Copyright (c) 2009 Cornell University ILR School All rights reserved. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace Recent documents in Federal Publications en-us Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:25:31 PST 3600 http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/684 http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/684 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:00:35 PST [Excerpt] Between March and September 2008, the federal government intervened financially with private corporations on three occasions, resulting in the government receiving significant debt and equity considerations. The firms affected were Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and AIG. Dissatisfaction with the case-by-case approach to addressing the ongoing financial turmoil led Treasury to propose a more comprehensive approach on September 19, 2008. On October 3, 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA, P.L. 110-343) was signed into law, authorizing the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). TARP gave Treasury the option of purchasing or insuring up to $700 billion of assets from financial firms. On October 14, 2008, Treasury announced it was shifting its focus towards direct capital injections into banks through the purchase of preferred shares. Treasury's announced "capital purchase plan" was for purchasing up to $250 billion in financial firms' preferred stock under the TARP authority, with approximately $187.5 billion actually purchased as of December 31, 2008. In addition to the general capital purchase plan, there have been several other case-by-case interventions since the passage of the EESA. The initial $85 billion AIG loan from mid-September was first augmented and then revamped into a combination package of a $60 billion line of credit, $40 billion in preferred share purchases, up to $20.9 billion in commercial paper purchases, and up to $52.5 billion in troubled asset purchases. Citigroup received an additional $20 billion in preferred share purchases after an initial $25 billion, along with federal guarantees to cover losses on a $306 billion pool of assets. The U.S. automakers also received financial assistance through TARP, with a $5 billion preferred share purchase from GMAC, up to $14.4 billion in loans to GM and up to $4 billion in loans promised to Chrysler. These interventions have prompted questions regarding the taxpayer costs and the sources of funding. The sources of funding are relatively straightforward--primarily the Federal Reserve (Fed) and the U.S. Treasury. The costs, however, are difficult to quantify at this stage. In most of the interventions, many of the financial outflows that are possible have yet to occur, and the ultimate value of the debt and equity considerations received from the private firms is uncertain. At this point, the federal government has the option to own nearly 80% of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG. Depending on the final proceeds from the various debt and equity considerations, the federal government may end up seeing a positive fiscal contribution from the recent interventions, as was the case in some of the past interventions summarized in the tables at the end of this report. The government may also suffer significant losses, as has also occurred in the past. This report will be updated as warranted by legislative and market events. Baird Webel http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/683 http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/683 Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:35:08 PST [Excerpt] The world is near the bottom of a global recession that is causing widespread business contraction, increases in unemployment, and shrinking government revenues. Although recent data indicate the large industrialized economies may have reached bottom and are beginning to recover, for the most part, unemployment is still rising. Numerous small banks and households still face huge problems in restoring their balance sheets, and unemployment has combined with sub-prime loans to keep home foreclosures at a high rate. Nearly all industrialized countries and many emerging and developing nations have announced economic stimulus and/or financial sector rescue packages, such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111- 5). Several countries have resorted to borrowing from the International Monetary Fund as a last resort. The crisis has exposed fundamental weaknesses in financial systems worldwide, demonstrated how interconnected and interdependent economies are today, and has posed vexing policy dilemmas. The process for coping with the crisis by countries across the globe has been manifest in four basic phases. The first has been intervention to contain the contagion and restore confidence in the system. This has required extraordinary measures both in scope, cost, and extent of government reach. The second has been coping with the secondary effects of the crisis, particularly the global recession and flight of capital from countries in emerging markets and elsewhere that have been affected by the crisis. The third phase of this process is to make changes in the financial system to reduce risk and prevent future crises. In order to give these proposals political backing, world leaders have called for international meetings to address changes in policy, regulations, oversight, and enforcement. On September 24-25, 2009, heads of the G-20 nations met in Pittsburgh to address the global financial crisis. The fourth phase of the process is dealing with political, social, and security effects of the financial turmoil. One such effect is the strengthened role of China in financial markets. The role for Congress in this financial crisis is multifaceted. While the recent focus has been on combating the recession, the ultimate issue perhaps is how to ensure the smooth and efficient functioning of financial markets to promote the general well-being of the country while protecting taxpayer interests and facilitating business operations without creating a moral hazard. In addition to preventing future crises through legislative, oversight, and domestic regulatory functions, On June 17, 2009, the Department of the Treasury presented the Obama Administration proposal for financial regulatory reform. The proposal focuses on five areas and includes establishing the Federal Reserve as a systemic risk regulator, creating a Council of Regulators, regulating all financial derivatives, creating a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, improving coordination and oversight of international financial markets, and other provisions. Treasury also has submitted to Congress proposed legislation to implement the reforms. The reform agenda now has moved to Congress. Legislation in Congress addresses many of the issues in the Treasury plan but also may focus on other financial issues. Congress also plays a role in measures to reform and recapitalize the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and regional development banks. Dick K. Nanto http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/682 http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/682 Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:07:40 PST On June 22, 2009, President Barack Obama signed into law H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-31). Title I of Division B of H.R. 1256 is the "Thrift Savings Plan Enhancement Act of 2009". Among other provisions, P.L. 111-31: provides for newly hired federal employees to be enrolled automatically in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) at a default contribution rate of 3% of pay; requires the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board to establish within the TSP a qualified Roth contribution program that provides for after-tax contributions and tax-free distributions; gives the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board authority to include mutual fund investment options in the TSP; requires the Thrift Board to submit to Congress an annual report that includes demographic information about TSP participants and fund managers; allows the surviving spouse of a deceased TSP participant to leave the decedent's TSP account balance on deposit with the Thrift Savings Plan, and; increases the monthly indemnity allowance for surviving spouses of deceased members of the armed forces who are affected by certain benefit offsets. On October 28, 2009, President Obama signed into law H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111-84). Title XI and Title XIX of P.L. 111-84 contain provisions that affect the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS). P.L. 111-84: allows federal agencies to appoint individuals receiving annuities under CSRS or FERS to temporary, part-time positions within the federal government without reducing the individual's salary by the amount of the annuity, as is usually required under title 5 of the United States Code. requires the computation of an annuity under the Federal Employees' Retirement System to include an employee's unused sick leave in his or her length of service; allows certain redeposits to the Civil Service Retirement System for periods of service between October 1990 and February 1991 to exclude interest payments; requires CSRS annuities for employees whose careers include part-time service to be computed under the same rules that apply to part-time annuities under FERS; allows former employees who withdrew contributions to the FERS at the time of separation from federal service to redeposit those contributions, plus interest, to the FERS in the event that they are re-employed by the federal government; and allows certain service performed as an employee of the District of Columbia to be credited as federal service for purposes of determining retirement benefits. Patrick Purcell http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/681 http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/681 Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:17:25 PST [Excerpt] After the long economic expansion that characterized much of the current decade, the nation entered its eleventh postwar recession in December 2007. The unemployment rate, which is a lagging economic indicator, did not start to rise until May 2008 when it jumped 0.5 percentage points to 5.5%. By December 2008, the unemployment rate exceeded 7.0% and well over 600,000 jobs were lost--the biggest monthly decrease since December 1974, when another deep recession was taking place. These labor market indicators and comments equating the latest recession to the Great Depression intensified congressional interest in passage of legislation early in 2009 aimed at encouraging creation of new jobs and warding off further loss of jobs. (See CRS Report R40655, The Labor Market During the Great Depression and the Current Recession.) To mitigate all but one recession since the 1960s, Congress chose to increase federal spending on infrastructure. (See CRS Report 92-939, Countercyclical Job Creation Programs.) But, there are a number of issues associated with using expenditures on public works to quickly create jobs in times of recession. (See CRS Report R40107, The Role of Public Works Infrastructure in Economic Stimulus.) Public works expenditures traditionally have gone chiefly to construction activities (e.g., building highways and bridges, dams and flood control structures) which indirectly increase demand in industries that supply their products to construction firms (e.g., manufacturing). Today, the definition of infrastructure has been expanded to include green jobs, which include those in industries that utilize renewable resources (e.g., electricity generated by wind), produce energy-efficient goods and services (e.g., mass transit), and install energy-conserving products (e.g., retrofitting buildings with thermal-pane windows). A question that typically arises during congressional consideration of economic stimulus legislation is which approach produces the most bang for the buck. In the instant case, this means how many jobs might be supported by federal expenditures on traditional and green infrastructure projects. Once stimulus legislation is signed into law, the focus of Congress customarily turns to estimates of the number of jobs that result as federal funds are allocated to specific activities. Therefore, after briefly examining the trend in employment and unemployment since the recession's onset, the report turns to an in-depth look at estimates of job creation, including the limitations of the methodology often used to derive them and the difficulties associated with developing job estimates for green infrastructure in particular. The report closes with a review of what is known to date about the number of jobs supported by infrastructure spending among other provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5). Section 1512 requires entities that receive ARRA appropriations from federal agencies, totaling approximately $271 billion, to include in quarterly reports the number of jobs created or maintained as a result. Section 1513 requires the Council of Economic Advisors to report quarterly on the effect of ARRA provisions on employment and other economic indicators. Linda Levine http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/680 http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/680 Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:13:39 PST [Excerpt] This report summarizes key provisions affecting private health insurance, including provisions to raise revenues, in Division A of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, as introduced in the House of Representatives on October 29, 2009. H.R. 3962 is based on H.R. 3200, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, which was originally introduced on July 14, 2009, and was reported separately on October 14, 2009, by three House Committees-- Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means. Division A of H.R. 3962 focuses on reducing the number of uninsured, restructuring the private health insurance market, setting minimum standards for health benefits, and providing financial assistance to certain individuals and, in some cases, small employers. In general, H.R. 3962 would require individuals to maintain health insurance and employers to either provide insurance or pay a payroll assessment, with some exceptions. Several insurance market reforms would be made, such as modified community rating and guaranteed issue and renewal. Both the individual and employer mandates would be linked to acceptable health insurance coverage, which would meet required minimum standards and incorporate the market reforms included in the bill. Acceptable coverage would include (1) coverage under a qualified health benefits plan (QHBP), which could be offered either through the newly created Health Insurance Exchange (the Exchange) or outside the Exchange through new employer plans; (2) grandfathered employment based plans; (3) grandfathered nongroup plans; and (4) other coverage, such as Medicare and Medicaid. The Exchange would offer private plans alongside a public option. Based on income, certain individuals could qualify for subsidies toward their premium costs and cost-sharing (deductibles and copayments); these subsidies would be available only through the Exchange. In the individual market (the nongroup market), a plan could be grandfathered indefinitely, but only if no changes were made to the terms and conditions of that plan, including benefits and cost-sharing, and premiums were only increased as allowed by statute. Most of these provisions would be effective beginning in 2013. The Exchange would not be an insurer; it would provide eligible individuals and small businesses with access to insurers' plans in a comparable way. The Exchange would consist of a selection of private plans as well as a public option. Individuals wanting to purchase the public option or a private health insurance not through an employer or a grandfathered nongroup plan could only obtain such coverage through the Exchange. They would only be eligible to enroll in an Exchange plan if they were not enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and acceptable employer coverage as a full-time employee. The public option would be established by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), would offer three different cost-sharing options, and would vary premiums geographically. The Secretary would negotiate payment rates for medical providers, and items and services. The bill would also require that the Health Choices Commissioner to establish a Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program under which the Commissioner would make grants and loans for the establishment of not-for-profit, member-run health insurance cooperatives. These co-operatives would provide insurance through the Exchange. Only within the Exchange, credits would be available to limit the amount of money certain individuals would pay for premiums and for cost-sharing (deductibles and copayments). (Although Medicaid is beyond the scope of this report, H.R. 3962 would extend Medicaid coverage for most individuals under 150% of poverty; individuals would be ineligible for Exchange coverage if they were eligible for Medicaid.) Hinda Chaikind http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/679 http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/679 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:50:26 PST [Excerpt] The health reform debate in the 111th Congress has continued and expanded upon the work begun in the 110th Congress. On November 12, 2008, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, released a white paper detailing his principles for health reform. This provided a framework for work within the committee for the 111th Congress. Several bills were introduced when the 111th Congress first convened, and these bills focused on a broad spectrum of approaches to health reform. Most recently, the House and Senate committees of principle jurisdiction on health reform have been formulating their legislation. On July 15, one of the two committees with principle jurisdiction in the Senate, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, ordered reported S. 1679, the Affordable Health Choices Act. In the House, the principle jurisdiction for health reform is divided among the Committees on Education and Labor, Ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce. Jointly, the committees released for consideration H.R. 3200, America's Affordable Health Choices Act, on July 14. The Committees on Education and Labor and Ways and Means each ordered reported, as amended, their versions of H.R. 3200 on July 17. The Committee on Energy and Commerce ordered reported its version of H.R. 3200 on July 31, 2009. The Senate Finance Committee ordered reported the Chairman's mark, as amended, known as America's Health Future Act of 2009, on October 13. The health reform bills being considered by the House and Senate committees of principle jurisdiction focus on simultaneously expanding private and public coverage options. Some of the other bills introduced in the 111th Congress take a similar approach to health reform. Additionally, other bills have focused on other solutions, attempting to expand coverage using one of the following approaches: Largely replace existing coverage with a national government-provided health insurance program (or a national health service). Expand existing public programs for certain individuals. Expand privately sponsored coverage. Encourage state-based reforms. Simultaneously expand private and public coverage options. This report presents basic background on health insurance that may be useful to legislators considering health insurance reforms. It describes reform approaches and provides brief descriptions of health insurance reform bills introduced in the 111th Congress, as well as some of the general principles currently being considered by the Congress. The potential impact of the various approaches and bills is not analyzed in this report, however. As a result, it does not provide evaluations of how well different bills, once enacted, would meet their objectives. This report will be updated periodically to reflect recent congressional activity in health reform. Hinda Chaikind http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/678 http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/678 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:41:44 PST [Excerpt] In 2008, 39.8 million people were counted as poor in the United States--an increase of 2.6 million persons from 2007, and nearly the largest number of persons counted as poor since 1960. The poverty rate, or percent of the population considered poor under the official definition, was reported at 13.2%; up from 12.5% in 2007, and the highest rate since 1997. The recent increase in poverty reflects the worsened economic conditions since the onset of the economic recession in December 2007. Many expect poverty to rise further next year, and it will likely remain comparatively high even after the economy begins to recover. The incidence of poverty varies widely across the population according to age, education, labor force attachment, family living arrangements, and area of residence, among other factors. Under the official poverty definition, an average family of four was considered poor in 2008 if its pre-tax cash income for the year was below $22,025. This report will be updated on an annual basis, following release of U.S. Census Bureau annual income and poverty estimates. Thomas Gabe http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/677 http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/677 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:29:36 PST [Excerpt] On June 28, 2007, after two and a half years of negotiation, the United States and Panama signed a reciprocal free trade agreement (FTA). Negotiations were formally concluded on December 16, 2006, with an understanding that further changes to labor, environment, and intellectual property rights (IPR) chapters would be made pursuant to future detailed congressional input. These changes were agreed to in late June 2007, in time for the FTA to be considered under Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation before it expired on July 1, 2007. TPA allows Congress to consider trade implementing bills under expedited procedures. Panama's legislature approved the FTA 58 to 4 on July 11, 2007. The 110th Congress did not take up the agreement, but implementing legislation may be introduced in the 111th Congress. The proposed U.S.-Panama FTA is a comprehensive agreement. Some 88% of U.S. commercial and industrial exports would become duty-free upon implementation, with remaining tariffs phased out over a ten-year period. Approximately 50% of U.S. farms exports to Panama also would achieve immediate duty-free status, with tariffs and tariff rate quotas (TRQs) on select farm products to be phased out by year 17 of the agreement. Panama and the United States signed a separate bilateral agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) issues that would recognize U.S. food safety inspection as equivalent to Panamanian standards, which will expedite entry of U.S. meat and poultry exports. The FTA also consummates understandings on services trade, telecommunications, government procurement, investment, and intellectual property rights. The circumstances framing the proposed U.S.-Panama FTA differ considerably from those of two others that have yet to be considered by Congress. The deep concerns that Congress has expressed over Colombia's violence have not been an issue in the Panama FTA debate, which is framed more by the positive image of a longstanding strategic bilateral relationship based on Panama's canal. Nor does Panama compare well with the continuing debate over the proposed FTA with South Korea, which as a major U.S. trading partner, can affect key industries such as automobile and beef production. To the contrary, Panama trades little with the United States, even by Latin American standards, and so the FTA cannot have a major effect on the U.S. economy. The final text of the proposed U.S.-Panama FTA incorporates specific amendments on key issues at the behest of congressional leadership. The most significant were adoption of enforceable labor standards, compulsory adherence to select multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), and an easing of restrictions on developing country access to generic drugs. In these cases, the proposed U.S.-Panama FTA goes beyond provisions in existing bilateral FTAs and multilateral trade rules, including those contemplated in the Doha Round. Two other concerns still linger. The first pertains to a Panamanian labor statute, which some Members of Congress would like to see amended so that the minimum number of workers required to start a union would be reduced from 40 to 20, per ILO guidelines. The second relates to questions raised over Panama's status as a "tax haven" and its refusal to enter into any tax information exchange treaty. The new government of President Ricardo Martinelli has reportedly agreed to set up a double taxation treaty commission to rectify the tax legislation problem, and to change the labor law, raising expectations that Congress may be in a position to consider taking up implementing legislation for the FTA at some point soon. For more, see CRS Report RL30981, Panama: Political and Economic Conditions and U.S. Relations, by Mark P. Sullivan. J. F. Hornbeck http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/676 http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/676 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:11:41 PST [Excerpt] In response to concerns over the adequacy of firefighter staffing, the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Act--popularly called the "SAFER Act"--was enacted by the 108th Congress as Section 1057 of the FY2004 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 108-136). The SAFER Act authorizes grants to career, volunteer, and combination local fire departments for the purpose of increasing the number of firefighters to help communities meet industry-minimum standards and attain 24-hour staffing to provide adequate protection from fire and fire-related hazards. Also authorized are grants to volunteer fire departments for activities related to the recruitment and retention of volunteers. The SAFER grant program is authorized through FY2010. With the economic turndown adversely affecting budgets of local governments, concerns have arisen that modifications to the SAFER statute may be necessary to enable fire departments to more effectively participate in the program. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) included a provision (section 603) that waives the matching requirements for SAFER grants awarded in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. The FY2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-32) included a provision authorizing the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive further limitations and restrictions in the SAFER statute for FY2009 and FY2010. Because of the statutory modifications made to SAFER's applicant eligibility criteria in the ARRA and the FY2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act, the FY2009 SAFER application round is expected to commence later in the year than usual, likely sometime in the fall of 2009. For FY2010, the Obama Administration proposed $420 million for SAFER, double the amount appropriated in FY2009. Both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have also approved $420 million for SAFER in FY2010. The budget proposal for SAFER is likely to receive heightened scrutiny, given the national economic downturn and local budgetary cutbacks that many fire departments are now facing. Concerns over local fire departments' budgetary problems may also frame debate over the SAFER reauthorization, which is included in H.R. 3791, the Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2009. Congress will likely consider whether some SAFER rules and restrictions governing the hiring grants should be permanently eliminated or altered in order to make it economically feasible for more fire departments to participate in the program. This report will be updated as events warrant. Lennard G. Kruger http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/675 http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/675 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:55:41 PST [Excerpt] This CRS report presents data collected by the Census Bureau in the Current Population Survey from 1969 through 2009 about the employment status and the sources and amounts of income received by people aged 65 and older. The report focuses on the sources and amounts of income received by individuals aged 65 and older and by households in which either the household head or the household head's spouse (if present) was 65 or older in the year of the survey. Since the 1960s, birth rates have fallen and average life expectancy has increased. Consequently, the number of workers relative to the number of retirees is projected to decline, and retirees will have to stretch their savings and other assets over longer periods of retirement than their parents and grandparents experienced. The aging of the American population and the retirement of the baby boom generation will place financial strains on Social Security, public and private pensions, and on retirees' personal savings. The increasing number of Americans living to age 80 and older is of particular significance because it is the very old who are most likely to need medical, social, and long-term care services, and who are at the greatest risk of depleting their financial resources and falling into poverty. Rates of employment among older persons have been rising in recent years. Employment rates fell among men 55 and older from the late 1960s until about 1990. Since then, employment rates have risen for older men, but they remain below the employment rates of the 1960s and 1970s. Among older women, employment rates have steadily increased since the 1960s, but older women's employment rates today remain lower than those of men the same age. Earnings, Social Security, pensions, and income from assets - mainly interest and dividends - comprise the majority of income among people 65 and older. Information on pension income has been reported separately on the CPS only since the 1970s. In 1975, Social Security comprised 42% of all income received by people aged 65 and older. Earnings and income from assets each accounted for 20% of the income of the elderly, while pensions made up 14% of their income. Public assistance and other sources each contributed just 2% to the total income of Americans aged 65 and older in 1975. By 2008, Social Security comprised 39% of the income received by people aged 65 and older. Earnings had increased to 26% of the income of the elderly, while income from assets had fallen to 13% of the total. Pensions, including withdrawals from retirement accounts, comprised 20% of the income of the elderly in 2008. Public assistance provided less than 1% of the income of the elderly, and other sources accounted for just 2%. Although 97% of persons 65 and older had income from at least one source in 2008, in most cases household income is a better measure of available resources than individual income. Median household income rose faster among elderly households than among nonelderly households from 1968 through 2008, but in 2008 the median annual income of households in which the householder or spouse was 65 or older ($30,774) was just 54% of the median income of younger households ($56,604). In 2008, households in which either the household head or the household head's spouse (if present) was 65 or older had an average of 1.7 residents, compared to an average of 2.7 residents in households in which neither the head nor spouse was 65 or older. The poverty rate among people aged 65 and older fell from 25.0% in 1968 to 9.7% in 2008. Growth in real wages--and in the Social Security and pensions based on wages--contributed to the decline in the percentage of older Americans living in poverty; however, because the poverty threshold is indexed to rising prices, the poverty line has fallen relative to median income. Patrick Purcell