• Poverty, Uninsured Rates Rise
• Helping Indonesia Control Its Military
• Electioneering Is Almost Over
• How do you choose your issues?

Poverty, Uninsured Rates Rise in 2003

On August 26th, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that, in 2003, 35.9 million people were living in poverty (an increase of 4.3 million newly poor since 2000) and 45 million people lacked health insurance coverage.   

For the third consecutive year the poverty rate and the percentage of those uninsured have increased. In 2003 alone, an additional 1.3 million people fell below the poverty line.  Of those, 733,000 were children.  Now nearly 18 percent of children in the United States are living in poverty.  Of the 35.9 million people living in poverty, 15.3 million (43 percent) are living in deep poverty — with cash incomes below half of the poverty line. This is the highest share on record. 

In 2003, an additional 1.4 million people entered the ranks of the uninsured.  Because of increased participation in Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the proportion of children without health insurance coverage remained constant at 11.4 percent.  Were it not for those public programs, levels of uninsured children would have increased, as employer-based health care coverage declined in 2003. What do these numbers mean?  How are Congress, the Administration, and the Presidential candidates responding?  And how can Presbyterians work to decrease the ranks of the uninsured and impoverished in our own country and communities?   What do these numbers mean? 

The data released by the Census Bureau are from the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement, which provides estimates of income and health insurance at both the national and state levels.  The Census Bureau also released data from the American Community Survey, a separate survey providing social, economic, and housing data for many levels of geography, particularly local communities.  Further information about both surveys is available at www.census.gov.    

Poverty Statistics:

As defined by the Office of Management and Budget and updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the average poverty threshold for a family of four in 2003 was $18,810; for a family of three, $14,680; for a family of two, $12,015; and one person, $9,393.   

The national poverty rate is now 12.5 percent, totaling 35.9 million people.  Of those, 12.9 million are children.  Alarmingly, the number of people in poverty with incomes below half the poverty rate jumped by 1.2 million in 2003, to 15.3 million.  Of all poor families with children, more than two-thirds included one or more individuals who worked in 2003.   In 2003, the poverty rate for non-Hispanic whites was 8.2 percent, for African-Americans it was 24.4 percent, for Asian Americans, it was 11.8 percent, and among Hispanics, it was 22.5 percent.  The three-year average for American Indian and Alaska Natives was 23.2 percent.   

State poverty rates range from 18.5 percent in Arkansas to 6 percent in New Hampshire.  As measured by the American Community Survey, local communities' poverty rates also vary greatly:  the survey found that Hidalgo County, TX had a poverty rate of 38 percent, while Somerset County, NJ had a rate of 1.7 percent.   

Health Insurance Statistics

Forty-five million people are now uninsured, the highest number on record.  This is an increase of 1.4 million in 2003.  15.6 percent of the population are now uninsured, the highest rate since 1998.  More than 10 million young people, ages 25-34, are going without health insurance, an increase of 576,000 from 2002.   

Why are the ranks of the uninsured increasing?  Dr. Daniel Weinberg, Chief of Housing and Household Economic Statistics at the U.S. Census Bureau observed, "The decline in coverage rates is mostly explained by the decline in coverage from employment-based plans, partially offset by increases in government coverage."  Dr. Weinberg added, "employment-based health insurance coverage fell 0.9 percentage points between 2002 and 2003, while Medicare coverage increased 0.2 percentage points and Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program Coverage increased 0.7 percent." The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted that this decline in employer-based coverage was "spurred by continued escalation in the cost of health insurance, sluggish job growth, and the relatively high unemployment levels that persisted in 2003."  The Center added that the rate of individuals covered by their employer, now 60.4 percent, is the lowest level of employment-based insurance coverage since 1993.

Though there was a 1.8 percentage point decrease in the number of children covered by employer-based coverage, public programs, including Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, helped to keep the rate of uninsured children stable at 11.4 percent.   

How are elected officials responding to the Census statistics? 

These U.S. Census Bureau figures were released in late August — a time when Congress is in recess and both Senator Kerry and President Bush were campaigning for President.   The Los Angeles Times noted that, "in responding to the Census Bureau numbers, the Bush campaign and conservative analysts tried to accentuate the positive. In a statement, the campaign noted that the data were from last year and missed the upturn of 2004."

Democratic Presidential candidate John F. Kerry responded to the new statistics by noting that during the last three years, during which Mr. Bush has been President, 5.2 million people have lost health insurance and 4.3 million have fallen into poverty.

Prior to the release of the Census data, both candidates released plans for health care. To learn more about their health care positions, click here. 

The U.S. Congress reconvened on September 7.  Congress is scheduled to remain in session until early October, when legislators will recess to focus on campaigning and other district activities.  This fall, Congress is expected to focus on annual funding levels for federal programs, a renewed debate over additional tax cuts, and intelligence issues.  

Child Nutrition Programs

Regarding poverty-related issues, Congress did succeed in passing  the Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act (S.2507/H.R. 3873) earlier this summer, which was signed into law by the President. The bipartisan legislation reauthorizes many major nutrition programs through fiscal year 2009, including WIC (Women, Infants and Children), school breakfast and lunch programs, and child and adult care and summer food programs. Passage of this legislation means that more low-income children and, in some cases, adults will have nutritious meals and snacks before, during, and after school and in certain summer and child care programs.  

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

Unfortunately, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program has not been reauthorized and amended to improve the program and to help lift people out of poverty.  The program is the cash assistance program that replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children in 1996. TANF, which expired in 2002, has been operating under a series of continuing resolutions, to keep the program operating for short increments.  The current continuing resolution expires September 30, 2004. 

A thorough debate about TANF would give policymakers the opportunity to consider various strategies to reduce poverty.  Of particular concern is the new statistic that 15.3 million people are now living in deep poverty — below half the poverty line.  This is the highest level of deep poverty recorded by the Census Bureau (which began collecting this data 28 years ago).   Congress has not signaled that it will reauthorize this legislation this fall.  However, the Presbyterian Washington Office has signed a letter along with many other organizations in the faith community calling on Congress to reauthorize TANF for five years and to: increase funding for child care; retain the current work requirements; extend benefits to immigrants; help families receive funds from enforcing child support orders, expand education and training opportunities; and allow states to waive or extend employment deadlines for people facing multiple barriers to employment.   

Low-Income Housing and Homelessness Programs

This fall, the House of Representatives may vote on the FY 2005 Appropriations bill for Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and independent agencies (VA/HUD).  On July 22, the House Appropriations Committee approved the FY 2005 funding bill for VA/HUD.  While the Committee's bill increases funding for Section 8 rent vouchers by 3.5 percent, to $14.7 billion and rejects the Administration's "flexible voucher" proposal which would block grant the program, the Committee would pay for this by cutting most other critical housing programs by 4 percent on average.  Programs to be cut include homeless assistance programs, elderly and disabled housing programs, housing for people with AIDS, and public housing.

 What Can Presbyterians Do About Poverty and Health Care? 

As Presbyterians, many of us are responding to the needs of the least of these among us in a variety of ways.  Congregations help those in need through soup kitchens, transitional living centers, job training and literacy programs, health clinics, parish nursing programs, street outreach, and other programs.  In addition, many congregations and many individual Presbyterians speak out for justice in the public square. 

General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) have spoken out repeatedly for all to have life in fullness, including access to affordable, quality health care for all.  General Assemblies have also called on elected officials to respond to the needs of those in poverty.  For instance, in 1995, the 207th General Assembly "call[ed] on congressional representatives to insist on a government that follows ethical values of justice for the poor, welfare for children, hospitality to the stranger, and assistance to the disadvantaged." 

Recently, the Presbyterian Washington Office, along with other denominations, sent a letter to both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush, expressing our concern about the rates of poverty and the uninsured.  We asked both candidates to provide concrete answers of how they would respond to these issues.   Specifically, we asked: 

• How will you reduce poverty, and specifically child poverty, in the next four years?
• What will you do to reduce the number of people who lack health insurance in the next four years?
• How will you address the inability of the nation's health care system to provide affordable, quality health care to all?
• Will you commit to a specific goal to cut poverty in half by 2010? 

Will you commit to a goal to increase the number of people who are insured in the next four years? During this election season, speak out.  Ask candidates for office questions about poverty, health care, and other issues you care about because of your Christian faith.  For Election Year Do's and Don'ts, click here.  Find other ways to get involved in our Christian and Citizen Election Year Resource.   

— Carolynn Race

Helping Indonesia Control Its Military

Restricting Foreign Military Financing has bolstered efforts for democratic reform

A just foreign policy must respect human rights and should hold accountable those who violate them. Unfortunately, the United States is rewarding Indonesia, whose military has killed thousands of civilians in recent years and which dismantled a U.S.-backed ceasefire in Aceh (a province struggling for separation) by launching its largest military operation in 25 years. The U.N. stated this military (the TNI) was "responsible for the intimidation, terror, [and] killings" in neighboring East Timor. It also stands accused of murdering two U.S. teachers. 

In its FY06 budget the Administration will propose substantial foreign military financing (FMF) for Indonesia. (Foreign Military Financing refers to congressionally appropriated grants given to foreign governments to finance purchase of American-made weapons, services and training.) Since 1950, the U.S. has provided more than $91 billion in FMF to militaries across the world. The vast majority of the funds go to Israel and Egypt, a reward for making peace in 1979. According to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency: "FMF helps countries meet their legitimate defense needs, promotes U.S. security interests by strengthening coalitions with friends and allies, cements cooperative bilateral military relationships, and enhances interoperability with U.S. forces."   Further military financing will only make U.S., Indonesian and East Timorese citizens less safe. Failure to hold those responsible for crimes against humanity in East Timor have emboldened the TNI to commit abuses in Aceh. Instead, the U.S. must insist that TNI be held accountable for past atrocities. There is reason to be deeply concerned over plans by the Department of State to furnish foreign military financing for Indonesia. Many members of Congress oppose it because of the abuses and lack of accountability.  

Congress has restricted FMF for Indonesia since FY 2000, conditioning it on the military holding accountable those responsible for gross rights violations. But military impunity remains ingrained because of the TNI's undemocratic power. The lack of political power and amount of corruption in Indonesia's courts and prosecutorial system have resulted in few of the human rights violators being held accountable.  Annual human rights reports to Congress have exposed the serious problems in the TNI and show it to be a repeated human rights violator. 

In August, an appeals court in Indonesia overturned convictions of four Indonesian military and police officers charged with crimes against humanity in East Timor in 1999.  Only two of the 18 defendants brought before the special tribunal for East Timor have been convicted and had their sentences upheld under appeal. Both are East Timorese. A similar Indonesian tribunal-formed to ensure military accountability for the 1984 massacre of Muslims at Tanjung Priok in Jakarta-also recently failed to deliver justice.

TNI continues to violate human rights. Although martial law has ended in Aceh, TNI operations continue and perpetuate abuses at the same pace as during martial law. Human rights, humanitarian organizations and journalists continue to face considerable difficulties.    

The trend is toward an increasingly powerful military that is unlikely to be reversed by any civilian government in the short term. President Megawati has not been able or willing to control the TNI, and there is near unanimity inside Indonesia and out that military reform is dead.  

Advocates for Indonesian democracy, human rights and military reform have risked their lives to urge that the U.S. not assist the TNI — without demonstrable evidence of reform and accountability for human rights violation. Restrictions on FMF have bolstered efforts for democratic reform in Indonesia. Approving FMF would strengthen the hand of the TNI and weaken efforts by those working for reform, including the civilian government. Granting FMF for the Indonesian military would exacerbate ongoing violations and corruption by rewarding bad behavior. Call or write Secretary Powell and let him know you oppose the FMF for Indonesia in the FY06 budget. 

— Catherine Gordon

Electioneering Is Almost Over

In just a few short weeks, all the presidential electioneering will come to a near screeching halt. This halt cannot come quickly enough for many of us. The TV and radio ads are relentless. Even some of the commercials are parodies of election rhetoric. We cannot escape it. This writer cannot help but join in and say — my name is Elenora Giddings Ivory and I approve this message!

With all the activity going on, we hear a lot of mention of the Internal Revenue Code and what is appropriate activity for churches.  Before engaging in any political activity, Presbyterians may want to refresh their understanding of the Dos and Don'ts, outlined in the Christian and Citizen Election Year Packet. 

The policy booklet has been updated to reflect the issues that came before the General Assembly in Richmond this past July. You can also find additional information that will be helpful if you find that your congregation is asked to solicit funds for a particular candidate. This is a definite no- no!    

In the meantime, you may find the following descriptions useful as you listen to political pundits on the actions of certain groups. What is a 527 group?  Who really qualifies as a 501 (c) 3?  This information is taken in its entirety from the Web page of the Center for Responsible Politics.  The Center is a project supported by the Pew Charitable Trust.  You can visit the full web page at www.opensecrets.org/527s, and don't forget to vote. 

— Elenora Giddings Ivory

Types of Advocacy Groups

501(c) Groups — Nonprofit, tax-exempt groups organized under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code that can engage in varying amounts of political activity, depending on the type of group. For example, 501(c)(3) groups operate for religious, charitable, scientific or educational purposes. These groups are not supposed to engage in any political activities, though some voter registration activities are permitted. 501(c)(4) groups are commonly called "social welfare" organizations that may engage in political activities, as long as these activities do not become their primary purpose. Similar restrictions apply to Section 501(c)(5) labor and agricultural groups, and to Section 501(c)(6) business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards and boards of trade.

527 Group — A tax-exempt group organized under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code to raise money for political activities including voter mobilization efforts, issue advocacy and the like. Currently, the FEC only requires a 527 group to file regular disclosure reports if it is a political party or political action committee (PAC) that engages in either activities expressly advocating the election or defeat of a federal candidate, or in electioneering communications. Otherwise, it must file either with the government of the state in which it is located or the Internal Revenue Service. Many 527s run by special interest groups raise unlimited "soft money," which they use for voter mobilization and certain types of issue advocacy, but not for efforts that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate or amount to electioneering communications.

Non-Federal Group — A group set up to raise unlimited contributions called "soft money," which it spends on voter mobilization efforts and so-called issue ads that often criticize or tout a candidate's record just before an election in a not-so-subtle effort to influence the election's outcome. 501(c) groups and 527 groups may raise non-federal funds.

Political Action Committee (PAC) — A political committee that raises and spends limited "hard" money contributions for the express purpose of electing or defeating candidates. Organizations that raise soft money for issue advocacy may also set up a PAC. Most PACs represent business, such as the Microsoft PAC; labor, such as the Teamsters PAC; or ideological interests, such as the EMILY's List PAC or the National Rifle Association PAC. An organization's PAC will collect money from the group's employees or members and make contributions in the name of the PAC to candidates and political parties. Individuals contributing to a PAC may also contribute directly to candidates and political parties, even those also supported by the PAC. A PAC can give $5,000 to a candidate per election (primary, general or special) and up to $15,000 annually to a national political party. PACs may receive up to $5,000 each from individuals, other PACs and party committees per year. A PAC must register with the Federal Election Commission within 10 days of its formation, providing the name and address of the PAC, its treasurer and any affiliated organizations.

How do you choose the issues you work on: What sets your agenda? 

As I have said many times over the last 15 years, the Washington Office advocates policies of the General Assembly. Each time the Assembly meets, it is faced with Overtures, Commissioner Resolutions and proposed study papers that are reviewed first by the committees of the GA session and then in full Assembly plenary. The outcomes of the social witness policies of the plenary sessions are the outcomes we present to members of Congress and the Administration when we meet.   

In the GA annual minutes, readers can find "Response to Referrals." This is where the staff reports to the General Assembly Commissioners how we followed through on actions given to us by the previous year's Commissioners. (After each Assembly, the Stated Clerk's Office refers these actions to the General Assembly Council Staff for follow-up. This sets a good part of our agenda. The Washington Office staff checks the list of actions from an Assembly and matches it to Congressional Bills and Administrative actions. When the priorities of the General Assembly and Congress/Administration meet, the Washington Office then communicates the views of the General Assembly to the elected officials through letters, phone calls or visits.   

This may sound like two different agendas, but the social witness perspectives and pressures that are placed on a General Assembly by Commissioners are often the same pressures placed on elected officials. When individuals and governing bodies advocate a point of view, they often do so through all of the institutions with which they affiliate — religious, employment, service club and elected officials. These 'lobby' efforts help set the agenda. You can almost guarantee that whatever is on the front pages of the national newspapers will be introduced as a Commissioners Resolution at the General Assembly, and will spur us into advocacy.    

We also share Assembly information with our ecumenical and interfaith colleagues who have an interest in what the General Assembly has decided. Additionally, the Washington Office communicates information and action ideas to the readers of our publications and Web site. We often respond to calls and inquiries from print and broadcast media outlets as well as from the non-churched general public.   It might come as a surprise, but non-churched people are often fascinated by some of the topics that come before an Assembly. It is not unusual for a caller to ask for the name of a church near them that will hold discussions or preach sermons on the issue just considered. We try to accommodate them by giving the names of several Presbyterian churches or the number of the Presbytery. Yes — social witness policy is an evangelism tool. Religious social policies often meet the individual where they are struggling with the information they see in the news. What better place for the non-churched to go for moral guidance on topics of war and peace, faith and witness, justice and compassion, than a church in their own community? Is your church ready for these people?   

— Elenora Giddings Ivory