeping families out of poverty.

Minnesota does markedly better than the national average for health coverage. Nearly 1 in 12 Minnesotans, or 8.5%, did not have health insurance coverage in 2004-2006. Nationally, 15.8% of Americans lacked health insurance in 2006.

But how many kids deserve go hungry or without health care?

The state’s Legislative Commission to End Poverty in Minnesota by 2020 is about to engage communities across Minnesota in conversations about effective solutions to end poverty. Here's the tentative schedule via Children's Defense Fund of Minnesota.

Meanwhile, Congress is preparing to work out differences between House and Senate versions of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which could provide $50 billion in new funding nationally  for children’s health coverage. The Minnesota Budget Project has an issue paper here.

— Charlie Quimby

Comments

[kb]

Two links to throw in: First, a former Bush economist agrees that the recovery this time has produced less income growth versus the previous peak than others:

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2007/08/29/former-bush-adviser-examines-income-data/

This happened to a lesser extent in the Clinton expansion; it might happen again in the next expansion too. Can government policy do anything about this? I don't really know.

Second, the hungry kids thing is a misnomer, as the poor have more of their children overweight than do the better-off:

http://mchb.hrsa.gov/overweight/intro.htm

The title of your post is an emotional appeal and detracts from the rest of your piece.

Lastly, I wonder about the direction of causality of your statement "Access to affordable health care is closely related to keeping families out of poverty." Can't the data also support the hypothesis that families in the process of exiting poverty purchase health insurance, rather than families receiving (from government or someone else) affordable health care are better able to exit poverty? Which do you think it is?

[Charlie Quimby]

King,

You’re correct about the headline, of course. It comes from a part of my brain I try to honor even when I’m being analytical. I’ve heard you get emotional, too. I just don’t recall it being about hungry kids :) ...

Perhaps you’d like this headline better: “What’s the right percentage of malnourished children?” But I do not believe hungry kids are yet a misnomer in America, and I don’t think you do, either.

On the causality question and your hypothesis, note I said affordable “access,” not “receiving” and I was careful to say "closely related." My short answer to your question would be: Both — and then some.

I was getting to a slightly different point. Poverty is a two-way street. People aren’t all starting at the bottom and trying to exit. They arrive there in a variety of ways, and health distress for someone living paycheck to paycheck, even with a health plan, can send them downward. I will spare everyone the emotional examples.

Thanks for your comments. They’re good for us and for everyone who’s concerned about government and its discontents. You’re always welcome here.