CARSON CITY, Nev. – Almost 14 percent of Nevadans live below the federal poverty level - but that's an improvement over last year and is a little better than the national average, according to new data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

The new statistics show that the median household income is rising, and stands at about $55,000. That's a bit under the national average, but the median price of a home is almost $35,000 higher than the national figure.

Elliott Parker, a professor of economics at the University of Nevada Reno, says the Reno area's white-hot real estate market, in particular, has hurt lower income families.

"Housing prices here have grown the fastest of any of the 400 metropolitan areas in the nation," he says. That is relative to the bottom we hit several years ago. I think it was around 2012 when housing prices finally stopped declining."

Anti-poverty advocates have been trying for years to get a bump in the minimum wage to $15 an hour. This year, the Legislature passed a $12-an-hour minimum wage, and $11 if you have health insurance, but Gov. Brian Sandoval vetoed that measure. The next Legislature doesn't meet until 2019 - after next year's election.

Parker says persistent inequality - the gap in income between rich and poor - is particularly striking in the Silver State.

"Nevada has one of the more unequal distributions of income in the nation," notes. "Some numbers I've seen suggest that the top one percent has 44 times the income of the average of the bottom 99 percent, and there's only a couple states in the country that have a higher ratio than that."

The supplemental poverty rate, which takes cost of living into account, shows Nevada is a more expensive place to live compared with the national average.

Almost 14 percent of Nevadans live below the federal poverty level - but that's an improvement over last year - according to new data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Suzanne Potter has more.


get more stories like this via email

This week's debt ceiling deal saw federal policymakers compromise on budget-related matters, but a new awareness campaign from a Wisconsin grassroots group calls into question the voting patterns of two members of the state's Congressional delegation.

Opportunity Wisconsin contends Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wis., and Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis., are not putting the needs of their constituents first.

Meghan Roh, program director for Opportunity Wisconsin, said many Wisconsin families are still struggling with financial pressures, such as higher consumer costs. She feels their elected representatives need to be held accountable if their votes are seen as creating more barriers for household budgets.

"And their actions beg the question: Are they fighting for everyday working people they represent, or are they prioritizing corporations?" Roh asked.

The bipartisan debt ceiling deal was touted as a way to avoid an economic disaster amid steep budget cut demands from House Republicans. Both Steil and Van Orden supported the compromise plan, but the campaign noted they endorsed an earlier House version opponents said was full of harmful cuts.

In a response, Steil's campaign pointed to a recent op-ed where he stated he wants to balance helping consumers while limiting large spending bills.

He was directly responding to ads calling out the lawmakers for opposing the Inflation Reduction Act, which caps the price of insulin for those receiving Medicare. Roh hopes the campaign creates a pathway where voters can stay focused on important matters and not have to wade through a lot of the political rhetoric emanating from Washington.

"Our mission is to make sure they're aware of how their elected representatives are voting and how that will impact their daily lives," Roh explained.

For his part, Van Orden laid out why he supported the compromise debt-ceiling deal in a recent news conference.

"It protects the people that defended this nation, those are our veterans, and it defends the people that feed this nation, those are our farmers," Van Orden said. "It also protects the people who are most in need - the folks that get SNAP benefits."

The debt ceiling deal expands work requirements for some recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, but added exemptions for others who rely on the support.

A coalition of Wisconsin groups is asking Gov. Tony Evers to reject bills it contends would make it harder for people struggling to get by to bounce back with the help of certain public assistance programs.

More than two dozen organizations from around the state want the governor to veto a bill requiring BadgerCare recipients to renew their health coverage twice as often. They also want to see him veto a measure limiting unemployment benefits.

William Parke-Sutherland, senior health policy analyst for the group Kids Forward, argued the plans unfairly target people who need some type of public assistance. He added seven of 10 Medicaid recipients are already employed.

"And so, if state policymakers want to support workers, they need to address the real factors that make it difficult and sometimes impossible for workers to take more hours, and to get and keep better jobs," Parke-Sutherland urged.

For example, he noted expanding child care access would be a big help. Business groups supporting some of the bills said they would be more effective in addressing worker shortages. And GOP legislators point to a nonbinding referendum from the April election showing Wisconsin voters agree with the idea of work requirements for certain public benefits.

But skeptics like Parke-Sutherland pointed out there are already checks and balances built into many public assistance programs. He feels it is an attempt to avoid empowering low-income workers who are not getting the necessary benefits from their employers.

"They don't want to pay their workers fair wages, and offer lifesaving benefits like health insurance," Parke-Sutherland contended.

He added most people enrolled in Wisconsin's public assistance programs are white, but restrictions disproportionately affect people of color. In the last legislative session, similar bills were advanced by the Republican-led Legislature and were subsequently vetoed by Evers.


get more stories like this via email

Groups working to fight poverty in Alabama are urging state senators to approve a bill aimed at lowering food costs for families.

House Bill 479 proposes a gradual reduction in the state sales-and-use tax on grocery items from 4% to 2%, starting Sept. 1.

Carol Gundlach, senior policy analyst for the group Alabama Arise, emphasized the way Alabama taxes food products puts a disproportionate burden on lower- and middle-income working families.

She pointed out recent months of high inflation have made it an even more urgent issue.

"We estimate that people, just on the state sales tax alone, could buy an extra two weeks' worth of groceries if they were not paying the state sales tax for the groceries they do buy.," Gundlach reported.

Alabama, Mississippi and South Dakota are the only states still charging their full state sales tax rate on groceries, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Rep. Danny Garrett, R-Trussville, sponsored the bill, which has passed in the House and awaits a Senate vote.

Gundlach stressed although the measure would not entirely eliminate taxes on groceries, lowering them would be a positive step.

She acknowledged the challenge of completely eliminating taxes on food, since they're currently used to cover state education expenses. However, Gundlach's group thinks the bill presents an opportunity for Alabama lawmakers to responsibly reduce food taxes and explore alternative options for funding schools.

"So, we would like to either get rid of or reduce the federal income-tax deduction in such a way that if anybody gets that tax break, it's going to be the people who are kind-of middle income and need it the most," Gundlach explained.

Alabama is the only state allowing a full deduction for federal income taxes, which reduces taxes for the state's wealthiest population. Gundlach suggested eliminating the deduction could raise millions of dollars for public schools and replace the revenue from the current food tax, without imposing any additional tax burden on low- or middle-income residents.