Government
-
Unemployment Office Errors Are Costing the Poor
-
2.4M Foreclosures in 2010?
-
5 Ways to End Hunger in 2010
Dear Supreme Court, "Freedom" Shouldn't Trump Equality
Published January 24, 2010 @ 12:09PM PT
Since the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday to overturn two precedents and permit unlimited corporate spending on political campaigns, the word "freedom" has experienced a resurgence unparalleled since the months following September 11, 2001. Corporations deserve freedom of speech, too, suggests the Court's majority opinion (heavily dissented in a 90-page rebuttal from the more liberal minority). Forget about America's economically disadvantaged, who lack the financial wherewithal to pressure candidates into promoting their interests. Equality of opportunity is an old catchphrase; we're talking freedom now.
An oft-repeated saying of William Easterly, a professor of economics at NYU, is that "the rich have markets and the poor have bureaucrats." What a telling phrase in light of Thursday's disastrous decision. Once again, the rich -- in this case, corporations -- can exploit markets to make their voices heard. After all, what politician will turn down millions if it means losing a swing state? Low-income Americans, on the other hand, are stuck with only their votes. Talk about disempowerment.
The fundamental problem with the Supreme Court's decision is its interpretation that corporations are "associations of people," thereby allowing them the same rights that individuals have under the First Amendment. Freedom of speech for the individual becomes freedom of speech for Wal-Mart and Wells Fargo. As Jimmy Kimmel joked Thursday night, "Corporations are not people, and if they were people, they’d be real jerks." Why allow them free speech, unless your goal is to help them sway public opinion in favor of candidates with their economic interests at heart?
Jobs Do Grow on Trees?
Published January 16, 2010 @ 01:40PM PT
The grass will soon get greener for some people in need of skills and steady jobs. The Department of Labor awarded $150 million in "Pathways Out of Poverty" grants this week focused on getting low-income people into green jobs.
The 38 local organizations that got the green jobs training grants have been asked to focus their efforts in areas where at least 15% of the population lives below the poverty line. Outreach will focus on the already unemployed, people with criminal records and those who didn't finish high school. These positions in the "green economy" include work like installing solar panels and winterizing homes. It's a great idea, though $150 million is such an infinitesimal drop in the bucket that it won't do much to improve dismal job numbers.
Green job creation has been a pet project of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis for years; from 2001 to 2009, she advocated for eco-employment as the U.S. representative for California's 32nd district. While in the House, she introduced the Green Jobs Act, which passed under a hostile administration. It's interesting that Solis didn't sit on the Labor Committee in Congress. Instead, she served on the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Natural Resources Committee and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. Her parents, immigrants from Nicaragua and Mexico, were assembly line workers and union supporters.
Photo credit: Center for American Progress
Rich Politicians Embarrassed About Being Rich
Published January 14, 2010 @ 12:28PM PT
This one made me chuckle. Seven wealthy white Republican men debated last night as part of the race to become Illinois' next governor, and they spent the better part of the debate sparring over who grew up in the worst circumstances. Though some deny it, it appears that every man is a millionaire.
It reminded me of the "But I have black friends!" defense, used when you've done something offensive. Only now it's the "I grew up poor!" argument, especially effective when you advocate for policies that negatively affect those living in poverty. Don't feel bad about being rich, guys; we want people to have money, as long as everyone gets the same chances you did and you don't mind sharing just a little.
Here are the highlights:
- Former state Republican chairman Andy McKenna said he has met poor people through a non-profit organization he founded to rebuild homes. It's great that he's focused on housing issues, but we hope he doesn't think he "gets" poor people now.
- State Senator Bill Brady said that while growing up he worked with insulators, carpenters and plumbers at his dad's construction company. Do you think they told the whole story to the boss's son?
- Businessman Adam Andrzejewski used to bail hay before he started a classifieds company worth millions of dollars.
- State Senator Kirk Dillard bragged, "I'm the only non-millionaire up here" -- a claim a fellow candidate disputed by saying Dillard lives in the same million-dollar neighborhood he does. Dillard went on to say that he had lived in his parents' basement as a law school student and that his children now attend public schools.
- Former Attorney General Jim Ryan gave the best answer of the night: "It's not so much whether you're wealthy or middle-class, it's where your heart is at. I believe in respect for life and human dignity. If you're pro-life, you should be concerned about the poor ... the uninsured ... the marginalized."
- And as for radio host Dan Proft , who replied, "Yeah, like everybody else, I was born a poor, black child, too," well, he better start preparing his "But I have black friends!" and "I grew up poor!" excuses.
Photo credit: Universal
NYPD Stupidly Destroys Tons of Clothing
Published January 13, 2010 @ 07:41AM PT
You know that tinge of guilt you get when you throw a plastic water bottle into the trash if there's no recycling nearby? It's hard to believe that New York City officials didn't feel that, times a zillion, when they shredded a dozen truckloads of unworn clothing and sent tons more to an incinerator last year.
New York City routinely confiscates tons of clothing and footwear from counterfeiters. In years past, these items were donated to the city's needy. In 2009, however, they were destroyed as soon as they were no longer needed as evidence in the counterfeiters' criminal trials. The revelation comes from Jim Dwyer of the New York Times, who must be getting tips from all over since he reported on H&M's practice of shredding unsold merchandise. The United States Customs and Border Protection, by contrast, donated $78 million worth of wearable goods last year to groups in Los Angeles, Detroit, El Paso and San Francisco.
In the past, the Times notes, officials in New York donated such hauls to the New York City Clothing Bank and World Vision (which could surely do good with provisions to be supplied to earthquake-ravaged Haiti). Now the clothing bank and the NYPD are having a he said-she said; the police say no one requested the clothing, the bank says it made multiple requests. It doesn't make much sense. Even if the bank didn't specifically request the goods, who in their right mind would think it would turn down an offer to distribute them? The clothing bank said it especially relies on knockoffs to clothe men (women's goods more often get donated directly by clothing companies). Before the labels can be cut out and the clothes given to people in need, the trademark holder must sign off on the donation, which almost always happens smoothly.
The cops screwed up big time, and now that they've been lambasted in the press, don't expect it to happen again. Their reputation is now on the trash heap, and that's one thing they won't let get to the incinerator.
Photo credit: photine
Whatever You Call Them, They're Still Poor
Published January 12, 2010 @ 01:10PM PT
Washington State Senator Rosa Franklin, a Democrat, has an idea. She wants to tweak the language in 54 state laws so that words like "disadvantaged" and "at risk" pertaining to children living in poverty will be replace by the more positive "at hope."
Um, is she mentally at hope?
I can't help thinking that this is a waste of time and energy. And oh yeah, money. A Republican state senator argues, wisely, that the approximate $3,500 it costs to take a bill from idea to printing could be better spent. The legislative body has apparently agreed to introduce the bill, but doubts that it will go anywhere in the process.
Personally, I prefer "living in poverty" to refer to people who are, you know, living in poverty. It just actually means something. And it's not a slur. There's a poverty threshold. When people fall below it they are living in poverty. When they are living in poverty, they are disadvantaged and at risk (of going hungry, of becoming homeless, of dropping out and so on).
Using euphemisms just makes it easier to ignore the problem. If an individual's obstacles are made even more vague ("at risk"? at risk of what?), it's harder to know what that person is facing and, as a result, how to address those problems.
Should this blog be named "At Hope in America?"
Photo credit: Feuillu
The Fall of John Edwards, Would-Be Poverty Reformer
Published January 12, 2010 @ 05:30AM PT
The cover story of this week's New York magazine details the spectacular political flame-out of the once-promising vice presidential nominee John Edwards. If you're not the type who's drawn to tawdry tales of wrongdoing (or not the type to admit that you are), it's also an important timeline of how, when and why this nation's most recent flirtations with serious poverty policy were derailed by one man's personal failings.
While "Saint Elizabeth and the Ego Monster," an excerpt of the campaign book Game Change by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, doesn't address Edwards's poverty platform -- after cataloging the candidate's every misstep, from the extramarital affair while his wife was battling incurable cancer to the ensuing political cover-up and unflagging megalomania, there was hardly room -- it does paint a picture of a man so focused on becoming president that he let his politics dictate his policy ("Hey, maybe harping on domestic poverty would set me apart...") rather than the other way around. Somewhere along the way, the reporters allege that Edwards became so self-absorbed that Elizabeth asked an aide, "Don't you think he's kind of messianic?"
Students Flock to School Breakfast Programs
Published December 30, 2009 @ 02:19PM PT
We've talked pretty extensively here at Poverty in America about the need to provide children with healthy and affordable school lunches, but what hasn't been mentioned as frequently is the equally-important, yet drastically under-utilized, national School Breakfast Program.
As the economy has worsened over past two years, more and more families have started to rely on free or reduced price school meals as a main source of nutrition. In fact, a new report (pdf) released by the Food Research Action Center (FRAC) found that child participation in school breakfast programs increased 6.2 percent during the 2008-09 school year, more than in any year since FRAC began keeping statistics in 1991.
However, the FRAC report also highlights participation problems that are keeping the school breakfast program from being as effective as it could be. While participation in the program is increasing, it still reaches less than half of eligible low-income children across the country.
