PIOJ BUILDING, 16 OXFORD ROAD

                                                                 P.O. Box 540

Kingston 5

Jamaica, W.I.

September 12, 2012

The Most Hon. Portia Simpson-Miller, MP, ON

Prime Minister of Jamaica

Office of the Prime Minister

1 Devon Road

Kingston 10

The Hon. Andrew Holness, MP

Leader of the Opposition

Office of the Leader of the Opposition

1 West Kings House Road

Kingston 6

Dear Madame Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition:

I am privileged to write this open letter to you, in my capacity as the Independent Parliamentary Commission of the Contractor General of Jamaica, regarding an urgent matter which I believe is of fundamental importance to the issues of good governance and political leadership in our beloved country, Jamaica.

It is my considered but respectful belief, Madame Prime Minister and Leader, that the time has come for the Executive and Legislative arms of the Jamaican State to publicly clarify precisely what role, if any at all, the Office of the Contractor General (OCG) should play, within a national system of institutionalized and independent checks and balances, to ensure that Government commercial transactions will withstand the highest levels of scrutiny and probity, and that the Jamaican taxpayer can be guaranteed value for money whenever State assets are divested, whenever State licences are issued, or whenever Government contracts are to be awarded by the State’s public bodies.

As you are aware, during the past seven (7) years in which I have been privileged to have held my commission as Jamaica’s fourth Contractor General, I have laid before your respective Administrations, as well as before your predecessor Administrations, and the country’s Parliament, innumerable remedial Recommendations.

These considered Recommendations were specifically and carefully crafted by the OCG (a) to significantly enhance transparency, competition, accountability and probity in public contracting and licensing in Jamaica, (b) to ensure compliance with the Government’s Procurement Procedures and Guidelines, (c) to eliminate waste and inefficiency in the award and implementation of Government contracts, (d) to prevent fraud and corruption in Government contracting, (e) to strengthen the independence of the OCG, and (f) to generally win the battle against corruption in Jamaica.

Regrettably, however, most of the referenced Recommendations have not been effectively acted upon, nor have the overwhelming majority of them been materially implemented. In the interim, and while, as a country, we appear to remain apathetic or unwilling to proceed in a decisive, deliberate and expeditious manner with the requisite reforms to the country’s good governance structures, and its anti-corruption institutional framework, Jamaica continues to be perceived, by the international commercial community, as well as by its bilateral and multi-lateral partners, as one of the most corrupt countries in the world.

But while these concerns remain, I regret that I must also respectfully call your attention to another area of great concern which has recently arisen for the OCG. The matter is so grave in import, and fundamental in its current and potential impact upon the OCG, that if it is not immediately addressed, it could literally render the OCG, as a national institution, redundant and herald its very demise.

The matter that I have cause to respectfully bring to your attention is that within the past six (6) months, two (2) different court actions have been instituted against the OCG to challenge two (2) major elements of the Commission’s long practiced jurisdictional powers under the Contractor General Act.

The first of the referenced Judicial Review court actions was instituted, against the OCG, by a sitting Minister of Government, the Minister of Transport, Works and Housing, Dr. the Hon. Omar Davies. As you are aware, Dr. Davies has challenged, among other things, the powers of a Contractor General to monitor the pre-contract phases of the award of Government contracts.

The second matter, in respect of which I am writing to you, was recently instituted by a private sector entity which has challenged the authority of a Contractor General, under the Contractor General Act, to monitor and/or to investigate the divestment of State assets.

While, there may be differences of opinion as to whether the OCG, does in fact possess the lawful authority, under the Contractor General Act, to exercise a lawful monitoring or investigative jurisdiction, in respect of any of the above-referenced two (2) areas, there are, however, certain very important associated matters that should nevertheless be immediately brought to the fore for your urgent consideration. They are as follows:

(1)         In both of the aforementioned instances, the OCG has consistently exercised a practiced jurisdiction, over the past 28 years, with the full knowledge and/or outward support of successive Parliaments and Government Administrations. This is a documented fact, which is evidenced, among other things, by the Annual Reports of the OCG, which are required, by law, to be filed each year in both Houses of Parliament.

(2)         In respect of the first of the above-referenced areas, namely the OCG’s monitoring of the pre-contract phases of the award of Government contracts, I am also obliged to advise that this is an activity of the OCG which, year over year, for the past 28 years, has accounted for the overwhelming majority of the OCG’s current JA$180 million operating budget, the overwhelming majority of its operating staff, and the overwhelming majority of the OCG’s work.

Indeed, the OCG, over the years, has never resiled from the faithful discharge of its mandate in the aforementioned regard, particularly because the Supreme Court of Jamaica, from as long ago as 1991, during the tenure of the country’s first Contractor General, had ruled in very clear and unambiguous terms that the OCG, upon a proper interpretation of the Contractor General Act, did in fact possess the referenced jurisdiction.

(3)         With respect to the other challenge that was recently brought against the OCG in the courts, namely on the question of whether or not a Contractor General, upon a proper interpretation of the Contractor General Act, has the power to monitor and/or to investigate the divestment of State assets, the attendant issues are exactly the same.

The monitoring and investigation of the State’s divestment of assets has been an extremely critical area of the OCG’s work for the past several years, and has been certainly so prior to my own appointment, in December 2005, as the incumbent Contractor General. Indeed, it was during the currency of a previous Contractor General, that the OCG had, in January 2000, secured a written Legal Opinion from one of Jamaica’s most respected Attorneys, Dr. the Hon. Lloyd Barnett, which held that the OCG does in fact have the referenced jurisdiction.

The need for the Legal Opinion had arisen, at the time, because the OCG’s oversight of the State’s then ongoing divestment of the Donald Sangster International Airport, by the National Investment Bank of Jamaica (NIBJ), had been called into question.

(4)         Be that as it may, the immediate issue which I must, however, humbly submit, is currently before the country, and before you, is whether any good purpose is being served, by the Government of the Day, challenging the OCG, in the Courts, as to what the Contractor General Act means or does not mean, when the same Government holds the legislative capacity to forthwith amend the  Contractor General Act to state lucidly and unequivocally whether or not it wants a Contractor General to indeed possess the lawful authority to monitor and to investigate the pre-contract phases of Government contracts, and/or to have oversight jurisdiction in matters which relate to the State’s divestment of assets.

(5)         A related issue, I would also respectfully submit, Madame Prime Minister and Leader, is whether the Government, through its conduct, in taking the OCG to Court to challenge it on matters which have to do with the interpretation of the Contractor General Act, versus moving with expedition and forthrightness to repair ambiguities in the Act, may not also be sending the wrong signals to other stakeholders who will ultimately come to the view that if the Government is doing it, then they can do it too.

While the Government, and other entities, fight the OCG in court, as to what the Contractor General Act means or does not mean, or should mean, not only is the taxpayer’s money being literally thrown away in the OCG’s defence of the said court actions, but invaluable human resources, which should be otherwise deployed, in the execution of the critical day-to-day anti-corruption mandates of the OCG, are also being wasted away.

(6)         In placing these matters before you, Madame Prime Minister and Leader, we should also call a spade a spade and accept that, as embarrassing as it is, political as well as other questionable considerations have, from time to time, dictated how the OCG’s jurisdictional powers are viewed by the Government of the Day. Two (2) examples readily come to mind.

(a)    The first has to do with one of the two (2) afore-referenced matters which is the subject of my letter to you. In his recent Judicial Review Applications in the Supreme Court, against the OCG, one of the many Declarations that the incumbent Minister of Transport, Works and Housing, Dr. Davies, has sought to secure, as regards the OCG’s attempted oversight of the Government’s award of the North-South Link of Highway 2000 contract to China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC) without competitive tender, is “A Declaration that the Contractor General has no power under the Contractor General Act to monitor and to investigate pre-contractual activities”.

However, it will come as a surprise to many that this very activity of the OCG, which the Ruling Peoples National Party (PNP) Administration has now asked the court to declare to be an illegal activity, and to be ultra vires the Contractor General Act, is the identical activity that the PNP, just over a year ago, when it constituted the Parliamentary Opposition, wanted the incumbent Contractor General to pursue with vigour.

In a Gleaner Online article, that is dated June 30, 2011, and entitled: ‘PNP calls for toll road contract to be opened to international tender’, there was a report of a meeting of the Public Administration and Appropriations Committee of Parliament that was held on the previous day, June 29,  2011. In the news report, it was stated thus:

“It was revealed in the meeting, that the (Jamaica Labour Party) Government plans to award a concession for the (North/South Link of Highway 2000) contract to China Harbour Engineering Company. However, the PNP has taken issue with that plan, saying the project must be put to international tender under the scrutiny of the Contractor General and the Auditor General”.

Similarly, in a Sunday Gleaner Online article, that was dated July 3, 2011, and entitled: ‘China Harbour pushes for more road contracts’, there was the following news report:

“China Harbour’s interest in constructing the new (North/South Link of Highway 2000) highway has already sparked debate among a parliamentary group, with Opposition Member of Parliament Phillip Paulwell [now a Senior Member of the Cabinet] sounding a note of caution that the project should be open to international tender….. He (Mr. Paulwell) wants the process to go through the National Contracts Commission and be subject to scrutiny from Contractor General Greg Christie”.

(b)   The second example that I will bring to your attention has to do with the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) Administration which held the seat of State power in 2008.

Three (3) months after the then Minister of Agriculture, Dr. the Hon. Christopher Tufton, on January 17, 2008, with the support of the then Attorney General, challenged, in writing, the OCG’s jurisdiction to monitor his Ministry’s then ongoing divestment of the country’s publicly owned sugar industry assets, I received a letter, dated April 8, 2008, from the then Minister with portfolio responsibility for Air Jamaica, the Hon. Don Wehby, in which the OCG was requested to review the previous PNP Administration’s divestment of Air Jamaica’s London Heathrow Slots.

To further compound the issue, on April 23, 2008, the then JLP Minister of Finance, the Hon. Audley Shaw, during his closing speech in the Budget Debates, from the floor of the House of Representatives, publicly requested the OCG to investigate the said Air Jamaica London Heathrow Slots asset divestment by the PNP.

Quite curiously, however, there was no word from the then Office of the Attorney General objecting to the propriety of either Mr. Wehby’s or Mr. Shaw’s request, although only three (3) months before, the same Office had ruled that the OCG had no jurisdiction to monitor and/or to investigate State asset divestment contracts.

It is a matter of public record that Minister Wehby’s and Minister Shaw’s requests were acceded to by me, when a formal OCG State Asset Divestment Investigation into the matter was commenced on April 23, 2008, and a Report thereon was formally tabled by me in the House of Representatives on April 7, 2009, and in the Senate on May 8, 2009.

The bald truth of these two (2) examples, both of which are concerned with the exercise, by the OCG, of the very two (2) jurisdictional powers which the courts are now being asked to declare as illegal, is that they have demonstrated that the country’s Governments, and its Parliamentary Oppositions, have previously and publicly supported the OCG in its very exercise of the said jurisdictions.

Indeed, they also stand as proof of the fact that the very same Governments, and Parliamentary Oppositions, have even gone as far as to publicly call upon the OCG to exercise the said jurisdictions.

What is unfortunate, however, is that the same (2) examples have also shown that the same Governments and Parliamentary Oppositions will, notwithstanding, at the drop of a hat, discard their referenced support for the OCG when it is politically expedient for them to do so, by deeming the subject jurisdictions to be illegal and, in so doing, publicly attack and/or knowingly undermine the integrity of the OCG institution and its leadership.

(7)         In your consideration of the foregoing matters, pivotal policy questions and issues will, therefore, necessarily arise. Your decisions, Madame Prime Minister and Leader, will give a clear indication, both within and without the country, as to the direction in which the Government and the Parliamentary Opposition are prepared to take with respect to critical national governance issues such as truth, honesty, leadership, political will, the institutional strengthening of the country’s good governance structures, and how aggressively and effectively we are prepared to fight what is now perceived to be the pervasive scourge of corruption that has permeated Government contracting and licensing in Jamaica.

(8)         In terms of the immediate issues, however, that are of concern to the OCG, the over-arching question is whether it is your desire (a) that the OCG should be strengthened or weakened as one of the State’s independent, anti-corruption commissions – a Commission that was established 28 years ago to ensure probity, propriety, transparency, accountability and value for money in Government commercial contracting and Government licensing, but which has fallen woefully short in the attainment of its stated objectives – and (b) whether it is your desire that the OCG should possess the lawful authority, under the Contractor General Act, to independently monitor and investigate the pre-contract phases of Government contract awards, and/or the divestment of State assets, without hindrance or obstruction.

Irrespective of what your decision is, I would respectfully submit that the Government and the Parliament should forthwith take the requisite steps to effect the necessary amendments to the Contractor General Act, to lucidly and unequivocally reflect that decision.

If, indeed, it is your wish that the OCG should not have the jurisdictional powers that are currently in question, then that is the lawful prerogative of our Honourable Parliament, and we should forthrightly and publicly say so and do the necessaries, at least to save the tax-payers the monies that are currently being wasted in the OCG’s defence of these unnecessary Judicial Review claims.

Once the requisite legislative revisions are effected, there would be no need, thereafter, for Dr. Davis, or any other entity or person, to persist in any Judicial Review court proceedings that they have instituted against the OCG. However, the requisite structural adjustments to the OCG, to either downsize its operational activities, or to disband the institution altogether, would have to be made, since two (2) of the institution’s major operating mandates would have been terminated.

Should you fail, Madame Prime Minister and Leader, to act urgently and decisively, in the manner that I have respectfully recommended, I can assure you that the OCG will be left in its current state of organizational ineffectiveness, disillusionment, and uncertainty as to what are its true mandates, under the law. Such a posture, I would, respectfully submit, cannot be healthy for inspiring internal or external confidence in Jamaica’s national institutions.

In the premises, the OCG would welcome your urgent indication as to your considered decisions in the matter.

In light of the fact that my seven (7) year Commission as Contractor General will soon come to an end, and having regard to the gravity of the matters that I have raised herein, as well as the bearing that they will undoubtedly have upon the future direction of the Commission, I am also copying my letter, to you, to His Excellency, the Governor General of Jamaica, who is obliged by law to appoint my successor in office after consultation with you.

Additionally, and because I am the holder of a Commission of the Parliament of Jamaica, I have also taken the liberty of copying my letter, to you, to the Hon. Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Hon. President of the Senate, and the Hon. Clerk to the Houses, for distribution to all 84 Members of the said Houses of Parliament.

I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to you the assurances of my highest consideration.

Very respectfully yours,

Greg Christie (Signed)

______________________

Greg Christie

Contractor General

Copy:   His Excellency The Most Hon. Sir Patrick Allen, ON, GCMG, CD, Governor General

The Hon. Michael Peart, MP, Speaker of the House of Representatives

Rev. Senator the Hon. Stanley Redwood, President of the Senate

Mrs. Heather Cooke, Clerk to the Houses of Parliament

Ambassador the Hon. Douglas Saunders, OJ, CD, Cabinet Secretary

Dear Taiwo,
I am in a dilemma and I find it difficult to open up to people on this issue, because the few people I have discussed with are of the opinion that I am a bad person and nobody seems to understand me.

A friend of mine who reads your column advised me to write you and I will appreciate your advice and those of your readers because she (my friend) also got her problem sorted out through the advice she got from your readers.

Apart from the fact that some people who know about this issue feel that I am bad, some even think it is not a possible scenario. But I am right in the middle of it. Apart from knowing that it is very tight, I also know that, I haven’t done anything to be labeled black.

I am just in the wrong place at the wrong time. I never asked to be born at the time I was born. Things like these are beyond our choice, neither did I enjoy living at the mercy of others.

In a plain language, I am a child of circumstances. I equally believe that, after all that I have passed through; I am entitled to happiness and joy. If God who created me, in His Infinite mercies now decided to bring joy my way, then, why would some people decide that they can dictate my fate and stand in the way of my joy and happiness?

I really cannot talk much about my childhood, because I don’t know much about it. But I will tell you the bit and little my mother told me at her death bed, while I was 12. She told me that she came to Nigeria from Togo through her paternal uncle, who promised her mother (my grandmother) a good future. According to my mother, she was quite young when she was brought into a household in Nigeria as an housemaid. Her benefactors, according to her, were rich and very comfortable and she stayed with them for about three years when the father of the house started making passes and advances at her. She would have told her madam, but because of her harsh nature, she couldn’t. But every time “daddy” sneaked into her room, she would beg him not to do anything with her.

She was, however, not lucky, when one night madam and her two children travelled overseas for holidays, “daddy” raped her and that was the beginning of her sexual slavery to him. When her madam came back from her trip, she was unable to tell her because “daddy” told her not to do so and if she told anybody what had been happening, he would deny it and of course, she knew what that meant for her.

She was, however, able to confide in a fellow housemaid in the neighbourhood who was older, though a citizen of Nigeria. It was this fellow housemaid who advised her to keep the situation from her madam and seize the opportunity to demand money from “daddy” whenever he had sex with her.

Unfortunately, her confidant did not tell her about the fears and complications of unwanted pregnancy and when this happened, she spent almost all the money she got from “daddy” trying to get the pregnancy aborted. Along the line, her madam discovered that she was pregnant and sent her packing without bothering to find out who was responsible or waiting for her uncle who usually came at the end of the year to pick her money. She didn’t know how to trace her uncle or where else to go to. Her “confidant” was the only one available to help her. She also was handicapped and couldn’t do much in the area of keeping her for more than a few days in her master’s place.

Eventually, she (the other housemaid) took her to a woman who she knew through another lady, who promised to help her.

The woman, a Lagos socialite with only one physically-challenged son, took my mother in, gave her shelter and food, till she gave birth to me. She became her maid, although she received no salary; what she got in return was shelter, food and education for me, and later a promise that I would marry her son. A son she then promised my mother would be okay to marry me.

My mother died of cancer when I was 12, her illness and helplessness to her disease made me resolute to become a medical doctor. I had no inclination as to how I was going to go about it, but my mind was made up.

Also at her death bed, “big mummy” that was what I called my mother’s benefactor, promised my mother that, she would make sure that I lacked nothing and that she would take care of me like her own daughter.

She was faithful to her words because she did. She sent me to a good school which made it possible for me to realise my dream of becoming a medical doctor.
All the while, her only son who my mother promised her that I would marry had been sent overseas to study and for treatment. We relate with each other, but like siblings. But unfortunately, big mummy does not mince words to tell anyone who cared to listen that I am her daughter-in-law.

Along the line, I met and fell in love with my boyfriend. (I would like to keep his name away from the press for privacy sake. He also is from a popular family. When I started my relationship with him, big mummy had no objection, but when she saw that my relationship was becoming serious, she began to raise objections. I told her that I was in love with my boyfriend and that he also loved me, big mummy told me that I was joking; she said my husband would soon arrive the country and we would get married.

There is nothing she has not done to distabilise my relationship, but boyfriend stood by me. I also enjoyed the support and encouragement of his mother and siblings.

Recently, big mummy called my boyfriend’s mother and told her all about my life. The fact that I was rejected by my father and how she had to take my mother in as a maid. I don’t really know what she hoped to gain by doing this, because if her intention was to make my boyfriend and his family to hate me, it failed, because when I saw that my relationship was becoming serious, I told him all about myself long before now. The only thing I kept back was the fact that big mummy wanted me to marry her son, I didn’t know then that he told his mother all that I told him. So when big mummy wanted to use this as a weapon against me, my boyfriend’s mother told her in plain language that she was aware of all.

Four weeks ago, big mummy’s son arrived from the USA, we had always related to each other as brother and sister, and our relationship remained cordial. Two days after he came into the country, his mother called the two of us and stated her intentions. She asked us to pick a date for our wedding.

Fortunately, I was not the first person to speak, her son told her to forget it, as he had other plans. He also told her that as terrible as his mother thought his situation is he had found his own wife.

I was happy when this came from her son and I thought it would put a stop to the problem, but instead, big mummy accused me of influencing her son and told me that I would regret this. She asked me to leave her house. I wish I had, because her son threatened to leave too if I left because of this. She left me alone, but it has been one problem after the other. The physical abuse and attack from her and some of her friends I could take, but I am afraid she is beginning to go spiritual. I don’t know how to explain this, but few days ago a very close friend of hers asked me to see her on my way from work. She specifically told me not to inform big mummy that I was coming to see her. When I met her, she asked if it was a must for me to stay on at big mummy’s house. I told her that I would have left but because of her son’s threat that I decided to stay on. She advised that I should sleep with an eye opened and that she would advise that if possible I should avoid meals at home. She said a word was enough for the wise, and she wouldn’t say more.

To my surprise, on this fateful day, my boyfriend’s mother also called and told me that she had a terrible dream concerning me and urged me to be careful.

Please, what do I do? I have a good job, I could move out and get my own accommodation, but for her son who had always been like a brother to me, despite all that is happening, I also love big mummy like my own mother, I don’t want to destroy our relationship. I owe her my life and whatever I am today. But I can’t do what she is asking of me, not because of the fact that her son is physically – challenged, but I don’t love him.

She has also refused to welcome or accept his fiancée, by insisting that her son marries me or no other woman. Please, help me.

Anonymous.

Portia Says Mugabe’s Comments Disrespectful

Published: Thursday September 13, 2012 | 4:20 pm8 Comments

Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller.
Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller has responded to the disparaging comments by Zimbabwe’s president Robert Mugabe against Jamaican men calling them unfortunate, misguided and disrespectful.

In a release from Jamaica House a week after Mugabe made the comments, Simpson Miller said the remarks must be dismissed as untrue and disrespectful to the hundreds of thousands of Jamaican men who are excellent fathers, professionals and outstanding citizens.

READ: Don’t be like Jamaicans – Mugabe

“The remarks, regardless of whether they were spoken ‘in jest’ as was stated in yesterday’s edition of the New Zimbabwe Newspaper, were grossly unfortunate, misguided and untrue,” Simpson Miller said.

She continued: “We are confident that the remarks of President Mugabe do not represent the sentiments of the people of Zimbabwe, other African countries, and the rest of the world.”

READ: Mugabe too rude!

The Prime Minister said her confidence is predicated on the fact that there are many outstanding and globally accepted examples of the character and contribution of Jamaican men, who have set the benchmark as exceptional achievers.

Mugabe, on September 5, said Jamaican men were drunkards who were caught up with smoking marijuana and were had therefore deferred leadership to women.

The Zimbabwean president was speaking at the launch of the 2012 Research and Intellectual Institute Expo, in Harare.

[email protected]

More Sharing ServicesShare | Share on facebook Share on myspace Share on google Share on twitter

Asafa Powell here with his neice, the controversial sprinter is said to have not one but two babies on the way. One from popular celebrity host Amita Persaud- Webb and another mysterious unnamed young woman.

A blind self-confessed homosexual who is in custody as a result of his alleged involvement in the lotto scam on Tuesday told the court that he was finding it hard to cope in jail as he was constantly being ridiculed and abused.
Claude Pryce, popularly known as ‘Wendy’, lost his sight in 2009 following a incident in which his lover gouged out his eyes.
The 28-year-old accused, who resides in St Andrew, was arrested on August 8 and charged with conspiracy to defraud after he was allegedly caught collecting nearly $2 million at the Constant Spring Post Office in St Andrew.
On Tuesday, the feeble-looking Pryce — who was making his second appearance in the Corporate Area Resident Magistrate’s Court in relation to the case — begged Magistrate Stephanie Jackson to admit him to bail.
But RM Jackson told him that she could only entertain an application on his next court date on September 27. He was then remanded in custody.
Pryce was arrested at the post office where he allegedly went to collect a Fed Ex package containing US$9,500 and two cheques valued at US$6,000 each.
Police also alleged that they later seized $103,300 from his home.

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Blind-gay-says-he-s-finding-it-hard-to-cope-in-jail_12510085#ixzz26PF1DzAQ

US census figures show more than one in five children are living in poverty
2011 data also show decline in household income for second year as presidential candidates debate economic recovery
Share 190

Email
Paul Harris in New York

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 12 September 2012 11.57 EDT

Food is distributed by a food bank in Deposit, New York. The converted beverage truck delivers fresh produce, dairy products and other grocery items to people in need. Photograph: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
New figures have been released by the US census bureau revealing a yearly decline in median household income for Americans, growing inequality and more than one in five children under 18 years old living in poverty.

In a survey of data for 2011, the census discovered that real median household income in the US had dipped by 1.5% from its level in 2010 to sit at $50,054 a year. The fall is the second consecutive annual drop and comes in the middle of a bitterly contested election in which America’s tepid economic performance has been a central theme.

While President Barack Obama has based his campaign on a claim to have saved America from the brink of financial disaster, Republican challenger Mitt Romney has lambasted the country’s lacklustre economic performance, especially continuing high levels of joblessness.

The figures released by the census also show that little dent has been made on America’s high levels of poverty, with some 15% of the nation – representing around 46.2 million people – living in poverty in 2011. The figures are worse for the very young, where the poverty rate for those under the age of 18 is 21.9% – or some 16.1 million children. These latter figures are roughly unchanged in 2011 from 2010.

However, income inequality in the US has grown. The Gini Index, which measures income inequality, increased by 1.6% to a score of 0.477 in 2011. Though few other countries have yet produced figures for 2011, that number for the US shows a more unequal economy for America than the 2010 figures for countries like Uruguay, Argentina and Bangladesh. Within the figures there was also an increase in the share of aggregate income for the top 20% of Americans of 1.6% and – within that group – the top 5% saw a jump of 4.9%.