Must See Video--Elizabeth Warren

Do yourself a favor and watch this video of Elizabeth Warren explaining how we got into the debt mess we are in and why the rich “job creators” instead of complaining about "class warfare" should be thanking the rest of us for what we did that allowed them to create jobs—and get rich in the process.  Great video.  Force your Republican friends to watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs&feature=player_embedded

2012 election—A prediction

Richard Brodsky, columnist for The Capital, has offered his prediction for how the 2012 campaign will play out and the likely results.  According to Brodsky, Perry will be the Republican nominee, Carly Fiorina will be his running mate, and Obama will win…barely.  Here is what Brodsky says we will see happen over the next year.

For Republicans, the next three months will be dominated by candidates slashing at each other as the truly weird ones disappear. Sarah Palin will run if Michele Bachmann self-destructs, and maybe even if she doesn’t. Mitt Romney and Rick Perry will be widely viewed as the front-runners, but there will be room for third or fourth candidacies. Every GOP candidate will embrace the same ideas—a hard, hard right-wing catechism. Their personalities will be all that distinguishes them.

Both Perry and Romney will make mistakes, but Perry will look better, more in control, fiercer. It will be close, but Perry will win enough delegates to go into the Republican Convention with either a slight majority or a heavy enough plurality to force the establishment to roll over. (Remember, disappointed Romney people are more likely to support the other guy than disappointed Perry people.) Perry picks Carly Fiorina as his running mate as a jobs-economy-gender gesture.

Back in the White House, Obama will finally abandon his supercool, I’m-the-grown-up persona and begin a focused attack on Republicans. He will define them as Tea Party right-wing crazies who do the bidding only of the rich. His intensely negative message will focus on Social Security and women’s issues, leaving behind “The Audacity of Hope” for “The Necessity of Fear.”

Obama’s legislative proposals will go nowhere, but his poll numbers will improve enough to keep any other Democrat—a Clinton, for instance—from emerging as a savior. Most of the discussion in the party will be about replacing Biden, which won’t happen.

Three weeks before the election, Obama will switch to a positive message just as the economy shows a small but measurable improvement. He will abandon any pretense of a national campaign and focus on 25 or so states that get him to 271 electoral votes. It comes down to Michigan, Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, Montana and Iowa. Obama stays alive because of Hispanic votes in California, Colorado and Arizona, where Republicans realize too late that their immigration politics have hurt them.

Election Day comes with Obama down three points in the national polls. He ends up with 48% of the popular vote, 273 electoral votes and no mandate to govern.

Plausible?  Is Brodsky right?  Why not.  Could happen but only if Perry gets and accepts some heavy coaching to get him ready for prime time.  Wait, see and hope that Obama pulls it off, particularly if the alternative is another governor from Texas.

Read it here:  http://nycapitolnews.com/wordpress/2011/09/there%E2%80%99s-a-chill-in-the-air/

One picture says it all

Caught at a Perry rally:

Perry drops 10 points in new poll

A recent Fox News poll has Rick Perry losing significant support among Republicans as a result of his poor performance in debates and his “too liberal” stands on several key issues.  Perry is now the choice of 19% of Republicans, down from 29% in August.  Romney has regained the lead but hasn’t benefited from Perry’s fall.  Perry’s supporters appear to have moved to Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich.  Cain, now in third place, is the choice of 17% of Republicans in Fox’s most recent poll up from 6% a month ago.  Gingrich is now in fourth place with 11%, up from just 3% last month.  Seems the more Republicans get to know Perry the less they like him.  Is Perry about to go the way of Tim Pawlenty?  Maybe. Is Romney stuck permanently in the low 20s?  Maybe.  Can the Pizza guy pull it off?  Will Newt rise again?  Stay tuned.  Only thing that seems clear is that the Republican race is in chaos.

Read the poll here:  http://www.foxnews.com/interactive/politics/2011/09/28/fox-news-poll-gop-race-top-tier/

Your sentence: Go to church on Sunday for a year

Under something they are calling Operation Restore Our Community or "ROC"  city judges in Bay Minette, Alabama will begin giving those found guilty of a misdemeanor the option of going to jail or going to church every Sunday for a year.  Bay Minette Police Chief Mike Rowland says the program is legal and doesn’t violate separation of church and state because it allows offenders to pick the church of their choice as long as services are held on Sunday.  Sorrow non-Christians guess you are going to have to go to jail or convert.  See the story from WKRG News in Pensacola/Mobile.

Dumb…real dumb.  Hey, ACLU,  I got another case for you.

The sad thing about something like this is that those who support it really do not see why there is anything wrong with it.

 See more:  http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2011/sep/22/serve-time-jailor-church-ar-2450720/

BREAKING NEWS: DOJ to ask Supreme Court to rule on Obamacare

The Department of Justice announced today that it will file a petition with the Supreme Court seeking an expedited review of the sole court of appeals decision challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act).  The Obama Administration is eager to have the Supreme Court decide the issue of the constitutionality of the law apparently because the administration believes the court will uphold the law.  ThinkProgress says they have reason to be confident in the final outcome citing testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in February by former acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger.  Dellinger predicted not only that the Supreme Court would reject the meritless lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act, but also that the opinion would be written by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts.  Here is a video of part of Dellinger’s testimony.

Read more here: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/02/16/171940/roberts-aca/

Presidential race 2012-Obama leads

Here is a breakdown of the current electoral vote count for the 2012 presidential race according to the Cook Political Report.  Obama is projected to have 205 electoral votes (186 solid, 5 likely, 14 leaning.)  The Republican candidate is projected to have 191 electoral votes (159 solid, 22 likely, 10 leaning).  Obama needs to pick up 65 votes to reach the 270 needed for election.  The Republican challenger would need to pick up 79.  There are 10 toss up states with 142 electoral votes.  More than half of those votes are in four states: Florida (29), Pennsylvania (20), Ohio (18), and Michigan (16).   Right now Obama has a variety of ways of reaching the magical 270 votes to win by putting together a combination of a couple of the key toss up big states with several of the smaller.  The Republican candidate will need to carry most of the key big states to win.

Solid Dem (15 states)	Likely Dem (1 states)	Lean Dem (2 states)	Toss Up (10 states)	Lean Rep (1 states)	Likely Rep (2 states)	Solid Rep (20 states)
California (55) Connecticut (7) Delaware (3) Hawaii (4) Illinois (20) Maine (4) Maryland (10) Mass'setts (11) New Jersey (14) New York (29) Oregon (7) Rhode Island (4) Vermont (3) Washington (12) Dist. of Col. (3)	New Mexico (5)	Minnesota (10) New Hamp. (4)	Colorado (9) Florida (29) Iowa (6) Michigan (16) Nevada (6) North Car. (15) Ohio (18) Pennsylvania (20) Virginia (13) Wisconsin (10)	Missouri (10)	Arizona (11) Indiana (11)	Alabama (9) Alaska (3) Arkansas (6) Georgia (16) Idaho (4) Kansas (6) Kentucky (8) Louisiana (8) Miss'ppi (6) Montana (3) Nebraska (5) North Dak. (3) Oklahoma (7) South Car. (9) South Dak. (3) Tennessee (11) Texas (38) Utah (6) West Virg. (5) Wyoming (3)

Source: http://www.cookpolitical.com/charts/president/ev_scorecard_2011-09-15_11-54-35.php

Americans don’t like either party

CNN released a new poll yesterday measuring opinions concerning Democrats, Republicans and the Tea Party.  The poll has particularly bad news for Republicans and the Tea Party.  Democrats do only slightly better.  Here are some of the key findings:

• 48% of Americans have an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party.  That’s about the same as in September of last year.  Democrats do better among young people (18-34), Americans making less than $50,000 per year and people living in the Northeast.
• 54% of Americans have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party compared to 49% last year.  Republican favorables have dropped from 45% to 39% in one year. A majority of Americans across almost all age, wage and income groups have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party today. Even in the South Republicans do poorly, with only 47% of Southerners expressing a favorable view of the Republican Party.
• The Tea Party has also lost support.  Only 28% of Americans view the Tea Party Movement favorably now versus 36% a year ago. 
• Majorities of Americans think the policies proposed by the Republican Party leaders (56%) and Democratic Party leaders (53%) would take the country in the wrong direction if adopted.

Read the full results of the CNN poll here:  http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/09/27/sept27.poll.pdf

Is the Buffett Rule right?

You have probably heard of the Buffet Rule.  Obama included in his deficit reduction plan a proposal that tax laws be changed so that millionaires like Warren Buffett would not be able to pay less in taxes than their secretaries.  He called it the Buffett Rule

Columnist David Brooks of the New York Times and other conservatives were particularly upset charging Obama with repeating a falsehood.  Brooks writes:

He repeated the old half-truth about millionaires not paying as much in taxes as their secretaries. (In reality, the top 10 percent of earners pay nearly 70 percent of all income taxes, according to the I.R.S. People in the richest 1 percent pay 31 percent of their income to the federal government while the average worker pays less than 14 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office.)

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/opinion/brooks-obama-rejects-obamaism.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

So, who is right Obama or Brooks?  Actually, both.  It all depends upon how the super rich earn their money.  If they earn their money like most Americans through salaries, then they pay a higher effective tax rate that most Americans.  However, if they earn their money primarily through investments, which many do, then their effective tax rate will always be lower than that of Americans whose income comes entirely from earnings (salaries).  The reason is simple.  Income from investments is taxed at a much lower rate than income from earnings. The chart below shows the maximum total individual income and payroll tax rate for 2011 according to the Tax Policy Center.

The truth is that someone like Warren Buffett who gets most, maybe nearly all, of his income from investments very likely actually pays a lower tax rate than his secretary, so Obama is right.  On the other hand, if Warren Buffett got most or all of his income from a salary, like most Americans, then he would very likely pay a higher tax rate than his secretary who probably is salaried.

Those are the facts.  Read more at the link below.

Source:  http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2011/08/23/was-buffett-right-do-workers-pay-more-tax-than-their-bosses/

Now, no one, rich or poor, pays the maximum total individual income and payroll tax rate since the tax code is filled with deductions.  However, that’s another story.  Derek Thompson is a senior editor at The Atlantic explains:

To understand why, consider the 76 million people who don't legally owe individual income taxes in 2011 (please, please note: does not include payroll, excise, state and local taxes). The vast majority of this group was poor. They didn't owe individual income taxes because they didn't owe a lot of money to start, and various exemptions, like the earned income tax credit, wiped out the rest.

But among families making more than $100,000, there were also half a million tax units -- enough to replace the population of Tucson, Arizona -- that also paid no income tax. Even more surprising,7,000 millionaires also paid no individual income tax.

Let's focus on these 7,000 tax payers. I think they help to show why, even if the Buffett Rule is a sensible principle, it wouldn't be a commonsense law.

As Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center explained to me, there are three buckets of factors that can bring taxable income down from $1 million to zero. One is tax tricks. The IRS should crack down more. Two is relying heavily on investments. The administration can try to level taxes for earned income and investment income. Third is great misfortunes. When investments lose significant income, a house or business is destroyed (i.e. a casualty loss), or a family member gets sick and incurs high medical costs for the self-insured, all these things chop away at taxable income and eventually bring a millionaire's income taxes to zero.

Read more: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/buffett-rule-rorschach-7-000-millionaires-paid-no-income-taxes-in-2011/245469/

How balanced is Obama's plan?

How balanced is Obama's new proposal for economic growth and deficit reduction when it comes to relying on new revenues vs. spending cuts?  Well, it doesn't go as far as I would like given the level of income inequality in the country today, but it is a lot better than anything Republicans have proposed.  After all they propose no revenue increases at all.  Take a look at the chart below that shows the distribution between revenues and spending cuts in Obama's plan.  While you are at it, download this pdf which contains charts showing how much tax relief the super rich have enjoyed for the last several decades.  When the Republicans talk about class warfare, they get the story totally backward.  The class warfare hasn't been against the rich.  It has been against the middle and working class.  Obama's plan just makes a minor adjustment to restore a small bit of the imbalance.  It's not too much of a price for those who have benefited the most from Republican-installed tax cuts and tax breaks to pay to help get our country's financial house in order.

Download the tax chart pdf here:  http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/pdf/low_tax_graphs.pdf

Source: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/09/obama_deficit_plan.html

Specifics of Obama’s Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction Plan

Here are the specifics of Obama’s plan for economic growth and deficit reduction which was announced today.  The plan includes a jobs bill that calls for investments in education, innovation, and infrastructure and a deficit reduction package of spending cuts and revenue enhancements (2 to 1 ratio) which the White House says will not only pay for the jobs bill but produce net savings of more than $3 trillion over the next decade, on top of the roughly $1 trillion in spending cuts that the President already signed into law in the Budget Control Act – for a total savings of more than $4 trillion over the next decade.   The plan says: The President will veto any bill that takes one dime from the Medicare benefits seniors rely on without asking the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share.  Additionally, the plan calls for comprehensive tax reform, and lays out five principles for it to follow: 1) lower tax rates; 2) cut wasteful loopholes and tax breaks; 3) reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion; 4) boost job creation and growth; and 5) comport with the “Buffett Rule” that people making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay.  The latter proposal calls for a new minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year to ensure that they pay at least the same percentage of their earnings as middle-income taxpayers, according to administration officials.  Republicans have already labeled Obama’s call for the rich to pay their fair share “class warfare.”

Here is a summary of Obama’s plan.  Note: Republicans have already rejected it.

The American Jobs Act

·         Tax cuts to help businesses hire and grow

o    Cutting the payroll tax in half on the first $5 million in payroll, targeting the benefit to the 98 percent of firms with payroll below this threshold.

o    A complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages up to $50 million

o    Extending 100 percent expensing into 2012

o    Reforms and regulatory reductions to help entrepreneurs and small businesses access capital 

·         Putting workers back on the job while rebuilding and modernizing America

o    A “Returning Heroes” hiring tax credit for veterans

o    Preventing up to 280,000 teacher layoffs, while keeping cops and firefighters on the job

o    Immediate investments in infrastructure, school buildings, and neighborhoods as well as a bipartisan National Infrastructure Bank 

·         Pathways back to work for Americans looking for jobs

o    The most innovative reform to the unemployment insurance program in 40 years and extension of emergency unemployment insurance preventing  6 million Americans looking for work from losing benefits

o    A $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring the long-term unemployed

o    Prohibiting employers from discriminating against unemployed workers when hiring

o    Expanding job opportunities for low-income youth and adults 

·         Tax relief for every American worker and family

o    Cutting payroll taxes in half for 160 million workers next year

o    Allowing more Americans to refinance their mortgages 

·         Fully paid for as part of the President’s long-term deficit reduction plan 

Paying for Our Investments and Reducing the Deficit

·         The plan produces approximately $4.4 trillion in deficit reduction net the cost of the American Jobs Act.

o    $1.2 trillion from the discretionary cuts enacted in the Budget Control Act.

o    $580 billion in cuts and reforms to a wide range of mandatory programs;

o    $1.1 trillion from the drawdown of troops in Afghanistan and transition from a military to a civilian-led mission in Iraq

o    $1.5 trillion from tax reform

o    $430 billion in additional interest savings

·         To spur economic growth and job creation, the plan includes one-time investment and relief in the American Jobs Act.  That adds to the deficit in 2012 but is fully paid for over 10 years, and deficit reduction phases in starting in 2013, as the economy grows stronger.

·         Deficit reduction is achieved in a balanced approach, with a spending cut to revenue ratio for the entire plan (including discretionary cuts) of 2 to 1.  

Deficits and Debt

·         The Joint Committee plan significantly reduces deficits and puts the country on a fiscally sustainable path by 2017.

o    The deficit is projected to fall to 2.3 percent of GDP in 2021. By comparison, if we did nothing, the deficit would be 5.5 percent of GDP in 2021.

o    Reaches “primary balance”-- where our current spending is no longer adding to our debt -- in 2017. At that point, current spending is no longer adding to our debt, debt is falling as a share of the economy, and deficits are at a sustainable level. 

·         The President’s plan would reduce the national debt as a share of economy.

o    Stable or falling debt as a share of the economy is a key metric of fiscal sustainability.

o    If we did nothing, the national debt would rise to 90.7 percent of GDP in 2021.  By contrast, under the President’s plan, the national debt would fall to 73.0 percent of GDP in 2021 -- or an improvement of almost 18 percentage points. 

Health Savings

·         The plan includes $320 billion in health savings that build on the Affordable Care Act to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid by reducing wasteful spending and erroneous payments, and supporting reforms that boost the quality of care. It accomplishes this in a way that does not shift significant risks onto the individuals they serve; slash benefits; or undermine the fundamental compact they represent to our Nation’s seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income families. 

·         The plan includes $248 billion in savings from Medicare.

o    Within this total, 90 percent of the savings, or $224 billion, comes from reducing overpayments in Medicare.

o    Any savings that affect beneficiaries do not begin until 2017.

o    The plan does not propose to change the eligibility age for Medicare benefits. 

·         Other health and Medicaid savings amount to $72 billion. 

·         Because of the structural nature of these reforms, health savings grow to over $1 trillion in the second decade. 

·         The President will veto any bill that takes one dime from the Medicare benefits seniors rely on without asking the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share.

Other Mandatory

·         The plan includes $250 billion in savings from other mandatory programs. 

·         Included within these savings are:

o    $33 billion insavings from agriculture subsidies, payments, and programs

o    $42.5 billion in reforms to Federal employee benefit programs, including programs for civilian employees and military personnel.

o    $4.1 billion from the disposal of unused government assets.

o    $92.2 billion from restructuring government operations and reducing government liabilities.

o    $77.6 billion from improving Federal program management and reducing waste and abuse.

Revenues

·         The President calls on the Committee to undertake comprehensive tax reform, and lays out five principles for it to follow: 1) lower tax rates; 2) cut wasteful loopholes and tax breaks; 3) reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion; 4) boost job creation and growth; and 5) comport with the “Buffett Rule” that people making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay.

o    Tax reform should draw on the specific proposals the President has put forward, together with elimination of additional inefficient tax breaks. If the Joint Committee is unable to undertake comprehensive tax reform, the President believes the discrete measures he has proposed should be enacted on a standalone basis. Their enactment as a standalone package still would significantly improve the country’s fiscal standing, represent an important step toward more fundamentally transforming our tax code, and serve as a strong foundation for economic growth and job creation. 

o    To advance this debate, the President is offering a detailed set of specific tax loophole closers and measures to broaden the tax base that, together with the expiration of the high-income tax cuts, would be more than sufficient to hit the $1.5 trillion target. These include:

§  Allowing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for upper income earners to expire ($866 billion)

§  Limiting deductions and exclusions for those making more than $250,000 a year ($410 billion)

§  Closing loopholes and eliminating special interest tax breaks (approximately $300 billion)

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/19/fact-sheet-living-within-our-means-and-investing-future-president-s-plan

Google’s Schmidt says Repub economic strategy ludicrous

Christiane Amanpour interviewed Google chairman Eric Schmidt on Sunday about the state of the economy and what Washington needs to do to help businesses create jobs.  He described the current Republican do nothing/cut spending approach to the economy as ludicrous.  He is right.  Click the link below to watch this important video.  You’ll be glad you did.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/interview-eric-schmidt-14546842

Sorry Republicans, its Perry or Romney, says analyst

Well known political analyst Stuart Rothenberg says the Republican race is come down to a choice between Perry and Romney.  None of the other contenders, says Rothenberg, have a chance of winning the nomination.

Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann’s prospects vanished when Perry entered the race, and Newt Gingrich’s victory scenario disappeared when his campaign launch flopped. Texas Rep. Ron Paul’s message has always been out of sync with the majority of his party, while businessman Herman Cain lacks the experience to be taken seriously.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.) has the profile of a contender, but he lacks the fundraising ability and stature needed to win the nomination. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman looks the part of president, but his main appeal seems to be to Democrats and journalists, neither of whom will select the GOP nominee.

Three other hopefuls — former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer and Michigan Rep. Thaddeus McCotter — get no media attention, which reflects their limited prospects and guarantees they won’t get on most people’s radar.

Source: http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.com/news/article/will-gop-choose-john-kerry-or-howard-dean

That may not make a lot of Republicans very happy.  Poll Watch Daily says “as in all major national polls recently, Rick Perry is the frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination in aNew York Times/CBS News survey, but half of likely Republican primary voters have reservations about their candidate of choice and an equal number wish there were more choices.”

Read more: http://www.pollwatchdaily.com/2011/09/17/perry-leads-gop-field-in-another-poll-but-many-republicans-have-reservations-about-their-candidate-of-choice/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PollWatchDaily+%28Poll+Watch+Daily%29

Economic miracle, Perry style—More poverty

The Texas-based Center for Public Policy Priorities took a look at Governor Goodhair’s economic model.  Perry’s job formula which he so proudly pitches for the U.S. as a whole can be summed up as:  More Low-Paying Jobs + Higher Unemployment = Increased Poverty. That’s what he has done for Texas. The Center’s report says:

Once again, Texas saw both the percentage and number of people struggling to make ends meet climb. In 2010, 18.4 percent (or 4.6 million) of Texans were living in poverty (e.g., $22,113 a year or less for a family of four), up from 17.3 percent (or 4.3 million) in 2009. Not only is Texas’ poverty rate higher than the U.S. poverty rate (15.1 percent), it also grew at a faster rate.

Texas’ unemployment rate jumped from 7.6 percent in 2009 to 8.2 percent in 2010. As shown in the chart above, our poverty rate rises and falls with the unemployment rate. Of the nearly 1 million unemployed Texans in 2010, more than one in three—approximately 336,000 Texans—were unemployed 6 months or longer. In fact, the 2010 unemployment and poverty rates are at 15-year highs. The unemployment rate has continued to climb into 2011 to 8.4 percent (July 2011), marking 23 consecutive months that Texas’ unemployment rate has exceeded 8 percent. This ties the modern-day stretch set in the wake of the 1980s oil and real estate bust. Recent data revealed that Texas has the highest proportion of low-wage jobs in the country (nearly 10 percent of all hourly paid workers, tied with Mississippi).  More than half a million Texas workers earn minimum wage or less.

 At the current minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, a single parent working full time would

earn just over $15,000 a year before taxes. If that parent has two kids, then $15,000 would be too low to meet basic needs, leaving them dependent upon public health insurance and free school lunch for the kids and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as Food Stamps) for the entire family.

So much for Perry as a jobs miracle-worker.  Turns out he is all hat and no saddle.

Read the full report here:  http://www.cppp.org/files/091311_PovertyDay_PolicyPage.pdf

Rand Paul, wrong again…so very wrong.

Rand Paul (R, KY) doesn’t think we should worry very much about poverty in America.  He had this to say in a recent hearing.

PAUL: We also need to understand that poverty is not a state of permanence. When you look at people in the bottom 5th of the economic ladder — those at the bottom — only 5 percent are there after 16 years. People move up, the American dream does exist…The rich are getting richer, but the poor are getting richer even faster.

See him spout this nonsense in the following video:

Source: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/13/318259/with-record-number-of-americans-falling-into-poverty-rand-paul-says-the-poor-are-getting-rich/

Rand Paul gives the impression that research on poverty confirms the widespread belief among conservatives that the U.S. is the land of unlimited opportunity for everyone and that in this great land those who live in poverty do so for only a short time and that most of the poor go on to enjoy at least a middle or upper-middle income level later in life.  It sounds so good.  It sounds as if we don’t have to be that concerned.  And, it seemingly justifies the widespread belief among conservatives that people who are poor in this great country are poor solely because of their own life choices.  All they had to do is work hard and all would be well.  Thus, according to Paul, there is no need for government or the rest of us to concern ourselves with poverty in our country.  We can focus on more important things like providing tax breaks so the rich can get richer.

The problem with Paul’s argument is that it isn’t true.  This is from a study entitle Childhood and Intergenerational Poverty : The Long-Term Consequences of Growing Up Poor by Robert Lee Wagmiller and Robert M. Adelman at the National Center for Children in Poverty.  The researchers write:

“The American Dream” is rooted in the idea of upward mobility, the idea that individuals and families can escape the confines of poverty and disadvantage through hard work and perseverance.

Social and economic deprivation during childhood and adolescence can have a lasting effect on individuals, making it difficult for children who grow up in low-income families to escape poverty when they become adults. 6 Because the negative effects of deprivation on human development tend to cumulate, individuals with greater exposure to poverty during childhood are likely to have more difficulty escaping poverty as adults.

Studies focusing on the intergenerational transmission of poverty find that while individuals can break out of intergenerational cycles of poverty, they are less likely to do so than is commonly thought. 17Moreover, when subsequent generations do escape poverty they are likely to move into the ranks of the slightly less poor. 18 Poverty exits depend on numerous factors such as educational and employment opportunities, the availability of role models, and child and parent aspirations, 19 as well as a child’s birth order and when in the child’s life poverty occurs. 20

Researchers also find that the intergenerational correlation between incomes and earnings vary widely by race. For example, according to Hertz, 17 percent of whites who were born in the lowest income category between 1942 and 1972 remained there as adults while 42 percent of African-Americans did so.21 Similarly, in a separate study, Isaacs finds that not only do African-American children live in families with lower average incomes than whites, but “African-Americans experience less upward mobility and more downward mobility than whites.” 22 In general, scholars have found that race matters a great deal in intergenerational economic mobility.

Here is the truth, Paul although it doesn’t fit your ideology.  An American who is born in poverty today and spends any significant time in poverty during their childhood will find it extremely difficult to realize that American dream of being better off than their parents.  That’s why poverty is a problem we need to address.  It has to do with equal opportunity.   Take a look at this table, it tells the whole story.  

Source: http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_909.html

We have a choice

During the recent Republican debate, CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul the following question:

"A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I'm not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I'm healthy, I don't need it. But something terrible happens; all of a sudden he needs it.

"Who's going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?"

Paul, who is a physician, responded with this exchange:

PAUL: Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.

BLITZER: Well, what do you want?

PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced —

BLITZER: But he doesn't have that. He doesn't have it, and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?

PAUL: That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody —

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

Many in the audience yell “Yeah” or “Let him die.”

See: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/09/13/140434378/ron-paul-its-not-governments-job-to-take-care-of-uninsured?ft=1&f=1001

The exchange between Blitzer and Paul points out perhaps the greatest difference between the Tea Party dominated Republican Party and the Democrats.  The Tea Party/Republicans want to take us back to the late 1800s and early 1900s before progressives were able to pass legislation that set the federal government on the side of working men and women.  We forget what it was like back then and what our country would become if people like Paul and the other Republicans get their way.  Let me remind you.

I wrote about the plight of the average working American in the early 1900s in my book Getting Things Done in Washington.  Here is an excerpt.

If you worked in America in the late 1800s and early 1900s you suffered not only from near starvation wages but also from a range of medical ailments, many serious.  If you worked for long as a miner, stonecutter, textile worker, furrier, cap maker, baker or hairdresser, you almost certainly would develop bronchitis, asthma and very likely tuberculosis.  Regardless of occupation you worked long hours, with little time to rest or even seek fresh air.  You and your family lived in overcrowded and unsanitary tenement housing.  You were constantly under stress and exhausted.  You likely sought refuge in alcohol which soon ravaged your body.  If you were a woman and became pregnant, you worked as long as you could before giving birth and then, assuming you survived the delivery, returned to work as soon as possible since your family depended upon your wages.  Your child would very likely never live to reach the age of five.  Any bout of sickness for you or a family member had disastrous consequences even if the ill person recovered.  Your life would quickly spiral out of control as it did for Emil Bollhausen, a Germany immigrant and cabinet maker, one of several hundred cases reported in a study of New York City working families in a 1917 study by the Russell Sage Foundation.

Bollhausen had arrived in the United States in 1882.  He quickly found work in New York City’s furniture industry employing cabinet making skills he had been taught by his father in Berlin.  He married and had a son.  His wife worked as a janitress and the family, while not prosperous, could pay the bills.  They survived.  By 1915, at the age of fifty-four, Bollhausen had found better and higher paying employment working for an antique dealer doing fine finishing and repairs.  Then, Bollhausen had heart trouble.  He developed pleurisy and pneumonia and was hospitalized.  His income naturally stopped since there was no such thing at the time as paid sick leave.  Bollhausen and his family entered a downward spiral as described in a report at the time:

“[H]  ospital treatment, then a few day’s work, illness again, no money to pay the doctor, the use of patent medicines suggested by neighbors, the hospital again with some improvement followed by four weeks in the country…work again too hard for him, another illness, dispensary treatment…eight months of  sickness and treatment and still unable to undertake regular work.”

Bollhausen’s experience was typical of most workers who were unfortunate enough to become ill.  What little assistance workers could obtain for dealing with medical expenses came from fraternal organizations such as the Freemasons or Odd Fellows often in the way of a fraternal or “lodge” doctor who was paid by the association to treat members.  Most good doctors refused to take such patients because the payments were small.  Members might also receive a small cash benefit if they couldn’t work because of illness for a length of time, usually a week or more. Such benefits lasted only for a limited time and diminished over time.  For example, one association in New York paid $4.00 a week for the first six weeks then $2.00 a week for the next six weeks with nothing thereafter.

In 1916, about one quarter of unionized workers belonged to unions that provided some kind of sickness benefits to their members.  This was at a time when only a little over 5 percent of American workers were in labor unions so the coverage was available only to a small segment of the workforce. 

Most people got the little medical care they received through charities that operated free medical dispensaries (health clinics).  These were particularly popular in urban areas with large immigrant populations.  Dispensaries served not only the poor and unemployed but the working poor.  Many who might have had some limited access to assistance through an association or employer chose to go to a dispensary out of the belief (unfounded) that free care was superior to that they could obtain in doctor’s offices.  In reality, “dispensaries were not all well equipped, however.  In many cases, overcrowding, absentee doctors, haphazard care, and decaying facilities made dispensary treatment ad harrowing experience.”   Additionally, dispensaries were typically open for only a few hours a day or week and usually only during working hours so it was difficult for most working people to visit them without losing perhaps an entire day’s pay.  Those who did visit found the wait to see a doctor a long one and their visit with the doctor fleeting as he rushed on to another patient.  For example, two doctors in one New York dispensary one morning in 1914 reportedly saw a total of 162 patients in just four hours, a rate of more than 40 patients per hour. 

Some private physicians were willing to wave their fees for low-income patients.  Nurses and midwives, usually female, charged less.  Most of these options were available only to whites and only in urban areas.  If you were black or lived in a rural area, you had little medical care available either public or private.

Urban or rural the typical experience of the American worker of the time who became seriously ill was similar to that of a cook in New York in 1915.  He had held a number of good positions but lost work when he developed a cough because no one wanted to employ a cook with a serious cough.  He entered a hospital for treatment but was discharged homeless in a few days.  He eventually was able to obtain medication though a dispensary and found lodging at a home for destitute tuberculosis patients run by the Salvation Army.  Like most working poor who became seriously ill, the cook soon died and was buried in a pauper’s grave in potter’s field.    A person born in 1900 had a life expectancy of just 47 years. 

That’s the kind of world and kind of life for the average working man and woman that  Republicans seek to recreate by undoing more than a hundred years of progressive legislation.  They will accomplish their goal if we elect them in 2012.  It is our choice.