When it comes to policy that drives the funding of social programs and wealth redistribution, everything is an accounting trick.<p>One example is that the US Census Bureau&#x27;s reporting of poverty statistics based on income has changed to NOT include the income of many benefits including food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit. If you include these benefits prior to counting the poor, the poverty rate falls to nearly zero.<p>This is why the director of the Census Bureau&#x27;s report now answers to the White House instead of the Director of Commerce. Bending the numbers is essential to maintaining and expanding institutions.<p>The switch was made when Obama nominated Rebuplican senator Judd Gregg as Commerce Secretary. Given that Gregg had previously voted to abolish the Commerce department, it is likely that his influence would have brought the numbers in line with the facts. But, had Gregg accepted the nomination, it would have opened up a senate seat that would have been filled by the Democratric governor of his state. So to have his cake and eat it too, Obama took control of the number reporting. Gregg did not accept the nomination.<p>Talk about accounting tricks.<p>Another example is the disparity between counting income vs. consumption. Again in the US, when the money spent by poorer classes that are studied is counted it is far greater than what is calculated as their income (which is what policy is based on) This indicates that in-kind gifts and other non-reported income is substantial, but not counted.