| Number 384 | September 5, 2007 |
|
This Week: Income, Poverty, Cuba
|
|
Greetings, I've been tremendously busy lately, as I have a new job that is tying me up. So if I have been a little slow in responding to your emails and letters, that's why, and I apologize. I DO love hearing from you. And thank you to those of you who have recently sent in your pledges of support for this experiment in independent media—and without me even asking! (The fall Pledge Drive is not until next month, y'see.) Thank you! Welcome to the new subscribers. I look forward to YOUR feedback as we go along. This Nygaard Notes project really is a collaborative thing, as this week's "Quote" of the Week illustrates. Until next week, Nygaard |
|
This week's "Quote" is from the Chicago Tribune of August 28, as reprinted in the local newspaper the St. Paul Pioneer Press. The article, headlined "Credit Cards Next to Feel Crunch; Home-Equity Loans No Longer Seen as Debt Bail-out," was all about how "consumers may soon be caught in a financial squeeze with their credit cards." The article cited worries "among some economists and credit counselors" about the phenomenon of "homeowners owing big sums to Visa or MasterCard" that they have become accustomed to paying down by taking out a second mortgage, or by otherwise using the equity from the increasing value of their homes. The value of those homes is now, as we are learning, no longer increasing. In this context the Tribune spoke to Carl Steidtmann, chief economist with Deloitte Research, which is a part of the giant multinational financial services firm Deloitte & Touche. Speaking, I assume, to the nation's overextended homeowners, Mr. Steidtmann uttered these amazing words: "You're not going to be able to get that mortgage loan. You'll be stuck with the higher-interest credit card debt. We will have to live within our means. I know it's a troubling phenomenon. But we're not going to be able to spend at levels well above our income levels." There IS a "troubling phenomenon" here, but I don't think it's living within our means.
|
|
A big national news story broke on August 28th, reporting on the release by the Census Bureau of a major report called "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006." Here are a few headlines from the nation's press: The New York Times paper version said: "Poverty Rate Falls, but More Are Uninsured," and the online version said: "Census Shows A Modest Gain In U.S. Income." The Associated Press ran this head: "Census Bureau: US Poverty Rate Declines." Most of the smaller, regional papers around the country ran headlines emphasizing the Census Report's verdict on their own states. My local paper, the Star Tribune of Minneapolis, was typical, with a headline that read: "Income Up; Fewer of Us in Poverty; in Minnesota, Relative Prosperity Is Tempered by Signs of Economic Stagnation." (This Page One story was written by a Star Trib staffer, but that last part was directly from the AP story on the wire that day.) So the story seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it? It's a Good News/Good News/Bad News story (Incomes, Poverty, and Insurance). As always, the story as actually told in the 78-page Census Bureau report is more complicated than that, and looks more like a Mixed News/Mixed News/Bad News story. Depending on how one looks at it, maybe it's just plain Bad News. ON HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE there is no argument: Both the percentage and the number of people without health insurance increased in 2006. The percentage of people covered by employment-based health insurance and those covered by government health programs decreased, while both the percentage and the number of children under 18 years old without health insurance increased. Bad news, indeed. ON POVERTY: The average number of people in poverty did decrease, but that's quite misleading. For most of us—that is, everyone under age 65—poverty rates remain unchanged. It's only among the older set—those 65 and older—where we see a decrease in poverty. (Whether due to better health or a financial need to keep working past retirement age, I don't know.) The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities tells us, with dismay, that the poverty numbers for most of us "remained ...well above their levels in 2001, when the last recession hit bottom." That's right: We're now in the 6th year of an economic "recovery" and things haven't gotten much better for most of us who are near or below the poverty line. That's bad. INCOME: While it is true, as my local paper says, that "incomes are up," that's also quite misleading. True, the first "highlight" in the Census Report on income says "Real median household income in the United States rose between 2005 and 2006, for the second consecutive year." But the fifth highlight says this: "Real median earnings of both men and women who worked full-time, year-round declined between 2005 and 2006. This is the third consecutive year that men and women experienced a decline in earnings." How can it be that "incomes are up" but "earnings" are down? As it turns out, people are getting paid less for the work they do, so they are working more hours. Or getting second (and third and fourth) jobs in order to maintain their standard of living. Here's how the Economic Policy Institute puts it: "[I]t was more hours worked and more people working, and not higher wages that generated the income growth for middle-class households last year." In addition, EPI says, "The unequal distribution of growth between profits and compensation is playing a critical role in this result. Our research on corporate sector profits reveals that, had profits grown at the same rate as labor income between 2005 and 2006, then compensation would have been 1.1% higher for all workers: that is, the earnings declines among male and female full-year workers last year can be accounted for by a profit squeeze on wages." It hasn't always been this way. CBPP tells us that "a larger share [of the income gains from the current recovery] are going to corporate profits than in any other recovery since World War II." The Rich get richer... In all fairness, the decline in wages was mentioned in the NY Times (in the second-to-last paragraph) and in my local paper (in the second-to-last paragraph). The Wall Street Journal, to its credit, had it higher up in the article. But the overall impression in the nation's media, as revealed in the headlines, was that incomes are up and poverty is down. Time for a Nygaard Notes Alternative Headline, I think. How about this: "Census Report: Workers Treading Water; Profit Squeeze Means Americans Working More to Stay in the Same Place." |
|
Is public relations the core motivation for foreign policy in every country? I don't think so, but a recent story on National Public Radio seemed to be based on that assumption. The story was heard on the August 7th edition of NPR's "All Things Considered," and was introduced by host Andrea Seabrook as follows: "The U.S. Navy's hospital ship, The Comfort, is on a tour of Central and South America bringing medical facilities and services to the poor. It's stopping in Nicaragua, Colombia and Panama among other places. The mission is part of a new effort to boost America's image, call it medical diplomacy. Of course, medical missions to the region are nothing new. And ideological foes of the U.S. are doing the same thing. Cuba is stepping up its operations in Latin America, too." Seabrook appears to imagine that the government of Cuba, in sending medical services abroad, is motivated by the same thing—basic public relations, or "boosting their image"—as is the United States. The article also appears to compare Cuba's efforts with those of the U.S. Such "ideological foes," after all, "are doing the same thing" as the United States, NPR says. Is Cuba doing "the same thing" as the U.S., for the same reasons? I'll report. You decide. "Medical Diplomacy," U.S.A.-Style First let's have a look at the basics. "The primary mission" of US Naval Ship Comfort is to provide "medical capability... in support of amphibious task forces, Marine Corps, Army and Air Force elements," and so forth. That is, it is a military ship, and it is unusual for it to be placed on a "four-month deployment to provide medical care to 12 Latin American and Caribbean nations," as announced by the White House in July. Why now? As NPR reported, "The U.S. has found itself needing to focus on Latin America" in part "because... leftist leaders ideologically opposed to much of what the U.S. promotes, like free trade, have risen to power in country after country." As I have reported here on numerous occasions, the U.S. does not "promote" anything that might be called "free trade," but we'll leave that aside for now. (If you want to know more, see my article in Nygaard Notes #306, "The Key Fact about "Free Trade:" It's Not About ‘Freedom.'") For now, let's consider a remark by U.S. Ambassador to Panama William Eaton, who remarked to NPR that "We can't afford to neglect this region. That's our backyard." Eaton added that "the U.S. will be doing more." In fact, the budget proposed by Mr. Bush for the coming year calls for a 10 percent cut in "Western Hemisphere aid programs," according to USA Today, including cuts in health care programs. This follows a "28.5 percent cut in development assistance for Latin America and the Caribbean," proposed in the last Bush budget as reported by the Miami Herald last year. Less is more! Well, maybe Mr. Eaton meant more "image-boosting." Medical Solidarity, Cuba-Style What NPR calls "medical diplomacy" on the part of Cuba looks substantially different than the U.S. version. A 2006 article in the respected monthly Le Monde Diplomatique had this to say: "Cuba set up its first international medical brigade in 1963 and dispatched its 58 doctors and health workers to newly independent Algeria. Between 1963 and 2005 more than 100,000 doctors and health workers intervened in 97 countries, mostly in Africa and Latin America. By March 2006, 25,000 Cuban professionals were working in 68 nations. This is more than even the World Health Organisation can deploy, while Médecins Sans Frontières [that's Doctors Without Borders, a respected international aid organization] sent only 2,040 doctors and nurses abroad in 2003, and 2,290 in 2004. "In 1998 the Cuban government began to create the machinery to send large-scale medical assistance to poor populations affected by natural disasters.... This free aid—the Cuban government funds the personnel—has been effective," says Le Monde. Does this international medical aid come at the expense of Cuban health care? No. As the New Yorker Magazine pointed out in a July 2000 article, "By American standards, Cuban doctors lack equipment, and are very poorly paid, but they are generally well trained. At the moment, Cuba has more doctors per capita than any other country in the world—more than twice as many as the United States." Sarah van Gelder, writing in the Summer 2007 issue of Yes Magazine adds that "[Cubans] live longer than almost anyone in Latin America. Far fewer babies die. Almost everyone has been vaccinated, and such scourges of the poor as parasites, TB, malaria, even HIV/AIDS are rare or non-existent. Anyone can see a doctor, at low cost, right in the neighborhood. The Cuban health care system is producing a population that is as healthy as those of the world's wealthiest countries at a fraction of the cost. And now Cuba has begun exporting its system to under-served communities around the world—including the United States." Indeed, Le Monde points out that, after Hurricane Katrina hit the southern U.S. in 2005, Cuba "promised that within 48 hours 1,600 doctors, trained to deal with such catastrophes, would arrive with all the necessary equipment plus 36 tonnes of medical supplies. This offer, and another made directly to President George Bush, went unanswered." Adds Le Monde, "In the catastrophe at least 1,800 people, most of them poor, died for lack of aid and treatment." Van Gelder quotes Dr. Juan Ceballos, advisor to the vice minister of public health in Cuba, as he refers to what might be called "medical diplomacy." Ceballos told her that Cuba's investments in overseas health care missions "are resources that prevent confrontation with other nations. The solidarity with Cuba has restrained aggressions of all kinds." Adds Ceballos: "It's infinitely better to invest in peace than to invest in war." And it is this investment—of millions of dollars and hours over decades—that distinguishes the Cuban effort from the U.S. effort. While the latter may accurately be referred to as "medical diplomacy," I think a more accurate term for the Cuban efforts is "medical solidarity." When van Gelder asked people in Cuba how they feel "about using their country's resources for international medical missions," they "responded with some version of this: We Cubans have big hearts. We are proud that we can share what we have with the world's poor." Of course, many Cubans are themselves among "the world's poor," but that's the meaning of solidarity: "they" are "us." The National Public Radio piece concludes with the statement that "Supporters of U.S. policy say that Cuban doctors are being used as slave labor." These "supporters of U.S. policy" are never named. When I attempted to check this slanderous charge, I couldn't find any evidence to back it up, but I was able to find the charge as it was made by the rabidly anti-Castro Cuban American National Foundation. If this was an attempt at "balance" by NPR, they need to do better than citing anonymous slanders with no evidence to back them up. Le Monde Diplomatique reports at the end of their article that "Sceptics see the humanitarian aid offered by Cuba as a publicity stunt, an investment to secure diplomatic support in the face of continuing US hostility." While the four-month voyage of The USNS Comfort is arguably a "publicity stunt" on the part of the U.S. (especially in light of overall cuts in aid to the region), the Cuban international health solidarity project, which has gone on for 44 years, has involved more than 100,000 people, and has served poor folks in almost 100 nations, seems like something more than a "stunt." Too bad NPR can't tell the difference between "image-boosting" and solidarity.
|
