I'm sure you haven't done the research Patriot, so thought I'd show you where Y-OUR tax dollars are going- Corp Welfare Whores. These are the lazy fuckers you speak of, who not only have their hands out, but deep into our pockets.
And then give you a small dose of reality in terms of the working poor in the good ol US of A. Don't miss the last article in this post. Absolutely wonderful!
What is Corporate Welfare?
Corporate welfare can be defined to include two major types. First, corporate welfare includes any government spending program that provides unique benefits or advantages to specific companies or industries. That includes programs that provide direct grants to businesses, programs that provide research and other services for industries, and programs that provide subsidized loans or insurance to companies. There are more than 100 such corporate subsidy programs in the federal budget today, with annual expenditures of roughly $75 billion. For the five-year period 2000-2004, the government will spend more than $394 billion on corporate tax subsidies.
The second type of corporate welfare includes targeted corporate tax loopholes, also known as tax expenditures. The notion of tax "expenditure" refers to revenue losses due to preferential tax provisions such as special exclusions, exemptions, deductions, credits, deferrals or tax rates (source:
http://www.nader.org/releases/63099.html)
Over the last three decades, Congress has cut the tax rate for the wealthiest taxpayers by more than half. Further, in the 1980s, the U.S. tax code was rewritten to drastically reduce corporate income taxes. In the 1950s and '60s, corporate taxes provided 25 percent of all federal government revenues. By 1991, that figure was only seven percent. The theory behind the tax cuts was that corporations would take the money they saved in taxes and invest it back into their businesses. This rarely happens, however.
In 1989, Citizens for Tax Justice surveyed 44 major American companies. All 44 paid no federal taxes; this despite a collective total profit of $53.6 billion. All had reduced their capital spending and reduced their work forces. The extra money instead went for higher stock dividends, higher pay for CEOs (an average pay hike of 54 percent) and to pay for corporate mergers and acquisitions. That pattern continues today. Concrete examples of some of these tax breaks and their effects can be found in part of an investigative series by the Boston Globe, found at:
http://www.corporations.org/welfare/globe3.html Federal corporate tax expenditures -- special exclusions, exemptions, deductions, credits, deferrals or tax rates -- totaled more than $76 billion in fiscal year 1999, according to conservative estimates by the Office of Management and Budget (sources include above, and
http://www.mdle.com/WrittenWord/rholhut/holhut3.htm)
II. Corporate Welfare Vs. ?Social Welfare?
The figures reported above give us some basis for assessing how corporate welfare matches up with ?social? welfare?programs for the needy, such as TANF, food stamps, and the like?in terms of costs.
The nation's largest corporations and richest citizens receive more welfare money than our social welfare programs. In 1994, the United States spent $104.3 billion on corporate welfare, while spending only $14.4 billion on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC; now TANF). If we add together recent federal monies spent on AFDC/TANF, food stamps and Medicaid, it comes to about $85 billion annually. The total cost of the corporate tax breaks and subsidies is hundreds of billions of dollars.
Federal aid to corporations and wealthy individuals include bailouts, export promotions, loans, loan guarantees, debt forgiveness, below cost sales, interest free financing and other benefits. Barrett and Steele (1998) estimate that in 1998 corporate welfare cost the federal government $125 billion a year (note: estimates often vary, as these depend on exactly what one counts as corporate welfare; you will read precise definitions and estimates when you access the Boston Globe link a bit later).
In general, social welfare programs account for a small amount of the national budget. AFDC [the program prior to TANF] is less than 1% of the federal budget and, on average, no more than 2% of each state's fund. (
http://www.feminist.org/other/budget/we ... elfare.htm)
III. Examples of Corporate Welfare
(sources:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa241es.html,
http://www.citizen.org/congress/corwel/hitlist99.htm, and
http://www.feminist.org/other/budget/we ... elfare.htm)
A. Direct Grants to Businesses
Texas Instruments
In 1994, Texas Instruments got a $13 million handout from the Defense Department's Technology Reinvestment Project. This money was used in research and development on "Field Emissive Displays"--part of the manufacturing of televisions and computer monitors.
Charles A. Heimbold,Jr., President & CEO, Bristol-Myers Squibb
By 1991, Bristol-Myers Squibb had been paid $32 million in taxpayer money to develop Taxol, an anti-cancer drug. Although the cost of developing the drug was already covered out of ordinary citizens' pockets, Bristol-Myers Squibb, with a monopoly on the drug, sold it at $1,320 for a monthly supply--a mark up of 6 - 8 times the drug's production cost.
Sunkist Growers
1992, Sunkist Growers received $10 million in taxpayers' money from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This money was allocated to the well-known citrus company to help advertise its products abroad.
Lockheed Martin
During fiscal year 1995, the Pentagon agreed to pay Lockheed Martin $850 million in "consolidation costs." The Pentagon also paid $100 million in bonuses to top executives of Lockheed and Martin Marietta for successfully completing the merger of the two giant military contractors.
Michael Eisner and Disney Co.
Taxpayers forked over $300,000 in 1995 to help Disney Co. put on a bigger and brighter nightly fireworks show. Through a Department of Energy program called "Cooperative Research and Development Agreements," the research took place at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Disney gets the commercial benefit of this publicly funded research, and if applicable, shares developments with the armed forces.
General Motors
From 1990 - 1994, General Motors (GM) received more than $110.6 million in federal technology subsidies as part of a program that was supposed to create jobs. GM benefitted from this program; in 1994 they netted $4.7 billion in profits. Yet during those four years, GM slashed 104,000 jobs--25% of their U.S. workers were laid off.
Perhaps the most egregious example of corporate welfare is the Agriculture Department's $100 million a year Market Access Program (formerly Market Promotion Program). Created in 1985, MAP gives taxpayer dollars to exporters of food and other agricultural products to offset the costs of their overseas advertising campaigns. Though there is an amendment offered to defund this program every year, it has somehow managed to survive.
Another example is the Commerce Department's Advanced Technology Program ($200 million a year), which gives research grants to consortiums of some of the nation's largest high-tech companies. Those grants allow private companies to use taxpayer dollars to help them develop and bring to market profitable new products.
B. Programs That Provide Research and Other Services for Industries
The Agriculture Department's Agricultural Research Service ($700 million a year) conducts research focused on increasing the productivity of the nation's land and water resources, improving the quality of agricultural products, and finding new uses for those products. Those activities enhance the profitability of one specific private industry, the agricultural industry.
The Energy Department's Energy Supply Research and Development Program ($2.7 billion a year) aims to develop new energy technologies and improve on existing technologies. Its activities include applied research-and-development projects and demonstration ventures in partnership with private-sector firms.
The Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ($1.9 billion a year) provides services such as mapping, charting, and weather forecasting that are beneficial to specific private industries. Furthermore, those services are already being provided by the private sector.
Subsidized Logging Roads: under the U.S. Forest Service timber program, logging companies are subsidized to build roads that allow them to cut and remove timber. Not only are taxpayers picking up the timber industry's business costs--to the tune of over $31 million a year--but these publicly financed roads are environmentally destructive, causing serious soil erosion, water pollution and disruption of wildlife. To date, there are 440,000 miles of roads built through National Forest Service lands; 95% of the new roads built in public forests are logging roads, while only 5% were for recreation and public use.
Cost to taxpayers: $31.4 million annually
C. Programs That Provide Subsidized Loans or Insurance to Businesses
The Export-Import Bank ($700 million a year) uses taxpayer dollars to provide subsidized financing to foreign purchasers of U.S. goods. Its activities include making direct loans to those buyers at below-market interest rates, guaranteeing the loans of private institutions to those buyers, and providing export credit insurance to exporters and private lenders.
Similarly, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation ($70 million a year) provides direct loans, guaranteed loans, and political risk insurance to U.S. firms that invest in developing countries.
D. Tax Expenditures
Colombia/HCA Healthcare Corporation
In April 1995, Colombia/HCA Healthcare Corporation received a $90 million tax break as a reward for locating its corporate headquarters in Nashville,TN. The Regional Medical Center in Memphis, TN used to get supplemental payments from Tennessee's Medicaid program. But in January 1993, the payments stopped and the Regional Medical Center immediately lost $42 million due to the allocation seta aside for Colombia/HCA. Health services at this public hospital have been cut and the quality of treatment has declined due to lack of funding.
Archer Daniels Midland (ADM)
?The supermarket to the world,? Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) receives several different forms of Corporate Wealthfare. A federal law requiring automobile fuel to contain 30% ethanol (a corn derivative) also grants a $.54 per gallon tax credit kickback to ethanol producers. ADM controls 60% of the ethanol markets and siphons off about $550 million a year.
If you are interested, the welfare received by Archer Daniels Midland?and other corporations?is further chronicled at
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa241es.html E. Other Examples
Below-Market Timber Sales: U.S. Forest Service "commodity" timber sales provide timber to logging companies at below-market prices. Private timber companies end up paying only $5 per tree for timber taken from public lands. In fact, the federal timber sales program actually loses money because the amounts paid to the government by the companies buying the timber do not even cover all of the costs associated with preparing and administering the sales. The program resulted in a $111 million net loss to taxpayers in 1997 and has damaged many old growth forests and wildlife habitats. Cost to taxpayers: $111 million annually
Mining Giveaways: An archaic 1872 law allows big mining corporations to pay no royalties on the billions of dollars worth of minerals they extract from public lands; these royalties would come to an average of more than $200 million each year (based on an 8% royalty rate). Furthermore, mining companies are able to acquire public lands at only $5 an acre, paying 1872 prices for land that is today worth billions of dollars. In addition, taxpayers have been saddled with the financial burden of cleaning up the destruction left by private mining on federal lands, estimated at $32 billion to $72 billion. Legislative efforts to enact a mineral royalty and create a mine reclamation program have all been blocked in Congress. Cost to Taxpayers: $200 million annually
Oil Royalties: the Department of Interior's Mineral Management Service estimates that oil companies underpay by an estimated $66 million annually for oil extracted from public lands. Oil companies participate in an elaborate pricing scheme to undervalue the oil -- sometimes by as much as $2 per barrel from the actual market price -- to avoid paying the full royalties due. Attempts to end this situation and institute a market-based valuation program have been repeatedly thwarted in Congress. Cost to Taxpayers: $66 million annually
IV. Summaries of Recent Investigations into Corporate Welfare
For a summary of corporate welfare?what it is, assumed benefits and real costs?visit and read the information found on the following links.
Special Time Magazine report on Corporate Welfare:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/ ... over1.html Part 1 of the investigative series by the Boston Globe:
http://www.corporations.org/welfare/globe2.html V. Final Note: The Cato Institute on Problems with Corporate Welfare for Capitalism and Democracy:
Corporate welfare programs are often purported to be pro-business. In the opinion of the Cato Institute, they are not. According to CI, such programs do nothing to promote a freer economy, but instead make it less free. Here are some reasons why the Cato Institute maintains such policies are misguided and dangerous:
1. Corporate welfare is a huge drain on the federal treasury. Every year $75 billion of taxpayer money is spent on programs that subsidize businesses.
2. Corporate welfare creates an uneven playing field. By giving selected businesses and industries special advantages, corporate subsidies put businesses and industries that are less politically well connected at a disadvantage.
3. Corporate welfare fosters an incestuous relationship between business and government. All too often, the firms and industries that contribute the most to political campaign coffers are the largest recipients of government handouts.
4. Corporate welfare programs are anti-consumer. For instance, the Commerce Department has estimated that the sugar subsidy program costs consumers several billion dollars a year in higher prices.
In summary, because they provide special treatment for politically powerful industries, special corporate tax breaks (tax expenditures) run counter to the notion that all taxpayers should be treated the same. Furthermore, targeted tax breaks create distortions in the workings of the economy; it impedes competition. Government steps in and creates an uneven playing field by granting tax breaks to particular industries. As a result, our economy's resources do not go toward their most efficient use, which makes it more difficult for America's businesses to be successful.
(
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-9.html)
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Top 100 Corp Criminals List for the 90's
http://corporatepredators.org/top100.htmlExcerpts:
The point of the list contained in this report, The Top 100 Corporate Criminals of the Decade -- is to focus public attention on a wave of corporate criminality that has swamped prosecutors offices around the country.
This is the dark underside of the marketplace that is given little sustained attention and analysis by politicians and news outlets.
To compile The Top 100 Corporate Criminals of the 1990s, we used the most narrow and conservative of definitions -- corporations that have pled guilty or no contest to crimes and have been criminally fined.
The 100 corporate criminals fell into 14 categories of crime: Environmental (38), antitrust (20), fraud (13), campaign finance (7), food and drug (6), financial crimes (4), false statements (3), illegal exports (3), illegal boycott (1), worker death (1), bribery (1), obstruction of justice (1) public corruption (1), and tax evasion (1).
And that emerging consensus is this: corporate crime and violence inflicts far more damage on society than all street crime combined.
The FBI estimates, for example, that burglary and robbery ? street crimes -- costs the nation $3.8 billion a year. Compare this to the hundreds of billions of dollars stolen from Americans as a result of corporate and white-collar fraud.
Recite this list of corporate frauds and people will immediately say to you: but you can't compare street crime and corporate crime -- corporate crime is not violent crime. Unfortunately, corporate crime is often violent crime. The FBI estimates that, 19,000 Americans are murdered every year. Compare this to the 56,000 Americans who die every year on the job or from occupational diseases such as black lung and asbestosis and the tens of thousands of other Americans who fall victim to the silent violence of pollution, contaminated foods, hazardous consumer products, and hospital malpractice. Click on the link above to see if any of your favorites made the list.
[20 of] THE TOP 100 CORPORATE CRIMINALS OF THE 1990's
1) F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $500 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 21(1), May 24, 1999
2) Daiwa Bank Ltd.
Type of Crime: Financial
Criminal Fine: $340 million
10 Corporate Crime Reporter 9(3), March 4, 1996
3) BASF Aktiengesellschaft
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $225 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 21(1), May 24, 1999
4) SGL Carbon Aktiengesellschaft (SGL AG)
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $135 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 19(4), May 10, 1999
5) Exxon Corporation and Exxon Shipping
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $125 million
5 Corporate Crime Reporter 11(3), March 18, 1991
6) UCAR International, Inc.
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $110 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 15(6), April 13, 1998
7) Archer Daniels Midland
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $100 million
10 Corporate Crime Reporter 40(1)
October 21, 1999
:cool:(tie) Banker's Trust
Type of Crime: Financial
Criminal Fine: $60 million
12 Corp Crime Reporter 11(1), March 15, 1999
9)(tie) Sears Bankruptcy Recovery Management Services
Type of Crime: Fraud
Criminal Fine: $60 million
13 Corporate Crime Reporter 7(1), February 15, 1999
10) Haarman & Reimer Corp.
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal fine: $50 million
11 Corporate Crime Reporter 5(4), February 3, 1997
11) Louisiana-Pacific Corporation
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $37 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 23(1), June 8, 1998
12) Hoechst AG
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $36 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 19(6), May 10, 1999
13) Damon Clinical Laboratories, Inc.
Type of Crime: Fraud
Criminal Fine: $35.2 million
10 Corporate Crime Reporter 39(6), Oct 14, 1996
14) C.R. Bard Inc.
Type of Crime: Food and drug
Criminal Fine: $30.9 million
7 Corporate Crime Reporter 41(1), Oct 25, 1993
15) Genentech Inc.
Type of Crime: Food and drug
Criminal Fine: $30 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 16(3)
April 19, 1999
16) Nippon Gohsei
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $21 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 29(3), July 19, 1999
17)(tie) Pfizer Inc.
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $20 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 30(1), July 26, 1999
17)(tie) Summitville Consolidated Mining Co.
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $20 million
10 Corporate Crime Reporter 20(3) May 20, 1996
19)(tie) Lucas Western Inc.
Type of Crime: False Statements
Criminal Fine: $18.5 million
9 Corporate Crime Reporter 4(6), January 30, 1995
20)(tie) Rockwell International Corporation
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $18.5 million 6 Corporate Crime Reporter 13(4), March 30, 1992
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.30D.benefits.end.htmJobless Benefits Ending for 800,000 Americans
By Jerry Gleeson The Journal News
Saturday 28 December 2002
With nearly 800,000 Americans -- including 63,000 New Yorkers -- scheduled to lose federal unemployment benefits at midnight, members of Congress pledged new action to restore the payments for an additional 13 weeks.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
7 Nov 2001
In this time of national crisis, amid calls for sacrifice, I'm truly troubled by some of the choices of the Republican party leadership. Here's their idea of an economic stimulus package:
$1.4 billion for IBM
$833 million for General Motors
$671 million for General Electric $572 million for Chevron Texaco
$254 million for Enron
This is war profiteering, and it's simply wrong. Yet the House has just approved it, on a virtual party line vote, ending the recent spirit of bipartisan cooperation in Congress.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
http://money.cnn.com/2001/12/07/economy/economy/December 7, 2001: 11:20 a.m. ET
Employers cut 331,000 jobs in November; jobless rate rises to 5.7%.
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The U.S. unemployment rate jumped to 5.7 percent in November - the highest in six years - as employers cut hundreds of thousands more jobs in response to the first recession in a decade in the world's largest economy.
The Labor Department said employers cut 331,000 jobs from non-farm payrolls last month after a revised loss of 468,000 jobs in October. The unemployment rate rose from 5.4 percent. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast unemployment at 5.6 percent and job cuts of 201,000.
The combined October-November job cuts are the most since May-June of 1980, and the unemployment rate is at its highest level since August 1995.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/stat ... able04.php2001 US Population: 284,796,887
http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/pove ... v01hi.htmlIn 2001 there were 32.9 Million US citizens who lived below the poverty threshold, 1.3 million higher than the 31.6 million poor in 2000
In 2001, there were 6.8 million poor families (9.2 percent), up from 6.4 million (8.7 percent) in 2000
http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/0320 ... 13_001.htmReasons for not working for those who Did Not Work
Total...66,534,000 Ill/Disabled- 11,132,000 Retired-30,341,000 Home/Family Reasons-12,797,000 Work Unavailable-1,201,000 School/Other-11,063,000
For those who Worked But Spent Time Outside the Workforce
Total?26,911,000 Ill/Disabled-2,766,000 Retired-2,169,000 Home/Family Reasons-6,063,000 Work Unavailable-2,047,000 School/Other-13,866,000
http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povdef.htm How The Census Bureau Measures Poverty
Example: Suppose Family A consists of five people: two children, their mother, father, and great-aunt. Family A's poverty threshold in 2001 was $21,665. Suppose also that each member had the following income in 2001:
Mother $10,000
Father 5,000
Great-aunt 10,000
First child 0
Second child 0
Total: $25,000
Since their total family income, $25,000 was greater than their threshold ($21,665), the family would not be considered "poor" according to the official poverty measure.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
PRESS BRIEFING ON 2001 INCOME AND POVERTY ESTIMATES (Excerpts)
Dr. Daniel H. Weinberg
Chief, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division
U.S. Census Bureau
September 24, 2002
Good morning. I'm Dan Weinberg, Chief of the Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division at the Census Bureau. I am pleased to welcome you to the press briefing on the 2001 income and poverty estimates. Your press packets contain a press release, a copy of my remarks, a copy of the charts I will be using today, and the two reports we are releasing. You can obtain additional unpublished detailed tables from the Census Bureau directly or on our web site (
www.census.gov).
Let me first summarize the main findings. I will be discussing three major well-being indicators today. They are income, poverty, and income inequality. Chart 1d
Median household income in 2001 fell 2.2 percent or $900 from the 2000 level, to $42,200 (that is, half of all households had incomes above $42,200 and half below).
After falling for four consecutive years, the poverty rate rose, from 11.3 percent in 2000 to 11.7 percent in 2001. The number of poor increased also, by 1.3 million people, to 32.9 million poor in 2001.
The picture on household income inequality is mixed, but the most widely used measure, the Gini index, indicates that inequality did not change from 2000 to 2001. Other measures, such as the share of the lowest household income quintile, indicate some increase in inequality.
http://nch.ari.net/numbers.html$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
http://nch.ari.net/jobs.htmlNat'l Coalition for the Homeless
The connection between impoverished workers and homelessness can be seen in homeless shelters, many of which house significant numbers of full-time wage earners. A survey of 30 U.S. cities found that almost one in five homeless persons is employed (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1998). In a number of cities not surveyed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors - as well as in many states - the percentage is even higher (National Coalition for the Homeless, 1997).
The future of job growth does not appear promising for many workers: a 1998 study estimated that 46% of the jobs with the most growth between 1994 and 2005 pay less than $16,000 a year; these jobs will not lift families out of poverty (National Priorities Project, 1998).2 Moreover, 74% of these jobs pay below a livable wage ($32,185 for a family of four).
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/us_mayor_n ... meless.aspThe US Conference of Mayors 17th Annual Conference Survey of Hunger, Homelessness Documents Increase in Current Demands
Excerpts:
Low-paying jobs lead the list of causes of hunger identified by the city officials. Other causes cited, in order of frequency, include unemployment and other employment-related problems, high housing costs, changes in the food stamp programs, poverty or lack of income, economic downturn or weakening of the economy, utility costs, welfare reform, medical or health costs, and mental health problems.
Thirty-eight percent of eligible low income households are currently served by assisted housing programs. City officials estimate that low income households spend an average of 44 percent of their income on housing.
Applicants must wait an average of 16 months for public housing in the survey cities. The wait for Section 8 Certificates is 20 months, for Section 8 Vouchers, 22 months.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Journalist Barbara Ehrenreich, author of "Nickled and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America" reveals much about the working poor in the US
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/06/ ... click=trueBarbara Ehrenreich is an American essayist, social commentator and author of 11 books. Her project is more subtle, and more searching, than her predecessors'; she has sought not to describe the depths of poverty but what is termed "the working poor". Nearly one-third of the American workforce earns $US7-$8 ($12-$14) an hour. Ehrenreich set out to see what kind of life these people enjoy.
They don't enjoy it - they endure it. "No-one has ever said that you could work hard - harder even than you ever thought possible - and still find yourself sinking ever deeper into poverty and debt," she writes near the end of this meticulously researched and intelligently written book that should be pressed into the hands of those policy-makers with unblinking faith in the trickle-down theory of economics.
http://ethics.emory.edu/news/archives/000116.htmlThe fact is that most employees in low-paid service jobs cannot afford to support themselves, let alone a family, on seven or eight dollars an hour.
For example, to be deemed affordable, rents usually need to be at 30% of one?s income. But as Ehrenereich notes, housing analysts report that 59% of poor renters, or 4.4 million households, spend more than 50% of their income on housing.<2> As ?Barbara? quickly found out, without the first month?s rent, it?s extremely difficult to secure a ?legitimate apartment.? Budget hotels become the primary option. Even with two jobs amounting to $320 dollars a week, the $179 budget hotel took 55% of her income. Ehrenreich then turned to aid agencies whose lists, she discovered, are already out of date. The agency finally suggested she move into a shelter until she could save enough money. Ehrenreich writes, ?our bright blue vests bear the statement ?At Wal-Mart, our people make the difference.? Underneath those vests, though, there are real-life charity cases, maybe even shelter dwellers.?
