BLACK WOMEN REGAIN HONOR & RESPECT AT THE POLLS (NO RACIST DRAMA)

BLACK WOMEN REGAIN HONOR & RESPECT AT THE POLLS (POWER OF BLACK VOTE):

DEMOCRATS WON ALABAMA WITH THE BLACK VOTE, MAINLY BLACK WOMEN VOTERS.

BLACK WOMEN ARE NO LONGER BEING RIDICULED OR STEREOTYPED AS DRAMA QUEENS OR WELFARE QUEENS DUE TO INSTITUTIONAL RACISM.

OBAMA WON 97% OF THE BLACK VOTE IN 2008.

BILL CLINTON WON ABOUT 90% OF THE BLACK VOTE IN 1992.

WILL DEMOCRATS TRADE BLACK VOTERS FOR LATINO VOTERS AGAIN AND LOSE AGAIN AS THEY DID IN 2016??

DEMOCRATS GAVE LATINO VOTERS EVERYTHING THEY ASKED FOR IN 2016 YET LATINO VOTERS DID NOT TURN OUT FOR DEMS AT POLLS.

WILL DEMOCRATS TRADE BLACK VOTERS FOR LATINO VOTERS AGAIN?

STAY TUNED.


Sources: The Week, Scholar Works UMB, Washington Post, Youtube


******* BLACK WOMEN ARE EAGERLY USING THE VOTES THEY FOUGHT FOR


On December 12, 2017, Black women voted overwhelmingly for Democrat Doug Jones in his Alabama Senate race against Republican candidate Roy Moore.

Black women made up 17 percent of voters compared to white women, who made up 31 percent.

While 63 percent of white women voted for Moore—a man accused of sexual abuse and harassment by numerous women during their teenage years—98 percent of black women voted for Jones, helping him to win by a slim but decisive 1.5 percent margin.

Without the support of black voters, Jones would have lost the election, and Roy Moore would have been elected to the United States Senate. This would have had a detrimental effect on the lives of black Alabamians.

In September, Moore declared that his support of Trump’s promise to “Make America Great Again” would involve a return to a time when slavery was legal and women had yet to win the franchise. Black women stopped him from winning the Senate race.

The voting power and progressive political thought of black women is an old tradition. In the United States, their history of participation in the passing of the nineteenth amendment has been lost in debates about whether the amendment helped them or was largely a victory for white women.

What these debates often leave out is the history of black participation in the suffrage movement. From the days of its inception, black women decided they would not be left out.

The historical record indicates that it was not an allegiance to white suffragists that determined whether black women participated, nor was it Republican Party loyalty.

These assertions negate the intellectual work black women did to make political choices.

Black suffragists spoke for themselves to win the vote for themselves. This was done to win freedom from racism, classism and sexism.

Black women have always pushed the country to live up to that ideal. Their standing at the intersection of the most marginalized communities in the country ensures that, as they rise economically, politically, and socially, other marginalized communities will rise as well.

In her 1998 book, African American Women in the Struggle for the Vote, 1850-1920 , historian Rosalyn Terborg-Penn points out that black women began their struggle for voting rights while enslaved as abolitionists and after Emancipation as active participants in the women’s suffrage movement.

Debates about the voting power of black women began before the nineteenth amendment, and black women in Colorado, Illinois, and California voted in local elections.

In the 1920 presidential campaign, Warren G. Harding sought the support of black women. Lethia C. Fleming, Mary B. Talbert, and Mary Church Terrell were some of the black women involved in that campaign.

Black women were also running for political office as early as 1920. In Seattle, Washington, Mrs. W. L. Presto was a candidate for the Washington state senate.

Terborg-Penn makes a crucial point about the political thought of black women in the 1920s. Black women were already “reflecting the growing socialist movement among intellectuals and professionals of the times.” Black women were fighting for voting rights as women, black people, and progressives.

Once we understand their political strategies today, we can get closer to supporting them in their intentions to improve conditions for themselves and other women, the black community, and economically marginalized people nationally.

Black women continued to make a space for themselves in the political arena. The life and work of Fannie Lou Hamer decades after the suffrage movement demonstrates that by the mid twentieth century black women in the South were still struggling for the right to vote unharmed and unhampered.

Her speech at the 1964 Democratic National Convention shows that black women in the South were also struggling for representation in the Democratic Party.

Her brave declarations and the larger Civil Rights Movement, made up significantly of black women across the nation, pushed President Lyndon B. Johnson to sign the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

This protective legislation led to more black women voting, and in places where black people made up the majority, black women were elected to office. Hamer was a member of the first policy council of the National Women’s Political Caucus along with another black woman who was especially committed to exercising her right to run for political office: Shirley Chisholm.

Shirley Chisholm won office in New York State as an Assemblywoman in 1964. Four years later, she became the first black congresswoman in 1968 where she served for seven terms. In 1972, Chisholm became the first black woman to run for the office of President of the United States.

Historian Anastasia Curwood describes the political thought of Chisholm in her 2015 article, “Black Feminism on Capitol Hill: Shirley Chisholm and Movement Politics, 1968-1984.”

Curwood notes that Chisholm understood the unique position black women held as black, female, and for a large part of the community, working class. Chisholm referred to this position as “twin jeopardy,” a term influenced by Frances Beal.

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s black women were political thinkers and actors.

Recent elections have shown that the political activity of black women is strong. What has changed since the rebellion against the Trump Administration is a deeper understanding of how dependent the Democratic Party is on black women’s votes.

One organization, Higher Heights, is pushing the Democratic Party to recognize the strength of black women’s votes. Higher Heights is an organization that advocates for the political participation and election of black women.

In an open letter to the Democratic National Committee chair, Tom Perez, published in May 2017, Higher Heights petitioned Perez to take black women’s political contributions seriously by meeting with them to discuss their concerns.

They argued that since black women overwhelmingly support the party’s candidates, their support and representation should be increased within the party.

A day after the election of Doug Jones, Perez would declare on Twitter, “Black women are the backbone of the Democratic Party, and we can’t take that for granted. Period.”

People of color, poor people, and women account for the majority of people in this country. As black women vote and advocate for the candidates with their interests in mind, and as people trust their choices, the country will be pushed further to the political left.

So, it isn’t so much that black women “turn out” to vote. It is who they choose, their political agenda, the political party that shares their agenda, and the savvy way with which they cast their votes. It isn’t just that black women vote, it is that they choose freedom.

They choose freedom for themselves and for anyone affected by race, class, and gender in this country.

Organizations like Higher Heights are aware and calling for others to go beyond being excited to directly supporting black women.

Black women must be recognized beyond the times they turn out to vote. That recognition must extend to change.

R.A.I.S.E. ACT REVISED TO REPEAL OBAMA'S ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT DREAMER PROGRAM (MEXICO)

R.A.I.S.E. ACT REVISED TO REPEAL OBAMA'S ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT DREAMER PROGRAM (MEXICO):

TRUMP TRUTHFULLY REVEALS MOST ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (MEXICO) DON'T PAY TAXES AND HAVE NO VIABLE WORKER SKILLS WHEN ARRIVING.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (MEXICO) DO INDEED DRIVE DOWN AMERICAN WAGES.

IT'S TIME TO RETURN FAIRNESS AND REAL JOBS TO THE AMERICAN WORKFORCE.


Sources: Breitbart, Fox News, Youtube


President Donald Trump today joined with two GOP Senators to introduce his merit-based immigration reform, which is designed to help millions of Americans hurt by the nation’s current cheap-labor immigration policies.
The RAISE Act “will reduce poverty, increase wages and save taxpayers billions and billions of dollars,” Trump told reporters in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. “This legislation demonstrates our compassion for struggling American families who deserve an immigration system that puts their needs first, and that puts America first.”

The current immigration system, said Trump:

has placed substantial pressure on American workers, taxpayers and community resources, and among those hit the hardest … are minority workers competing for jobs against brand new arrivals. It has not been fair to our people, to our citizens, to our workers … [this RAISE act] will give Americans a pay raise by reducing immigration… [and] it will restore the sacred bonds of trust between America and its citizens.

Democrats and their ethnic pressure groups are expected to oppose the immigration reform because they wish to increase the inflow of unskilled foreign migrants. Business groups also oppose the measure because it would raise wages and reduce the inflow of new welfare-aided consumers.

However, many polls show strong public support for cutting the annual inflow of immigrants and temporary blue-collar and white-collar foreign workers. That foreign inflow now adds up to almost 4 million people per year. The inflow has a huge economic impact on the 150 million Americans in the workforce, but especially on the 4 million young Americans who join the workforce each year.

The bill was drafted and is being pushed by Georgia Sen. David Perdue and Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton. It is formally titled the “Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy Act.”

The nation’s immigration system “should help American workers to achieve a pay raise and have a higher standard of living,” he said. The new RAISE act “would raise economic growth and help America get more competitive,” said Cotton. “Our current system simply doesn’t do that … it puts great downward pressure on people who work with their hands and on their feet … it is a symbol that we are not committed to working-class Americans.”

Each year, only one-in-15 of the 1 million green card immigrants is accepted because of their ability to grow the economy, said Cotton.

“It is imperative that our immigration system focuses on high skilled workers who can add value to our economy and ultimately achieve their own version of the American dream,” said Perdue.

To help the bill survive opposition from media and business groups, the bill focuses only on green card legal immigration. It does not raise or lower the number of green card workers, such as H-1Bs, or constrict the annual award of work permits, dubbed “Employment Authorization Documents.”

Each year, the federal government provides green cards to roughly 1 million people. It also provides work visas to roughly 500,000 foreign workers, such as H-2Bs and H-1Bs, and it provides work permits to roughly 2 million people, including refugees and foreign graduates of U.S. colleges.

But if the RAISE act becomes law, Democrats and their business allies would lose the huge annual inflow of immigrants whom they expect will soon bring them national political dominance. That loss will pressure Democrats to compete for votes from working-class Americans by offering to slash the very unpopular inflow of visa-workers.

The proposed immigration reform was applauded by pro-American reformers. Roy Beck, the president of NumbersUSA said:

The RAISE Act introduced today by Senators Cotton and Perdue will do more than any other action to fulfill President Trump’s promises as a candidate to create an immigration system that puts the interests of American workers first.

Our recent polling confirms that American voters overwhelmingly want far less immigration because they know mass immigration creates unfair competition for American workers.

Seeing the President standing with the bill’s sponsors at the White House gives hope to the tens of millions of struggling Americans in stagnant jobs or outside the labor market altogether. NumbersUSA stands with these Americans in wholeheartedly endorsing the RAISE Act.

According to a statement from Perdue, the RAISE Act would:

• Establish a Skills-Based Points System. The RAISE Act would replace the current permanent employment-visa system with a skills-based points system, akin to the systems used by Canada and Australia. The system would prioritize those immigrants who are best positioned to succeed in the United States and expand the economy. Applicants earn points based on education, English-language ability, high-paying job offers, age, record of extraordinary achievement, and entrepreneurial initiative.


• Prioritize Immediate Family Households. The RAISE Act would retain immigration preferences for the spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents while eliminating preferences for certain categories of extended and adult family members.

• Eliminate the Outdated Diversity Visa Lottery. The Diversity Lottery is plagued with fraud, advances no economic or humanitarian interest, and does not even promote diversity. The RAISE Act would eliminate the 50,000 visas arbitrarily allocated to this lottery.


• Place a Responsible Limit on Permanent Residency for Refugees. The RAISE Act would limit refugees offered permanent residency to 50,000 per year, in line with a 13-year average.

CHAKA FATTAH OUSTED OUT OF PUBLIC OFFICE LIKE PATRICK CANNON

CHAKA FATTAH OUSTED OUT OF PUBLIC OFFICE LIKE PATRICK CANNON

YES THERE IS A WAR ON POLITICIANS WHO DARE TO UPLIFT BLACK COMMUNITIES.

Sources: AP,  CBS, Charlotte Observer,  Youtube

In April 2016 Democrat Congress Chaka Fattah 59 was defeated during a Primary by a 36 yr old challenger by the name of Dwight Evans.

Fattah an 11-term Black member of Congress, is currently facing an Indictment for Corruption charges which stem all the way from 2007.

Ironically 2007 is the same year Pres Obama launched his first term bid for US President.

I've never heard anything bad about Congressman Fattah until now.

Nevertheless Congressman Fattah now faces the same fate as Incarcerated Black 

former Charlotte mayor Patrick

Cannon, also a Democrat.

In 2014 Patrick Cannon was imprisoned on Corruption charges for accepting Bribes.

***** Indicted Rep. Fattah loses Pennsylvania Democratic primary

Indicted Pennsylvania congressman Chaka Fattah, facing his first primary fight in two decades, has lost the Democratic primary just before the start of his federal corruption trial.

Fattah, an 11-term U.S. representative, had been outspent in the race as he struggled to raise funds for both the campaign and his defense lawyers. He was ousted on Tuesday by a 36-year state lawmaker, Rep. Dwight Evans, in his first primary fight in two decades.

"There were forces arrayed against us tonight of very powerful and influential people," Fattah said in conceding before supporters at a union hall in Philadelphia.

Fattah has represented the Philadelphia region in Washington for two decades and served on the powerful Appropriations Committee.

He's accused of accepting bribes and misusing campaign funds and charitable grants to enrich his family and friends. He has called the seven-year FBI probe that's ensnared his son and close aides a political witch hunt. He says he has done nothing wrong.

Jury selection in his trial starts next week. Opening statements are set for May 16.

The 2015 indictment describes four schemes, two involving efforts to erase $1 million in debts from Fattah's failed 2007 bid for Philadelphia mayor. The indictment also charges four associates, including former staff members, with crimes and accuses Fattah's wife of being linked to an $18,000 sham sale of a luxury car.

Fattah had three opponents in his heavily Democratic Philadelphia-area district.

Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney and Gov. Tom Wolf backed Evans.

But Fattah had the support of other key players, including black ward leaders and other local officials.

Fattah, who's 59, had won the office at 37 and soon became a fixture as the state's only black congressman, representing the only predominantly black district in the state. He flew on Air Force One with President Barack Obama and brought home millions of dollars in federal funds for housing, scholarships, transportation and crime prevention.

However, the White House on Tuesday distanced itself from a robocall that used archival audio of Obama's voice to urge voters to support Fattah and said it didn't approve. In the clip, Obama was acknowledging Fattah at an event for his work on neuroscience research.

White House spokeswoman Jennifer Friedman said Obama hadn't endorsed a candidate in the race. A Fattah campaign representative said she was seeking more information about the issue.

Fattah and his wife, former TV news anchor Renee Chenault Fattah, had long been a power couple on the Philadelphia scene.

But she left her job after the indictment, when prosecutors painted her as a participant in the sham sale of her Porsche to a lobbyist. She, like her husband, has said she did nothing wrong.

MARCO RUBIO vs BARACK OBAMA JR: Helping To Eradicate Poverty Before 2016 (Who's Right??)

#RUBIO

MARCO RUBIO'S "WAR ON POVERTY" REFORM vs OBAMA'S "PROMISE ZONES": WHERE ARE THE JOBS??

This week U.S. Senator MARCO RUBIO (R-FL) delivered a response to Pres OBAMA'S recent Anti-Poverty Speech aka "PROMISE ZONES".

I agree with MARCO RUBIO on the subject of ERADICATING POVERTY more so than Pres OBAMA.

Sort of.....

Why??

Because from 2009 to 2013, Pres OBAMA'S Economic Policies appear to have contributed to POVERTY in America.

From his STIMULUS Legislation which was intentionally passed through CONGRESS with RACIALLY Divisive guidelines, to his administration sending more JOBS overseas (DETROIT)........
It's quite clear Pres OBAMA'S Economic Policies have in fact contributed to lingering High U.S. Unemployment numbers.

(U.S. Unemployment - 7.3%)
(BLACK Unemployment - 14%)

I am in NO way Opposed to the Federal Gov't offering some level of Assistance to help LIFT People out of POVERTY but we must remember that PEOPLE NEED JOBS NOT JUST HAND-OUTS FROM THE GOVERNMENT!

PEOPLE ALSO NEED FAIR OPPORTUNITIES TO CREATE SMALL BUSINESSES SO THEY CAN BECOME JOB CREATORS.

However........

For MARCO RUBIO to suggest CONGRESS should leave the act of ERADICATING POVERTY solely to Governors & State Legislators as the only Solution to helping LIFT Poor Citizens out of a cycle of POVERTY, is in itself Politically NAIVE.

What about States with with a long history of RACISM & SEGREGATION??

For example: ARKANSAS, GEORGIA, LOUISIANA, TEXAS, SOUTH CAROLINA, NORTH CAROLINA, FLORIDA??

If the Federal Gov't does NOT step in and FORCE those States to help LIFT Poor BLACK & LATINO Citizens out of POVERTY via Fair OPPORTUNITIES, those Citizens will remain in POVERTY Forever.

So what's the Solution??

Both CONGRESS & State Lawmakers must work together to help ERADICATE 21ST CENTURY POVERTY.

The Solution must NOT stem from POLITICS & Winning Elections!

Instead it must stem from COMPASSION for Our Fellow Human Beings & Neighbors.

Nevertheless I still agree more so with MARCO RUBIO'S ideology on ERADICATING POVERTY than Pres OBAMA'S.

Sort of.....

To both DEMOCRATS & REPUBLICANS:

WHERE ARE THE JOBS???





ARTICLE: "Rubio Wants States, Not U.S., To Lead Second Wave In War On Poverty"


Sen. Marco Rubio on Wednesday proposed a sweeping overhaul of the nation's anti-poverty programs, arguing that for decades Washington has been too fixed on dealing with poverty's consequences rather than its causes.

The Florida Republican suggested giving federal funds to states so they could devise ways to combat poverty.

"Five decades and trillions of dollars after President Johnson waged his 'War on Poverty,' the results of this big-government approach are in," Rubio said on the 50th anniversary of the day Johnson first declared his goal for government help to the poor.

"Our anti-poverty programs should be replaced with a revenue-neutral flex fund," Rubio argued. "We would streamline most of our existing federal anti-poverty funding into one single agency."

Each year, the flex funds would go to states "so they can design and fund creative initiatives that address the factors behind inequality of opportunity."

Meanwhile, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the chairman of the House Budget Committee and Mitt Romney's running mate in 2012, is expected to discuss poverty in an interview Thursday with NBC's Brian Williams.

Rubio offered no list as to what programs would be involved in his initiative, other than perhaps the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps.

The senator also proposed replacing the earned income tax credit, a popular break for lower- and moderate-income workers, with a "federal wage enhancement for qualifying low-wage jobs."

Someone with a lower-paying job would also get a federal benefit, paid at the same time as the monthly paycheck. The amount, Rubio said, "will depend on a range of factors."

Rubio's address to a group of experts and reporters at the Capitol's Lyndon B. Johnson Room was a marquee event during a day of reflection and speeches over how to tackle poverty.

The poverty rate was 15% in 2012, down slightly from the mid-1960s. Critics charge the change has been negligible and expensive. Supporters say the rate could be higher if not for the expansion of safety net programs.

Partisan divisions over how to proceed were clear Wednesday.

"We created new avenues of opportunity through jobs and education, expanded access to health care for seniors, the poor, and Americans with disabilities, and helped working families make ends meet," President Barack Obama said in a statement.

At the Capitol, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., told the Senate that 50 years ago Johnson identified poverty as "a national problem. And that's why he made it a national priority."

"So I think we ought to rededicate ourselves today to that national priority," said Murray, who chairs the Senate Budget Committee.

The nation is emerging from a deep recession, and unemployment in November was 7%, its lowest level in five years. The divide between rich and poor remains stark, triggering a flood of recent promises from the White House and congressional leaders to work to narrow the gap.

Rubio is one of three Republican senators mentioned as a possible 2016 presidential candidate talking about new approaches to government help for the poor.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is promoting "economic freedom zones," which would provide tax breaks for companies and workers in high unemployment areas.

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas urged several steps he said would reduce inequality, including repealing the Affordable Care Act, expanding energy production and stopping "abusive regulations that are hammering small businesses."

Rubio, like other Republicans on Wednesday, first offered compassion and empathy for the poor. He explained how lower-income Americans today are plagued by a lack of lower-skilled jobs.

"The jobs that have replaced the low- and middle-skill jobs of the past pay more," he said. "But they require a high level of professional, technical or management skills. And we simply have too many people who have never acquired the education needed to attain those skills."

The solution does not lie in dictates from Washington, he contended.

"Our current president and his liberal allies propose that we address this by spending more on these failed programs and increasing the minimum wage to $10.10," he noted. "Really? That is their solution to what President Obama has identified as the defining issue of our time?"

The Rubio approach contains two long-held Republican philosophies: Give the private sector an opportunity to thrive by removing regulatory burdens and unfair taxes and give the states more flexibility.

The plan is similar to the overhaul of the nation's welfare system in 1996, when states got more responsibility to reduce dependence on government aid.


Sources: AP, CNN, Wisconsin Journal Sentinel Online, USA Today, Youtube

Stimulus Package Failed Black & Latino-Owned Small Businesses: Cocaine For Monkeys

"Power Corrupts & Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely."
Winston Churchill

Due to some of my recent statements about the Obama Administration, several of my Facebook Friends think that I'm beating up on Pres. Obama & the Democrats in Congress.

I'm not. However I am disappointed.

I still plan to give Pres. Obama another chance by voting for his re-election this Fall but Congress will NOT receive that same level of my support.

Hopefully this Blog post provides an explanation for my disappointment.

While it is true GOP Congressional Members Chose NOT to Work with Pres. Obama during his first 2 years in Office, the GOP's inaction is NO Excuse for Inaction on behalf of Democrats.

Here's Why.

For almost 2 Years after Pres. Obama's Election, Democrats had Full Control of the U.S. House, U.S. Senate & the White House.

i.e., ABSOLUTE POLITICAL POWER!

They could have used this ABSOLUTE Power for Good & to enact Real CHANGE.

For Example:

The First legislation Democrats Should have passed are Comprehensive Jobs Bill, Comprehensive Small Business Bills & Included More Funding in the Stimulus Bill for Minority-Owned Small Businesses (BLACK & Latino-Owned Small Businesses).

Than they should have passed an Affordable Health Care bill with a Public Option, Single Payer Option or a REAL Health Care Insurance Exchange.

Instead they wasted it on a Stimulus Bill which turned out to be Nothing more than a Campaign Favor Payback bill.

The Stimulus Bill included less than 1% of Funding for BLACK & Latino-Owned Small Businesses.
Less than 1%!

And most of that Stimulus Money was Wasted versus Invested Wisely to Save the Jobs of Teachers & First Responders.

In North Carolina some of the Stimulus Money was even used by Gov. Bev Perdue to fund Stupid Projects like Studying the Effects of Cocaine on Monkeys.

That's Right!

Researching the effects of Cocaine on Monkeys!

That money could have been used to Save Teacher Jobs & Fund Minority-Owned Small Businesses.

Did the Obama Administration say anything about such Wasteful Spending?
NO because Bev Perdue is a Democrat!

I'm Sorry but that's Wrong!

During the 2008 General Election Democrats received 97% of the BLACK Vote, 67% of the Latino Vote.

How did they repay us?

By including less than 1% of Stimulus Funding & Gov't Contracts for Minority-Owned Small Businesses in the Stimulus Bill.

Thanks a Lot!

Congress seemed to have NO problem including Money for Food Stamps & Welfare Programs but less than 1% of Stimulus Funding for BLACK & Latino-Owned Small Businesses.

So its okay for BLACKS & Latinos to receive Food Stamps & Welfare but NOT okay for Us to Open Small Businesses?

Can any of the Democrats in Congress explain why?

And......

They passed an Affordable Health Care Bill minus a Public Option in Exchange for 2 GOP Senator Votes who demanded that an Individual Mandate be included in the bill. i.e., Another Tax!

Now the Affordable Health Care Law is up for Review by the U.S. Supreme Court which may Strike it down due to the Individual Mandate possibly being Unconstitutional.

So please don't blame the GOP for EVERYTHING that the Democrats did NOT do for American BLACK & Latino Communities since Pres. Obama's Election.

Democrats Must Bear Some Of The Blame for Demonstrating Complacency & Ingratitude to BLACK & Latino Voters.

I'm NOT siding with the GOP, however the Democrats are NOT Blameless either.

Its time the Democrats, especially BLACK Congressional Caucus Members, Accept Responsibility for Wasting an Historic Moment doing NOTHING!

So while I DO plan to cast My Vote for Pres. Obama again, I will NOT cast My Vote again for Democrats to Control both Chambers of Congress.

Just my opinion. You don't have to agree.





Minority Business Receiving Fewer Stimulus Contracts


Hispanic and black businesses are receiving a disproportionately small number of federal stimulus contracts, creating a rising chorus of demands for the Obama administration to be more inclusive and more closely track who receives government-financed work.

Latinos and blacks have faced obstacles to winning government contracts long before the stimulus. They own 6.8 and 5.2 percent of all businesses, respectively, according to census figures. Yet Latino-owned business have received only 1.7 percent of $46 billion in federal stimulus contracts recorded in U.S. government data, and black-owned businesses have received just 1.1 percent.

That pot of money is just a small fraction of the $862 billion economic stimulus law. Billions more have been given to states, which have used the money to award contracts of their own.

Although states record minority status when they award contracts to businesses, there is no central, consistent or public compilation of that data, according to Laura Barrett, director of the Transportation Equity Network. She and other minority advocates are calling for complete and publicly accessible demographic information on all contracts and jobs financed by the stimulus.

Minority businesses are often too small to compete for projects; do not have access to the necessary capital, equipment or bonding requirements; or lose bids to companies with well-established relationships. There also has been an emphasis on spending stimulus money quickly, which favors businesses that have won past contracts.

But minority advocates say that blacks and Latinos have been harder hit by the recession, and getting a fair share of stimulus contracts is key to the recovery of these communities.

Unemployment among blacks and Hispanics is much higher than among whites. And although unemployment among whites increased at a faster rate during the worst of the recession than among minorities, rates of those considered underemployed — including people who have given up looking for full-time work or people working part-time because there is no full-time work available — increased faster among minorities than whites.

Figures from the Transportation Department on highway stimulus spending — at the heart of the government’s effort to lift the economy — have further concerned advocacy groups.

Six percent of the $16.9 billion in Federal Highway Administration contract money spent by states has gone to disadvantaged business enterprises, which includes companies owned by minorities as well as women, veterans and the disabled, according to department press secretary Olivia Alair.

Out of $1.1 billion in state-spent Federal Aviation Administration contract money, 7.8 percent has gone to disadvantaged businesses, Alair said, and 8.6 percent of direct Transportation Department contract dollars have gone to those companies.

Alair said some minority companies might not be included in those figures because they are not small businesses or choose not to classify themselves as disadvantaged. Minority businesses also are eligible for stimulus grants, but those are not tracked by race.

Still, “these numbers are far too low,” especially when compared with state and federal goals,” Barrett said. “The businesses and communities that need federal dollars most are seeing the least.”

The Obama administration has taken steps to address minority concerns. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood wrote governors in December urging them to work with disadvantaged businesses. LaHood suggested unbundling large contracts to make them more accessible to small businesses, and emulating a Missouri contracting project that made community groups and openness part of the process.

LaHood’s department has pledged $20 million in subsidies to help disadvantaged businesses pay bonding premiums and fees, and has established a short-term loan program that lent $4.9 million in 2009. Last month, LaHood announced $9.9 million in grants to help businesses owned by minorities and women compete for federal contracts.

Federal agencies held more than 300 events nationwide to educate minority businesses about stimulus opportunities, said White House spokesman Corey Ealons. He also said there is a backlog of awarded contracts that have not yet been entered into the tracking database.

The White House also pointed out that about $21 billion of the $46 billion is guaranteed, and the rest are options. Latino-owned businesses have received 3.7 percent of the guaranteed total, and black-owned businesses 2.4 percent.

The founder and chief executive of one of the nation’s largest black-owned construction companies, Richard Copeland of THOR Construction Inc., said minority-owned companies usually employ 60 percent minorities.

“If we can’t get on these jobs,” he said, “we can’t hire our people from our community, so poverty and drugs and crime and unemployment and welfare become habitual.” His company has done a small amount of weatherization work through Minnesota stimulus contracts.

He said many minority businesses can’t develop the capability to do government work because a “good old boy” network shuts them out of contracts.

Copeland’s company has its headquarters in Minneapolis, and has 200 full-time employees and offices in Los Angeles, Las Vegas, New Orleans and Atlanta. He said he abandoned highway work years ago to focus on erecting buildings.

“These big highway contractors try to keep you off the project, and when you get on, they try to make sure you don’t come back,” he said. “We hear about this all across the country.”

That’s what Samuel Foley Jr., a lawyer for the black-owned construction company Holley Enterprises, says happened to his client.

Holley was subcontracted by James J. Anderson Construction to perform demolition and salvage operations on a subway station repair project in Philadelphia. This enabled Anderson to meet contract guidelines for minority participation, but about two months later Holley’s contract was unfairly terminated, Foley said.

Anderson Construction said in a statement that Holley violated the terms of the contract. Anderson said it did not perform any of the work itself and gave the contract to another disadvantaged business.

Foley, chairman of the National Black Chamber of Commerce Construction Committee, said many companies “play games to get rid of the minority contractor.”
“This is not a unique situation,” he said. “For the past 30 years in Philadelphia it’s been this way.”





Stimulus funds pay for monkey research in N.C.


Monkeys are getting high for science in North Carolina.

An analyst at the Civitas Institute seized on that image when selecting a cocaine addiction study at Wake Forest University Medical School as No. 1 on a list of the "10 worst federal stimulus projects in North Carolina." Civitas' Brian Balfour takes swipes at projects, writing that they "seem completely unrelated to avoiding an economic 'catastrophe,' but rather an ad hoc satisfaction of countless dubious wish lists."

So, what is the $71,623 federal stimulus grant paying for?

Well, a job, said Mark Wright, a spokesman for the Wake Forest University School of Medicine.

"It's actually the continuation of a job that might not still be there if it hadn't been for the stimulus funding. And it's a good job," Wright said. "It's also very worthwhile research."

The study is examining the effects of cocaine on a particular neurotransmitter among monkeys who have had a long-term addiction to cocaine.

The medical school boasts a significant body of work studying addiction. Ultimately, the study could lead to better treatment for recovering cocaine addicts.

Balfour also cited another Wake Forest study. This one is studying whether yoga and other non-pharmaceutical therapies such as wellness classes can help alleviate hot flashes and other symptoms of menopause.

"How does this study help revive the economy?" Balfour asked.

Well, again, jobs, said Nancy Avis, a professor in the Department of Social Sciences and Health policy at the medical school. The funding, more than $147,000 over two years, will contribute to the salaries of six people.


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, Fox News, McClatchy Newspapers, Nationalbcc.org, Newsone, The Grio, Youtube, Google Maps

Welfare Reform 2.0: Paul Ryan vs Democrats (Entitlement Reform)

BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ'S 21st CENTURY EFFECTIVE WELFARE REFORM PROPOSAL:


This may sound harsh but it’s time for the Federal Gov’t to STOP Paying Low Income Women to have Babies as if they are Breeding SLAVES!

This is why I completely agree with Congressman Paul Ryan on Entitlement Reform.

Most Saturday Mornings I enjoy watching Professor Melissa Harris-Perry's program on MSNBC.

The Topics are Interesting & the Conversation is usually enlightening.
However I don't always agree with her views on Policies which affect the American BLACK Community.

For example this morning she was advocating its ok for Low Income Women to Sit at home & raise their Children on Federal Money. i.e., Welfare.
Excuse me but isn't that why there are already too many Unwed Mothers on Welfare producing even more Babies?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Sorry Professor Perry but I'm NOT down with that!


We've long known that Poverty is BIG Business In America!

Entitlement Reform is NOT a Racist Concept which Targets BLACKS & Latinos. It is Necessary for America's Financial Stability.

It took Political Courage for Pres. Clinton to Urge Congress to pass Welfare Reform Legislation. What about today's Democrats?

Going forward the ONLY way I will Support Low Income Mothers receiving Gov't Entitlements, Including Child Care Assistance, is if these 10 Requirements are Enforced from the Federal Gov't level all the way to State & Local Gov't agencies.


NOTE:

I Am NOT Encouraging a "Nanny State".

But In Order for 21st Century Welfare Reform to be truly EFFECTIVE, it must be FAIR & allow for Opportunities for Success.

NO MORE LAZY OR SLACK DSS, SOCIAL SERVICE & CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICE WORKERS!

Here Are The 10 Welfare Reform Requirements Which Must Be Strictly Enforced On The Federal, State & Local Levels. Especially In North Carolina:

1) Low Income Mothers in need of any type of Gov’t Assistance will be Required to Sign detailed “Cooperation Contracts”.
“Cooperation Contracts” will list Requirements which must be met at ALL times to remain a Recipient of any Gov’t Assistance/ Benefits.
“Cooperation Contracts” will also be used as Partnership Agreements between the Recipients & Governing Agencies

2) There is a Strict Time Limit for how long Low Income Women receiving Gov't Assistance can receive that Assistance.
For Example: NO More than 5 Years!
NO Extensions!!!!
NO Exceptions Unless the Mothers become Permanently Disabled.
I mean REALLY Disabled. NOT Faking An Illness!

3) Low Income Women of Child Bearing Age, who receive Gov't Assistance must be Required to use an Effective form of Birth Control.

FREE ABORTIONS do NOT help Low Income Women because after having those ABORTIONS most of those Women become Pregnant again in less than 1 year's time due to Emotional Guilt.

FREE ABORTIONS is just another Business racket which Financially Benefits Doctors to become Wealthy off Federal Gov't Funding.

The More ABORTIONS some Doctors perform, the more they are paid by the Federal Gov't & by Planned Parenthood!

So FREE ABORTIONS is actually a Financial Scheme using the Bodies of Low Income Women!
i.e., BREEDING SLAVES!

Thus Low Income Women of Child Bearing Age, who receive Gov't Assistance must be Required to use an Effective form of Birth Control.

4) When Low Income Women receiving Gov't Assistance have more than 2 Children, they Should NOT be awarded Additional Gov't Assistance for those additional Children.

NONE!

1 to 2 Children is the Limit as long as they are receiving Gov’t Assistance.
The Government can NOT control how many Children a Woman has but they do NOT have to provide Gov’t Assistance for All those Children.

This Requirement must be Enforced!
If Not then the Federal Gov't is just paying Women who are receiving Gov't Assistance to have more Children out of Wedlock, at the Federal Government’s Expense.

5) Low Income Women receiving Gov't Assistance must be required to Attend Accredited School/ Training Programs Full-time for NO more than 2 to 4 Years.

For Example:
Community Colleges Or Universities NOT For-Profit Trade Schools!

They must also keep their Attendance Current & their GPA Satisfactory (A, B Or C).
OR.....
If they are Working Full-Time. (35 to 40 Hours Weekly)

After Completing School or Training Program, Recipients would be Required to Complete Work Internships (Paid or Non-Paid) with Local Businesses for 3 Months to Learn Effective Work Skills & Build Up Work References.

6) If Low Income Women receive Food Stamps there must be Proper Monitoring of how those Food Stamps are being used.
Those Food Stamps Should NOT be Sold.
Those Food Stamps Should NOT be used to just Feed their Children Junk Food or Food with NO Real Nutritional Value on a Regular Basis. (Sweets, Pizza, TV Dinners, etc.,)

7) Low Income Mothers Will be Required to Cooperate with the Federal & State Gov’t in securing Child Support from the Biological, Legal Fathers of their Children.
If the Fathers are Deceased then the Mothers must Still be Required to Cooperate and allow Governing Agencies to make that Determination.

8) Low Income Mothers receiving Gov’t Assistance MUST have their Children Vaccinated & be Required to take their Children to the Doctor twice a Year for Well-Child Examinations.
Such Visits would help Reduce Child Abuse, Reduce Child Neglect & Ensure their Children are Healthy and Developing Normally.

For example:
Monitoring the Children’s Health to see if they are being given Over-the-Counter Meds by their Mothers to make them Sleep at night. (Blood Tests)

Or…

NOT receiving Proper Nutrition even though the Mothers are using Food Stamps to Purchase Food.
This could be an Indication the Food Stamps are being Sold by the Mothers. I said it could be an Indication.

If a Low Income Mother receiving Gov’t Assistance applies for Disability Checks due to a Child’s Illness, the governing agencies & the Child's Doctor should Closely Investigate to see if the Mother is perhaps Intentionally Contributing to their Child’s Illness or Causing their Child’s Illness just to receive additional Gov’t Assistance.

9) Low Income Mothers MUST Attend Parent-Teacher Conferences at their Child’s Day Care & at their Child’s Schools.

Their Children Will NOT be allowed to Drop Out of School!

Children aged 5 to 18 would be Required to Attend School regularly until they Graduate.
Or….
The Mothers would lose Benefits for those Children.
(Food Stamps & Medicaid, etc.,)

10) For Low Income Mothers with Infants, Pre-school & School-aged Children in need of Child Care Assistance, that Child Care Assistance is ONLY to be granted if the Mothers are Attending School or Working Full-Time.

The Child Care Assistance must match their School or Work Schedules.

If the Recipients Drop out of School, Refuse to Attend School on a regular basis or Quit Working, the Child Care Assistance will Cease to Exist within 30-Days.

These 10 Welfare Reform Requirements are just that! Requirements!

NO Exceptions!
NO Exceptions!
NO EXCEPTIONS Unless.....
The Mothers become Permanently Disabled.
I mean REALLY Disabled. NOT Faking An Illness!

Going forward providing Gov’t Assistance to Low Income Mothers under these 10 Terms is the ONLY way I would Approve of Low Income Women receiving any type of Gov't Assistance.

Otherwise the Federal Gov't is just paying Women receiving Gov't Assistance to have more Children out of Wedlock, at the Federal Gov't Expense.





Welfare Reform Failing Poor Single Mothers


“Stretched Thin,” “Both Hands Tied,” and “The War on Welfare” are three new books that highlight welfare reform’s failure to address the enduring poverty of single mothers and their children.

The women at the bottom in America, single mothers on public assistance, are sometimes called “drawer people,” the subjects of case files that stay in the welfare manager’s drawer, year after year.

They are mothers who quit work or can’t work because they are ill or disabled, or illiterate, or victims of abuse, or the sole caregivers for an elderly parent or chronically sick child.

These so-called hard-to-serve single mothers may include women who fail to apply for the 70 jobs in one month required to qualify for a federal cash grant. They may want to go to school full time, which is against welfare rules in some states. They may be approaching the five-year lifetime limit for cash assistance that most states impose. Or they may simply not own a car.

“I feel like poverty just … it’s a vicious cycle,” says one mother on welfare, an Oregon hospice worker with three teen-aged children, in Stretched Thin: Poor Families, Welfare Work, and Welfare Reform, a rare in-depth study of caseworkers and their clients and former clients.

“I mean if you get your head above that water, then they’re going to drop you. …You know they are going to let the air out of your lifejacket, and you go back down to the bottom rung again.”

The posters in welfare offices proclaim, “Work is always better than welfare.” But is it? Not if you’re a single mother in a low-wage, no-benefits, dead-end job, according to both Stretched Thin and Both Hands Tied: Welfare Reform and the Race to the Bottom of the Low-Wage Labor Market, another new book on America’s fraying safety net.

In close-up studies of single mothers both on and off the dole in Oregon and Wisconsin, two states that pioneered welfare reform, these books report what it’s like to stock shelves at Walmart, empty bedpans in nursing homes, or flip burgers at McDonald’s, working nights and split shifts — and somehow also trying to raise a family.

“It’s all the stresses in the world,” says one mother in Both Hands Tied, describing her life as a cleaning woman and the sole caretaker of three children. “You know what I’m saying? You have to do all these things, and then you have to worry about child care, making it home in time to feed them, put them in the tub, clean up the house. … You’re trying to do all this on your own, with no help.

What’s the word for it? I don’t even know the word for it.”

The starting point for both books is 1996, when the federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children program was abolished, ending 60 years of guaranteed monthly cash grants to families without a man present.

In its place, a Republican-dominated Congress passed welfare reform, or the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. Vowing to “end welfare as we know it,” President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, signed the act into law.

Members of both parties agreed that poor single mothers should support their children primarily through wage labor rather than government aid. In practice, this meant that for single mothers to get welfare checks, they also had to go to work.

At the time of its demise, AFDC represented only 1 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product.

But, as recounted in The War on Welfare: Family, Poverty, and Politics in Modern America, a recent book on the history behind the reform, the antipoverty coalition that sought to dramatically expand federal aid to the poor in the 1960s and ’70s had long since disbanded. For decades, says Marisa Chappell, the author and a historian at Oregon State University, welfare had been branded as “a destructive program that drove poor fathers away.”

Democrats joined Republicans in blaming welfare for a host of society’s ills, including gang violence, teen pregnancies and low SAT scores. The press was full of stories about shiftless “welfare queens” with drug-addicted sons.

First on a long list of congressional findings for the reform legislation was, “Marriage is the foundation of a successful society.” The law noted that the number of people receiving AFDC had tripled since 1965, and more than two-thirds of them were children.

It stated that the number of children receiving public assistance — 9.3 million — was “closely related to the increase in births to unmarried women,” which had nearly tripled between 1970 and 1991.

But Chappell says the preponderance of research does not support the idea that AFDC encouraged women to stay unmarried or have additional children to increase their welfare payments. “Against all evidence,” she says, “both conservatives and liberals insisted that government income support … discouraged the creation and maintenance of two-parent families among the ‘underclass.’”

Like Chappell, the authors of Stretched Thin and Both Hands Tied — four sociologists and an anthropologist — take aim at the philosophical underpinnings of welfare reform, the belief, old as the workhouses of 19th-century England, that cash assistance breeds laziness and the poor themselves should bear the chief burden for improving their lot.

All three books examine what happens to poor single mothers working in an economy in which wages are stagnant, benefits are declining, layoffs are rampant, low-paid service sector jobs have replaced good manufacturing jobs and two incomes are required for a family to stay out of poverty. Against this backdrop, the authors say, welfare reform has condemned millions of poor women and children to downward mobility.

For all the rhetoric about reducing chronic welfare dependency, moving poor women toward self-sufficiency and getting their foot in the door of the world of work, the books show, the effect of reform has been to reduce government spending and lift women and children off the rolls — but not out of poverty.

On the 10th anniversary of welfare reform in 2006, Clinton claimed success in an essay (“How We Ended Welfare, Together”) for The New York Times, stating that the welfare rolls had dropped by two-thirds, creating “a new beginning for millions of Americans.”

The gains of the late 1990s, Clinton noted, were buoyed by a strong economy during his presidency, an increase in the minimum wage and expansions in such federal programs as the Earned Income Tax Credit, Head Start, child care subsidies, the collection of child support and incentives for businesses that hired welfare recipients.

“Overall, 100 times as many people moved out of poverty and into the middle class during our eight years as in the previous 12,” Clinton said. “Of course, the booming economy helped, but the empowerment policies made a big difference.”
Between 1995 and 2000, on the heels of welfare reform, poverty in America did in fact decline, even as the welfare rolls were slashed in half.

During those years, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the child poverty rate dropped from nearly 21 percent to 16 percent, back to 1970s levels. The poverty rate for households headed by single women fell from 32 percent in 1995 to a historical low of 25 percent in 2000.

But Stretched Thin challenges this supposed success story. Even in the prosperous economy of the late 1990s, it shows, finding a job was not usually a ticket out of poverty. Co-authors Sandra Morgen, an anthropologist, and Joan Acker, a sociologist, both at the University of Oregon, and Jill Weigt, a sociologist at California State University, San Marcos, surveyed more than 900 people, most of them white single mothers, who were taken off the rolls in Oregon or denied welfare benefits in early 1998.

They found that more than half — 55 percent — wound up taking jobs that paid wages at or below the poverty line. Two years later, the authors found, nearly half still had family incomes below the poverty line.

Stretched Thin provides a close-up of a punitive system in which a caseworker boasts about his “shaming technique,” and poor women forgo raises of 25 cents per hour to avoid losing food stamps.

“They’ll pay for your day care to work a minimum wage job for the rest of your life …” says a waitress who dropped out of community college after her mother fell ill and could not watch the grandchildren. “But they won’t pay for day care for a year or two for someone to go to school and get a degree so they could become more successful.”


Census data show that poverty rates plummeted in the U.S. between 1959 and 1973, during a period of sustained economic growth. Between 1965 and 1972, as noted in Stretched Thin, federal spending on welfare and other antipoverty programs more than doubled.

The U.S. poverty rate reached a historic low of 11 percent in 1973, down from 22 percent in 1959.

Yet by 1973, welfare had been under attack for years. As recounted in The War on Welfare, the Moynihan Report of 1965, written by Assistant U.S. Secretary of Labor Daniel Patrick Moynihan for a Democratic administration, proclaimed, “The Negro family in the urban ghettos is crumbling” and “approaching complete breakdown.” Unable to support their families, black men were deserting them, leaving a “matriarchal structure” and a “tangle of pathology” behind, the report said.

Bit by bit, The War on Welfare shows, liberals abandoned their defense of poor women as caregivers and joined the conservative chorus calling for reform. The Moynihan Report, Chappell says, expressed a broad consensus on the American left.

In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan‘s General Accounting Office found that more than a decade of research had failed to support the view that welfare was fostering two-parent family breakups or out-of-wedlock births. But by then, the country was making a U-turn in the war on poverty.

Today, poverty is on the rise again. The gains of the late 1990s have proved to be unsustainable. In 2008, the most recent year for which data are available, the overall poverty rate rose to 13 percent, and the child poverty rate rose to 19 percent. Nearly 29 percent of households headed by women in 2008 were poor, approaching 1998 levels.

In remarks before a U.S. House of Representatives committee that month, Carmen Nazario, assistant secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, said that between 1995 and 2008, the percent of poor single mothers with no work and no welfare had more than doubled, to 35 percent.

Well over half the decline in welfare caseloads was due not to a drop in poverty, but rather to a drop in the share of poor families receiving assistance, Nazario said.

“We must be certain that the program remains responsive and accessible to families when they are in need,” Nazario said.

Under current welfare rules, half of the parents receiving cash grants in a given state must work, or the state risks losing federal funds.

The grants for a family of three with no income range from a maximum $170 monthly in Mississippi to $923 monthly in Alaska. Single poor parents must work an average of 30 hours per week to qualify, or 20 hours if they have a child under 6. They must look for work as soon as they are able.

Yet Both Hands Tied reveals that the women often end up in truly dead-end jobs. To qualify for federal aid, they are frequently assigned to community service, sorting clothes for Goodwill or cleaning public housing offices. If they refuse these “workfare” jobs, they may be denied assistance.

Their caseworkers monitor their attendance and dock their pay if they miss hours.

The co-authors of Both Hands Tied, Jane L. Collins, a sociologist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and Victoria Mayer, a sociologist at Colby College in Maine, focused their study on a group of 33 women in Milwaukee and Racine, Wis., more than half of them African American, who entered, remained on or returned to the welfare rolls in 2003.

They found that none of the women was a stranger to work. Virtually all had worked since they were teenagers and had numerous jobs, often lasting more than a year, sometimes with promotions.

Among the personal stories in Both Hands Tied is that of a single mother, a former certified nursing assistant in Milwaukee, who goes on public assistance when her blood pressure during a pregnancy becomes dangerously high.

Her former employer did not provide medical leave. Now, seven months after giving birth, she has been assigned to collect rubbish and tend to the landscaping on city traffic islands.
“What am I going to do cutting down bushes?” she asks. “Am I gonna put that on my résumé?”

Federal funding for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the program that replaced AFDC, has remained at $16 billion since 1996, representing a 28 percent decline in real dollars. Congress provided an extra $2.5 billion in emergency funds for 2009 and 2010, and, as Miller-McCune went to press, the House had approved an additional $2.5 billion for 2011.

But Congress was not expected to significantly expand the program long term.

“Despite the shocking reality of silent and unmet need, we have heard no clamoring for the reform of welfare reform,” Stretched Thin says.

In 1969, as America’s cities were burning, President Richard Nixon, a Republican, proposed a plan that would have represented a phenomenal expansion of the nation’s safety net. This bit of history, absent now in political memory but retold in The War on Welfare, was called the Family Assistance Plan.

It was aimed at blue-collar workers, who were losing manufacturing jobs to cheap labor overseas.

The plan would have provided a guaranteed annual income of $1,600 for all American families, or the equivalent of about $10,000 in today’s dollars.

The National Association of Manufacturers and a group of the country’s major industrialists, including the heads of Xerox and the Ford Motor Company, supported the concept.

“It wasn’t a socialist revolution, to be sure, but it was a great deal more radical than anything a mainstream politician might offer today,” Chappell says.

In a turning point for New Deal-style politics, her book shows, Nixon’s plan died after four years of debate, defeated by a conservative onslaught and bitter divisions in the liberal camp. Conservatives attacked it as a “giant step deeper into the quagmire of the welfare state.” Welfare activists didn’t like it because favored white two-parent families to the detriment of single African-American mothers.

Today, during the country’s worst economic crisis in 70 years, even the Brookings Institution, the Washington, D.C., think tank that helped draft the welfare reform of 1996, says “more attention needs to be paid to the adequacy of the safety net.”

In testimony before the House Committee on the Budget late last year, Ron Haskins, a Brookings economist and an architect of the welfare overhaul, said, “The 1996 reforms were successful when the economy was strong, and even during a mild recession like that of 2001.

But that recession was nothing more than a modest thunder storm; the current recession is a hurricane.”

Brookings is projecting the poverty rate will rise to 14.4 percent next year, bringing the total of poor Americans to 45 million.

Early in 2008, while running for president, Barack Obama made a vow to cut poverty in half in 10 years, adding, “I do so with great humility because it is a very ambitious goal.”

These three books suggest ways the goal can be reached: Raise the minimum wage. Provide more jobs, better job training and universal child care. Establish a universal monthly child allowance, as 88 other countries have done. Expand unemployment benefits and give them to part-time workers. Require employers to provide paid family leave. Make preschool and college available at low cost or for free.

Or take the advice of Johnnie Tillmon, the national welfare rights leader, Los Angeles laundrywoman and mother of six who said back in 1971, during the Nixon years, “If I were president … I’d start paying women a living wage for doing the work we are already doing — child raising and housekeeping. And the welfare crisis would be over. Just like that.”


View Larger Map


Sources: ABC News, AOL, Huffington Post, Miller-McCune.com, MSNBC, Youtube, Google Maps

Paul Ryan's 2013 Budget Slammed By Democrats! Path To Prosperity Or Poverty? Gov't Dependency Or Entrepreneurship?

Durbin slams Paul Ryan budget plan

The number two Democrat in the Senate said Wednesday that Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal is "not a balanced approach" and would unfairly hurt senior citizens with it dramatic changes to Medicare.

"His budget refuses to imposes any new taxes on the wealthiest people in America. In fact, it cuts their taxes even more," Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin said in an interview with "CBS This Morning."

"And to achieve it, it makes dramatic cuts in Medicare, in Medicaid and in programs that people count on for the basic safety net in America. It is not a balanced approach. Unfortunately it reflects where his party is today," Durbin said.

Ryan on Tuesday unveiled his his 2013 budget proposal, which includes an overhaul of the tax code that would leave just two individual tax brackets: 10 percent and 25 percent as well as revision of a proposal from a year ago to dramatically overhaul Medicare.

Ryan's plan is unlikely to become law, but is intended to provide a simple message for Republicans in an election year.

"Paul Ryan wants to privatize Medicare. At the end of the day, those seniors who are not healthy and can't buy health insurance today will find it almost impossible to do so under Paul Ryan's plan," Durbin said.





GOP budget sets up competing visions for 2012 candidates

House Republican Rep. Paul Ryan's proposed 2013 budget has essentially no chance of becoming law, but that doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose: The proposed budget draws a clear dividing line between Democrats and Republicans ahead of this year's presidential election.

Upon unveiling his budget today, Ryan said he "absolutely" expects the eventual presidential nominee from his party to get behind his budget proposal, despite its potential political landmines, most notable his proposed changes to Medicare.

In addition to adding a private insurance option for seniors using Medicare, Ryan's budget also overhauls the tax code and would create just two income tax brackets, 25 percent and 10 percent. Ryan said today his budget would balance the budget by 2040, putting the nation on the track to prosperity.

"We are sharpening the contrast between the path that we are proposing and the path to debt and decline that the president has placed us upon," Ryan said today. "And, yes, we do believe that our nominee, whoever this person is going to be, is gonna be perfectly consistent with this."

"I've spoken to all these guys," he added. "And they believe that we are heading in the right direction."

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told CBS News he applauds Ryan and his House colleagues "for taking a bold step toward putting our nation back on the track to fiscal sanity and robust economic growth." The plan, he said, will "strengthen Medicare for generations to come" and shares Romney's goals of cutting taxes, reforming the tax code, reducing spending and tackling the debt.

Newt Gingrich called the Ryan budget "a courageous plan that correctly understands the key to returning to a balanced budget is robust economic growth, spending control and bold entitlement reform." He said his plan to grow the economy and balance the budget "differs in details but shares the same core principles."

At least one Republican presidential candidate, however -- libertarian Rep. Ron Paul -- says Ryan's budget doesn't actually go far enough. Paul, whose budget plan would make $1 trillion in cuts in one year, said in a statement that Ryan's plan is "essentially playing the same game the Washington establishment has played for years with our hard-earned money."

While it may seem like politics-as-usual to Paul, Democrats are already casting Ryan's budget as too extreme. The congressman's 2013 plan is sure to face the same fate as his 2012 budget: It was approved by the GOP-led House but was flatly dismissed by the Democratic-led Senate and President Obama. Democrats seized on the proposals in the budget to accuse Republicans ending Medicare. In a presidential election year, the criticism is almost certain to be louder.

The White House today blasted Ryan's plan, in part because they said its tax breaks "would be paid for by undermining Medicare and the very things we need to grow our economy and the middle class - things like education, basic research, and new sources of energy."

But rather than shy away from those fights, Ryan has made clear in the past week that Republicans are ready to embrace them. The budget chairman released two campaign-like videos in the days before releasing his budget, telling Americans they have a choice to make about the nation's future.

"Will it be a future that looks like the America we know?" Ryan says in a video released Monday, over ominous music. "One of greater opportunity, greater prosperity, or more of what we're seeing today: debt, doubt and decline."

While he may not win over the full Congress with his plan, Ryan at least wants to make his case to the voters and perhaps give his party a boost in November. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, was at Ryan's side today to praise his plan and promise similar plans if Republicans win back the Senate this year. He excoriated Senate Democrats for failing to put forward their own budget.
"The Senate's Democratic majority has forfeited their claim to leadership for America," Sessions said. "If the voters give the Republicans in the Senate the honor of having the majority and the leadership, we will work with the House to pass a congressional budget. It will be an honest budget. It will change the debt course of America."

Mr. Obama has similarly put forward proposals this year he aims to make part of his re-election pitch, even though they were dead-on-arrival in Congress. Facing the prospect of more GOP resistance this year, the president's re-election team released their own 17-minute video -- albeit with a lot more theatrics, complete with narration by Tom Hanks -- touting the president's accomplishments.


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, Fox News, Youtube, Google Maps

Paul Ryan Unveils Risky 2013 GOP Budget; Medicare Targeted, Major Revisions To U.S. Tax Code.

Congressman Paul Ryan's Risky 2013 Budget Blueprint Targets Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare Reform, Social Security, the U.S. Tax Code & Defunds Pres. Obama's Health Care Law i.e., Repeals it.





House G.O.P. Lays Down Marker With New Budget Plan

House Republicans, believing that worries over the deficit will trump affection for Medicare and other popular programs, unveiled a federal budget blueprint Tuesday morning that would cut deeply into domestic spending, transform the tax code and balance the budget by 2040.

Because tax revenues would remain unchanged, the deficit under the plan would be almost as deep as the red ink under President Obama’s feet in the fiscal year that begins in October. But by mid-decade it would drop precipitously, and over decades, significant changes to Medicaid and Medicare, the federal health care plans for the poor and the elderly, would help bring the budget into balance.

“We are here to offer Americans the chance to choose which future they want,” Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, said, positing a choice between “a path to renew prosperity” and “the president’s path of debt and decline.”

Ultimately, the House budget is a political document, since the Senate has no intention of passing a budget of its own.

The plan amounts to a political bet, with high stakes wagered by both parties.

“This isn’t just matter of the House battling with the Senate or arm-wrestling with the president,” said J. D. Foster, a fiscal policy expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “For better or for worse, what they produce is going to be the standard for conservatives and Republicans going into this election season.”

Republicans believe voters will reward them for what one what member of the House Budget Committee, Jason Chaffetz of Utah, called a “bold and realistic” effort to transform and shrink government. Democrats are equally certain that because the plan fundamentally changes Medicare without raising taxes on the rich, they can pummel vulnerable Republicans.

On Monday, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee began a “Millionaires over Medicare” campaign against 41 House Republicans who Democratic officials believe are vulnerable to the line of attack. “Under the leadership of Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and Speaker John Boehner, House Republicans are again proposing a budget that ends the Medicare guarantee while protecting millionaires,” a memo from the group said. “It’s not only bad politics, it’s very bad policy.”

The budget plan embraces a Medicare plan similar to the one put forward by Mr. Ryan and Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, which would change the health plan from a guaranteed, fee-for-service government insurance program to a menu of private insurance plans subsidized by the government. Older Americans would be able to buy into the existing fee-for-service program, although annual expenditures would be capped.

The other flashpoint will be total spending on programs under Congress’s annual discretion. The budget will cap that spending at $1.028 trillion, the same level set by last year’s budget but $19 billion below the cap set in July after protracted negotiations to raise the nation’s statutory borrowing limit.

Democrats argue that the level in the new budget amounts to a broken promise that will lead to more strife as the House and Senate forge 12 spending bills this summer that will add up to two different totals. The House will aim for the $1.028 trillion cap in the new House budget while the Senate will aim for $1.047 trillion, the summer Budget Control Act cap.

“Ignoring the B.C.A. represents a breach of faith that will make it more difficult to negotiate future agreements,” two senior Democratic senators said Monday in a letter to Mr. Boehner and Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House majority leader.

“Rather than trying to tear down the B.C.A., we should be holding it up as an example of what can be accomplished if we are willing to set aside our differences and work hard to find bipartisan solutions to our nation’s challenges,” said the letter from Kent Conrad of North Dakota, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

House Republicans argue that additional cuts to both discretionary and entitlement spending are needed now to head off an automatic $110 billion in across-the-board cuts to defense and domestic programs in 2013. Even with the lower total, the House would still be above the $950 billion that domestic programs would reach if the across-the-board cuts take effect.

Under the House plan, the current $1.18 trillion deficit would fall to $797 billion in the coming fiscal year, compared with $977 billion under Mr. Obama’s plan. By 2016, the deficit would fall to $241 billion by Republican estimates. The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that Mr. Obama’s budget would still have a $529 billion deficit in 2016.

The Ryan plan would accumulate $3.1 trillion in additional debt through 2022. The president’s would add $6.4 trillion, more than twice that total. The Republican budget cuts spending by $5 trillion more than the president’s plan, mandates the repeal of Mr. Obama’s health care law and assumes the elimination of the government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The tax code would be simplified to just two tax rates, 10 percent and 25 percent, with the closure of tax credits and deductions. The 35 percent corporate income tax would be lowered to 25 percent and the existing, worldwide system of taxing corporate profits would be changed to a territorial system in which only domestic profits were subject to United States corporate taxation. But the budget assumes revenues would stay consistent with revenues under the current individual and corporate tax codes.

Medicare would be turned into something like Mr. Obama’s health care plan for the uninsured, a subsidized set of private insurance plans, while Medicaid would be converted to fixed block grants to the states.

Bipartisan talks continue over a so-called grand bargain on deficit reduction that would combine tax increases, spending cuts and changes to entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. But hopes are dimming as both parties frame the election around their vision of deficit reduction.

“The idea of a grand bargain in 2012 is very hard to find credible,” Mr. Foster said. “To a large extent this election is about deciding what the grand bargain is supposed to look like.”


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, Fox News, NY Times, Google Maps