It looks obvious

When I served in the Israeli Army, we used to conduct performance review twice a year. At some point the department responsible for the review decided to change the method from a numerical score scale (on a range of 0-100 is memory serve) to a comparative scale (better than most others, much better. and so on). When they analyze the results they were surprised to see that the aggregate results were that all officers are better than the average officer…

Similar logic is applied in Capitol Hill when dealing with SCHIP:

SCHIP is described as serving "poor children" or children of "the working poor." Everyone agrees that it is for "low-income" people. Under the bill that Democrats hope to pass over the president’s veto tomorrow, states could extend eligibility to households earning $61,950. But America’s median household income is $48,201. How can people above the median income be eligible for a program serving lower-income people?