Social Justice: A Feminist Policy Blog

THE PAYROLL TAX CUT: Talk about a Ponzi Scheme!

2011-09-09T08:06:00.003-04:00

Is President Obama trying to kill Social Security without explicitly saying so? He put Social Security "on the table" for consideration by his Deficit Commission -- even though Social Security has not contributed to creating or sustaining the deficit/debt in the first place. He kept Social Security on the table when he made a deal to delegate deficit reduction authority over entitlements to an undemocratic Super Committee. Now, in a speech reportedly about jobs, he proposed to extend and increase the ill-considered FICA tax cut he embraced last December -- a tax cut that directly undermines the financial integrity of Social Security.

According to the White House Fact Sheet on "The American Jobs Act" (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/fact-sheet-american-jobs-act) the FICA tax holiday for workers will be increased to a 50% reduction, lowering it to 3.1%. Under the 2010 tax deal, the payroll tax for workers was reduced from 6.2% to 4.2%. In addition to expanding the tax cut for workers, the President proposes to extend the FICA tax holiday to employers by cutting in half the employer's share of the payroll tax through the first $5 million in payroll.

Big questions about the wisdom, efficacy, and implications of a tax-based jobs strategy need to be debated. Even bigger questions about the consequences of the payroll tax holiday in particular need to be answered. These questions are not just about the relationship between payroll tax cuts and job growth. They are about the future of Social Security.

The FICA/payroll tax goes into the Social Security Trust Fund. This is a dedicated fund currently worth $2.6 trillion, which has been built up over time through employee and employer contributions, along with accrued interest. Current and future Social Security beneficiaries receive benefits from this fund. No general revenues are involved.

Under the payroll tax cut initiated in the 2010 lame duck tax deal, the revenue loss to the Trust Fund from the payroll tax holiday is made up through compensatory payments into the Trust Fund from general revenues. The President proposes to continue this scheme -- deepening a relationship between Social Security and general revenues (read deficit) that did not exist until the December 2010 tax deal. This will make Social Security increasingly vulnerable to demands for "reform."

In the worst case, Congress could choose to enact the payroll tax cut without actually appropriating revenue compensation for the Trust Fund. This would mean that the payroll tax cut directly depletes the Trust Fund, creating financial/actuarial problems far sooner than the currently anticipated shortfall date of 2036.

But even if the Trust Fund receives full revenue compensation -- for both employer and employee contributions -- Social Security will be jeopardized. That's because the resources in the Trust Fund will be increasingly comingled with general revenue funds -- and, hence, increasingly connected to the deficit.

The government has borrowed from Social Security to pay for other things (through IOUs, bonds, etc). It does need to use general revenues to make good on borrowed funds. But this is a debt owed TO Social Security, not a debt caused by Social Security. This is a debt owed to the millions of workers who have contributed to the Social Security system through the payroll tax. However, now that general revenues are contributed to the Trust Fund to offset the cost of the tax holiday, some people will undoubtedly claim that Social Security has become a drain on the national treasury.

Also worth worrying about here is contagious political cowardice about "raising taxes." The payroll tax holiday is framed as just that -- a holiday, ie, a short-lived break. But as we know from other tax cuts with built-in expiration dates, the planned end of a tax cut quickly becomes a "tax increase" in popular parlance. There hasn't been much resolve to allow the years-long tax holiday for the rich to end. When the time comes, will there be greater resolve to allow an end to the 2-year tax holiday for workers and 1-year tax holiday for employers? Even when billed as a "middle class tax increase" and a "job-killing tax on business"?

Once the payroll tax basis of Social Security financing has been corrupted the future of Social Security will no longer be in doubt. It won't have one.

Urge Your Congressmember to CoSponsor the Conyers Resolution Opposing Cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security

2011-09-02T12:14:00.000-04:00

Oppose Cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security

Cosponsor H. Con. Res. 72

Clearly state that any legislative language approved by the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction should not reduce benefits for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid recipients.

Current Cosponsors (38): Grijalva, Lee, Johnson (GA), Thompson, Al Green, Towns, Jackson-Lee, Woolsey, Schakowsky, Jackson, Clarke (NY), Richardson, Christensen, Honda, Waters, Davis (IL), Butterfield, Fudge, Lewis (GA), Cummings, Gonzalez, Kucinich, Filner, Wilson (FL), Bass, Stark, Hinchey, Clarke (MI), Cleaver, Bordallo, Frank, Gutierrez, Courtney, Nadler, Reyes, Olver, Cohen, Rush

Dear Colleague:

As you know, the debt ceiling package that was recently signed into law by President Obama creates a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. This committee is tasked with improving the short-term and long-term fiscal imbalance of the Federal Government by identifying at least $1.5 billion in additional cuts.

The creation of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction makes three of our country’s most vital safety net programs - Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security - targets for cuts. Such cuts would be highly unpopular with the public and would weaken the health of our social insurance programs at a moment when the economy is reeling.

Congress needs to go on the record and state its intent to preserve America’s safety net and social insurance programs. The Super Committee needs to prioritize the preservation of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security and focus on finding a means of balancing the budget that doesn’t harm working families.

If you would like to cosponsor H. Con. Res. 72, please contact Michael Darner in my office at michael.darner@mail.house.gov.

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.

MEMBER OF CONGRESS

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that any legislative language approved by the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction should not reduce benefits for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid recipients.
Whereas S. 365, the `Budget Control Act of 2011', creates a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction tasked with providing recommendations and legislative language that will significantly improve the short-term and long-term fiscal imbalance of the Federal Government;
Whereas large majorities of Americans want to address the deficit in a way that preserves Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits;
Whereas the Medicare program reflects the Nation's commitment to the health and independence of older Americans and Americans with disabilities by providing health care coverage to 42 million people;
Whereas Medicare safeguards beneficiaries and their families from the ruinous costs of medical treatments and prevents individuals from spending unmanageable proportions of their incomes on medical care or being pushed into poverty by their medical bills;
Whereas Medicaid provides a safety net for both low-income and middle-class families who may have family members stricken with catastrophic illness or injury or face prolonged infirmity in old age;
Whereas cuts to Medicaid would severely impact low-income families and individuals with disabilities, and curtail access to critical services, including nursing home and community care services;
Whereas cuts to Medicaid would limit the program's ability to provide women without health care coverage with prenatal, maternity, and postnatal care and hamper the United States efforts to prevent infant and prenatal deaths;
Whereas Social Security provides essential financial support to almost 55 million people in the United States, including more than 35 million retired workers;
Whereas Social Security provides modest benefits averaging $14,000 per year for retired workers, based on contributions paid into Social Security over a worker's lifetime of employment;
Whereas Social Security can pay full benefits through 2035;
Whereas Social Security has no borrowing authority, currently has $2.7 trillion in accumulated assets, and, therefore, does not contribute to the Federal budget deficit; and
Whereas the citizens of the United States deserve thoughtful and fair Social Security reform to protect current and future benefits and to ensure ongoing retirement security for seniors, protections for persons who become disabled, and benefits for the young children and spouses of deceased and disabled workers: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that—

(1) any deficit reduction plan put forward by the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction should not balance the budget by eroding America's hard-earned retirement plan and social safety net;

(2) Medicare's ability to deliver high quality health care in a cost-efficient manner should be strengthened and its benefits should be preserved for current and future retirees;

(3) appropriate reform to strengthen Social Security's long-term outlook should ensure that Social Security remains a critical source of protection for the people of the United States and their families without further increasing the retirement age or otherwise decreasing benefits; and

(4) Federal funding for the Medicaid program should be maintained so that senior citizens, poor and disabled children, and others with disabilities are able to gain and retain access to affordable health care.

Tell the Super Committee: Hands Off Social Security!

2011-08-16T10:10:00.000-04:00

Where the Super Committee Members stand on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid:
http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/where-the-super-committee-members-stand-on-social-security-medicare-and-medicaid

Tell the Super Committee: Hands Off Social Security!
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6405/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4617

What Happened to Obama’s Passion? - NYTimes.com

2011-08-07T12:50:00.000-04:00

From Drew Westen's Op-Ed: "Like most Americans, at this point, I have no idea what Barack Obama — and by extension the party he leads — believes on virtually any issue. The president tells us he prefers a “balanced” approach to deficit reduction, one that weds “revenue enhancements” (a weak way of describing popular taxes on the rich and big corporations that are evading them) with “entitlement cuts” (an equally poor choice of words that implies that people who’ve worked their whole lives are looking for handouts). But the law he just signed includes only the cuts. This pattern of presenting inconsistent positions with no apparent recognition of their incoherence is another hallmark of this president’s storytelling. He announces in a speech on energy and climate change that we need to expand offshore oil drilling and coal production — two methods of obtaining fuels that contribute to the extreme weather Americans are now seeing. He supports a health care law that will use Medicaid to insure about 15 million more Americans and then endorses a budget plan that, through cuts to state budgets, will most likely decimate Medicaid and other essential programs for children, senior citizens and people who are vulnerable by virtue of disabilities or an economy that is getting weaker by the day. He gives a major speech on immigration reform after deporting a million immigrants in two years, breaking up families at a pace George W. Bush could never rival in all his years as president." What Happened to Obama’s Passion? - NYTimes.com

And this is only a partial list of inconsistencies and doublespeak...

Bad Policy, Bad Process, Bad Faith -- Bad Deal

2011-08-01T15:56:00.000-04:00

The Debt Deal certainly is better than the Boehner Bill, and better still than the Tea Party favorite, the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill. But it is nonetheless bad policy, bad process, and bad faith. Arbitrary spending caps and across-the-board spending cuts are lazy, wicked, and destructive mechanisms that disguise glacial policy change. The proposed Super Committee and its fast-tracked decisions are anti-democratic and irresponsible -- both procedurally and substantively -- delegating plenary legislative authority from the many to the few.

The losers in this deal are the people -- especially the poor, the elderly, the medically vulnerable, and the jobless. This debt deal should put an end to Democratic excuse-making for President Obama's failure to end the jobs crisis and his willingness to put the social safety net at risk. In this debt deal, we have a Democratic President serving up to slaughter Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid -- by the Super Committee, whose work must be approved as-is if across-the-board spending cuts or another default crisis are to be averted.

While the deal does not target Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security for immediate cuts, it does offer up Medicare for across-the-board cuts should the Super Committee fail to report a deficit reduction package, should the Congress reject it, or should the Congress kill a Balanced Budget Amendment. The White House says Medicare cuts will affect providers, not beneficiaries. But in the absence of Medicare-for-All or some other single payer system, cuts to Medicare providers inevitably will impose costs on beneficiaries, increasing numbers of providers who refuse to treat Medicare patients.

Social Security and Medicaid are to be exempted from across-the-board cuts triggered by failure of the Super Committee. But before we even get to across-the-board cuts, the Super Committee will be empowered to cut ("reform") Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as part of its deficit reduction package.

This morning, a White House official reportedly lamented that some Democrats just don't see the need to reduce the deficit. What a sad day when a Democratic White House snidely condemns policy makers who express legitimate dismay at a deal that will spread poverty and economic insecurity."

Don't Put the Future of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Seurity in the Hands of a Super Congress!

2011-08-01T12:31:00.003-04:00

Call your Congressmember and Senators today!

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/08/01/whip-the-super-congress-call-and-ask-your-member-of-congress-if-they-like-their-job/

Gang of Six Plan Would Cut Social Security for Ordinary Workers While Cutting Taxes for the Rich

2011-07-20T16:02:00.000-04:00

Center for Economic and Policy Research: Statement on the Gang of Six Plan | Press Releases

"The budget plan produced by the Senate’s “Gang of Six” offers the promise of huge tax breaks for some of the wealthiest people in the country, while lowering Social Security benefits for retirees and the disabled. Despite claiming that they will "reform" Social Security on a "separate track, isolated from deficit reduction," the plan includes cuts to Social Security that would be felt in less than six months, as the plan calls for a new inflation formula that will reduce benefits by 0.3 percentage points a year compared with currently scheduled benefits. The plan also calls for a process that is likely to reduce benefits further for future retirees."

For more information on the Gang of Six Plan see the CEPR Statement at http://www.cepr.net/index.php/press-releases/press-releases/statement-on-the-gang-of-six-plan

Stop the Cuts to the Social Safety Net!

2011-07-20T10:16:00.002-04:00

Medicaid cuts will injure communities of color disproportionately. 11% of Asian Americans, 14% of Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders, 27% of Latinos, and 27% of African Americans gain access to health care through Medicaid.

Medicaid cuts will injure women disproportionately. Women account for 70% of Medicaid participants.

Social Security is survival income for many older women, especially older single women. Fifty percent of women over age 65 rely on Social Security for 80% or more of their income. According to the Institute for Women's Policy Research: Unmarried women living alone aged 65 and older are three times more likely to be living in poverty than married women aged 65 and older (16.6 percent compared with 4.8 percent). Without Social Security benefits, more than two-thirds of these unmarried women would live in poverty.

An increase in the Social Security retirement age equals a cut in benefits. The average benefit for women age 65-74 is $10,300; for men it is $13,400. Neither men nor women can afford benefit cuts.

The "Chained CPI" is a COLA cut. It is a cut in benefits seniors cannot afford. According to the National Women's Law Center: For a woman who gets a benefit of $1,100 at age 65, replacing the current COLA with the chained CPI would mean $56 less per month and $672 less per year at age 80. That may not sound like a lot to some members of Congress—but it’s equivalent to the loss of more than a week’s worth of food per month or 13 weeks of food that year.

Stop the Cuts -- Sign the Petition calling for Congress to RESPECT women, PROTECT Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and REJECT any budget plans that threaten the economic security of women. http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6405/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4411

"Our bedrock social safety net programs should not be adjusted as part of some deal -- any changes to improve the solvency of these programs should stand on their own merits and be considered separately."

2011-07-11T14:44:00.000-04:00

This weekend, nine Senators sent a letter to the President reminding him that Social Security does not contribute to the deficit and so should not be sacrificed in the name of deficit reduction. In addition to Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who sent a strong letter to the President last week, the signers included Senators Akaka (D-HI), Begich (D-Alaska), Blumenthal (D-CT), Franken (D-MN), Merkeley (D-Oregon), Stabenow (D-Mich), and Whitehouse (D-RI).

The letter reads:

Sen. Bernie Sanders: We Will Not Balance the Budget on the Backs of Working Families | Truthout

2011-06-29T06:09:00.000-04:00

Please Sign Senator Sanders' letter urging President Obama to stand up to the Republicans in the budget battle: http://sanders.senate.gov

Sen. Bernie Sanders: We Will Not Balance the Budget on the Backs of Working Families Truthout

Single Mother Poverty Rates Remain Exceptionally High

2011-06-23T09:20:00.000-04:00

single-mother-poverty-fs-eic.pdf (application/pdf Object)

According to a new report by Legal Momentum, single mother poverty in the US persists at a high rate, even when Food Stamps and Earned Income Credits are factored in.

Supreme Court Places High Hurdle for Women to Overcome Pay Discrimination | National Women's Law Center

2011-06-20T14:08:00.000-04:00

Supreme Court Places High Hurdle for Women to Overcome Pay Discrimination | National Women's Law Center

Women Losing Ground as Jobs Crisis Rages » New Deal 2.0

2011-06-10T10:07:00.000-04:00

Women Losing Ground as Jobs Crisis Rages » New Deal 2.0

Social Security Facts

2011-06-02T05:45:00.000-04:00

From the National Women's Law Center: State-by-State Data on the Importance of Social Security to Women and Families:

State-by-State Factsheets: Social Security Vital to Women and Families | National Women's Law Center

Women's Issues and Voices Need to Be At the Table in Budget Talks

2011-05-24T11:30:00.001-04:00

Low-income women have been invisible in budget deliberations thus far – yet they will be injured disproportionately by cuts to income programs like Social Security and TANF, as well by cuts to Medicaid, Medicare and Food Stamps.

Despite the prolonged recession, income assistance to low-income families has shriveled over the past decade, providing help to less than 40% of families who meet TANF criteria and to an even smaller fraction (27%) of all families in actual need. For those who do receive benefits, the cash value has eroded so badly that TANF cash assistance does not bring a family up to the poverty line in any state.

For low-income women and families who have fallen through the shredded TANF safety net, Food Stamps are a lifeline. But the Budget passed by the House in April slashes Food Stamps by 20% and caps spending. This would reduce the availability of Food Stamps to less than 40% of families who are eligible to receive it.

Efforts to weaken and roll back Social Security put low-income older women – especially older single women – at similar risk of economic insecurity. After a lifetime of low and unequal wages, half of all older women rely on Social Security for at least 80% of their incomes. For older single women – divorced, widowed, and never-married – the poverty rate is 20%. Without Social Security, the poverty rate would be even higher. Without Social Security, some 58 percent of all women over age 75 would be living in poverty.

The economic precariousness of life in a shredded safety net needs to be a core consideration in deliberations to reduce the deficit. Women need to be at the table and in the conversation to foreground and challenge budget decisions that will make low-income women even more economically vulnerable .

Support Salon Workers Struggle for Workplace and Reproductive Justice

2011-05-19T09:47:00.000-04:00

Every day, thousands of nail technicians and hair stylists risk their health in order to beautify their customers. Cosmetic products contain chemicals linked to cancer, reproductive and developmental harm, hormone disruption, and other health impacts, yet these products are allowed on to the market without any safety assessments. Join the National Healthy Nail Salon Alliance in asking your Congressmember to sign onto the Safe Cosmetics Act. For more information see: National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum

Unbecoming America

2011-05-09T10:33:00.001-04:00

In the past week I've heard the President proudly report that the US killed an unarmed, if wicked, man (5/1 announcement); I've watched grown ups turn into frat boys and cheerleaders, celebrating the killing of the wicked, but unarmed, dead man (all week); and I've heard the President tell "anyone" who has qualms about the Kill Mission to "have their head examined" (5/8, 60 Minutes).

I've watched the mainstream media downplay the fact that the official story changed each day, each change making it more clear that the US either executed or assassinated the target. The mainstream media seemed to forgive the shifting facts -- some reporters called it "normal" for official reports to be inaccurate.

I've heard people say that the stealth killing of Bin Laden was more efficient and cheaper than trying him, because he was widely reviled as a bad guy. I think it's this claim that most sticks in my craw.

The actions and the discourse of the past week raise all kinds of questions and are laden with implications -- about the constitution, the conduct of foreign and military policy, the integrity of alliances, and about ends justifying means. All questions should be discussed and the possibility that sane Americans can disagree ought to be the value that guides the discussion.

Domestic Spending Accounts for only 15% of Deficit Problem

2011-05-03T07:14:00.000-04:00

From the Washington Post, 4/30/11:

"Polls show that a large majority of Americans blame wasteful or unnecessary federal programs for the nation’s budget problems. But routine increases in defense and domestic spending account for only about 15 percent of the financial deterioration, according to a new analysis of CBO data.

The biggest culprit, by far, has been an erosion of tax revenue triggered largely by two recessions and multiple rounds of tax cuts. Together, the economy and the tax bills enacted under former president George W. Bush, and to a lesser extent by President Obama, wiped out $6.3 trillion in anticipated revenue. That’s nearly half of the $12.7 trillion swing from projected surpluses to real debt. Federal tax collections now stand at their lowest level as a percentage of the economy in 60 years."

See full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/running-in-the-red-how-the-us-on-the-road-to-surplus-detoured-to-massive-debt/2011/04/28/AFFU7rNF_story.html

Gender Wage Gap, Current Threats to Economic Justice Linked - Statement of NOW President Terry O'Neill

2011-04-12T13:43:00.000-04:00

Gender Wage Gap, Current Threats to Economic Justice Linked - Statement of NOW President Terry O'Neill

A Look at the Cuts in the New, Leaner 2011 Budget | FDL News Desk

2011-04-12T12:37:00.000-04:00

A Look at the Cuts in the New, Leaner 2011 Budget | FDL News Desk

Equal Pay Day -- Still Nothing to Celebrate

2011-04-12T10:08:00.000-04:00

Reminding us that Equal Pay remains an elusive goal, the Institute for Women's Policy Research released excellent data and analysis of the persistent gender wage gap. Sadly, women continue to earn less than men across the board: whether they are employed in traditionally female occupations or in traditionally male ones, women earn less than men in the same jobs: women surgeons, women housekeepers, and women salespersons, for example, all earn less than men doing the same job. Women also earn less than men in comparable, though not identical jobs, if those jobs are populated mostly by men. In the labor market as a whole, women in general earn less than men.

According to IWPR: "The ten most common occupations for women employ 28.8 percent of all female full-time workers. Median weekly earnings for women range from $1,039 for ‘registered nurses’ to $427 for ‘nursing, psychiatric, and home health aides’ (Table 1). Women earn less than men in each of these occupations; the gender wage ratio ranges from 74.9 percent for ‘accountants and auditors’ to 95.4 percent for ‘customer service representatives.’... For men, the ten most common occupations employ 20.0 percent of all male full-time workers. Median weekly earnings for men range from $2,217 for ‘chief executives’ and $1,590 for ‘computer software engineers’ to $508 for ‘laborers and freight, stock, and material movers’ (Table 1). Women earn less than men in each of these occupations (although there are too few women ‘construction laborers’ to calculate a gender wage ratio there)." http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-gender-wage-gap-by-occupation-updated-april-2011/

It's pretty embarrassing that 47 years after the nation pledged itself to pay women equally in the Equal Pay Act of 1963, work continues to be devalued if it is performed by women. Lower earnings for women mean disproportionate economic insecurity and poverty for women. So on this Equal Pay Day we should demand heightened governmental commitment to achieving equal or comparable pay in and between jobs. Along with this, we need government to strengthen, not undermine, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security -- and all other programs that help women and their families survive despite a lifetime of unequal, low wages.

Why Aren't Americans Giving More to Help the Victims in Japan?

2011-03-17T11:43:00.001-04:00

So far, Americans have donated only 20% of what they gave for disaster relief in Haiti and less than 10% of what they gave after 9/11.

Both wingnuts and some in the mainstream media mock the Japanese with totalizing caricatures of Japanese culture -- and so douse our generosity and compassion. Whatever you think of the Japanese government or of General Electric (the designer of the Fukushima nuclear campus), the Japanese people are our brothers and sisters.

Please help the victims of this devastating, concatenating, unending disaster!

Here are some ways to give: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/16/how-to-help-japan-earthquake-relief_n_834484.html?ref=fb&src=sp

The Racial Blame Game | Immigration Policy Center

2011-03-01T16:23:00.000-05:00

The Immigration Policy Center lays out important data dispelling claims that immigrants "take away American jobs" or lower wages in the US labor market here:
The Racial Blame Game | Immigration Policy Center

Impact of FY2012 Budget Proposals.pdf (application/pdf Object)

2011-03-01T11:24:00.000-05:00

Thanks to the Women of Color Policy Network, a very helpful summary review of budget cut proposals that will disproportionately harm women of color and their communities can be found here:
2011.PolicyBriefImpactofFY2012BudgetProposals.pdf (application/pdf Object)

The Latest Plan to Undermine Social Security « Social Security Media Watch Project

2011-02-25T12:38:00.000-05:00

The Latest Plan to Undermine Social Security « Social Security Media Watch Project

It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones

2011-02-25T07:17:00.000-05:00

It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones

"A huge share of the nation's economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top one-hundredth of one percent, who now make an average of $27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of us? $31,244." ...

Milbank Misses on the “Hard Truths” About Social Security « Social Security Media Watch Project

2011-02-18T11:32:00.000-05:00

Milbank Misses on the “Hard Truths” About Social Security « Social Security Media Watch Project

Obama Sends Mom's Beloved Program to the Gallows

2011-02-15T08:20:00.002-05:00

Among the many social programs the Obama FY 2012 Budget targets for elimination is the Women's Educational Equity Act. This program historically has been underfunded -- and some years it has received no funding at all. But it has remained on the books and as such has expressed the federal government's commitment to promoting gender equity in education. In his 2012 budget, the President puts this program in the termination column. This cut stings -- the savings it earns is a paltry $2 million, so it feels more like a slap in women's faces than a tough decision in favor of deficit reduction.

The fate Obama has assigned Women's Educational Equity also stings because my mother, the late Congresswoman Patsy Takemoto Mink (D-Hawaii), was the original sponsor of WEEA in 1974 and fought for it throughout her years in Congress. Her last effort to secure funding for WEEA was in 2001, a year before her death, when she fought for WEEA reauthorization in the No Child Left Behind Act. If I recall correctly, WEEA was reauthorized in No Child Left Behind, but was zero-budgeted. In any case, WEEA has been funded since 2001 -- though always at levels far below its programmatic promise.

What my mother loved about WEEA was that it put government in a positive role, nurturing and supporting efforts at all levels of education to improve the educational context for women and girls. In contrast, Title IX, enacted in 1972 and named after my mother after her death in 2002, is a regulatory measure which promotes gender equality by prohibiting discriminatory practices. The two legislative innovations go hand in hand. Title IX requires educational institutions to avoid and remedy discrimination. WEEA gives educational innovators tools to eliminate cultural and ideological barriers (such as sex stereotyping in classroom materials and curricula) to the full participation of girls and women in educational processes while also encouraging programs that advance the incorporation of girls and women into fields that historically have excluded them -- math, science, and engineering, for example.

White House documents that accompany the 2012 Budget state that WEEA objectives will be advanced in other programs. I hope that's true. But in my cursory reading of the itemized Department of Education budget, the word "women" appears only once -- with reference to terminating WEEA.

While the Budget saves a whopping $2 million by killing WEEA, notice that it wastes more federal money on Abstinence Education ($50 million) and on promoting marriage and fatherhood ($150 million).

New Bipartisan Consensus Against the Poor?

2011-02-15T07:01:00.001-05:00

From http://www.accuracy.org/a-new-bipartisan-consensus-against-low-income-people/: The president’s budget is a prosaic austerity plan that inflicts disproportionate pain on low income Americans. Fundamental questions about the costs of war and the fairness of tax cuts for the rich have been avoided by the decision to narrowly target non-security “discretionary” spending to bear the weight of deficit reduction. It used to be Republicans alone who sought to balance the budget on the backs of the poor. But Obama’s 2012 budget takes us to the brink of a new bipartisan consensus against low income people. Will progressives go along?

Social Security Is Not A Budget Issue

2011-02-14T14:22:00.001-05:00

You can review the infectious, insidious discourse linking social security to our deficit problem here:
Social Security: It's All in the Adjectives | MyFDL

Meanwhile, much of the reaction to the President's just-released 2012 budget takes aim at the budget's failure to "tackle entitlements." The whipping boy, here, is Social Security. Legions of politicos and journalists who know better propagandize the claim that the deficit/debt cannot be resolved without cutting Social Security. Following the principle that if you say it often enough it becomes true, pundits and policymakers persist in pretending that Social Security is part of the general budget and is paid for from general funds. Just because you say the earth is flat doesn't make it so. Social Security is off-budget. It is self-financed, through the payroll tax. It has amassed a trust fund surplus, in fact, which provides a secure fiscal future for the program for some number of years (until 2037). Social Security will encounter solvency issues in a couple of decades, but these are not general budget issues and can be resolved by tweaking the program's financing mechanisms (such as by raising the income cap for the payroll tax).

The President himself fanned the hysteria about Social Security's role in the deficit when he appointed the Deficit/Debt Reduction Commission, selected enemies of Social Security as its chairs, and said everything was on the table, including Social Security. Today, he advances this idiocy further on the White House web page for his FY 2012 Budget. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget, which offers an "Explore the Budget" tool that declares Social Security to be part of the budget -- 20% of expenditures, no less!

This is not mere misinformation. It is dangerous misdirection, fueling opportunistic assaults on Social Security.

Is the Social Security Trust Fund a Fiction? « Social Security Media Watch Project

2010-12-22T10:07:00.000-05:00

Is the Social Security Trust Fund a Fiction? « Social Security Media Watch Project

How the White House Is Putting our Largest and Most Loved Social Program at Risk « Social Security Media Watch Project

2010-12-14T13:38:00.000-05:00

The FICA tax "holiday" is a shot to the heart of Social Security. Read Heidi Hartmann's discussion about why and what to do about it:

How the White House Is Putting our Largest and Most Loved Social Program at Risk « Social Security Media Watch Project

Where Did This Guy Go to College?

2010-12-09T06:42:00.000-05:00

At his press conference on Tuesday, Obama said: "This country was founded on compromise. I couldn’t go through the front door at this country’s founding. And if we were really thinking about ideal positions, we wouldn’t have a union."... Is he saying that Emancipation and Civil Rights were the fruits of COMPROMISE? Is he attributing Emancipation and Civil Rights to back room deal-making and soul-selling, just like his tax cut deal? This is self-serving historical inaccuracy. And, in the context of his complaint about progressives feeling "sanctimonious about how pure [their] intentions are and how tough [they] are," Obama's comment must be read as another put-down of the social movements (and soldiers) who fought for transformational change.

Obama Wrongly Describes the Origins of Welfare as the Origins of Social Security -- AGAIN

2010-12-09T06:01:00.006-05:00

At his Tuesday press conference President Obama repeated the claim he
first made in his interview with Jon Stewart six weeks ago: that
Social Security began as a program for widows and orphans. (See my 10/31/10 posting for a clip from the Stewart interview).

At the most elemental level, this is a false claim as Social Security
actually left out widows and orphans when it was enacted in 1935. It
was only in 1939 that Social Security provided for widows and orphans
-- and then only if they were heirs/survivors of husbands/fathers who
were covered by the Social Security system.

Social Security was exactly the opposite of the program Obama
apparently thinks it was created to be. It was pegged to the white,
male worker who was employed in jobs that were available mainly to
white men. It was tied to white, male lifetime labor patterns of
uninterrupted employment. It was (and is) based on contributions from
wages.

Social Security was and is a contributory social insurance program.
The program that initially "only affected widows and orphans" (quoting
from the President's press conference) was welfare -- mothers's
pensions, as it was called in the Progressive Era, then Aid to
Dependent Children, as it became in the New Deal.

Does Obama think that Social Security is welfare? ....ahhh... That
explains everything! No wonder he is so quick to sacrifice Social
Security to the cause of deficit reduction. He must think ending
Social Security is the next phase of welfare reform (which he loved).
Dont be surprised if he tries to extend marriage promotion (along with
fatherhood, his alternative to welfare for single mothers) -- to
seniors.

For more on this see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/08/while-whacking-left-obama_n_794061.html

Obama's 2 Trillion Dollar Sell-Out to the For-Profit Health Care Industry

2010-12-09T05:17:00.001-05:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/08/industry-health-care-deals-haunt-white-house_n_793041.html

Obama's "Tax Holiday" Is A Poison Pill For Social Security | OurFuture.org

2010-12-08T09:44:00.000-05:00

Obama's "Tax Holiday": A Poison Pill For Social Security | OurFuture.org

Progressive Change Campaign Committee

2010-12-07T15:44:00.000-05:00

Progressive Change Campaign Committee

Sign the petition to fight the Obama tax cuts for the rich!

The End of Social Security | MyFDL

2010-12-07T15:38:00.000-05:00

The End of Social Security | MyFDL

President Obama's so-called payroll tax holiday is a shot in the gut of Social Security. Does he want to end economic security for the elderly? As Nancy Altman explains, the payroll tax holiday will ratchet up the pressure to cut and delay Social Security benefits because it means an expanded shortfall from the Social Security trust fund. Obama didn't get the 14 votes on the Deficit Commission needed to kneecap Social Security -- but I guess he found another way.

The Worst Off Get Screwed Over Again

2010-12-07T07:27:00.001-05:00

Obama's soul-chilling, mind-numbing, spirit-sapping capitulation on the Bush tax cuts supposedly in a "deal" for extended Unemployment Insurance -- leaves out the more than 2 million workers who have exhausted their 99 weeks of UI. By next year at this time, there will be an estimated 6 million 99ers -- so not only does Obama's tax deal spread injustice by fattening the rich, it will also spread misery and poverty.

Obama Exposes His Ignorance about Social Security

2010-10-31T10:26:00.000-04:00

http://www.thedailyshow.com/ watch/wed-october-27-2010/ barack-obama-pt--2

While we were yucking up Obama's "heckuva job, Larry" moment, we missed something far more ominous and important. At approximately the 8 min 40 sec mark in this clip, Obama says that "Social Security was originally a small program set up for widows and orphans." !!@#$! ....No wonder social security is on the brink of destruction by Obama's deficit commission, and no wonder so-called health care reform was built on warped principles. He doesn't have a basic understanding of social policy! To say that Obama's thumbnail description of Social Security's history is inaccurate barely scratches the surface of how appalling is the ignorance exposed in that statement.

Poverty Rises

2010-09-16T17:01:00.000-04:00

Poverty Jump and "Shredding the Safety Net" -- Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA):

The rise in poverty in 2009 -- the largest number of people in poverty in the 51 years poverty has been measured -- should be a wake-up call to politicians in both parties who have spent the past 30 years shredding the safety net. The spread of poverty in the past year is only partially explained by the economic collapse of 2008 and the prolonged, acute problem of unemployment that followed and continues. Since 1980, income supports for low-income people have been withdrawn, eroded, and withheld. Notwithstanding the current recession -- deep and intractable as it is -- economic support for poor Americans has remained meager, stingy, and inaccessible.

Between December 2007 and April 2010, TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families] caseloads increased only 12 percent -- even though a 48 percent rise in Food Stamp caseloads attests to the exponential growth in need during that period. The minimal rise in TANF enrollments is not due to an improvement in the economic circumstances of low-income families, especially single mother families. In fact, single mothers are disproportionately unemployed, disproportionately shunted into part-time employment, and disproportionately paid very low wages. The low comparative rise in TANF enrollments is due to the active discouragement of welfare participation by eligible families, the rigid conditions for welfare participation, and the rise of ineligibility due to draconian time limits under so-called 'welfare reform.' The grim new poverty numbers expose a state of economic emergency for low income Americans. It is time to end the 30-year war on the poor and re-dedicate ourselves first to alleviating current misery and then to eliminating poverty.

For more information on the just-released poverty data, see:

http://www.legalmomentum.org/assets/pdfs/reading-between-the-lines.pdf
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb10-144.html
http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf
http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/C350.pdf

Meet The 18 People Who Could Determine The Fate Of Social Security | TPMDC

2010-08-31T09:59:00.000-04:00

Meet The 18 People Who Could Determine The Fate Of Social Security | TPMDC

Why did President Obama appoint a bunch of millionaires to meet in secret about cutting Social Security in the name of deficit/debt reduction? Why did he put Social Security on the commission's agenda? Social Security does not contribute to the deficit/debt. There are solvency problems within Social Security -- a shortfall in payouts thirty-plus years from now. The shortfall problem can be addressed within the framework of the Trust Fund by raising the cap on income that is subject to FICA contributions. The projected Social Security shortfall and debate about how to fix it do not bear upon imminent deficit causes and cures. Do not let the deficit commission make Social Security the scapegoat for true fiscal reforms such as raising taxes on the rich, cutting corporate welfare, ending wars.

White House unloads anger over criticism from 'professional left’

2010-08-11T06:43:00.000-04:00

The Hill Mobile - White House unloads anger over criticism from 'professional left’

According to the White House, progressive critics of Obama-style triangulation/centrism "ought to be drug tested..." Gibbs's ad hominems and overall disrespect for independent thinking makes me wonder why. After all, too many progressives (including some in the "professional left") have bent over backwards to rationalize, justify, and excuse the myriad disappointments emanating from the Obama Administration. There's a lot of mischief either in the works or coming down the pike that we need to resolve to fight -- inequalities in health provision codified in the new health care law; assaults on social security and medicare in the name of debt reduction; deepening stratification of educational quality in the name of education reform; cuts in food stamps and other poverty programs despite rising need for assistance; draconian immigration practices and elitist gestures toward reform; not to mention the disastrous war in Afghanistan. The White House would do well to stand up to the enemies of peace, equality, equity, and justice -- rather than assail those who call them out.

t r u t h o u t | A Long Stay

2010-08-05T07:14:00.001-04:00

383,524 immigrants currently are being detained by ICE -- many of them in private detention centers. Only around 16% of detainees are represented by attorneys. Check out: t r u t h o u t | A Long Stay

Deportation Data Reflect Shift - WSJ.com

2010-08-05T07:13:00.000-04:00

Deportation Data Reflect Shift - WSJ.com

Video: Born in the U.S.A. | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

2010-08-05T07:12:00.000-04:00

Video: Born in the U.S.A. | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

Why Progressives Disappoint Themselves

2010-07-09T17:11:00.000-04:00

Eric Alterman shares many insights in his analysis of why progressives have little to celebrate even though Democrats control the federal government (Kabuki Democracy: Why a Progressive Presidency Is Impossible, for Now | The Nation).

He describes and explains the new countermajoritarianism, pinpointing systemic and individual reasons why conservatives have so often derailed what might have been progressive Democratic initiatives. The problem, though, is that there hasn't been a lot that's progressive in many Democratic initiatives of late, starting with health care reform. So ultimately, Alterman's analysis passes the buck for progressive disappointments -- exonerating Obama and Democrats in Congress by pointing to the influence of factors beyond the Democrats' control -- monied minorities, "the American political system," GOP obstructionist parliamentary games, and more.

We do live in a political universe in which money and media power can drown out, manipulate, or pervert majority will. Polls tell us that even if popular majorities did control how government acts, they would not necessarily or automatically push for inclusive or redistributive or even fair public policies. Political culture and ideology can crimp our solidarity with others, just as the rules and structures of politics can make it difficult to legislate generous policy. But none of these impediments make political solidarity and policy generosity impossible. History teaches us that "change" can happen and can move the polity in a progressive direction.

In Who Cares?: Public Ambivalence and Government Activism from the New Deal to the Second Gilded Age Katherine Newman and Elisabeth Jacobs remind us that individual and collective traits like courage, leadership, and moral compass matter a lot in politics -- and are essential to achieving significant policy change. They look at presidencies that accomplished major social policy innovation to help low income and economically insecure individuals and families, showing that both Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society were not achieved because the proposed policies were popular but because political leaders actually led. As Newman and Jacobs put it, "The essence of leadership is not registering the popular will and transforming it into policy but setting a course and sticking to one's guns in the face of growing resistance." The authors are not calling for elite indifference to public opinion, but correcting the debasing and corrupting impulse to equate democratic decision making with following the preferences of fat cats, polls and focus groups.

Newman and Jacobs compel us to think about the precarious relationship between leaders and public opinion, raising familiar questions about the meaning of representation (weather vane?) and the obligations of representatives (re-election?). The health of the democracy requires us to always think about these questions, and always to demand answers to them from our actual and would-be leaders. But a healthy democracy also requires leadership -- not positioning, difference-splitting, pandering, and pleasing, but advancing bold visions in concrete policy proposals that serve our best principles rather than our narrowest self-interests. Of course compromises will be struck and clear proposals will blur at the margins and become messy within. But if you start in the messy middle and erase the margins of political debate -- as Obama did in the health care debate -- you might end up with a few system tweaks but you certainly won't accomplish progressive change.

The two hallmarks of progressive policy innovation -- Social Security and Medicare -- face uncertain futures as Obama's deficit commission considers strategies to ensure federal "fiscal responsibility." As William Greider explained, "The president intends to offer Social Security as a sacrificial lamb to entice conservative deficit hawks into a grand bipartisan compromise in which Democrats agree to cut Social Security benefits for future retirees while Republicans accede to significant tax increases to reduce government red ink." (William Greider, "Whacking the Old Folks," http://www.thenation.com/article/whacking-old-folks). The commission's work is behind closed doors and its recommendations will not be issued until the end of the year. Whatever the commission does recommend may well be received as fait accompli, the triumphal product of bipartisanship. In creating and charging the commission, our supposedly progressive president has created the occasion for a potentially devastating assault on Social Security and Medicare. What George Bush couldn't win in the name of the "ownership society" Barack Obama may well win in the name of the "deficit-free society." Billionaire Pete Peterson, who has campaigned against Social Security for decades, supports the Obama initiative, including with some of his billions.

The present course does not bode well for progressive policy. But perhaps if progressives hold ourselves and our putative leaders accountable for our own disappointments we could force a change of course. Now that would be change I can believe in.

Fatherhood.gov

2010-06-21T13:53:00.001-04:00

Another Father's Day, another lament that single mothers raise children... The president once again pledged to use government to put fathers in families. This is more bad wine in fancy bottles. Fatherhood.gov coming to your browser soon.

It's time to put a stop to patriarchal public policies. It's time to support caregiving parents, not to divert precious funds and programs to meddle with family forms ...Notice that the President's fatherhood proclamation leaves out single mothers as legitimate or desirable parents. Two fathers are better than one mother, it seems: "Nurturing families come in many forms, and children may be raised by a father and mother, a single father, two fathers, a step father, a grandfather, or caring guardian." (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-proclamation-fathers-day)

Obama Administration Plan to Establish a Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund: Old Wine in New Bottles

2010-06-11T07:30:00.009-04:00

The Obama administration has proposed to extend Temporary Assistance for Needy Families for one year (rather than reauthorize it for five years) and to establish a Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund to replace the current Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood funds. The Innovation Fund would total $500 million (2.5% of the TANF budget) a net increase of $350 million on top of the $150 million that is currently allocated to Healthy Marriage &Responsible Fatherhood annually.

The Alternatives to Marriage Project reports:

"In April, the National Fatherhood Leadership Group offered a one-hour conference call in which two Special Assistants to the President described the proposal and answered pre-selected audience questions. The entire transcript is online. AtMP was among nearly 1,500 participants, listening specifically for clues to whether this administration is wedded to marriage promotion.

The highlight was Question 3 by Phil: Will the current administration be supportive of programs that include couple relationship strengthening, regardless of the marital status of the parents?

[Answer by] Martha Coven: Sure, and Joshua may want to add something here. I think we're open to anything. Whatever the most effective ways are to reach people is what we want, and I think we all know that, and Joshua will probably say this more eloquently than I can. We take parents as prospective parents or folks who shouldn't be parents right away as they are in the various points in their relationships and relationship with each other and with their children. And, I don't think we want to take any point where anyone is currently and take that off the table.

[Answer by] Joshua Dubois: I think that's exactly right. It's very well said, Martha." [it is??]

Another highlight was their explanation that the grant application will not list eligible activities, only broad objectives and strategies. There will not be set-asides for specific strategies (e.g., marriage promotion vs. fatherhood supports). Dubois, who is also Executive Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships referred to the influence of his Task Force on Fatherhood and Healthy Families. Among that task force's recommendations was to "Ensure that programming for couples' employment training, job placement, and financial literacy are allowable activities under federally funded fatherhood, healthy relationship, and healthy marriage grants." (Task Force members vehemently disagreed about whether unmarried couples should be allowed to receive services.)"

In my view, this repackaging of intimate interventions does not end what's wrong with substituting family engineering for economic resources for low-income families.

We have struggled for decades to get government out of our bedrooms and to stop governmental interference in reproductive decisions. Do we really want to invite government into our intimate relationships?

As with pregnancy termination, services should be available and accessible to those who seek them. Counseling for partners should be available through health programs. Preparation for parenting should be available as part of elementary-secondary schooling. Parenting classes should be available for adults who are parents. Supports should be offered to partners who have to flee relationships due to intimate violence.

Educational and support services for parents and prospective parents should not target poor people, should not pathologize poverty. They should reach everyone in recognition that anyone might benefit from parenting support.

But the availability of such educational and support services should not authorize the government to act as a missionary for two-parent families, for marriage, or for fathers.

Some proponents of these sorts of programs argue that bringing fathers into families helps reduce poverty. Other proponents argue that the presence of married fathers in families is a good in itself, regardless of economic consequences. Either way, proponents want to uplift fathers even if at the expense of mothers.

Why should employment training, job placement, and financial literacy -- all mentioned by DuBois, above -- be linked to fathers or to couples? Shouldn't these efforts to improve economic circumstances be directed at individuals, especially individuals who are custodial parents? Why does the economic security of a mother have to be tied to her relationship to her child's father?

The big losers here are single mothers. Every increment of spending directed away from income support for single mother families and toward family formation programs to enhance fatherhood hurts the economic wellbeing of single mothers and their children.

We should embark on a more promising and more just course toward ending poverty. Some first steps down such a path include: wage reform to assure comparable worth; minimum wage reform to assure a living wage; unemployment insurance reform to take women's work patterns into account; education and training supports for low-wage workers and low-income family members; paid family leave; universal child care; income support to caregivers in economic recognition for the work of raising children and caring for family members.

For more on this, see my article "Women's Work, Mother's Poverty: Are Men's Wages the Best Cure for Women's Economic Insecurity," http://www.newpol.org/fromthearchives?nid=164

Marriage Promotion Hasn't Promoted Marriage. And It Certainly Hasn't Met It's Putative Goal of Ending Poverty.

2010-06-09T07:01:00.000-04:00

See Shawn Fremstad's excellent review of a recent evaluation of the Marriage Promotion program:
The Failure of Conservative Welfare Reform: Marriage Promotion Edition

The White House is pushing for agency budget cuts. It should start by ending all federal spending on managing the intimate lives of low income people.

Mink Foundation and Awardee Brittney Ferara featured in Women's Enews

2010-06-08T09:55:00.003-04:00

Scholarships Help Work Around Welfare Limits | Womens eNews

http://www.womensenews.org/story/education/100607/scholarships-help-work-around-welfare-limits

Obama's Racial Politics Examined in New Book

2010-05-12T08:07:00.003-04:00

For a provocative, textured analysis of Obama's racial politics, take a look at Thomas Sugrue's new book, Not Even Past: Barack Obama and the Burden of Race.

The stuff on Hawaii is caricature and confection; it would seriously detract from the whole were it more than a few sentences here and there. At the same time, Sugrue's analysis of Obama's ethnographic odyssey would benefit significantly from a more informed, critical understanding of racial politics in Hawaii during the 1960s and 1970s. For example, a more knowledgeable writer would notice that the intermarriage Sugrue assumes is the norm in Hawaii ca 1961 (when Obama was born) was actually more problematic; he would also notice that the intermarriers, in Obama's case, were not from Hawaii, moved within the cocoon of a university, and included a member of the socially and economically dominant and elitist race.

Similarly, some of Sugrue's efforts to think beyond the black-white binary in expositing shifting boundaries of racial politics could be based on more rigorous invocation of social science data on the relative position of different non-white groups in contemporary America. For example, Sugrue offers outmarriage rates as one piece of evidence of Asian Americans' allegedly better integration into mainstream (white) America. He points to high outmarriage rates among Japanese Americans -- a) without distinguishing between Japanese American populations that enjoy a critical mass (ie, in Hawaii) and those that are tiny and often dispersed minorities (ie, on the US mainland); b) without differentiating outmarriage to whites (arguably a form of integration) from outmarriage to members of other Asian American groups; and c) without acknowledging the uniqueness of Japanese American US demographics given a long history of immigration exclusion and low contemporary rates of in-migration. Sugrue also uses evidence from housing patterns -- stronger evidence, for sure, but still untested by variables such as population density, economic investment, duration of residence, or disaggregation of the census classification of Hispanic racial identities. I read this part too quickly, perhaps, so my reactions might not be fair: but from reading Sugrue's discussion of comparative inequality, one would not know that Latinas earn the lowest, most unequal wages of all women in the US and that Latina single mothers have the highest recorded US poverty rates.

Despite my reservations regarding aspects of Sugrue's analysis, his main project does successfully show how Obama explored and engaged the intellectual, political, social, and strategic dimensions of U.S. race politics from the 1970s to 2008. Sugrue distills the legacies of Martin, Malcolm, and the rights revolution -- both for us, generally, and for Obama, in particular. He shows how Obama the participant-observer experimented with different modes of thinking about race, and he illuminates the seminal influence of certain academic interventions -- ie, William Julius Wilson's various works, especially The Declining Significance of Race and The Truly Disadvantaged -- in providing grist for both liberal and conservative versions of "getting beyond race." By his silence about gender, especially the intersectional gender inequality of the whipping girls of "postracial" politics, Sugrue leads us to question the place of poor, Black women in Obama's philosophical and strategic calculus. Ultimately, Sugrue gives readers tools to consider how Obama the ambitious political actor came to deploy, simultaneously, race-consciousness (among Blacks), color-blindness (among Whites), and middle class gender values (for all) in a Clintonian strategic synthesis. As Sugrue explains:

"By 2008, Obama had developed a patchwork quilt of social politics, one that combined left-leaning calls for cross-class alliance building, Clintonite advocacy for the end of welfare as we knew it, and a Christian moralism that allowed him to build an unlikely bridge between black churchgoers and culturally conservative whites. It was -- as with so many of Obama's key positions -- a synthesis of deep currents in American political and intellectual life in the last third of the twentieth century.... [T]hat synthesis...allowed him to fashion an appeal, at once, to left, center, and right; to blacks who called for a combination of social justice and personal responsibility, to whites who believed that the roots of black poverty lay in individual behavioral and moral failings, to Democrats who had worked to create a new liberalism that combined a jobs-oriented economic populism with cultural conservatism, to those right and center who supported bipartisan efforts to reform welfare, and to those on the left who were uncomfortable with it."

Obama Packs Debt Commission with Social Security Privatization Supporters and Benefit Cutters

2010-05-10T13:56:00.000-04:00

Obama Packs Debt Commission with Social Security Privatization Supporters and Benefit Cutters

Elena Kagan's Troubling Record on Diversity -- In Her Own Bailiwick

2010-05-10T13:45:00.000-04:00

The White House's Kagan talking points are wrong - Elena Kagan, Solicitor General | Obama Supreme Court - Salon.com

The case against Elena Kagan

2010-05-10T07:42:00.003-04:00

As Glenn Greenwald asks in his piece for Salon.com, "If progressives aren't willing to fight Obama for the Supreme Court, what are they willing to fight him for?"

The most generous critique of the Kagan nomination is that Obama has squandered an opportunity to strengthen progressive jurisprudence on the Court. A more realistic critique is that Kagan's nomination directly assails progressive jurisprudential and political principles across a range of policy and constitutional arenas. Greenwald and others have explained Kagan's problematic record of support for expansive executive power, a derangement of the constitutional order. They have also sounded necessary alarms about her willingness to subordinate civil liberties to the "war on terror."

Kagan's willingness to make problematic adjustments to civil rights and liberties are not limited to the national security arena. As a domestic policy advisor in the Clinton White House, she collaborated in the most heinous social policy decision of the 20th Century: punitive welfare reform. Welfare reform embraced Blue Dog and Rehnquist-style fiscal retrenchment and federalist devolution. But it was worse even that that: 1990s welfare reform culminated a race-coded war against poor women with children by imposing inequality on them. At bottom, welfare reform demanded that low-income mothers trade constitutional liberty and equal citizenship for economic security; and it so disdained low-income mothers as mothers that it set in motion a series of policy conditions that undermine low-income single mothers to remain single or to be mothers if they do.

I hope progressives will finally resist the triangulating, difference-splitting, and play-faking we have suffered, mostly in silence, in the name of Change.

See The case against Elena Kagan - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

The Progressive Movement is Officially Dead | FDL Action

2010-05-05T08:07:00.000-04:00

The Progressive Movement is Officially Dead | FDL Action

Diana M. Pearce: Changing the Federal Poverty Measure...or Not

2010-04-22T13:48:00.000-04:00

Diana M. Pearce: Changing the Federal Poverty Measure...or Not

Gender Wage Gap

2010-04-21T09:18:00.001-04:00

C350a.pdf (application/pdf Object)

On Equal Pay Day, Study Finds Women Earn Less Than Men - Whether They Do the Same Job or Different Jobs (FemChat)

2010-04-21T09:11:00.000-04:00

On Equal Pay Day, Study Finds Women Earn Less Than Men - Whether They Do the Same Job or Different Jobs (FemChat)

I HAVE A BRIDGE TO SELL YOU...

2010-03-17T17:50:00.004-04:00

For all you "fix it later" folks: Remember the Civil Rights Act of 1991? Women shortchanged in Title VII remedies "so that we can pass the bill"? In exchange for accepting an albatross, we were promised that the cap on damages in sex discrimination cases would be "fixed immediately." Well, it's nearly 20 years later... and we're still 2nd class citizens under Title VII.

Within the realm of health policy: When Medicare was enacted it was supposed to be the proverbial "foot in the door"... But we couldn't even get kiddicare as an "improvement." US policy history in general does not show that small steps ever lead the way to broad social provision in the structure of programs. We have been able to add previously excluded groups to coverage within existing frameworks -- teachers and domestic workers added to Social Security, eg. But in the current health care proposal, the framework is the problem. It's a framework that unleashes or approves concatenating inequalities in health provision, as well as in personal autonomy. There is no reason to believe that a for-profit, employer-based health care system based on coerced individual enrollment in private coverage can be "fixed," when the only way to provide socially just coverage is through a not-for-profit, not-employer-based, public system of health provision for all.

Fool me three times...?

HOPELESS in WASHINGTON

2010-02-04T07:56:00.003-05:00

Based on its FY2011 budget request for TANF, the Obama Administration continues to link poverty reduction to family structure. The TANF budget request extends TANF funding for one year, including recession-related emergency funds for states that were introduced in last year's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The only proposed change in TANF is the allocation of $500 million for a "Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund." This represents a huge increase in funds for fatherhood and related family structure programs -- from $150 million each year under the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Father Initiative of the Bush Administration, to $500 million in just one year. According to the HHS narrative (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/olab/budget/2011/TANF.pdf) about the proposed family structure initiative, it is hoped that programs supported by these funds will usher in future changes in the TANF program. So, far from a one-shot deal, this is a shot-in-the-arm to proponents of privatizing poverty reduction through patriarchal family norms. Significantly, despite economic hard times, the budget request does not include increases in cash grants to struggling families, a suspension of time limits on eligibility for assistance, an end to sanctions, or a change in rules so that more families in need of assistance can actually get it.

We need to insist on changes to the structure of TANF, not the structure of families. For starters, FY2011 TANF funding should be conditioned on suspending time limits, sanctions, and diversion practices.

2010-01-11T15:50:00.002-05:00

BEYOND STUPAK (II): Why The Language in the Nurse Home Visitation Provision in Health Care Legislation Must be Fixed

by
Gwendolyn Mink and Dorothy Roberts
January 11, 2010

As health care legislation enters its final stages, it appears that the federal government is poised to authorize Medicaid spending for an ambitious, mostly privately-run program that enters and touches the most intimate domains of poor women – without any explicitly stipulated protections of their rights.

Six weeks ago, we circulated a commentary about a provision in the House health care bill authorizing funds for nurse home visitation programs aimed at low-income pregnant women and mothers of young children (H.R. 3962, Section 1713). We were concerned that the provision is not aimed at providing health care. Instead, it pledges to advance goals that endanger the reproductive and family freedoms of low income women, conjures stereotypes of low income women of color, and implies that using available public services is a bad thing. The Senate bill contains a similar provision.

Our commentary focused on the statutory language of the House provision. We did not comment on any existing program, but rather drew attention to the legislative wording, which includes as stated goals an increase in birth intervals, a reduction in maternal and child criminal involvement, and a reduction in dependence on public assistance. Unfortunately, our criticism of the statutory language was misread by many program advocates, who concluded that we opposed nurse home visitation services per se (or their own programs in particular).

We received numerous responses to our commentary. Those who disagreed with us generally argued that the good intentions of the people who run current nurse home visitation programs make the statutory language irrelevant. Some defended the statutory language, saying that it was instrumentally necessary to secure support from a majority in Congress. Others pointed to language in the provision promising that programs will be “outcome based,” arguing that such a requirement guarantees that only “good” programs that “work” will be funded.

To answer the first point, we would draw your attention to the long and persistent history of government programs for poor women that linked the provision of services to the supervision and regulation of poor women’s fertility and family decisions. Some examples: home visitors who used poverty as an occasion to impose Americanizing domestic practices on immigrant women during the early 20th century; eugenicist birth control clinics of the 1920s and ‘30s; sterilization abuse by government-paid doctors well into the 1970s; ongoing child exclusion or “family cap” rules in welfare policy. Some of these policies are deliberately punitive and rights abusive. But even those programs that began with good intentions – such as providing health services to poor women – often have confused poor people’s access to services with government’s access to poor people, using services as a means to regulate the poor.

The argument that outcome-based criteria assures that only programs that “work” will be funded does not dispel the danger that programs will imperil family and reproductive autonomy and liberty. The goals enumerated in the statutory provision are race-coded social, cultural, and economic goals, which measure program success in aggregate sociological terms rather than in terms of the wellbeing of individuals. A program that “works” is one that is correlated with lower welfare participation, fewer births, and the like. Given these measures, what is to prevent a program from discouraging childbearing by clients who participate in public assistance programs? What is to prevent it from impeding participation in public assistance programs altogether? What checks are in place to prevent a program from encouraging use of risky contraceptives by poor women to increase birth intervals in poor families? Ends-means rationalizations are the start of the slippery slope of rights abuse and disregard for the personhood of poor women.

All of the dangers that we note here are rendered even more acute by the extreme delegation and devolution of authority implied by both the House and Senate provisions for nurse home visitation. The details of how program goals are to be measured are delegated to the Department of Health and Human Services and the selection of funded programs is delegated to the states. States, in turn, are expected to fund private programs. Unless protections for women and families are stipulated explicitly in the statutory provision, there is no guarantee that devolved programs will honor the rights and respect the autonomy of their clients. The good intentions of existing programs may protect low income women in the short term. But who knows what the intentions will be of new programs that arise to take advantage of federal funding? Who knows what the intentions will be of the various states in choosing which programs to encourage? Who knows what the intentions will be of an executive branch controlled by a different party?

It is imperative that a government-sponsored home visitation program for low-income women amply and explicitly protects program clients. Express stipulations to assure that participation is voluntary must be part of the statutory package, along with a guarantee that a decision to participate, or not to, cannot be made a condition of receiving other government assistance. The aim of nurse home visitation programs should be to provide medical and wellness services; neither the statutory language nor administrative regulations should permit or encourage monitoring the family and reproductive decisions of individuals, and neither should denigrate low-income mothers for using public assistance. We should do everything possible to ensure that these programs support the women they are intended to serve rather than using women to advance the interests of government.

To this end, we have developed a set of principles we think should guide revisions of the provision in the final version of health care reform legislation:

1) Define the responsibilities of the federal government and the
states and assure accountability of any nongovernmental grantees
regarding all safeguards and requirements listed below.

2) Explicitly enumerate safeguards for individuals and families,
including:

a) apply HIPAA standards to all interactions with home
visitors;

b) guarantee that program participation or non-participation
cannot be used as a condition or criterion for
participation in other government programs;

c) elaborate mechanisms to ensure that participation is
voluntary.

3) Restrict program goals, purposes, definition of needs, and
benchmarks to:

a) providing medical and wellness services;

b) facilitating linkage to appropriate non-medical/wellness
services if the participating family or a family member
seeks assistance for family or sexual violence;

c) facilitating linkage to appropriate education, income
assistance, or food programs if the participating family
or family member so requests.

4) Require home visiting personnel to demonstrate language and
cultural competence in the languages and cultures of the
communities/families visited.

5) Remove statutory language that could be read to support
monitoring/influencing a woman's fertility and family life.

6) Remove statutory language that denigrates low income mothers who
seek or use public assistance.

Gwendolyn Mink, Ph.D., an independent scholar, is co-editor of the two-volume Poverty in the United States: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics and Policy and author of Welfare's End and The Wages of Motherhood: Inequality in the Welfare State. She is on the board of the Institute for Public Accuracy and is coordinator and trustee of the Patsy Takemoto Mink Education Foundation for Low Income Women and Children. She can be contacted at wendymink@gmail.com

Dorothy Roberts, J.D., the Kirkland & Ellis Professor, Northwestern University Law School, is the author of Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty and of Shattered Bonds: The Color of Child Welfare. She serves on the boards of directors of Black Women's Health Imperative, National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, and Generations Ahead. She can be contacted at d-roberts@law.northwestern.edu.

KILL THE BILL

2009-12-16T06:22:00.003-05:00

At this point in the development of legislation, legislators usually are too invested in the process itself to see the grand arc of a given policy's trajectory. If Senators Wyden, Brown, et al would step back a bit and think in terms that history teaches us, they would see that the current health care legislative proposal is not reform. It is a windfall for for-profit health insurance companies. The wellspring of this windfall is the mandate for individuals to feed insurance companies buy buying medical coverage from them.

History teaches us that there is no "improving" bad legislation. Social Security and Medicare have been successful and expandable because the legislation creating these programs advanced bold visions and put sturdy new frameworks in place. Groups were left out initially, social justice deferred -- but the framework that the legislation put into place was conceptually friendly to including excluded groups. Slowly,coverage broadened to include mostly all persons in the labor market. The current health care "reform" bills, especially the Senate bill, is conceptually friendly only to tightening the grasp of for-profit private insurance on our discriminatory, punitive, and arbitrary medical delivery system. Don't let Democrats desperate for a win in the roll-call column tell you that "we can make it better later." It won't happen. To make anything better, we would have to overturn the paradigm the Congress currently is poised to put in place. We never have overturned a social provision paradigm in the short term, and we have never overhauled such a paradigm to make it more progressive. In fact, only one social provision paradigm has been overturned: the New Deal income assistance program for poor single mothers. That change hardly advanced social justice.

If enacted in its current form, health care legislation will come back to bite all of us -- with uncontrolled, soaring premiums; new methods of excluding and punishing patients; unequal access; unequal services. Worse, all Americans will be compelled to prop up the unjust system through mandatory buy-ins to the private insurance system.

If the Democrats need to salvage something, they should split the bill into its component parts. One big part could pass right away -- Health Insurance Reform, prohibiting pre-existing condition exclusions; gender and other demographic rating; annual and lifetime caps on coverage; churning of expensive patients from insurance rolls. Pass that now.

The other big part of the bill should be scrapped, and we should start from scratch. That's the part that is farcically referred to as "universal coverage." End the farce and let's get to work on a truly universal system that covers everybody in the same way.

Progressives should join Howard Dean in standing up for what's right instead searching for a silver lining that tarnished long ago.

Kill the Bill.

Principles for Revising Home Visiting Provisions of Health Care Legislation

2009-12-10T13:03:00.003-05:00

BEYOND STUPAK

2009-11-23T03:46:00.003-05:00

the shocking fertility and family control provisions in health care reform legislation

Gwendolyn Mink, Ph.D. and Dorothy Roberts, J.D.

While the latest clash over health care reform has focused on abortion funding, no attention has been paid to a shocking fertility and family control provision slipped into the House health care bill. Many reform opponents are up in arms over imaginary state intervention in medical care. But the House bill actually would authorize state intervention in a plan to monitor the childbearing decisions and family lives of low-income women.

The House health care bill (H.R. 3962), contains a provision affecting Medicaid recipients who are pregnant for the first time or who have a child under two years of age. Section 1713 allows States to use Medicaid funds for non-medical home visits by nurses to advance certain goals affecting reproductive decisions and family life. The goals include: "increasing birth intervals between pregnancies," "reducing maternal and child involvement in the criminal justice system," "increasing economic self-sufficiency," and "reducing dependence on public assistance."

These goals of the home visitation program have nothing to do with providing health care. Instead, they are based on the false premise that poor mothers’ childbearing is to blame for social problems. The proposed visitation program is eugenicist, deceptive, discriminatory against low-income women, and utterly inappropriate to the medical work of nurses.

Under the program envisioned in the House bill, government-sponsored medical professionals are charged with exhorting fertility control among poor women, based on the mistaken premise that reproduction among the poor leads to crime, neglect, low educational attainment, and dependency. According to the government's own statistics, –families receiving welfare have, on average, only 1.8 children; half the families receiving welfare have only one child, and only one in ten have more than three children.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/annualreport8/chapter10/chap10.htm#4

Although the data show that poverty is not correlated with family size -- and that childbearing does not cause poverty -- the U.S. House of Representatives seeks to tell low-income women who receive medical assistance how many children to have and when to have them.

The House health care bill codifies some of the worst stereotypes of low-income mothers, suggesting that bad reproductive choices and misguided family practices make their families poor. Similarly, the provision blames low-income mothers for raising criminals and accuses them of maintaining unstable and neglectful home lives for their children.

Black mothers in particular have been subjects of deeply-embedded stereotypes about sexual and reproductive irresponsibility that have supported a long legacy of repressive state policies, including sterilization and coerced birth control. The mythical “welfare queen,” portrayed as a black woman who deliberately becomes pregnant to increase the amount of her monthly check, was propaganda used to support welfare reform. Several state legislators even proposed bills requiring women to use birth control or undergo sterilization as a condition of receiving welfare benefits. Immigrant women and other women of color have suffered similar injustices that devalue their reproductive decision making, as well as their parental rights and family practices.

These statutory devices and impositions should sound familiar to anyone aware of the 1996 welfare reform law. It too pivoted on the idea that regulating poor women's reproduction would end their need for welfare. Congress transformed welfare from a system of aid to a system of behavior modification that attempts to control the sexual, marital, and childbearing decisions of poor unmarried mothers by placing conditions on the receipt of state assistance. Section 1713 interprets literally the language of "pathology" from the welfare debate in its plan to "cure" the putative effects of poverty by curing poor mothers' fertility and motherhood.

We applaud the lawmakers who have banded together to take a stand against inclusion of the Stupak amendment in the final bill. But we urge them look beyond Stupak - to support a vision of reproductive justice that extends beyond abortion and respects the childbearing decisions and mothering of all women. Health care reform must not only ensure the right to abortion but also must protect the full spectrum of women's reproductive and family rights. Congress can start to promote the well-being of all women by rejecting eugenicist provisions such as the home visitation program. Any visiting nurse program in health care legislation should stick to providing medical care regardless of economic or social status. Economically vulnerable women should not be treated as sitting ducks for social engineers.

____________________

Gwendolyn Mink, Ph.D., an independent scholar, is co-editor of the two-volume Poverty in the United States: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics and Policy and author of Welfare's End. She can be contacted at wendymink@gmail.com

Dorothy Roberts, J.D., the Kirkland & Ellis Professor, Northwestern University Law School, and Professor, Departments of African-American Studies and Sociology, is the author of Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty and of Shattered Bonds: The Color of Child Welfare. She can be contacted at d-roberts@law.northwestern.edu

Fertility Control of the Poor

2009-11-11T08:04:00.004-05:00

The House Bill includes a section calling for home visits to poor pregnant families and poor families with children to provide cultural/relational and reproductive counseling. This provision is NOT about the delivery of medical services. It is about making the poor "self-sufficient" and less "dependent" on public assistance. In addition to providing for social/cultural interventions, the provision calls for INCREASING BIRTH INTERVALS among the poor -- READ: fertility control.

Say No to Health Care Legislation that Creates More Inequality

2009-11-10T07:47:00.002-05:00

Kill so-called health care reform legislation UNLESS:

1) the public option is available to ALL;

2) the status quo ante is restored for private insurance coverage of reproductive decisions, including abortion;

3) public option coverage for individuals honors the complete reproductive rights of individuals;

4) the provision for government intervention into low income families with children through home visits is removed;

5) price controls on premiums are added; and

6) the scope of the basic benefits package is specified in the statute rather than delegated to an invisible administrative committee that will easily be captured by monied interests.

There are other reasons to defeat the current bills, no doubt.

The good parts of the bills -- eg, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions -- can be legislated separately. It makes no sense to authorize massive government income transfers to for-profit insurance companies. The structure of the current legislation, from abortion through the public option, will deepen inequalities in health coverage and provision, notwithstanding the extension of coverage to many who currently are uninsured.

Enough pussyfooting in the White House and horse-trading in Congress. Back to the drawing boards -- this time Medicare for All.

Obama Health Care Speech - LiveBlog

2009-09-09T19:03:00.003-04:00

http://ipaccuracy.wordpress.com/

Sotomayor Hearings, Day 1

2009-07-15T06:22:00.004-04:00

The Sotomayor confirmation hearings are a sorry reminder of the continuing hegemony of white male privilege. Racisms and sexisms of all stripes -- liberal, as well as reactionary -- so tightly cramp our discourse about inequality that if we don't all pray to the sameness/symmetry/colorblind god, we must be racists/sexists/UnAmerican.

Since the late 1980s, the Supreme Court itself has led the political suffocation of common sense and social justice, with its increasingly harsh insistence that race-sensitive policies of all kinds are evil, whether the policies are geared toward rectifying the marginalization of people of color or toward shoring up the power of white people. Where the Court in Brown v. Board saw marginalization and subordination of people of color as the evil, current jurisprudence holds that power and powerlessness are irrelevant aspects of inequality. Race-neutrality, color-blindness, "treating everybody the same" are the power-blind standards of the controlling discourse.

Gender jurisprudence for the most part has supported this cramped, power-preserving view of equality, with its preeminent concern for winning for women the same treatment/privileges men enjoy -- in sports, military academies, employment and the like. Winning sameness is an important goal where sameness promotes equality, but our singular focus on Constitutional equivalence between men and women has choked off claims and articulations for gender-sensitive remediations and provisions that also are necessary for equality.

In any event, we are stuck in the mid-1970s, circa Bakke, when vast numbers of women of all races and men and men of color could not say out loud what we all recognized as true: that the desegregation of American life entails more than peppering schools, workforces, and politics with a few colored or female faces just for the sake of visual variety; and that desegregation isn't merely about allowing isolated individuals to maximize opportunities and fulfill dreams. Desegregation, whether through bars on race or sex exclusions or through affirmative action, is also important because marginalized groups have something significant and distinctive to offer public discourse and the life of the polity -- because of their social, economic, and cultural experiences.

But if we say that out loud in mainstream political processes, we are called racists (or sexists) by white men who believe they own "neutrality." Jeff Sessions!!! and Lindsay Graham. And the white-dominated media doesn't interrogate their assumptions. Instead, they say things like "strong cross-examination by Senator Graham," or "Sotomayor didn't put the racism charge to rest."

The idea that ignoring race is good (even if to do so exacerbates racial disparities) so grips official consciousness that the obvious response to Lindsay Graham's assertion ("If I said that a wise white man would reach better conclusions than a wise Latino woman, I would lose my job." [sic]) -- cannot even be uttered. Equality is not just about exchanging modifiers in sentences; it's not just about flipping phrases. The reason inequality is still a problem and the reason we struggle over the path to equality is because the standpoint and power of a white man who claims superior wisdom is in no way comparable to the standpoint and relative powerlessness/outsiderness of the woman of color who claims a different wisdom that would improve an outcome.

More later.

TANF Reauthorization

2009-05-22T10:07:00.002-04:00

TANF is due to be reauthorized by October, 2010. Now is the time to formulate an agenda to fix the program. Below are some basic elements of a TANF reform agenda (for starters)...

1) Revise the purposes of TANF. Dedicate the program to the goal of ending poverty.

2) Reframe the issue so that single mothers' poverty is clearly presented as a function of women's economic inequality (both as labor market workers and as caregivers).

3) Dedicate program changes to the goal of mother's economic security and equality. As a larger matter, this includes: a) specifically addressing wage inequalities; lack of paid family leave, UI for family quits, sick days, etc; as well as b) lack of economic valuation and support for caregiving work within families. Within TANF, it means: counting caregiving as work; guaranteeing child care and after care; emphasizing preparation for and access to jobs with living wages.

4) Call for restoring (and improving) the child care guarantee for recipients who are engaged in labor market work activities (including preparation for the labor market).

5) If the work activity formula is retained, broaden the definition of work to include: a) education; b) caregiving for one's own children; c) substance abuse and mental health treatment activities; d) overcoming barriers and time constraints imposed by efforts to escape domestic violence.

6) End marriage/fatherhood promotion within TANF. If the government insists on promoting heteromarital families, it should do so in entirely separate arenas that compel or meddle with everyone equally, regardless of income status.

7) End discrimination against single mothers -- eg the rule (i don't know if it's still in the program) that effectively permitted one parent in married families to remain at home while requiring full time "work" outside the home by lone parents.

8) Get rid of all surveillance of recipients.

9) Guarantee academic and vocational freedom to all recipients who engage in work-related activities. Recipients should not be tracked into certain majors/training programs or prohibited from others based on the government's view of what field of study/training is appropriate.

10) End time limits; end immigrant exclusions; end sanctions.

11) End mandatory cooperation with paternity establishment and child support enforcement for all custodial mothers -- take it out of TANF altogether.

12) Continue TANF as wage supplement for those who enter part-time and/or low wage jobs, to ensure a family income package up to 200% of the federal poverty line.

13) Fix/end barriers to participation in TANF, including diversion programs, discretionary application denials, arbitrary case closings, all sanctions.

14) Guarantee immediate access to TANF income assistance to those who are fleeing domestic violence.

15) Increase TANF benefit levels to 150% of the federal poverty line and provide a transportation subsidy to any TANF participant who must travel more than 5 miles to a job

The Stimulus Package: Relief vs. Reform

2009-01-29T08:20:00.003-05:00

From the Institute for Public Accuracy, http://accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1920:

Co-editor of the two-volume "Poverty in the United States: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics and Policy" and author of "Welfare's End," Gwendolyn Mink said today:

"The stimulus package currently working its way through Congress would temporarily extend Medicaid eligibility to unemployed workers who are receiving unemployment insurance. Though much-needed and welcomed, Medicaid expansion does not repair the tattered safety net. It is a relief measure, by definition short-term and palliative. The COBRA proposal would expand COBRA eligibility for long-term workers and for workers over age 55 who lose their jobs. Though a useful health insurance bridge between jobs or until Medicare kicks in at age 65, the COBRA proposal advances a privatized solution to health coverage rather than expanding the safety net to guarantee health care for all. Neither health proposal takes us toward universal health care, and so neither proposal renews or redesigns the social contract -- unless palliative crisis intervention is meant to replace durable social protections that promote the long-term economic security of individuals.

"If the president and Congress truly are interested in repairing the safety net, they would immediately lift the time limits on welfare eligibility so that poor families can survive hard times. If the president and Congress truly are interested in universal health care, they would expand Medicare rather than tinker with Medicaid and COBRA. If the president and Congress truly are interested in investing in the economic security of all Americans, they would start by assuring that the stimulus package assists everyone -- including women, who need reproductive health care, living-wage jobs, comparable pay, and recognition for caregiving."

WenHoLee.org |

2008-12-03T11:36:00.000-05:00

WenHoLee.org |

WHAT/WHO IS THE "MIDDLE CLASS"?

2008-11-06T14:01:00.004-05:00

This morning, at a Democracy journal forum on the future of the Democrats, the main message conveyed was that Obama must stick to his "narrative" about the middle class. One panelist observed that moderates gave Obama his victory, showing that his message of moderation made sense to lots of people ("he out-moderated the Clintons," said one panelist). Another panelist suggested that the First Hundred Days be dedicated to the Middle Class. That means choosing the right issues, yet another panelist agreed, noting that "Obama didn't really talk about the minimum wage during the campaign because middle class people aren't affected by the minimum wage, they're not minimum wage workers. So he shouldn't focus on those sorts of issues now." The panelists, by the way, were described and/or self-described as part of the progressive community.

Who exactly is the Middle Class that moderate politicians aim to please? The political middle -- as in "centrists"?....Or as in the statistical mean? People who earn less than $250,000/year, as the president-elect suggests? People who earn between $30,000 and $75,000/year, as Charles Schumer implied when he identified the "middle quintile" in his 2007 paean to the Middle Class, Positively American?

At this political juncture, it's useful to remember what Schumer wrote in his book. He exerts enormous, centralized power over the Democratic message as chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Candidate Obama promoted Schumer's version of the Democratic message as he courted Middle Class support over the course of his campaign.

In Positively American, Schumer assigned the following characteristics to the Middle Class. According to Schumer, a middle class person is:

*a homeowner with a mortgage

*a property taxpayer

*someone whose wife works because she "has to" (I guess the iconic middle class person is a man)

*has an income between $30,000 and $75,000 per year

*is a "regular" person

The Middle Class, then, does not include poor people. Later in the book Schumer adds some normative qualities to the Middle Class, most important among them that the Middle Class represents "homogenization," as compared to folks who are "group-identified" (I think that means women and people of color).

If the Democratic Party is going to make the Middle Class its defining cause, we need to agree on some common definitions about who's in and who's out -- both of the class itself and of the bounty of power.

Does being for the Middle Class mean being for or against unions? For or against free trade agreements? For or against Paid Family and Maternity Leave? For or against affirmative action? For or against including transgendered people in the expansion of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to bar discrimination on the basis of sexual/gender identity/orientation? For or against more war in Afghanistan?

INTERPRETING the ELECTION: The End of the Equality Era?

2008-11-06T05:38:00.007-05:00

The end of the Bush Era is something to celebrate, as are the progressive possibilities opened up by Democratic control of both Congress and the White House. But it's not clear to me that we've reached the end of the Republican Era, or that Democratic control means progressive policy outcomes.

President-elect Obama explained his victory Tuesday night as a "defining moment," but given his temporizing, moderating, and triangulating discourse throughout the campaign it is fair to ask what, exactly, has been "defined"? If we look to simultaneous electoral blows to equality and social justice, we need to wonder who will win the war of mandates and how the Democrats will define their agenda.

In California marriage equality endured a fatal collision with an electorate intent on making heterosexual marital privilege a constitutional protection. Florida and Arizona also banned gay marriage. In Nebraska, the war against affirmative action scored another victory, and in Colorado a similar ban on affirmative action is on the brink of an electoral majority (at this writing). Voters in Arkansas, meanwhile, prohibited unmarried couples from adopting or serving as foster parents.

President-elect Obama spoke little about equality issues on the campaign trail. In fact, he won admiration from the white commentariat for not discussing race and for not discussing poverty. The commentariat didn't notice (or didn't care) that he barely mentioned gender issues, other than the relatively safe issue of "equal pay for equal work," and few took issue when he justified his bigoted same-sex marriage policy position on religious grounds. So it should be no surprise, really, that voters in California and elsewhere embraced exclusionary measures aimed to enforce inequality even as they cast their ballots for the first Black president.

If the commentariat (and many Democrats) have their way, Obama's silence on equality issues will mark the end of the Equality Era. By "equality era" I don't mean that equality actually has been achieved. But grassroots struggles for equality -- of rights, opportunities, resources, recognition, respect -- as well as policy steps toward equality have been at the core of progressive politics for several decades.

The revival of the Clinton-era mantra of "helping the middle class" (read: White, genderless, not-poor) and the rise of its cousin, the new mantra of "post-racial politics," further disfranchises the economically, socially, and politically disfranchised by stigmatizing the politics of democratization as divisive and anti-majoritarian.

For example, in their naked exhuberance about "post-racial" (read: post-equality) America, numerous journalists and analysts on MSNBC on the morning of election day declared that an Obama victory would mean that "we have overcome," that "the era of racial recrimination is over," that there can be "no more blaming White America," and that "the left can't trash-talk America anymore." For many, the defining moment that was this election means that the social movements of the 1960s, along with their 21st century heirs, can be put out to pasture (along with the entire Baby Boom generation, if Tom Brokaw's analysis is correct).

While the "middle class agenda" does leave many progressives uncertain about the direction the Obama Administration will take, for some progressives race and gender are fringe issues that distort movement toward economic justice. Progressives who think this way imagine that universalistic economic guarantees will lift all boats, as if the intersecting inequalities of race, gender and class don't create separate inequalities that can only be cured by directly addressing race and gender as distinct, linked experiences of subordination and marginalizaton. There's no such thing as an economic policy that's good for all workers, for example, if elements of that policy do not correct wage discrimination against women and minorities, provide paid family and maternity leave, or target innovations to end the racialized distribution of poverty.

What a bitter irony, if the election of the first person of color to the presidency also dissipates equality imperatives and de-legitimizes equality politics. There is great danger that we are already on a course toward treating race, gender, sexuality, and poverty as irresponsible "wedge" issues promoted by irresponsible advocates from a bygone era. I hope "change" means we can change this course.

GOING FORWARD: Economic Justice for Women

2008-11-04T15:20:00.005-05:00

Here are 10 policies to start us on the path to economic justice for women:

*Strengthen laws prohibiting and remedying discrimination in employment, including pay discrimination

*Re-value work performed by women in the labor market through comparable worth policy for active workers and retirement income adjustments to correct for women's lifetime income losses due to wage inequality

*Index the minimum wage to provide a living wage

*Provide universal, quality child care

*Guarantee universal, quality health provision through a single-payer system

*Expand unemployment insurance for workers who leave or lose jobs when child care breaks down; to deal with domestic violence; or to avoid sexual harassment

*Amend the Family Medical Leave Act to provide paid family leave for workers who leave employment to bear or adopt a child; care for sick family members; or assist elderly kin

*Provide paid sick days for workers to deal with their own medical issues

*Guarantee a caregiver’s allowance to provide an income (and economic recognition) for the work of raising children or caring for family dependents

*Apply a caregiver's income credit to the Social Security system's income history and benefits calculation for retirees

DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM - Trade

2008-08-23T12:12:00.001-04:00

for a good discussion of the Trade plank, see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/breaking-draft-copy-of-de_b_117549.html

DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM - Faith, Fatherhood, and the Death Penalty

2008-08-22T14:13:00.002-04:00

Faith:
The platform repeats the 2004 celebration of faith, directly borrowing language: "We honor the central place of faith in our lives." (p. 48) This is part of a troubling new mainstream consensus that faith is a necessary public value that makes "our nation, our communities, and our lives...vastly stronger and richer." According to this view, the historic separation of faith/religion from public/policy decision-making and governance has been due to misundertandings of the Constitution and the secular base on which it stands.

In addition to articulating a political norm that good citizenship takes faith, the platform provision on faith embraces institutionalized faith -- religious institutions such as churches -- as government's partner. Notwithstanding the establishment clause, the platform summarily declares: "there is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution."

Fatherhood:
The platform section on "Children and Families" (p.49) spends a lot of time talking about making sure children are raised right. In addition to enumerating some policies (eg., Head Start, health care) and parental actions (turn off the TV, help with homework) that would benefit kids, the section also discusses the importance of fathers. Mothers are not mentioned at all (unless a reference to maternal health counts).

I have written extensively elsewhere about what's so troubling about redefining mothers'/children's economic insecurity as mothers'/children's need for fathers. See also the writings of Anna Marie Smith and Julia Jordan-Zachery. Let me draw attention here to the fact that the platform adopts wholesale some rather questionable assertions about the vile consequences for children of growing up without a father. The inevitable result of this argument is pressure on mothers to enter into marriages with biological fathers in order to do right by their children. This bodes a return to patriarchal (and heterosexist) norms and rewards in family policy -- norms and rewards that impede equality for women who are mothers.

Embedded in this section are some useful commitments -- especially a reform of the child support enforcement system to make sure that support payments go directly to families. Also, the notion that family leave can also be availed by fathers is an important addition to the discourse.

However, neither child support reform nor the prospect of fathers taking leave to help raise children justify defining fatherhood as a central component of social policy.

Death Penalty:
The 2004 platform did not advocate the death penalty. One big "change" in the 2008 platform is reference to the death penalty in the "Criminal Justice" section. Although the wording points to discrimination in the allocation of the death penalty, the sentence expresses concern by first endorsing the death penalty: "We believe that the death penalty must not be arbitrary."

This is not exactly a surprise to anyone who heard Obama's response to the Supreme Court's ruling against the death penalty in child rape cases. He denounced the decision, saying that the death penalty is appropriate in these cases, and embracing "state's rights" to make the decision to make certain crimes punishable by death.

Not a surprise, but distressing nonetheless.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM - Choice

2008-08-22T13:13:00.003-04:00

This section of the platform signals an important change: it constructs "choice" in the reproductive context along a continuum of possibilities ranging from pregnancy termination to childbirth. (p.50)

The provision is clear and direct in announcing support for Roe v. Wade and opposing "any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right." One problem here, though, is that Roe already has been weakened. Not only has the recent ruling on late term abortions significantly eroded the protections of Roe; the 1992 Casey decision dramatically undermined the framework for determining when and under what circumstances women may decide to terminate a pregnancy. So while the platform's unequivocal support for Roe should be applauded, we still need to ask whether the party actually will fight for a return for Roe and/or will fight to reverse the regulations enacted by many states to choke off the exercise of the pregnancy termination right.

Obama's recent efforts to temporize on the abortion issue do not suggest an intention to actively -- as well as "unequivocally" -- support the right announced in Roe v. Wade. Recent comments indicate a fixation on women's subjective decision-making: on one occasion, Obama declared he didn't think women should get abortions just because they are feeling "blue"; on another occasion he told Pastor Rick Warren that "women don't make the decision lightly." These sorts of comments, along with the embrace of parental notification provisions, imply that the central issue is women's judgment, not women's rights.

The platform's defense of Roe is not new -- the 2004 platform contains similar language. What is new is the effort to expand how we think about "choice" by coupling support for abortion rights with support for the decision to bear a child. The elements of this support are briefly listed -- pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and adoption programs. There's potential here, but the devil will be in the details.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM - Opportunity for Women

2008-08-22T06:41:00.004-04:00

It's interesting that the Women's plank is titled "Opportunity for Women" -- not Equality for Women, Justice for Women, Economic Security for Women, or Rights for Women of All Races and Classes. "Opportunity for Women" is kind of a throwback construction of sex/gender inequality issues, a reminder of early second-wave agendas to let women into men's world.

There's nothing wrong with the plank's pledge to ensure "that our daughters ...have the same opportunities as our sons." (p.16) But is the right to aspire to men's jobs all the feminist struggle has been about?

The policy elements of "Opportunity for Women" emphasize the labor market -- eliminating the glass ceiling, combating pay discrimination, supporting women as entrepreneurs. The labor market policy pledges may contain one very important new direction: comparable worth. Unfortunately, the references to titles of legislation, rather than to content, make it a little difficult to be certain about intended meaning. The plank commits to enacting the Lily Ledbetter Act, which would counter a 2007 Supreme Court ruling by restoring the status quo ante regarding when the clock starts on employment discrimination claims. The plank also commits to modernizing the Equal Pay Act, but doesn't say how. Current legislative proposals call for improving available remedies under the Equal Pay Act -- is that what is meant? Finally, the plank declares "we will pass the Fair Pay Act" -- but again, I'm not sure what is meant here. The Lily Ledbetter Act is often referred to as the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act -- so is the Fair Pay provision redundant of the pledge to enact the Ledbetter Act? Or does it refer to a current legislative proposal, introduced by Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton -- a proposal that calls for a comparable worth strategy to achieve pay equity? If the latter, this is important. The Fair Pay bill would require employers to pay employees in female-dominated jobs at the same rate as employees in equivalent male-dominated jobs.

Missing from the labor market fairness agenda is support for the Equal Remedies Act, which would lift the caps on damages available in sex discrimination suits under Title VII. Making the full menu of economic remedies available to victims of employment discrimination based on sex has been urgently needed since 1991, when the Civil Rights Act enacted the caps on damages in the first place. Support for the Ledbetter Act without support for Equal Remedies leaves women as second class citizens in the labor market.

The "Opportunity for Women" plank refers to the platform's work and family agenda, as well as to it's anti-poverty commitment, which together round out a strategy for opportunity. But the prize here is getting the same deal in the labor market as men get.

The only mention of women's gendered experiences come in strong language against sexism and domestic violence. So the victimization of women will be fought as antithetical to opportunity.

But the unique work done mostly and willingly by women -- caregiving -- figures here only as an exception to labor market participation (see the Work & Family plank). Attention to caregiving in its own right defies the opportunity paradigm and requires rethinking our framework for justice.

Real change -- bold thinking -- would incorporate consideration for caregiving into an agenda for women through such mechanisms as a caregivers' allowance, portable child care benefits, and remedies for income inequalities (including in retirement) that derive from the disproporationate societal allocation of caregiving responsibilities to women.

Real change would also match the affirmation of rights for all women across all class-based, race-based, and sexuality-based experiences of inequality as labor market participants and as caregivers.

Only in two other spots in the platform are women's rights mentioned -- in the provision on "Choice" and in one titled "A More Perfect Union." More on these pledges in a separate post.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM - Poverty

2008-08-22T05:50:00.002-04:00

Like the Work & Family plank, the poverty plank expresses promising commitments -- especially the goal of cutting poverty in half within ten years. Notably, the plank explicitly notices that the majority of adults in poverty are women and links fair pay and support for mothers to poverty's cure.

But beyond admittedly welcome platitudes, the plank is mostly bromide. Expand the EITC; raise and index the minimum wage; strengthen unions; increase affordable housing -- we've heard this before. These are important ingredients of an anti-poverty policy, but they are not enough.

Real change would include consideration of expanded income programs, especially for caregivers; reformed and expanded unemployment insurance to assure income to workers who must leave jobs, whose jobs are taken away, who are stuck in part-time employment, or who need to overcome barriers to employment such as domestic violence, substance abuse, or mental health issues; the addition of a caregiver credit to the social security benefits calculation; paid family leave; universal child care; universal, single payer health provision; transportation offsets for low-income workers who must commute long distances to jobs; economic assistance for education and training; an end to labor market discrimination; a living wage.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM - Work & Family

2008-08-22T05:00:00.004-04:00

This plank is potentially promising -- depending on what the stated policy commitments actually mean and how they are to be operationalized. Unfortunately, there's lots of wiggle room, because broad pledges are not backed up by specifics. The one reference to a specific plan of action is disappointing.

What's promising here is the focus on family leave -- on expanding the conception of covered leave beyond pregnancy/adoption and personal/spousal illness. The family leave issue does not mark a new direction for the Democrats -- the 2004 platform called for expanding family leave, too -- but the idea that leave should encompass situations beyond parenting and nuclear family sickness is an important elaboration. The commitment expressed here is for the FMLA to cover workers who take leave to care for an elderly parent, address domestic violence and sexual assault, "or attend a parent teacher conference" (this last circumstance is not exactly in the same ballpark).

However, expansions of the categories or circumstances of guaranteed leave do not correct some of the fundamental deficits of existing law. For example, given the Defense of Marriage Act, the FMLA does not extend the leave guarantee to lesbian or gay workers in marriages who need it to care for a sick spouse. Nor does the FMLA extend the leave guarantee to same sex partners in civil unions or other non-marital relationships. Meanwhile, non-biological parents in same-sex unions who are denied adoption rights in some jurisdictions are not eligible for the parenting component of the FMLA guarantee. Without changes in the FMLA and/or marriage equality for same sex partners, the expansion of leave protections to domestic violence situations will not be useful to same sex partners exiting abusive relationships; and expansions of caregiving criteria for leave will repeat exclusions of workers caring for a sick same sex partner or raising a non-biological child in a same-sex parental union.

Other limitations of the current law include the exclusion of large numbers of workers due to the size of their employer and/or due to the loss of an income during the guaranteed leave. The federal family and medical leave law leaves out 40% of workers (because employers with fewer than 50 workers are exempted under the law) and many covered workers cannot avail themselves of leave because the guaranteed leave is unpaid. Seventy-eight percent of workers who have not been able to take leave report that the reason is that they couldn't afford it.

So imperative aspects of FMLA expansion include 1) covering employers with fewer than 50 employees so that more workers are covered and 2) providing paid leave so that more workers can avail themselves of the leave guarantee.

The platform plank does not affirm either change. There is no mention of expanding coverage to reach more workers (by reducing the minimum size of covered firms). The plank does mention the problem that leave is unpaid, but seeks to address this issue by "working with states to make leave paid." While a few states do have good temporary disability programs that cover parental and personal/spousal medical leave situations, bucking responsibility of providing paid leave to the states is a sure way to ensure uneven, patchwork protections that prolong rather than resolve problems. And it is no way to ensure that the expanded categories of leave (eg, domestic violence) would be provided in a meaningful way: one of the biggest problems for DV survivors is the lack of personal financial resources to exit an abusive relationship; unless a survivor has access to an income she cannot avail herself of leave, and may not be able to leave her abuser.

There are many ways to accomplish the goal of paid family leave; passing the problem along to the states is not one of them. Paid family leave could be made a stipulation of federal contracts; the federal government could provide such leave to all public workers; and the unemployment insurance system could be modernized to cover unemployment and/or leave spells due to personal circumstances involving care for a child, care for oneself, or care for dependent adult family members.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM: Retirement Security

2008-08-19T15:31:00.005-04:00

The retirement and social security plank (p. 13) is fairly staple Democratic fare: protect Social Security from privatization; protect workers' pensions from corporate raids, corporate bankruptcy, etc; strengthen retirement security. The only news in the plank is the pledge to "automatically enroll every worker in a workplace pension plan" -- but it's not clear what this provision means, how it would work, or whether it would strengthen or endanger Social Security.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM: Health Care

2008-08-19T11:48:00.003-04:00

Many progressives are cheering the health care plank of the DP platform because it commits to a goal of health care for all. Laudable language about a "guarantee" for individuals loses some lustre in the details, however. The system of health care provision described by the platform is a hodgepodge of individually-purchased and/or work-based private insurance, with an optional alternative "public plan" for those left out. That kind of patchwork does not get us out of the for-profit, hierarchical system of provision that is largely tied to employment. Progressives used to be for a tax-based (not employment- & premium- based) system much like medicare. Now many are settling for the promise of "affordability" -- which is a promised based on the assumption that individuals pay for insurance...and get what they can pay for. To back up its choice to tinker with the existing system -- expanding the public system to pick up some slack and otherwise making private coverage "affordable" -- the platform states that as health coverage becomes more affordable, "individuals should purchase insurance and take steps to live healthy lives." (platform p.10-11). Under the Democratic "guarantee" not only are individuals expected to bear the burden of health care provision but they bear blame for becoming unhealthy, too.

The 2004 DP platform declared health care "a right not a privilege." That platform contained different emphases, but not a different impulse. In 2004, the party was concerned with costs and affordability, the expansion of SCHIP, prescription price negotiation for seniors, and pushing scientific boundaries to fight disease -- concerns espoused this year, as well. Two commitments articulated in 2004 are not repeated this year: 1) to provide all Americans with access to the same coverage that members of Congress give themselves, and 2) a Patient's Bill of Rights.

Despite some differences of degree and formulation between 2004 and 2008, the two planks belong to the same tradition of health care reform. So much for "change".

Is Obama the End of Black Politics?

2008-08-18T11:46:00.002-04:00

Link to Matt Bai article from last Sunday's NYT Magazine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/magazine/10politics-t.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=matt%20bai&st=cse&oref=slogin

Can you believe there are no women in an entire article about Black Politics?

OBAMA and FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

2008-08-18T11:42:00.003-04:00

His default position is that every controversial rights question is "a matter of state's rights". This was his response to Rick Warren's questions about a consitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriage. This was his response to the Supreme Court's ruling against the death penalty in child rape cases. I suspect this will be articulated as his default position on abortion rights -- states have "rights" to require parental consent, ban late-term abortions (provided there's a health exception), etc. On the same sex marriage question, McCain and Obama gave the same answer!! After defining marriage as between a man and a woman, both said it's a matter of state's rights. Worse, Obama made it sound like he has an even greater reverence for the heterosexual bond "as a Christian" because marriage "is sacred."

We're supposed to drink the koolaid for THIS?

An Obama Presidency: "Post-Racial," Cheap Salve for White Guilt, or Advance toward Racial Justice?

2008-07-23T05:38:00.001-04:00

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/22/obama.hurt.blacks/index.html

Could an Obama presidency hurt black Americans?

By John Blake
CNN, 7/22/08

(CNN) -- "We had a dream. Now it's a reality."

That's the slogan on a popular T-shirt linking Sen. Barack Obama's presidential run to the Rev. Martin Luther King's dream of racial equality. It's one of several T-shirts -- including "Barack is my homeboy"-- that reflect African-Americans' euphoria over Obama's White House bid.

But there are others who warn that an Obama presidency could hurt African-Americans. They say an Obama victory could cause white Americans to ignore entrenched racial divisions while claiming that America has reached the racial Promised Land.

Paul Street, author of the forthcoming book "Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics," says Obama risks becoming an Oval Office version of talk-show host Oprah Winfrey. She and former Secretary of State Colin Powell are African-American figures whose popularity allows some white Americans to congratulate themselves for not being racist, he says

"They're cited as proof that racism is no longer a significant barrier to black advancement and interracial equality," Street said.

"This isn't new. Go to the 19th century, and Southern aristocrats would point to a certain African-American landowner who was doing well to prove that whites are not racist."

Nick Shapiro, an Obama spokesman, says Obama believes that America has made tremendous progress in the past 50 years. iReport.com: Biggest challenges for black America

"However, the suggestion that somehow Senator Obama's campaign represents an easy shortcut is not realistic," Shapiro said in a statement. "Senator Obama believes that we still have a lot of work to do, and that's not just true for the issues facing blacks or Latinos, but for women and other communities struggling to secure the basic necessities in life like jobs, housing, health care and quality education."

Are we a post-racial society?

Any suggestion that an Obama presidential victory could set back race relations may seem odd or even inappropriate. His presidential campaign has been framed by many observers as a glowing example of America's move to a "post-racial" society.

"Racial polarization used to be a dominating force in our politics, but we're now a different, and better, country," Paul Krugman, a New York Times columnist, wrote last month about Obama's political rise.

The reaction in the African-American community to Obama's success has also been celebrated with joy.

When Obama became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee in June, many African-Americans cried because they said they never thought they would live to see such a day. Vendors soon started selling T-shirts of Obama's portrait pasted alongside King in Walgreens stores and at online stores.

Yet there are a few political commentators who warn African-Americans that an Obama victory could be twisted to suppress the push for racial equality. Most of these commentators are African-American, but they also include white, Latino and conservative pundits.

These commentators say that there is a subliminal appeal to Obama's presidential candidacy that has been ignored. Obama doesn't just represent change; he represents atonement for America's ugly racial past for others, they say.

Steve Sailer, a columnist for The American Conservative magazine, wrote last year that some whites who support Obama aren't driven primarily by a desire for change.

They want something else Obama offers them: "White Guilt Repellent," he wrote.

"So many whites want to be able to say, 'I'm not one of them, those bad whites. ... Hey, I voted for a black guy for president,' " Sailer wrote.

Sailer cited another reason why many whites want Obama as president:

"They hope that when a black finally moves into the White House, it will prove to African-Americans, once and for all, that white animus isn't the cause of their troubles. All blacks have to do is to act like President Obama - and their problems will be over."

Glen Ford, executive editor of the online journal blackagendareport.com, offered some white Americans a free solution to the race problem: "Millions of whites came to believe Obama could solve the 'race problem' by his mere presence, at no cost to their own notions of skin privilege," Ford wrote in an essay in January.

Other African-American commentators say the "post-racial" tag attached to Obama could be used to dismiss legitimate black grievances.

Andra Gillespie, an assistant professor at Emory University's political science department, says Obama's success doesn't mean America has become a post-racial society. She says it may signal the decline of individual racism but not another form of discrimination: systemic racism.

"It doesn't mean that there aren't prejudiced people anymore," she said.

Systemic racism is a form of racism that's entrenched in institutions. Some argue that it's the primary cause for intractable problems in the African-American community that range from substandard public schools to disproportionate rates of imprisonment, she says.

Electing a black president does not mean that America is ready to take on systemic racism, Gillespie says.

"A rising tide doesn't lift all boats," Gillespie said. "Just because gets elected doesn't mean the lives of poor black people are automatically going to improve."

It could actually get worse for poor African-Americans, she says.

"People could say if Barack can succeed and someone can't get off of the stoops in the hood, it's their fault, and it has nothing to do with systemic racism," Gillespie said.

D. Yobachi Boswell, a blogger for Black Perspective.net, wrote in January that the prospect of Obama victory was making African-Americans politically passive.

He wrote that too many African-Americans were "doping ourselves up on the euphoric opium" of a black president while forgetting that "we need fundamental change, not just Negroes in high places."

Boswell says he's concerned that an Obama presidency would discourage African-Americans from keeping leaders accountable.

"We can't give a pass because he's black," Boswell said. "We just can't have a black face in a high place. We have to have people fighting for policies that actually help us."

Obama has responded to such criticisms before. In his "A More Perfect Union" speech in March, he dismissed claims that his candidacy was fueled by the desire "to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap."

He acknowledged that racial disparities in education and wealth continued to exist and were linked to the legacy of Jim Crow and slavery.

"I have never been so naive as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy, particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own," Obama said during that speech.

A black backlash against Obama?

Despite what Obama has said, his presidency could provoke a black backlash because the expectations are so high, others say.

African-Americans who would expect a President Obama to be a vigorous advocate for their cause may be disappointed by Obama's approach to race if he becomes president, some say.

Author Street says Obama may be a symbol of bold racial change but he is personally cautious about race. A President Obama won't want to appear to favor blacks, because he might lose political support if he appears as the "angry black man" in the White House.

Street says Obama understands that risk and has run as a "race-neutral" candidate who talks about racial oppression as something largely confined to the past.

"Barack plays a very active role in damping down race consciousness," Street said. "Race neutrality is one of the great characteristics of his campaign."

African-Americans may also be disappointed by an Obama presidency because they may have forgotten what Obama is: a politician, says David Sirota, author of "The Uprising," a book that examines how populist movements in America shape public policy changes.

"He's like any politician. He's cautious," Sirota said. "He's a potential vehicle for change, and I think he is a good vehicle, but he is just a vehicle."

His presidency may represent fundamental change, but that doesn't mean he will initiate such sweeping changes if he's elected.

"Politicians, even the best-intentioned ones, are weather vanes," Sirota said. "If the wind isn't blowing in the right direction, they will perpetuate the status quo."

It will take more than a presidential candidate to change the status quo; it'll take a movement, Sirota says.

"My concern is that people will think that by simply electing Obama, change will come, whether it's on race or economic justice issues," he said.

"If people believe that, then real change will not happen."

--------------------

OBAMA LOG cont'd

2008-07-10T08:39:00.001-04:00

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11654.html
("Obama Walks Abortion Minefield," Politico, 07-10-08

OBAMA LOG cont'd

2008-07-09T06:19:00.001-04:00

See Bob Herbert, "Lurching with Abandon," NYT 7-8-08:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08herbert.html?ex=1373256000&en=1b877bfddc0dad7e&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

OBAMA LOG cont'd

2008-07-08T06:15:00.003-04:00

Recanting Peace Now?

*“If current trends continue and we are at a position where we continue to see reductions in violence and stabilization and continue to see some improvements on the part of the Iraqi army and Iraqi police, then my hope would be that we could draw down in a deliberate fashion in consultation with the Iraqi government at a pace that is determined in consultation with General Petraeus and the other commanders on the ground,” Mr. Obama said in the interview. “It strikes me that that is something we could begin relatively soon after inauguration. If, on the other hand, you’ve got a deteriorating situation for some reason, then that’s going to have to be taken into account.” Obama in an interview for Military Times, published July 7, 2008. (See related NYTimes story, http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/republicans-again-call-obama-inconsistent-on-iraq/)

OBAMA LOG cont'd

2008-07-06T12:10:00.002-04:00

More triangulation...

*Adds to assault on third trimester abortion rights by gratuitously expressing opposition to allowing "mental distress" to justify late term abortion. Explains that while he supports a health exception to abortion restrictions, the exception can't apply just because a woman is "feeling blue."

*Reaffirms commitment to faith-based delivery of public social services in remarks to a conference of the African Methodist Episcopalian Church. Suggests he would apply the lessons of his church/faith to his policy decisions as president.

OBAMA LOG cont'd

2008-07-03T11:17:00.002-04:00

More split the baby...

*Opposes California Marriage Protection Initiative because it might impair domestic partnerships and civil unions. But also opposes marriage equality. Says domestic partnerships and civil unions are ok.

OBAMA LOG cont'd

2008-07-01T15:41:00.006-04:00

More centrism/triangulation:

Week of June 30, 2008

*Embraces the crux of George Bush's Faith-Based Initiative, calling for more funding for an expanded church-state partnership in social service program delivery.

(Is Barack Obama this year's Bill Clinton ca 1992?
See Paul Krugman, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/opinion/30krugman.html?scp=3&sq=krugman&st=nyt)

OBAMA LOG - Why Progressives Should Beware

2008-06-27T15:47:00.010-04:00

A log of Obama's split-the-difference/centrist/triangulating statements:

Week of 6/23/08:

*Runs television ad claiming (among other things) that he "passed" "welfare-to-work" welfare reform when he was a state legislator and offers his support for Clinton-era welfare reform as evidence of his midwestern values

*Backs off pledge to filibuster against the FISA bill. Now says he will vote for it, despite telcom immunity, etc.

*Condemns Supreme Court's ruling against extending death penalty to child rape. Says it should be "up to the states"

*Applauds Supreme Court's ruling striking down DC gun ban. Says the 2nd amendment guarantees and individual right to bear arms

*Some of his faith community surrogates begin talking about running on an "abortion reduction agenda"

Week of 6/16/08:

*Opts out of public financing for general election campaign so that he can raise and spend unlimited money

*In an interview with Fortune, dials back his opposition to NAFTA

*Plus ca change foreign policy team: (from Institute for Public Accuracy, news release, 6/19/08)

Some background on "Senior Working Group on National Security" members:

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT
Albright was secretary of state and UN ambassador in the Clinton administration. When Lesley Stahl asked "We have heard that a half million children have died [in Iraq from the sanctions]. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and you know, is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it." (CBS News, May 12, 1996). During the Rambouillet talks prior to the bombing of Yugoslavia, Albright reportedly told Western media the U.S. government felt "the Serbs need a little bombing." Albright insisted that Yugoslavia comply with demands at Rambouillet that basically would have allowed NATO to occupy Yugoslavia: <http://accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=168>. Also, see "Albright's State Deportment" by Ian Williams:
<http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk /kosovo/Kosovo-controversies21.html>.

DAVID BOREN
Boren was chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Consortium News, in "Blackmail & Bobby Gates," reports on Boren preventing meaningful investigation into allegations of an October Surprise. See: <http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111406.html>. Boren has been called "my lifetime mentor" by former CIA head George Tenet. (CIA speech, May 10, 2003) See also SourceWatch: <http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_L._Boren>.

WARREN CHRISTOPHER
In January 1993, as Bill Clinton was about to take office, Clinton stated about Iraq: "I am a Baptist. I believe in death-bed conversions. If he [Saddam Hussein] wants a different relationship with the United States and the United Nations, all he has to do is change his behavior." Clinton was immediately and widely criticized for indicating he might lift sanctions and even normalize relations with Iraq if it complied with UN resolutions. Christopher, then Clinton's incoming secretary of state, actually joined in the criticism: "I find it hard to share the Baptist belief in redemption. ... I see no substantial change in the position and continuing total support for what the [Bush] administration has done." Clinton quickly backtracked: "There is no difference between my policy and the policy of the present administration. ... I have no intention of normalizing relations with him." Thus the George H. W. Bush policy of maintaining the sanctions on Iraq regardless of Iraqi compliance with the weapons inspectors continued through the 1990s. See, from the Institute for Public Accuracy, "Autopsy Of A Disaster: The U.S. Sanctions Policy On Iraq": <http://www.accuracy.org /article.php?articleId=44>.

GREGORY CRAIG
Craig was director of the State Department Office of Policy Planning in the Clinton administration.

RICHARD DANZIG
Danzig was secretary of the Navy in the Clinton administration.

LEE HAMILTON
Former chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Hamilton also co-chaired the Iraq Study Group, the 9/11 Commission and the Iran-Contra congressional investigation. Consortium News writes: "Whenever the Republicans have a touchy national-security scandal to put to rest, their favorite Democratic investigator is Lee Hamilton. ... Hamilton's carefully honed skill for balancing truth against political comity has elevated him to the status of a Washington Wise Man." See "Dr. Hamilton and Mr. Hyde," which includes detailed information and suggested questions for Hamilton. See: <http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/032608c.html>.

ERIC HOLDER
President Reagan nominated Holder to become an associate judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. In 1993, President Clinton nominated Holder to become the United States attorney for the District of Columbia. In 1997, President Clinton appointed Holder to serve as deputy attorney general.

TONY LAKE
In the Clinton administration, Lake was national security adviser as well as White House special envoy.

SAM NUNN
A former senator, Nunn was chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

WILLIAM PERRY
From "Not Quite a Dream Team: Some of John Kerry's Foreign Policy Advisers Should Give Pause to Progressives" by Laura Flanders: "As Clinton-era secretary of defense, Perry spearheaded a post-cold war plan to restructure the defense industry, but the Perry plan wasn't quite the 'peace dividend' Americans had in mind. Perry pushed a government program that paid military contractors to consolidate, arguing that only vast conglomerates would have what it takes to compete in the 21st century. The Pentagon provided partial underwriting for defense industry mergers. In what critic Bernie Sanders, I-VT, dubbed 'payoffs for layoffs,' Perry's Pentagon picked up the costs of moving equipment, dismantling factories and providing golden parachutes for top executives. Foreign Policy in Focus reports that Perry had to get a conflict of interest waiver before he could greenlight the merger-subsidy program. He worked as a paid consultant for Martin Marietta immediately before joining the Clinton administration. "Today, Lockheed Martin, which was created in a merger announced just months after the start of Perry's policy, is the nation's top weapons maker. Its component parts include Martin Marietta, Loral Defense and General Dynamics. The mergers shrank company payrolls, but hugely expanded their political influence. When he retired in '98, Perry joined the board of one of the biggest -- the Seattle-based Boeing Corporation. For those who are interested, Perry also joined the Carlyle group, the Saudi-based firm whose partners include no end of world leaders, including former British Prime Minster John Major, former secretary of state James Baker and the first President Bush." (Feb. 18, 2004)

SUSAN RICE
Assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration, Rice has been a prominent foreign policy spokesperson for the Obama campaign. Here are some of her claims shortly before the invasion of Iraq: "I think he [then Secretary of State Colin Powell] has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them, and I don't think many informed people doubted that." (NPR, Feb. 6, 2003) "We need to be ready for the possibility that the attack against the U.S. could come in some form against the homeland, not necessarily on the battlefield against our forces. And I think there, too, is an area where the American people need to be better prepared by our leadership. ... It's clear that Iraq poses a major threat. It's clear that its weapons of mass destruction need to be dealt with forcefully, and that's the path we're on. I think the question becomes whether we can keep the diplomatic balls in the air and not drop any, even as we move forward, as we must, on the military side." (NPR, Dec. 20, 2002) "I think the United States government has been clear since the first Bush administration about the threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein poses. The United States policy has been regime change for many, many years, going well back into the Clinton administration. So it's a question of timing and tactics. ... We do not necessarily need a further Council resolution before we can enforce this and previous resolutions. (NPR, Nov. 11, 2002)

TIM ROEMER
A member of the 9/11 Commission, while he was a congressional representative, the South Bend Tribune (Indiana) reported: "U.S. Rep. Tim Roemer joined a bipartisan majority in the House in voting to give President Bush authority to use military force against Saddam Hussein and Iraq. 'The threat from Saddam is grave and growing and it's something we're going to have to address in the not-too-distant future,' Roemer said from his office in Washington after the vote. The resolution passed by a vote of 296-133, a clear indication of strong support for plans to eliminate Iraq's threat of chemical and biological weapons." (Oct. 11, 2002)

JIM STEINBERG
Steinberg was deputy national security adviser in the Clinton administration.

Week of 6/2/08:

*"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," Obama declared Wednesday, to rousing applause from the 7,000-plus attendees at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference.

eugenic immigration bill

2007-05-24T11:18:00.000-04:00

As Law Is Renegotiated, Immigrant Families Are on Edge

By JULIA PRESTON

Published: May 24, 2007

A bipartisan bill would worsen the plight of legal immigrants who have been waiting as long as seven years to bring their families to live with them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/us/24family.html

eugenic immigration deal

2007-05-23T11:37:00.000-04:00

Statement and action alert on the Senate's compromise immigration bill
Posted by: "Priscilla Huang" phuang@napawf.org huangpris
Fri May 18, 2007 10:10 am (PST)

Dear NAPAWF members and allies,

Yesterday, the Senate reached a deal on a compromise immigration bill. Although the proposal offers a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, the process could take up to 13 years and would require the head of household to return to his or her home country and pay over $5,000 in fines and fees. The plan would also establish a temporary-worker program, but fails to offer a path to permanent legal residency for these workers.

The Senate "compromise" also includes a plan to replace most family-based immigration categories with a merit-based system that would award points based on educational achievement, technical work experience and English fluency. The proposal would eliminate adult children and sibling categories, and place a cap on the number of visas available for citizens to bring in their parents. This is a significant departure from our current system where family reunification has been a core value of the United States' immigration system since 1965.

NAPAWF is concerned that the plan will have an adverse impact on Asian and Pacific Islander immigrant women. Historically, family sponsored immigration has been a significant source of the Asian and Pacific Islander community's growth. Immigrant women in particular enter the United States through family-based visas at disproportionately higher rates than men. Clearly, Asian and Pacific Islander women have a strong stake in this debate. NAPAWF strongly believes that comprehensive immigration reform must preserve, and not eliminate, the country's current family-based categories for immigration.

It's not too late to act! The Senate is expected to bring the bill to the floor for debate next week. Our friends at the Asian American Justice Center and Asian Law Caucus have made it easy for you to tell your senators to preserve our family-based immigration system. See the action alerts below:

Protect Asian American Families:
Call Your Senator Today!

Imus - Women of Color Resource Center Action Plan

2007-04-11T16:39:00.001-04:00

Enough with the apologies. Don Imus is a foul-mouthed barbarian and an incorrigible repeat offender. Clearly heâ€™s got to go.

The corporations that promote Imus and provide him with a protective shield apparently believe that ongoing expressions of racism and sexism are fine, as long as they contribute to the bottom line. Itâ€™s time to make them recalculate.

Here are three things you can do to get Don Imus fired:

1. Boycott General Electric (GE).

Itâ€™s tough to boycott a radio show or a television broadcast, but itâ€™s oh-so-easy to buy a different brand of light bulb.

Don Imus appears on MSNBC television in the morning. MSNBC is part of the NBC News Division. General Electric owns 80% of NBC. So buy another brand of light bulb. Hold off on buying that GE washer/dryer set until Imus is out of there. For a long list of GE consumer products that you can refuse to buy, visit www.ge.com/en/product/home/index.htm.
Hit GE in the wallet and hit them hard. Remind them that you have a long memory and that you expect Imus to stay fired.

Send a note to GE Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt letting them know youâ€™ve switched brands â€“ moved on to Sony, Whirlpool, whatever â€“ and that youâ€™ll consider buying GE again when Imus is gone. Send a copy to us at fired@coloredgirls.org.

Jeffrey R. Immelt - Chairman & CEO
Phone: (203) 373-2211
Email: jeffrey.immelt@ge.com

General Electric Company
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06828-0001

2. Take it to the Top.

Don Imusâ€™ radio show is broadcast via CBS Radio a division of CBS Corp. Les Moonves is the President/CEO of CBS Corp

He needs to hear from you. He already knows Imus is at least a temporary liability. Moonves and the CBS Board of Directors need to hear from you that he is an unsustainable, permanent liability. And we need to hear from them exactly how the protection of racist and sexist speech on their stations aligns with their mission, values and strategic plan. Demand a statement from the board as a whole and from each individual member.

Board member Bruce S. Gordon, until recently the Executive Director of the NAACP, has just called for Imus to be fired. Back up Mr. Gordon as he takes the lead in convincing his fellow board members that CBS can no longer afford Don Imus. Again, copy us at fired@coloredgirls.org.

Call Les Moonves directly: (323) 575-2600
Email: leslie.moonves@tvc.cbs.com.
FAX: (323) 653-8276

Leslie Moonves
President/CEO
CBS Television
7800 Beverly Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90036

3. Create an Irresistible Force.

Imus is a moveable object. We can get him fired.

Forward this e-mail to everyone you know. WORK YOUR LISTS!!! Expand the GE boycott, keep the pressure on the CBS board of directors. Imusâ€™ two-week suspension is time for the suits to calculate how much itâ€™s going to hurt them to keep him on board. Itâ€™s your job to let them know itâ€™s going to hurt real bad.

Do it for the Scarlet Knights, for yourself and for all of us who deserve a healthier media environment.

Women of Color Resource Center

Imus - Why Are Political and Media Elites Treating This Like A First Offense? A Unique Occurrence?

2007-04-11T09:52:00.000-04:00

from The Washington Post

Out of Imus's Bigotry, a Zero Tolerance for Hate

By Michael Wilbon
Wednesday, April 11, 2007; E01

If calling the Rutgers women's basketball players "nappy-headed hos" was the first deplorable and offensive utterance out of shock jock Don Imus's mouth, there probably wouldn't be a national firestorm over his reprehensible characterization. If this was some rare event, then there wouldn't be organizations lining up to demand he be fired. If this was the first time, or second, or 10th, probably Imus wouldn't have been suspended for two weeks from his syndicated radio show, which is simulcast on MSNBC.

But there's nothing rare about Imus's vile attacks. This is what he does as a matter of course. Imus and his studio cohorts have painted black people as convicts and muggers and worst of all, apes. Not only do they find it funny, they expect everybody else will as well.

Sid Rosenberg, whom Imus once fired, then rehired, said one morning in 2001 that Serena and Venus Williams would be better off posing in National Geographic than Playboy. He knew he was saying Serena and Venus are closer to wild animals than women.

Please don't tell me it's not fair to hold Imus accountable for that remark and others like it because it didn't come out of his mouth. Imus hires the people who utter this filth and, in fact, wants them to go as far as possible because he believes it insulates him to a certain degree from the harshest criticism.

This is what Imus has done for years and years, and Viacom and NBC Universal pay him a king's ransom to do it. Imus has been questioned about his tactics over the years, and he says repeatedly and dismissively, "Get over it." He certainly isn't the only morning shock jock doing this, but he's the one whose behind is being scorched now and justifiably so.

Imus is the one who said in 1995 of Gwen Ifill, an accomplished, award-winning black journalist of incredible dignity and grace: "Isn't the [New York] Times wonderful. . . . It lets the cleaning lady cover the White House."

It's Imus who called William C. Rhoden, the veteran Times sports columnist, "a quota hire." Of course, the work, accomplishments or stature of their targets do not matter to Imus and his stooges. He makes fun of former attorney general Janet Reno's Parkinson's disease.

So "nappy-headed hos" wasn't some weak moment of great exception on the Imus show. In 1997, during a "60 Minutes" profile, Mike Wallace confronted Imus and a former producer who quoted Imus as saying he'd hired a staffer to "do nigger jokes." When I mentioned that earlier this week on ESPN's Pardon the Interruption, Imus responded on his show that it simply did not happen -- though I see it in a 2000 issue of the Columbia Journalism Review and had a producer access it through a transcript (also the audio version) on National Public Radio.

Wallace: "You've told Tom Anderson, the producer, in your car coming home that Bernard McGuirk is there to do nigger jokes.'"

Imus: "Well, I've . . . I never use that word."

Wallace: "Tom?"

Tom Anderson: "I'm right here."

Imus: "Did I use that word?

Anderson: "I recall you using that word."

Imus: "Oh, okay, well then I used that word, but I mean . . . of course that was an off-the-record conversation . . ."

Wallace: "The hell it was."

So, you'll excuse me if I dismiss Imus's apology as bogus. He's apologized in the past, told veteran black journalist Clarence Page on the air he would "promise to cease all simian references to black . . . black athletes." That was before Imus went back to the ape references, probably within a week.

Understandably, this has led to a whole lot of folks calling for Imus's head. Personally, I'd rather see Imus have to confront anger, scorn and ridicule every single day. I'd rather see him have to deal with the accusation of being a bigot. I'd rather the criticism come at Imus from every angle, indefinitely, rather than have him slink away to private life.

You'll have to excuse me for not believing a man can utter this brand of filth month after month, then proclaim testily he's not a bigot. Firing, in some ways, would let him off the hook too easily. I'll defend Imus's right to free speech, while pointing out that those of us who find him and his goons contemptible have the exact same right to free speech. I'd rather see Imus squirm in the face of withering criticism than be fired and turn up six months later as some kind of martyr.

I'd rather see him snubbed by Cal Ripken, who refused to go on the air with Imus after his remarks about the Rutgers women. Ripken was supposed to appear on the Imus show yesterday to promote his new book.

Already a little squeamish about appearing on the show, Ripken's decision to tell Imus no became an easy one after the latest spewing. "It was set up by the publisher, but I said no because I don't want anybody to perceive that I condone those comments because I don't," Ripken said in a telephone conversation yesterday. "And if you go on that show, that's exactly what the perception would be."

Ripken said he does not want to be seen as someone wielding a moral compass. But I wonder now how many of these prominent journalists and politicians who use the platform Imus provides (and therefore give him cover) will have as much conviction as Ripken displayed.

Imus, not surprisingly, is trying to frame the discussion in a way that paints him as a good guy who did a stupid thing, which might be okay if he wasn't such a serial offender. Yes, Imus routinely has riveting political discussions, as recently as last fall when he engaged Harold Ford, then running for the U.S. Senate, in conversations about running for office as a young black man in the South, in this case Tennessee. When Imus says he's not unfamiliar with black people, he's telling the truth. He's not some idiot segregationist who seals himself off from black people, which is what makes these episodes even more disgusting.

If you believe the bosses at Viacom and NBC Universal have any guts, and I'm not sure I do, then you might believe the suspension represents a warning of zero tolerance from here on in and that Imus is one more incident from being dumped. And while I'm not agitating for Imus to be fired, I'd certainly raise a toast if it happens. Until then, what Imus has prompted is a necessary national conversation. The meeting with the Rutgers women is necessary -- so is the vigil to stand over him and remind him that even if he doesn't get it, many of us do.

Imus - No Excuse for Racism

2007-04-11T09:46:00.000-04:00

from The Washington Post

What Is Revealed By a Crack in the 'Good Person' Facade
What Is Revealed By a Crack in the 'Good Person' Facade

By Lynne Duke
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 11, 2007; C01

They never mean it, do they?

Comedian Michael Richards didn't mean to exude racism when he exploded in an N-word tirade at a heckler during a performance.

Actor Mel Gibson didn't mean to exude anti-Semitism when he drunkenly blamed Jews for the world's wars.

And following the curious pattern, radio personality Don Imus didn't mean to demean and humiliate those Rutgers University basketball players when he called them "nappy-headed hos."

They never mean it. It's as if some involuntary reflex makes them do it -- perhaps anger, in Richards case; or alcohol in Gibson's. But how to explain Imus? He tried to generate some edgy laughs for an audience that delights in the daily shots he takes at whomever he feels like shooting (blacks, gays, women, especially Sen. Hillary Clinton). Or perhaps, some suggest, the episodes reflect an impulse toward racism and sexism, forever lurking just beneath the surface of public life, judging by the number of episodes we have witnessed in recent years.

Racism? That word. So many bristle at it, wishing it weren't so, denying its existence, calling those who raise it paranoid. Like it isn't a fact of American life.

Jim Sleeper, a lecturer at Yale University and author of "Liberal Racism: How Fixating on Race Subverts the American Dream," is not all together comfortable with the word "racism." He believes it's often flung about carelessly, as part of what he calls a "blame game" that damages race relations further.

And yet he acknowledges that these words as weapons don't just spring from mistakes or gaffes, but from some deep recess within.

"Whatever it is, it's in them," Sleeper says of the animus that propels bile from men who, with their public platforms, could be helping propel the nation's racial discourse forward. "Instead, they're carriers of the virus rather than cures."

Roger Wilkins knows racism, has witnessed it, experienced it, studied it.

"It's deep in the culture," he says. A George Mason University professor and author of "Jefferson's Pillow: The Founding Fathers and the Dilemma of Black Patriotism," he talks of the comfort zone that has been afforded many in the majority culture, white men in particular, to exercise a kind of systemic social superiority that allows them to put down folks of a different kind. It's what Wilkins calls "white male privilege" and the "psychic comfort" it offers.

"I think with Imus it really is that he's been getting away with so much stuff for so long that he misjudged the size his comfort zone," said Wilkins.

Indeed, suddenly Imus seems rather squeezed, beset by the innocence of the young women of Rutgers, by the broadcast companies that have, suddenly, decided to pull his coattails with that two-week suspension; by the professional haranguing of the likes of the Rev. Al Sharpton, who is not without baggage in the realm of public excoriation, owing to his inflammatory past as a rabble-rouser connected to a case of fabricated police abuse.

"I find it amazing that Reverend Al Sharpton has become the ethical officer for America," says Mitchell Moss of New York University.

Some have pointed out that young women are routinely and unfortunately called "hos" in some rap lyrics. "That doesn't make it any more right for anyone to say it, it doesn't matter if you are African American, Caucasian, Asian, it really doesn't matter," said Rutgers team captain Essence Carson at a news conference yesterday. "All that matters is it's wrong."

Sometimes there's a price to pay.

Former Virginia senator George Allen lost his reelection campaign after he lobbed an ethnic slur meaning monkey at an opposition campaign worker. And early this year "Grey's Anatomy" star Isaiah Washington was forced to undergo behavioral counseling when he derided a co-star for being gay.

The infamy of the loose tongue has plagued public figures for decades. In the late 1980s, House Republican leader Robert H. Michel pined on television for the "fun" of the days of "Amos 'n' Andy." Los Angeles Dodgers executive Al Campanis was fired after saying in a 1987 TV interview that blacks weren't qualified for sports management jobs and, more strangely, that they lacked "buoyancy" in a swimming pool. And who could forget sports commentator Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder lauding the breeding in the days of slavery that he said produced the black athlete of today? He predicted darkly that "if blacks take over coaching like everybody wants them to, there is not going to be anything left for the white people."

Afterward, Snyder said, "I apologized. I admitted I made a mistake in what I said and how I said it and was willing to let my record speak for itself." CBS fired him anyway.

Of his "hos" comment, Imus said pretty much the same thing yesterday on "Today." "It was comedy. It wasn't a malicious rant. I wasn't angry. I wasn't drunk. I wasn't stating some sort of philosophy. As I stated yesterday morning, I'm not a racist. And I've demonstrated that in my deeds and my works."

This is the classic appeal to the "authentic self," says Orlando Patterson, a Harvard University sociologist. In other words, trying to override bad behavior by pushing the notion that deep down you are a good person. It goes like this:

"You've just got to believe I'm a good person. You've got to believe me. I'm telling you and this is the truth."

"It's a kind of arrogance, if you ask me," says Patterson.

This lack of honesty, this denial, could be a reason this unfortunate phenomenon of bilious public language keeps happening again and again and again, Patterson said.

This time, the young female athletes of Rutgers are collateral damage, their courageous basketball season forever associated with the "nappy-headed ho" slur.

Team member Matee Ajavon said yesterday: "I think it kind of scars us. We grew up in a world where, of course, racism exists and there's nothing we can do to change that. I think we've come a long way from where we were, you know, dealing with slavery. . . . But I think this has scarred me for life."

Imus - Eugene Robinson column

2007-04-11T09:10:00.000-04:00

from The Washington Post

Misogyny in the Morning
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, April 10, 2007; A17
What would possess nappy-headed radio host Don Imus to think "nappy-headed hos" was an amusing way to describe the Rutgers University women's basketball team? Why would it occur to him to say such a thing even in private conversation, much less to millions of listeners on CBS Radio and the MSNBC cable network?The simple answer would be -- all together now -- racism. Imus employed that horribly offensive phrase against young black women who are students at a great university and who also happen to be superb athletes. If I had a daughter on that team, I'd want to slap that cowboy hat right off Imus's unkempt head.At this writing, Imus is in full self-flagellation mode. He made the offending comment last Wednesday. On Thursday, he dismissed the whole thing as unimportant. On Friday, as criticism mounted, he apologized. Yesterday, MSNBC and CBS Radio suspended his show for two weeks. By then, Imus had entered the soul-searching phase, apologizing again and telling listeners, "I'm not a bad person. I'm a good person, but I said a bad thing. But these young women deserve to know it was not said with malice."I can accept that Imus doesn't believe he is racist, but "nappy-headed hos" had to come from somewhere. Jobs have been lost and careers ruined for similar rhetorical offenses. The Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have called for Imus to resign or be fired, as have officials from the NAACP and the National Association of Black Journalists. I'd shed no tears if Imus were compelled to retire to his ranch, where he could sit at a microphone every morning and regale the livestock with late-breaking opinions.But I'd rather lock him in a room with the parents of those Rutgers kids and let him try to explain himself. I'm not sure that kicking him off the air would accomplish much of anything, since there would still be plenty of morning radio jocks spewing racism, misogyny and other forms of cruelty for the amusement of gridlock-bound commuters. Howard Stern, another radio superstar who has expanded into television, recently held a degrading "Miss Black Howard Stern" contest.Drive-time radio has become a free-fire zone, a forum for crude and objectionable speech that would be out of bounds anywhere else. There's an intimacy about radio. The medium creates the illusion of privacy -- it's just the jock and his or her entourage speaking to you, the listener, alone in your car where nobody else can hear.Maybe, in your heart of hearts, you think some of those stereotypes are true -- about black people, or white people, or Latinos or Asians. Somewhere on the radio dial you'll find some jock who not only agrees but is willing to say so out loud, willing to ridicule those "others" and thus cut them down to size. You can have all your prejudices confirmed on your way to work. It's almost like putting on a suit of psychological armor.If anything, Imus is more substantive and less offensive than many of his competitors. In a sense, that's one reason for his current predicament. Prominent politicians and other notables regularly call in to his show, and sometimes actual news is made -- which brings him greater scrutiny. You can be a shock jock or you can be a respected interviewer, but you can't be both.One question remains, though: Why would Imus think to use the word "ho" to describe those young women from Rutgers -- or, for that matter, to describe any women?The word is an abbreviation of "whore" that was introduced to the popular lexicon by hip-hop music and that appears to have become firmly established. We know what the word used to mean, but it's not so clear just what it means now.Rappers use it as basically a synonym for "woman," but their lyrics are so focused on sex that the word retains the connotation of loose morals. The word is often used these days in contexts where that sexual connotation is ignored. It's still there, though.It's easy to surmise that Imus came out with the word "ho" because hip-hop is an African American art form and he associated the word with black women. He knew nothing about those women from Rutgers, except that they were black. It's hard to imagine him describing, say, a Swedish basketball team as a bunch of "stringy-haired hos."That's something for Imus to think about as he performs the ritual public examination of his soul -- and fights to keep his job. Meanwhile, the rest of us should banish that hateful word "ho" from the language.

Imus - Gwen Ifill Op-Ed

2007-04-11T09:01:00.000-04:00

April 10, 2007

Trash Talk Radio

By GWEN IFILL

Washington

LET’S say a word about the girls. The young women with the musical names. Kia and Epiphanny and Matee and Essence. Katie and Dee Dee and Rashidat and Myia and Brittany and Heather.

The Scarlet Knights of Rutgers University had an improbable season, dropping four of their first seven games, yet ending up in the N.C.A.A. women’s basketball championship game. None of them were seniors. Five were freshmen.

In the end, they were stopped only by Tennessee’s Lady Vols, who clinched their seventh national championship by ending Rutgers’ Cinderella run last week, 59-46. That’s the kind of story we love, right? A bunch of teenagers from Newark, Cincinnati, Brooklyn and, yes, Ogden, Utah, defying expectations. It’s what explodes so many March Madness office pools.

But not, apparently, for the girls. For all their grit, hard work and courage, the Rutgers girls got branded “nappy-headed ho’s” — a shockingly concise sexual and racial insult, tossed out in a volley of male camaraderie by a group of amused, middle-aged white men. The “joke” — as delivered and later recanted — by the radio and television personality Don Imus failed one big test: it was not funny.

The serial apologies of Mr. Imus, who was suspended yesterday by both NBC News and CBS Radio for his remarks, have failed another test. The sincerity seems forced and suspect because he’s done some version of this several times before.

I know, because he apparently did it to me.

I was covering the White House for this newspaper in 1993, when Mr. Imus’s producer began calling to invite me on his radio program. I didn’t return his calls. I had my hands plenty full covering Bill Clinton.

Soon enough, the phone calls stopped. Then quizzical colleagues began asking me why Don Imus seemed to have a problem with me. I had no idea what they were talking about because I never listened to the program.

It was not until five years later, when Mr. Imus and I were both working under the NBC News umbrella — his show was being simulcast on MSNBC; I was a Capitol Hill correspondent for the network — that I discovered why people were asking those questions. It took Lars-Erik Nelson, a columnist for The New York Daily News, to finally explain what no one else had wanted to repeat.

“Isn’t The Times wonderful,” Mr. Nelson quoted Mr. Imus as saying on the radio. “It lets the cleaning lady cover the White House.”

I was taken aback but not outraged. I’d certainly been called worse and indeed jumped at the chance to use the old insult to explain to my NBC bosses why I did not want to appear on the Imus show.

I haven’t talked about this much. I’m a big girl. I have a platform. I have a voice. I’ve been working in journalism long enough that there is little danger that a radio D.J.’s juvenile slap will define or scar me. Yesterday, he began telling people he never actually called me a cleaning lady. Whatever. This is not about me.

It is about the Rutgers Scarlet Knights. That game had to be the biggest moment of their lives, and the outcome the biggest disappointment. They are not old enough, or established enough, to have built up the sort of carapace many women I know — black women in particular — develop to guard themselves against casual insult.

Why do my journalistic colleagues appear on Mr. Imus’s program? That’s for them to defend, and others to argue about. I certainly don’t know any black journalists who will. To his credit, Mr. Imus told the Rev. Al Sharpton yesterday he realizes that, this time, he went way too far.

Yes, he did. Every time a young black girl shyly approaches me for an autograph or writes or calls or stops me on the street to ask how she can become a journalist, I feel an enormous responsibility. It’s more than simply being a role model. I know I have to be a voice for them as well.

So here’s what this voice has to say for people who cannot grasp the notion of picking on people their own size: This country will only flourish once we consistently learn to applaud and encourage the young people who have to work harder just to achieve balance on the unequal playing field.

Let’s see if we can manage to build them up and reward them, rather than opting for the cheapest, easiest, most despicable shots.

Gwen Ifill is a senior correspondent for “The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer” and the moderator of “Washington Week.”