From theGrio:
For good or for bad, and hopefully for good, this is a big week for the future of health care reform. On Thursday, President Obama will hold his bipartisan health care summit, during which he will certainly seek his ever-elusive goal of bipartisanship. The president will also have an opportunity to further isolate his Republican obstructionist opponents--provided he takes the opportunity, and the GOP takes the bait. And just days before, the president unveiled his own health care plan, signaling his willingness to provide some direction and leadership on his signature campaign issue.
If health care reform legislation eventually passes, this week may well have been the reason. Either way, the Obama administration's strategy up to this point, or lack thereof, provides a valuable lesson in how not to promote a health care plan.
The president unveiled his own 11-page health care plan, which is available online. The plan would extend coverage to 31 million people, ramp up regulations on the health insurance companies, and replace the Senate's proposed tax on high-cost insurance plans with a tax on the wealthy. Other highlights of the Obama plan include the following:
-An end to discrimination based on pre-existing conditions
-Extension of Medicaid, but the elimination of Sen. Ben Nelson's $100 million Medicaid funding deal for Nebraska
-State-based exchanges, as opposed to national, would allow consumers to purchase and compare insurance plans
-A national insurance authority would help states fight unreasonable insurance rate hikes
-The plan would close the "donut hole" gap in the Medicare prescription drug plan
-Penalties if people do not buy insurance, with income-based subsidies if they cannot afford coverage
-An end to anti-competitive practices by drug companies that keep cheaper generic drugs off the market
-A voluntary, long-term insurance option for people with disabilities
-Scholarships, loan repayment and other incentives to promote the expansion of the health care workforce
-Reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act will improve health care for 1.9 million Native Americans
In addition to the plan, the President supports legislation removing antitrust exemption for the insurance industry.
For the first time in a while, Obama is taking the lead and seizing the reins in the health care debate. But it took a long time to get here. The administration has been criticized for over-learning the lessons from the failed Clinton health care plan. President Clinton's attempt at universal health care failed because they kept Congress out of the loop. Obama, on the other hand, took a step back while a dysfunctional, lobbyist-loving Congress shaped the legislation on its own, with no guidance from the White House. The congressional sausage-making process turned people off, and Obama lost popularity with his base for not acting like the agent of change he was in the 2008 campaign.
Conspicuously absent from the Obama plan is the much beloved and ever-popular public option. The president chose to pitch his proposal as a foundation that legislators can amend and build upon. However, the administration has risked alienating its base of Democrats and Independents by announcing it ditched the public option because of a concern the votes are not there in the Senate. This comes despite 23 senators signing onto Sen. Michael Bennett's (D-Colorado) letter to Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), calling for a public option through reconciliation.
Critics charge that the President has made too many concessions in order to attract Republican support he will never win over. Progressive Change Campaig co-founder Adam Green said in response that "The White House obviously has a loser mentality -- but America rallies around winners. Polls show that in state after state, voters hate the Senate bill and overwhelmingly want a public option, even if passed with zero Republican votes."
Green's group is targeting seven lawmakers who have not yet signed on to the Bennett letter, as insurance giant Wellpoint is poised to hike rates by double digits in at least 11 states, including the lawmakers' respective states. Susan Bayh, Sen. Evan Bayh's (D-Indiana) wife is a Wellpoint board member, and has made millions of dollars in that capacity.
Republicans will likely use the summit to brand the President's plan as expensive and more government expansion, and push for a private-sector alternative to reduce costs and increase coverage--as if the private sector has served Americans so well when it comes to health insurance.
GOP reactions to the Obama plan were predictable. House minority leader John Boehner, who criticized the House health bill as too long to read, criticized the President's plan for being too short. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor rejected the President's proposal, calling the bill a "non-starter" and expressing little hope for a bipartisan agreement. "The president insists on bringing back a bill that the American people have resoundingly rejected," he said. The White House challenged the Republicans to offer their own proposal.
Conservative radio entertainer Rush Limbaugh provided the most controversial reactions to health care reform, characterizing the reform effort as "a civil rights bill" and "reparations." "The rich are going to stop getting all the good stuff, we're gonna take -- this is income redistribution, this is returning the nation's wealth to its quote-unquote rightful owners," Limbaugh said. "This is a civil rights bill. This is reparations, whatever you want to call it."
Limbaugh's opposition to health reform on racial grounds mirrors both the racially-charged, anti-health care tea party movement, not to mention the traditional conservative resistance to taxes and social programs. Through the use of the race card and a Southern Strategy, Republicans won over white voters by opposing social programs on the grounds that they would benefit African-Americans. It was a strategy perfected by the late GOP strategist Lee Atwater.
Accounting for one-sixth of the U.S. economy, health care is an important issue. Prohibitive medical costs literally cripple struggling families that cannot afford to get sick. A Harvard Medical School study found that 45,000 people die each year because they lack health insurance. "I'm most concerned about the 47 million people in the nation who are uninsured," Roslyn Brock, the new NAACP chair, recently said. "I would hope that our Congress, working with the [Obama] administration, would recommit themselves to ensure comprehensive and affordable health care for all Americans."
In 2008, 7.3 million African-Americans were uninsured. Patients of color are less likely to receive the same quality medical care as whites, and blacks die of cancer at a higher rate than whites, even with equal care. Further, black doctors are underrepresented, accounting for under 8 percent of first-year medical students, although African-Americans are 15 percent of the population.
At the same time, the health care debate has sucked all of the air out of the political room, and the Congressional Black Caucus has expressed frustration of late that high unemployment in black and low-income communities received little attention in the latest jobs legislation.
Hopefully the time spent on health care reform will translate into rewards for the American public, and a second political wind for the Obama White House. We should find out soon. What happens next will be a crucial test as to whether the President can get the job done, and successfully promote big legislation on other pressing issues in the future.
February 27, 2010
Tiger Didn't Apologize for Dubai's Slave Labor
From BlackCommentator.com and Huffington Post:
When golf giant Tiger Woods made his public apology recently, he said he let a lot of people down. Personally, I cared very little about his personal dalliances and extracurricular activities. With an economic and political crisis afoot in this crumbling empire, it seems that this salacious celebrity gossip is nothing more than that--a media-created distraction to help us forget how bad things really are in America. This is a sideshow, like the gladiator games in Rome, or feeding the Christians to the lions.
A personal matter, the subject of Tiger's apology really was not intended for the general public, though it was made before an audience of millions. Rather, his plastic, controlled, manufactured pseudo-press conference, no doubt the creation of some well-paid public relations firm, was intended for the people closest to him. And more importantly, it was meant for his corporate sponsors who have backed out and bailed out on him, or those who are fixin' to do so. This is about dollars.
So, Tiger didn't owe me an apology, because I had no expectations of him. But Tiger did disappoint me in one regard. He failed to apologize for his failure to put human rights and human dignity ahead of his profits. To be more specific, plans are still in motion for Tiger Woods Dubai, an expansive Woods-designed golf course and luxury home development in Dubai. The $100 million project is being built in Dubailand, the adult playground of the Mideast. Mansions and villas in the 580-acre resort are reportedly selling for $12 million to $23 million, and Woods plans to build a 16,500-square-foot mansion overlooking his course.
The problem is, Dubai is built on slave labor, and Tiger has had nothing to say about it. And I don't mean slavery as in hundreds of years ago. I mean slavery as in over the past thirty years, including now. The home of the world's tallest skyscraper, Dubai is a sparkling city of excess built by slave labor from the Third World, including the nations of the Indian subcontinent, the Philippines and Africa. Companies lure these workers with a promise of making a ton of money, and in the end steal their passports and their money as well. Migrant workers work 12 hours a day, six days a week in hot temperatures. And they earn an average of $175 a month, with no minimum wage, and some making as little as $8 a day, according to Human Rights Watch. I know, how dare I spoil other people's fun, and stand in their way as they try to earn a dishonest living on the backs of slaves, as dictated by the free market.
And you'd think that your average high-profile celebrity athlete or entertainer, often in tune with social and political causes, might have a low threshold of tolerance when it comes to slavery, much less people who profit from the practice of slavery. Never mind looking at it from the glaringly obvious moral perspective, just look at it from a PR point of view for a minute. But when that high-profile person is himself a descendant of slaves, the expectations are even higher. So the question that we must ask Tiger is, exactly how much money do you need, man? Were there no black history lessons in your childhood? Did all of those African-American heroes before you make their sacrifices, and endure the racial taunts, the hostility, the beatings, and the threats to life and livelihood, for this?
A person who would take money from people who have used slave labor, look the other way and not ask questions is truly a slave--a slave to his riches and to his corporate masters. Such a person is a billion-dollar monster, created by a mixture of extraordinary talent, excessive media hype and unprecedented corporate promotion.
But then again, maybe Tiger's statement about his devotion to the Buddhist faith is more than mere empty rhetoric. Perhaps he will see the light and make a correction to this previously unaddressed character flaw. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
When golf giant Tiger Woods made his public apology recently, he said he let a lot of people down. Personally, I cared very little about his personal dalliances and extracurricular activities. With an economic and political crisis afoot in this crumbling empire, it seems that this salacious celebrity gossip is nothing more than that--a media-created distraction to help us forget how bad things really are in America. This is a sideshow, like the gladiator games in Rome, or feeding the Christians to the lions.
A personal matter, the subject of Tiger's apology really was not intended for the general public, though it was made before an audience of millions. Rather, his plastic, controlled, manufactured pseudo-press conference, no doubt the creation of some well-paid public relations firm, was intended for the people closest to him. And more importantly, it was meant for his corporate sponsors who have backed out and bailed out on him, or those who are fixin' to do so. This is about dollars.
So, Tiger didn't owe me an apology, because I had no expectations of him. But Tiger did disappoint me in one regard. He failed to apologize for his failure to put human rights and human dignity ahead of his profits. To be more specific, plans are still in motion for Tiger Woods Dubai, an expansive Woods-designed golf course and luxury home development in Dubai. The $100 million project is being built in Dubailand, the adult playground of the Mideast. Mansions and villas in the 580-acre resort are reportedly selling for $12 million to $23 million, and Woods plans to build a 16,500-square-foot mansion overlooking his course.
The problem is, Dubai is built on slave labor, and Tiger has had nothing to say about it. And I don't mean slavery as in hundreds of years ago. I mean slavery as in over the past thirty years, including now. The home of the world's tallest skyscraper, Dubai is a sparkling city of excess built by slave labor from the Third World, including the nations of the Indian subcontinent, the Philippines and Africa. Companies lure these workers with a promise of making a ton of money, and in the end steal their passports and their money as well. Migrant workers work 12 hours a day, six days a week in hot temperatures. And they earn an average of $175 a month, with no minimum wage, and some making as little as $8 a day, according to Human Rights Watch. I know, how dare I spoil other people's fun, and stand in their way as they try to earn a dishonest living on the backs of slaves, as dictated by the free market.
And you'd think that your average high-profile celebrity athlete or entertainer, often in tune with social and political causes, might have a low threshold of tolerance when it comes to slavery, much less people who profit from the practice of slavery. Never mind looking at it from the glaringly obvious moral perspective, just look at it from a PR point of view for a minute. But when that high-profile person is himself a descendant of slaves, the expectations are even higher. So the question that we must ask Tiger is, exactly how much money do you need, man? Were there no black history lessons in your childhood? Did all of those African-American heroes before you make their sacrifices, and endure the racial taunts, the hostility, the beatings, and the threats to life and livelihood, for this?
A person who would take money from people who have used slave labor, look the other way and not ask questions is truly a slave--a slave to his riches and to his corporate masters. Such a person is a billion-dollar monster, created by a mixture of extraordinary talent, excessive media hype and unprecedented corporate promotion.
But then again, maybe Tiger's statement about his devotion to the Buddhist faith is more than mere empty rhetoric. Perhaps he will see the light and make a correction to this previously unaddressed character flaw. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
February 20, 2010
New census prisoner policy could benefit American cities
From theGrio:
America's prison population could play an important role in the country's redistricting battles, and help reshape America's electoral map.
A new federal policy will change the way in which prisoners are counted in the 2010 Census. Census officials plan to make prisoner data available earlier than in past years. Prisoners were always counted in the national tally, but the federal government provided prisoner data to states after they completed their redistricting. Now, states will have access to that information prior to redistricting.
This move is important because now, the states will now have the option of counting prisoners based on their home districts--typically urban areas--rather than the rural districts where many of them are imprisoned. Districts with prisons have received more federal dollars because they were able to use their inmate headcount to boost their population. Meanwhile, urban areas have experienced a drop in federal funds, and a loss of representation in Congress, because their populations have declined. After all, the cities have involuntarily donated many of their young men, and increasingly women, to fill up these rural penitentiaries.
And we cannot escape a discussion of the racial dynamics involved in the counting of prisoners. Inmates throughout the United States are disproportionately of color. Nearly two-thirds of America's prisoners are black and Latino. At the same time, the prisons that house these inmates are in predominantly white neighborhoods. With globalization, outsourcing and the shipping of jobs overseas, the prison town has replaced the factory town in depressed, rural white areas. The prison boom has benefited them. But for the inner cities, there is merely more despair.
Some have compared this dynamic to the Three-Fifths Compromise of 1787, which allowed Southern states to count three-fifths of their slave population, who could not vote, for the purposes of tax distribution and Congressional representation. The compromise artificially inflated the influence of the South, on the backs of African-Americans who were regarded as less than human. Similarly, today the warm bodies of black and brown prisoners, who cannot vote, are counted for the benefit of the white communities that imprison them.
In New York, seven state senate districts meet minimum population requirements solely because they count incarcerated people in their population, according to the Prison Policy Initiative. With 44,000 mostly black and Latino New York City residents counted as residents of upstate prisons, these small towns are receiving undeserved political clout. And according to a recent report, 1,912 of the 6,980 residents in Brown County, Illinois, were inmates in 2000. The county's black population was 1,265, fully one-fifth of the total population. However, 1,260 of them--99.6 percent of the county's African-Americans-- were prisoners.
But the new census policy is welcome news for cities that are running out of people and running out of money. The recession is crippling municipal and state budgets alike. But so, too, is unchecked prison growth. One should not underestimate the crippling effects of the prison spending boom on urban life, in the nation that locks up more people than any other. Families are separated not only by prison bars, but often by hundreds of miles. Poor families of the incarcerated often cannot go upstate to visit their loved ones on lockdown, or can do so only through great personal and economic sacrifice. In the case of rehabilitated and nonviolent offenders who don't belong behind bars, their communities are suffering from their absence. They could be raising their families, engaged in occupations, and contributing to the neighborhood as leaders and productive members of society.
Cities are the lifeblood of America, as centers of business, media, culture, learning and the arts. But they have been losing out in recent years, as rural communities have exploited these ghost constituents of color that live behind bars. The new census rules will help urban areas flourish by allowing states to count prisoners in their home districts. A number of states have introduced similar census reform legislation. This is a good start. The next step is to bring some of these prisoners home.
America's prison population could play an important role in the country's redistricting battles, and help reshape America's electoral map.
A new federal policy will change the way in which prisoners are counted in the 2010 Census. Census officials plan to make prisoner data available earlier than in past years. Prisoners were always counted in the national tally, but the federal government provided prisoner data to states after they completed their redistricting. Now, states will have access to that information prior to redistricting.
This move is important because now, the states will now have the option of counting prisoners based on their home districts--typically urban areas--rather than the rural districts where many of them are imprisoned. Districts with prisons have received more federal dollars because they were able to use their inmate headcount to boost their population. Meanwhile, urban areas have experienced a drop in federal funds, and a loss of representation in Congress, because their populations have declined. After all, the cities have involuntarily donated many of their young men, and increasingly women, to fill up these rural penitentiaries.
And we cannot escape a discussion of the racial dynamics involved in the counting of prisoners. Inmates throughout the United States are disproportionately of color. Nearly two-thirds of America's prisoners are black and Latino. At the same time, the prisons that house these inmates are in predominantly white neighborhoods. With globalization, outsourcing and the shipping of jobs overseas, the prison town has replaced the factory town in depressed, rural white areas. The prison boom has benefited them. But for the inner cities, there is merely more despair.
Some have compared this dynamic to the Three-Fifths Compromise of 1787, which allowed Southern states to count three-fifths of their slave population, who could not vote, for the purposes of tax distribution and Congressional representation. The compromise artificially inflated the influence of the South, on the backs of African-Americans who were regarded as less than human. Similarly, today the warm bodies of black and brown prisoners, who cannot vote, are counted for the benefit of the white communities that imprison them.
In New York, seven state senate districts meet minimum population requirements solely because they count incarcerated people in their population, according to the Prison Policy Initiative. With 44,000 mostly black and Latino New York City residents counted as residents of upstate prisons, these small towns are receiving undeserved political clout. And according to a recent report, 1,912 of the 6,980 residents in Brown County, Illinois, were inmates in 2000. The county's black population was 1,265, fully one-fifth of the total population. However, 1,260 of them--99.6 percent of the county's African-Americans-- were prisoners.
But the new census policy is welcome news for cities that are running out of people and running out of money. The recession is crippling municipal and state budgets alike. But so, too, is unchecked prison growth. One should not underestimate the crippling effects of the prison spending boom on urban life, in the nation that locks up more people than any other. Families are separated not only by prison bars, but often by hundreds of miles. Poor families of the incarcerated often cannot go upstate to visit their loved ones on lockdown, or can do so only through great personal and economic sacrifice. In the case of rehabilitated and nonviolent offenders who don't belong behind bars, their communities are suffering from their absence. They could be raising their families, engaged in occupations, and contributing to the neighborhood as leaders and productive members of society.
Cities are the lifeblood of America, as centers of business, media, culture, learning and the arts. But they have been losing out in recent years, as rural communities have exploited these ghost constituents of color that live behind bars. The new census rules will help urban areas flourish by allowing states to count prisoners in their home districts. A number of states have introduced similar census reform legislation. This is a good start. The next step is to bring some of these prisoners home.
Our Sick Society Normalizes Gun Violence
From BlackCommentator.com and The Huffington Post:
Sadly, it's the sort of thing that happens on a regular basis these days.
Someone, whether a disgruntled employee, a mentally unstable individual, a socially-awkward or obsessive person, you fill in the blank, goes on a shooting spree and exacts vengeance through the barrel of a gun. People express shock that this sort of thing could happen where they live, in the safe environs far from the nation's notoriously crime-ridden inner cities. Some will claim there were no indications the shooting suspect was capable of such violence. Meanwhile, others will insist "there was always something off" about the person. In any case, after the obligatory media coverage and perfunctory surface-level discussions, after the memorials are held, the grief counselors are dispatched and the victims are buried, things generally go back to normal. All is forgotten, that is, until the next tragic shooting that leaves x number of people dead and y number of people injured.
It was said that Amy Bishop, that biology professor at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, was angry because she had been denied tenure by the university. She supposedly visited a shooting range before her shooting rampage. And she was obsessed with President Obama. We also know that she shot her brother to death years earlier in what was ruled as an accidental killing, and she was a suspect in an attempted pipe bombing of her professor at Harvard.
There are questions that are beyond the scope of this commentary, but deserve some mention nonetheless. We know that the three victims who died, allegedly at her hand, were faculty of color. Was this deliberate? Certainly there is a story hidden in there, somewhere. Had Amy Bishop been a person of color herself -- perhaps an African-American, or a Muslim with an Arab surname -- would she have eluded the institutional screeners and gatekeepers for so long, given her sketchy past? Was she given a pass because she is white, despite her issues? Perhaps for some, these are insensitive questions to ask at this time, or any other time for that matter, but ask I must.
Oddly and consistently, such questions are always raised after the fact. You never hear of a shooting rampage that was thwarted, with the perpetrator-to-be either apprehended or otherwise stopped in his or her (generally his) tracks. Never do we hear of an intervention that allows such troubled individuals to receive the counseling and treatment they need, to protect themselves, and us, from the demons that haunt them.
And yet, while we will dismiss the perpetrators of such vicious acts as criminals or mentally disturbed outliers, our response to these tragedies reveals far more about our sick society than the troubled souls who committed the crimes. Tens of thousands of people die from gunfire in America every year, and most never get media attention. And yet, in a nation that has normalized the notion of a gun for every person, this is apparently a situation we are willing to tolerate. Based on the lack of an adequate public policy response to America's gun problem, one must conclude that these firearm deaths are viewed as collateral damage, the price society is willing to pay for a so-called "free" society of gun ownership rights.
No one can believe that the level of violence, of gun violence, in the United States is compatible with a stable, vibrant and free society. Add to the mix, the high level of hopelessly unemployed and (or) foreclosed citizens who lack an outlet to vent their frustrations; the legions of veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, who have returned home with undiagnosed or untreated Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; and the use of prisons as a repository for the mentally ill, with inmates returning to the streets sicker than when they were on lockdown. Lots of guns, economic despair, deprivation and mental illness -- these conditions are a recipe for disaster.
In short, we are sick, and we need good medicine. The nation's political leadership often has proven too cowardly or too compromised to provide anything more than band-aids, but the band-aids haven't worked. In a country with so many crises, gun violence is yet another problem we have avoided for too long, only to have it shoot us in the face. But we cannot ignore it anymore, and we must make it right.
Sadly, it's the sort of thing that happens on a regular basis these days.
Someone, whether a disgruntled employee, a mentally unstable individual, a socially-awkward or obsessive person, you fill in the blank, goes on a shooting spree and exacts vengeance through the barrel of a gun. People express shock that this sort of thing could happen where they live, in the safe environs far from the nation's notoriously crime-ridden inner cities. Some will claim there were no indications the shooting suspect was capable of such violence. Meanwhile, others will insist "there was always something off" about the person. In any case, after the obligatory media coverage and perfunctory surface-level discussions, after the memorials are held, the grief counselors are dispatched and the victims are buried, things generally go back to normal. All is forgotten, that is, until the next tragic shooting that leaves x number of people dead and y number of people injured.
It was said that Amy Bishop, that biology professor at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, was angry because she had been denied tenure by the university. She supposedly visited a shooting range before her shooting rampage. And she was obsessed with President Obama. We also know that she shot her brother to death years earlier in what was ruled as an accidental killing, and she was a suspect in an attempted pipe bombing of her professor at Harvard.
There are questions that are beyond the scope of this commentary, but deserve some mention nonetheless. We know that the three victims who died, allegedly at her hand, were faculty of color. Was this deliberate? Certainly there is a story hidden in there, somewhere. Had Amy Bishop been a person of color herself -- perhaps an African-American, or a Muslim with an Arab surname -- would she have eluded the institutional screeners and gatekeepers for so long, given her sketchy past? Was she given a pass because she is white, despite her issues? Perhaps for some, these are insensitive questions to ask at this time, or any other time for that matter, but ask I must.
Oddly and consistently, such questions are always raised after the fact. You never hear of a shooting rampage that was thwarted, with the perpetrator-to-be either apprehended or otherwise stopped in his or her (generally his) tracks. Never do we hear of an intervention that allows such troubled individuals to receive the counseling and treatment they need, to protect themselves, and us, from the demons that haunt them.
And yet, while we will dismiss the perpetrators of such vicious acts as criminals or mentally disturbed outliers, our response to these tragedies reveals far more about our sick society than the troubled souls who committed the crimes. Tens of thousands of people die from gunfire in America every year, and most never get media attention. And yet, in a nation that has normalized the notion of a gun for every person, this is apparently a situation we are willing to tolerate. Based on the lack of an adequate public policy response to America's gun problem, one must conclude that these firearm deaths are viewed as collateral damage, the price society is willing to pay for a so-called "free" society of gun ownership rights.
No one can believe that the level of violence, of gun violence, in the United States is compatible with a stable, vibrant and free society. Add to the mix, the high level of hopelessly unemployed and (or) foreclosed citizens who lack an outlet to vent their frustrations; the legions of veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, who have returned home with undiagnosed or untreated Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; and the use of prisons as a repository for the mentally ill, with inmates returning to the streets sicker than when they were on lockdown. Lots of guns, economic despair, deprivation and mental illness -- these conditions are a recipe for disaster.
In short, we are sick, and we need good medicine. The nation's political leadership often has proven too cowardly or too compromised to provide anything more than band-aids, but the band-aids haven't worked. In a country with so many crises, gun violence is yet another problem we have avoided for too long, only to have it shoot us in the face. But we cannot ignore it anymore, and we must make it right.
February 12, 2010
Haiti Reminds Us of the Poverty at Home
It is unfortunate that it took an earthquake to put the spotlight back on poverty in Haiti. To be sure, the 7.0 magnitude earthquake that leveled Port-au-Prince would have been devastating under any circumstances. But the people of Haiti have been suffering for years. The difference is that no one cared: people often become weary hearing about black people suffering.
The hopeless level of poverty in Haiti has been longstanding. And as the oldest black republic in the Western hemisphere, this island nation has been suffering for a long time to suffer. Haiti never had a chance to develop a thriving middle class. Exploited and neglected, the country was occupied by the United States. Uncle Sam propped up its corrupt, banana republic dictators, and supported its ruthless death squads. And as recently as 2004, the U.S. apparently participated in a coup that removed Haiti's then democratically-elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, from power. A neglected stepchild, Haiti has not fared well in America's racist immigration policy, with the separate and unequal treatment of Haitian and Cuban refugees. Haitians fought with the colonists in the American Revolution, but America never repaid the favor.
Natural disasters shed light on the disaster of poverty. Such is also the case with New Orleans, another of America's neglected stepchildren. For years, that city served as America's playground. But when Hurricane Katrina hit, people around the world were exposed to images of the African-American citizens of New Orleans -- poverty-stricken, disenfranchised, disregarded, and left to fend for themselves.
Haiti and New Orleans have a great deal in common, including cultural ties. After all, historically, Haitian immigrants helped to build New Orleans. But they have more in common than that. Both are the victims of policies that callously ignored them, and failed to deal with the consequences of intractable poverty. Americans glued to the TV screen are witnessing the horrific images of human suffering amidst the rubble in Port-au-Prince, and the deprivation made only worse by the rubble of the earthquake. And they are touched and they want to help, and rightly so. Without doubt, whether they are moved or not, many Americans believe that they are far removed from the poverty they witnessed in Port-au-prince, or the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans for that matter. Yet, they are mistaken.
America ranks 30th in the world in infant mortality. The infant mortality rate in some parts of the U.S., and among some groups such as African Americans, is as high as some Third World nations. Further, childhood poverty is at 20 percent. One in eight Americans, and one of every four children in America depends on food stamps. About half of American children, and 90 percent of black children, will live in a household that depends on food stamps at some point before they turn 20. And 63 percent of teachers buy food for hungry students with their own money.
The Great Recession -- combined with years of regressive economic policies that favored the wealthy and corporations -- is resulting in the erosion of the middle class, as more people are plunging into poverty and homelessness. The mortgage and foreclosure crisis is responsible for an unprecedented evaporation of wealth, particularly in the black and Latino communities.
According to a new report from United for a Fair Economy, unemployment rates among people of color are the highest in 27 years. Bad economic times have widened the racial wealth and income disparities. African-Americans and Latinos are nearly three times as likely to live in poverty as whites. And while blacks earn 62 cents for every dollar of white income, Latinos earn 68 cents for every white dollar.
The report also notes that around 3.4 million families experienced a foreclosure in 2009. Initially driven by costly subprime lending (which comprised over half of the mortgages to black folks in recent years), nearly 60 percent of mortgage defaults last year were due to unemployment. "The Obama Administration missed opportunities in 2009 to stop foreclosures, stabilize the economy, and start rebuilding wealth in the communities that the predatory mortgage industry targeted," according to the report.
And poverty in America, like poverty in Haiti or anywhere for that matter, will only exacerbate unless decisive action is taken now. When we decry the sorry state of human existence in other nations, we must also acknowledge the deplorable conditions of people in our own midst and within our own so-called "land of plenty." And we must understand the ways in which poverty in Port-au-Prince is related to poverty in New Orleans, or Detroit, or Philadelphia.
As the effort to rebuild Haiti begins, there is now talk in the international financial community of forgiving Haiti's $1 billion debt. That is a good thing. But we should not wait for a catastrophe to deal with issues of poverty, economic inequality and justice. We must deal with the silent catastrophe that is occurring right before our very eyes.
The hopeless level of poverty in Haiti has been longstanding. And as the oldest black republic in the Western hemisphere, this island nation has been suffering for a long time to suffer. Haiti never had a chance to develop a thriving middle class. Exploited and neglected, the country was occupied by the United States. Uncle Sam propped up its corrupt, banana republic dictators, and supported its ruthless death squads. And as recently as 2004, the U.S. apparently participated in a coup that removed Haiti's then democratically-elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, from power. A neglected stepchild, Haiti has not fared well in America's racist immigration policy, with the separate and unequal treatment of Haitian and Cuban refugees. Haitians fought with the colonists in the American Revolution, but America never repaid the favor.
Natural disasters shed light on the disaster of poverty. Such is also the case with New Orleans, another of America's neglected stepchildren. For years, that city served as America's playground. But when Hurricane Katrina hit, people around the world were exposed to images of the African-American citizens of New Orleans -- poverty-stricken, disenfranchised, disregarded, and left to fend for themselves.
Haiti and New Orleans have a great deal in common, including cultural ties. After all, historically, Haitian immigrants helped to build New Orleans. But they have more in common than that. Both are the victims of policies that callously ignored them, and failed to deal with the consequences of intractable poverty. Americans glued to the TV screen are witnessing the horrific images of human suffering amidst the rubble in Port-au-Prince, and the deprivation made only worse by the rubble of the earthquake. And they are touched and they want to help, and rightly so. Without doubt, whether they are moved or not, many Americans believe that they are far removed from the poverty they witnessed in Port-au-prince, or the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans for that matter. Yet, they are mistaken.
America ranks 30th in the world in infant mortality. The infant mortality rate in some parts of the U.S., and among some groups such as African Americans, is as high as some Third World nations. Further, childhood poverty is at 20 percent. One in eight Americans, and one of every four children in America depends on food stamps. About half of American children, and 90 percent of black children, will live in a household that depends on food stamps at some point before they turn 20. And 63 percent of teachers buy food for hungry students with their own money.
The Great Recession -- combined with years of regressive economic policies that favored the wealthy and corporations -- is resulting in the erosion of the middle class, as more people are plunging into poverty and homelessness. The mortgage and foreclosure crisis is responsible for an unprecedented evaporation of wealth, particularly in the black and Latino communities.
According to a new report from United for a Fair Economy, unemployment rates among people of color are the highest in 27 years. Bad economic times have widened the racial wealth and income disparities. African-Americans and Latinos are nearly three times as likely to live in poverty as whites. And while blacks earn 62 cents for every dollar of white income, Latinos earn 68 cents for every white dollar.
The report also notes that around 3.4 million families experienced a foreclosure in 2009. Initially driven by costly subprime lending (which comprised over half of the mortgages to black folks in recent years), nearly 60 percent of mortgage defaults last year were due to unemployment. "The Obama Administration missed opportunities in 2009 to stop foreclosures, stabilize the economy, and start rebuilding wealth in the communities that the predatory mortgage industry targeted," according to the report.
And poverty in America, like poverty in Haiti or anywhere for that matter, will only exacerbate unless decisive action is taken now. When we decry the sorry state of human existence in other nations, we must also acknowledge the deplorable conditions of people in our own midst and within our own so-called "land of plenty." And we must understand the ways in which poverty in Port-au-Prince is related to poverty in New Orleans, or Detroit, or Philadelphia.
As the effort to rebuild Haiti begins, there is now talk in the international financial community of forgiving Haiti's $1 billion debt. That is a good thing. But we should not wait for a catastrophe to deal with issues of poverty, economic inequality and justice. We must deal with the silent catastrophe that is occurring right before our very eyes.
February 11, 2010
Supreme Court’s campaign financing decision is bad for democracy
From the Progressive Media Project
In a watershed 5-4 decision, the court has rolled back the nation's campaign finance laws, allowing corporations unlimited power to influence federal campaigns. The decision threatens the integrity of our democratic system.
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the high court eliminated the restrictions on independent corporate spending in federal law.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as McCain-Feingold, prohibited corporations from engaging in "electioneering communication" within 30 days of a primary election, and within 60 days of a general election.
The court's majority framed the issue in terms of free speech, essentially giving corporations the same rights as human beings. "Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy - it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people - political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority.
In his scathing dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens accused the majority of judicial activism.
He decried the promotion of corporate personhood in this case, and noted that Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations since the Tillman Act in 1907.
"The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the court's disposition of this case," Stevens wrote, in an opinion joined by the other three liberal court members. "In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant."
"Our lawmakers," he added, "have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races."
It is the worst decision to come out of the court in years, perhaps even since the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision. In that 1857 case, the Supreme Court ruled that people of African ancestry and their descendants - whether slaves or free - were not citizens and therefore not protected by the U.S. Constitution. That decision was ultimately overturned by the 14th Amendment.
And perhaps it will take a constitutional amendment to remedy the damage created by this decision, which allows corporations to drown out the voices and dilute the power of individual citizens.
A corporation, or corporations, could decide to pour millions of dollars into a particular local race, and punish a candidate for his or her political views. Politicians literally will be owned by corporations, with company logos all but stamped on their foreheads.
People of good will, of all political persuasions, must come together to oppose this corporate buyout of our government.
Anti-abortion billboards claim black children are an endangered species
Published in theGrio
Are black children an endangered species? The answer is yes, according to billboards posted throughout Atlanta by anti-abortion groups. Although their answer is correct, their reasoning behind that answer is completely wrong.
The anti-abortion organizations Georgia Right to Life and the Radiance Foundation have placed 65 billboards throughout the city of Atlanta, with more to come. The signs feature a sad-faced black boy with a caption that reads "Black children are an endangered species." The billboards have caused controversy because, as critics would suggest, they single out black women and unfairly paint them as criminals who kill their children.
According to the groups' website, toomanyaborted.com, legalized abortion is a crisis in the black community, with 40 percent of pregnancies among African-Americans ending in induced abortion. In their eyes, abortion in the African-American community is an evil like Jim Crow segregation and eugenics, with abortion clinics placed in "urban areas where Blacks reside." They claim that Planned Parenthood's founder wanted to reduce the black population. Further, the groups suggest that the Roe v. Wade decision--which legalized a woman's right to choose-- has led to the deterioration of black families, sexual promiscuity, child abuse and urban decay.
The two organizations also point to statistics from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that 57.4 percent of abortions were performed on black women in 2006, although blacks only make up 30 percent of the state's population. Georgia is second only to New York and Texas in the number of black women who have abortions. Meanwhile, the CDC data provides no evidence that black children are an endangered species because of abortion.
Georgia Right to Life and the Radiance Foundation take issue with the ways in which their campaign is being characterized. "Contrary to the statements being made, the Endangered Species Campaign is not designed to target black women, but is designed to educate. The toomanyaborted.com website has documented information to support our contention that the number of black babies aborted in the U. S. and in Georgia are at holocaustic levels," Catherine Davis, minority outreach coordinator of Georgia Right to Life, told theGrio. "Since 1973 more than 18,000,000 black babies have been aborted. Georgia, in 2008, set a record in the numbers of abortions performed on black women, almost 21,000. We are not targeting black women, but are fighting for black babies."
Georgia Right to Life, the state's primary anti-abortion group, opposes abortion even in the case of rape or incest. The organization announced it would support legislation that would make it a crime to "solicit a woman to have an abortion based on the race or sex of the unborn child."
It is more than reasonable to say that black children are an endangered species. Some would argue that they have held that status for 400 years. The proof is evident, but not because of abortion, as the so-called "pro-life" advocates would suggest. Rather, black children today are in a crisis because of poverty, hunger, and a lack of opportunity. At some point in their childhood, 90 percent will require food stamps. An increasing number of black children, 3.7 million, do not know when or where they will find their next meal, according to a USDA report. They are subjected to an inferior education in crumbling schools. Although they are 15 percent of American children, they are 32 percent of the 510,000 children in foster care, and are less likely to be adopted than white children. In many depressed urban communities, they face a cradle-to-prison pipeline. And poor children of color are more likely to face health challenges. Perhaps the most recent example of the endangered status of black children is 9-year-old Zumante Lucero, who died of a severe asthma attack in July 2009 after his family was mistakenly cut from Medicaid.
The problem is that the pro-life groups are never around to speak up on behalf of children such as Zumante, so forgive me if I think these eleventh-hour cries of black genocide ring hollow. In fact, the Christian Right never stood up for African-American children, and always supported the gutting of social safety net programs that would help them. Focused singularly on fetuses, abortion opponents give the impression they care little about the well-being of children who were already born, and who struggle to survive in the midst of deprivation, hopelessness, and unresponsive public policy.
So yes, African-American children are an endangered species, but clearly there is a difference of opinion as to why. We must focus on the welfare of vulnerable and at-risk youth who slip through the cracks, as we safeguard the health of women, and protect their right to control their own bodies.
Missionaries Doing What Missionaries Always Did
When I heard that ten American missionaries are on trial for kidnapping 33 Haitian children and attempting to take them to an orphanage in the Dominican Republic, I, like most other people, was outraged. But I can't say I was surprised.
To be sure, the thought that some people, whether missionaries or traffickers, would take advantage of an earthquake to steal children and place them in orphanages - or the sex trade, or the slave trade, or whatever - stirs the conscience. The Baptist missionaries, mostly from Idaho, would have us believe that they were trying to do some good, except that a number of the "orphans" had living parents. And so they were trying to do good deeds, as many of the other missionaries before them. We've been down this road before.
This would not be the first time that missionaries kidnapped Third World children in the name of God. A look back into history reveals the troubling role of religion and its practitioners in the colonization of black and brown countries. Now, I am not condemning those dedicated and committed people of faith who are helping poor communities throughout the world and saving lives. I am sure they are making a difference. But we would be deluding ourselves if we denied the sordid history of missionaries.
After all, missionaries served an important role in the conquest and taught them they were heathens and evil sinners who were bound for Hell. They convinced the so-called natives that their culture and customs were filthy and backward, and told them to abandon their ancestors and belief systems. The missionaries separated the conquered from their sense of self, a psychic conquest if you will, and replaced the old gods with a god who, not surprisingly, looked just like the conquerors. Now softened up, the natives were susceptible to alcohol abuse and other distractions, and ripe for physical conquest in the form of subjugation, enslavement, forced labor, genocide and the like.
Part of the cultural genocide was committed by white Christian missionaries in the name of Jesus Christ. Missionaries worked with the Australian government to rip thousands of half-Abroriginal children from their families and place them in government orphanages, where they were abused. The plan was to "breed" the Aborigine out of them and force them to conform to Western ways. The plight of these stolen children was dramatized in the film Rabbit-Proof Fence, in which three kidnapped Aboriginal girls who were to be trained as servants escaped from their captors, and roamed through the outback alone.
And as for the Native Americans, European missionaries tried to convert and "civilize" the so-called heathens from the first point of contact. When the U.S. divided the Native peoples' lands into reservations, they assigned the reservations to Christian missionaries. Reservation schools, both boarding and day schools, served the goals of Manifest Destiny by "killing the Indian" in order to "save the man". Subjected to a regime of forced assimilation, Native students were prohibited from speaking any language other than English. And they were kept from practicing their traditional spiritual beliefs, and were indoctrinated with Christian teachings. Separated from their language and their culture, sometimes they were separated from their families by hundreds of miles. Supposedly, it was for their own good.
So, the kidnapping, exploitation and abuse of darker children by missionaries are nothing new. Haitian children, victims of a devastating earthquake, are also victims of an ancient game that is as old as colonization itself. It is a cold-blooded crime, but for hundreds of years the criminals were immune from prosecution and never saw the inside of a courtroom.
To be sure, the thought that some people, whether missionaries or traffickers, would take advantage of an earthquake to steal children and place them in orphanages - or the sex trade, or the slave trade, or whatever - stirs the conscience. The Baptist missionaries, mostly from Idaho, would have us believe that they were trying to do some good, except that a number of the "orphans" had living parents. And so they were trying to do good deeds, as many of the other missionaries before them. We've been down this road before.
This would not be the first time that missionaries kidnapped Third World children in the name of God. A look back into history reveals the troubling role of religion and its practitioners in the colonization of black and brown countries. Now, I am not condemning those dedicated and committed people of faith who are helping poor communities throughout the world and saving lives. I am sure they are making a difference. But we would be deluding ourselves if we denied the sordid history of missionaries.
After all, missionaries served an important role in the conquest and taught them they were heathens and evil sinners who were bound for Hell. They convinced the so-called natives that their culture and customs were filthy and backward, and told them to abandon their ancestors and belief systems. The missionaries separated the conquered from their sense of self, a psychic conquest if you will, and replaced the old gods with a god who, not surprisingly, looked just like the conquerors. Now softened up, the natives were susceptible to alcohol abuse and other distractions, and ripe for physical conquest in the form of subjugation, enslavement, forced labor, genocide and the like.
Part of the cultural genocide was committed by white Christian missionaries in the name of Jesus Christ. Missionaries worked with the Australian government to rip thousands of half-Abroriginal children from their families and place them in government orphanages, where they were abused. The plan was to "breed" the Aborigine out of them and force them to conform to Western ways. The plight of these stolen children was dramatized in the film Rabbit-Proof Fence, in which three kidnapped Aboriginal girls who were to be trained as servants escaped from their captors, and roamed through the outback alone.
And as for the Native Americans, European missionaries tried to convert and "civilize" the so-called heathens from the first point of contact. When the U.S. divided the Native peoples' lands into reservations, they assigned the reservations to Christian missionaries. Reservation schools, both boarding and day schools, served the goals of Manifest Destiny by "killing the Indian" in order to "save the man". Subjected to a regime of forced assimilation, Native students were prohibited from speaking any language other than English. And they were kept from practicing their traditional spiritual beliefs, and were indoctrinated with Christian teachings. Separated from their language and their culture, sometimes they were separated from their families by hundreds of miles. Supposedly, it was for their own good.
So, the kidnapping, exploitation and abuse of darker children by missionaries are nothing new. Haitian children, victims of a devastating earthquake, are also victims of an ancient game that is as old as colonization itself. It is a cold-blooded crime, but for hundreds of years the criminals were immune from prosecution and never saw the inside of a courtroom.
The new Obama is the old Obama
Published in theGrio
The President's oratorical performances this past week provided us with a refreshing glimpse of the new Barack Obama -- and the old one as well. I am referring to the bold and brilliant Obama of the 2008 presidential campaign, the leader who spoke with confidence and decisiveness, who clearly defined the enemy, and played the political game on his own terms. This was the Obama who showed up at the State of the Union address, andserved up the Republican Party for dinner at the GOP's Baltimore retreat.
This is the Obama that people voted for, the one who has the potential to emerge as one of the great American presidents.
Perhaps it was the return of David Plouffe, the president's rainmaking campaign manager. After a year of missteps and bungling on health care, maybe the White House finally saw the writing on the wall -- they were losing the support of the base, and had to make some changes. The stunning, humbling loss in the Massachusetts Senate race could have played a role as well. Whatever precipitated President Obama's comeback, I hope he stays around for awhile.
In his State of the Union address, the president did a great job identifying the problems. He singled out the banks that need to repay the money they took from the public, and the lobbyists who are trying to kill health care reform. He called out the Supreme Court for a recent decision that will "open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections." The president spoke about the urgent need for jobs, affordable mortgages and affordable college tuition. And he decried the Washington culture where every day is Election Day.
And at the Republican Party's retreat in Baltimore, President Obama was responsible for the most compelling example of political theater in recent American history. He fielded questions from a crowded room of hostile adversaries-- outnumbered, perhaps, but unmatched in intellectual firepower. The result was nothing less than a nationally-broadcast smackdown that the Republicans will not soon forget. Perhaps the president's adversaries in the GOP, blinded by their partisanship, extremism, and dare I say racism, underestimated his capabilities.
"I mean, the fact of the matter is, is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party," Obama admonished the Republican faithful. "You've given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you've been telling your constituents is, this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America."
So, the new President Obama is the original version that people supported in November 2008 and placed in the White House. For a time, "the base" became disillusioned over an administration that promised change, yet seemed to flirt with the stale, uninspiring and disappointing ways of doing politics. The White House appeared unable or unwilling to defend health care and the public option. It cut backroom deals with the pharmaceutical industry, and allowed a dysfunctional Congress to draft the legislation, without providing guidance. Further, the administration was criticized for failing to address the disproportionate impact of the recession on the black and Latino communities.
But the final straw came when the president, in a middle of a recession, proposed a three-year freeze on discretionary spending, excluding national security and defense, veterans affairs and entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. A recent Rasmussen poll confirmed that few believe the freeze will have an impact. The proposal was widely criticized as a cheap political gimmick, an example of the president embracing the failed economic policies of his conservative adversaries. But to what end? Such a strategy can only damage the president's credibility, and an Obama brand name built on the promise of change.
Although it took awhile, President Obama finally has found his voice. The transition from campaigning to governing was a rocky one for this White House, but now things are looking up. An important lesson learned is that the president must stay true to himself and to the voters. In fact, he does best when the inside-the-Beltway advisors, the polls and the focus groups are taken out of the picture.
How Obama and the Dems can make a comeback
Published in theGrio
President Obama and his party experienced a humiliating defeat in Massachusetts when Scott Brown, a Republican, won a special election to replace the late Senator Edward Kennedy. There is more than enough blame to go around. Martha Coakley, the Democrat in the race, has been criticized for running a lackluster campaign, taking a vacation during the Senate race, and expecting a coronation as the heir apparent to the Kennedy legacy.
Meanwhile, a new poll found that Obama supporters who voted for Brown, or stayed home, believed that "Democratic policies were doing more to help Wall Street than Main Street." A majority of people polled favored a public option, and opposed the Senate health care bill because it didn't go far enough.
Things look uncertain for the Democrats. With control of the White House and both houses of Congress, the party in power appears unprepared to lead at times, and unable to make good on its 2008 campaign promises. But there is opportunity in times of crisis, and the Obama administration just got a badly needed wake-up call, a "come to Jesus" moment, if you will. The future still looks bright for the Democrats, provided they take a number of important steps:
1. Obama must take the lead and set the agenda. The administration made a fatal mistake when it timidly took a backseat in the health care reform debate, and left all of the work to a dysfunctional and broken Congress. The result, particularly with respect to the Senate, was legislation written and blessed by corporate lobbyists, a disappointment to Obama supporters. In all future policy battles, the President must articulate what he wants, and show that he is willing to do what is necessary to make it happen. He should be willing to rein in uncooperative, freelancing Democratic lawmakers and play hardball politics with them, Lyndon Johnson-style.
2. Democrats must resist the temptation to moderate and move to the center. Senator Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh have suggested that the Democrats overreached, attempting to accomplish too many things and moving too far to the left. Such inside-the-beltway Monday morning quarterbacking misses the point: the public is angry because the Democrats have not done enough. Voters, including Obama's base, are frustrated and mad because they wanted change in 2008, yet they aren't seeing enough change in 2010. The sad state of the economy demands that President Obama and the Congress take a stand, act boldly, and throw bipartisanship out the window. After all, the Republicans have refused to participate as good-faith partners in this government.
3. Pass real health care reform with a public option. With a sixty-seat, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the Democrats failed at health care reform. Now they have fifty-nine seats, which is still a majority that will allow them to pass legislation. Democrats must find a way--whether through budget reconciliation, changing the Senate filibuster rules, intestinal fortitude, or other means--to pass health care reform. If the Senate Republicans want to filibuster, and justify a broken system that allows 45,000 people to die each year for lack of health insurance, then so be it. This is President Obama's signature issue, and he has spent a great deal of political capital on it. Meaningful reform with a public option would allow the Democrats to move ahead on to other important issues such as jobs and the environment. Success would galvanize the base and help ensure their enthusiastic participation in the 2010 and 2012 elections.
4. Go after the banks. Obama captured the presidency on a message of change, disrupting the status quo and challenging entrenched centers of power. In the days of the Great Recession, millions of people are suffering from chronic unemployment, home foreclosures and financial ruin. The public has properly identified the big banks as the cause of America's economic meltdown. These financial institutions gambled their depositors' funds on the functional equivalent of a high-risk Las Vegas casino, and lost. And the public seethes as these banks receive billions of dollars in bailout money. The President recently announced a new proposal that would limit the size of America's largest commercial banks, and restrict their involvement in sketchy practices. This move suggests that Obama is now listening to advisors other than Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner, industry insiders who are out of tune with Main Street, and have not served the President well.
In addition, Obama proposed a tax on 50 of the largest banks, which would recoup the cost of the financial bailout. And the President and Congress have vowed to battle against a Supreme Court ruling that eliminates longstanding restrictions on corporate funding of political campaigns. The Democrats can reclaim their standing as the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt with a massive jobs program, creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, and passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which would make it easier for workers to unionize.
The 2010 elections are still far away, and a lot can happen between now and November. Ironically, the defeat in the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race was the best thing that could have happened to President Obama. Still faced with a weakened and unpopular opposition, the Democratic Party has a unique opportunity to learn from its missteps, and come back stronger than ever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)