Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Suburban Poverty Has Sharply Increased
And the problem is a nationwide one. The chart above shows the five cities from across the country where poverty in the suburbs has grown the most -- but they are far from the only cities with a growing poverty problem in the suburbs. Here in Texas, the Dallas-Ft. Worth suburbs have seen poverty grow by 111%, and poverty in Houston suburbs has grown by 103%.
Americans are going to have to revise their attitudes about poverty. It is no longer just a problem of those "others" in the inner city (although too much poverty still exists there). The fact is that your neighbor could be among the poverty-stricken, and if you live in the suburbs, it's a pretty sure bet that one or more of the families living on your street are in that number.
Right-wingers would like for working Americans to think that poverty is mostly among the minority population -- but that has never been true. Most poor people are white, and that has always been true. And now, it is more true than ever (since the loss of millions of jobs in the Bush recession). And the austerity measures being forced on this country by congressional Republicans will only increase those living in poverty (and most of that new poverty will be in the suburbs).
How long are we going to ignore the growing poverty problem in this country -- just so we can give rich people more tax cuts, and corporations more subsidies so they don't have to pay taxes? The failed GOP trickle-down economic policy, which this government still clings to, has been a ridiculous failure -- throwing the country into recession, costing the nation many millions of jobs, and increasing poverty to a record level. It has benefitted no one but the richest Americans.
Isn't it time to return this country to a sane economic policy -- a policy that looks out for ordinary Americans? Of course it is. But that can only happen when Republicans (who have been bought and paid for by Wall Street) are voted out of power. Let's make that happen in 2014, because this country can't take much more of the silly GOP austerity for everyone but the rich.
More Money For Education In Texas ?
During the 2011 biennial session of the Texas legislature, the Republican slashed education funding in the state by a whopping $5.4 billion (in spite of the fact that Texas already ranked nearly last in per student funding for education). The result was as predicted -- with thousands of teachers (and other school employees) being fired and class sizes growing substantially. And even after cutting teachers and increasing class sizes, some school districts had to raise local taxes to keep their schools going.
It was hoped that since the state is in better financial shape now (with sales taxes and oil& gas taxes being higher than expected -- and the state's Rainy Day Fund ballooning) that funding could be restored in this session of the legislature. But the initial budget proposed by the Republican-controlled legislature only put a disappointing $1.9 billion in additional funding for education -- far below the amount that had been cut in 2011.
The Democrats in the legislature didn't think that was adequate. They didn't have the numbers to amend the budget and add more funding for education, but they did have enough power to block something (if they stuck together). They chose to block funding for water projects in the state (a critical need for the water-scarce state with a growing population). They refused to allow the water bill to come to the floor unless education funds were increased -- and they were partially successful. The Republicans added more funds, and the additional money for education now totals $3.9 billion -- $2 billion more than the original budget called for.
These Democrats are celebrating their accomplishment, and they probably deserve to do a little celebrating. The new money for education is significantly higher than what the Republicans initially wanted to do -- and more than I expected they would be able to get. But that celebration should be tempered because:
* Only $3.4 billion is earmarked for school (with the other $0.5 billion going to teacher retirement), and that still leaves funding $2 billion less than was cut in 2011. With a growing enrollment, it is doubtful that class sizes will decrease (or many new teachers hired). They have just stopped the situation from growing any worse than it currently is.
* The bill still must be voted on in both houses of the legislature, and even though Republicans have agreed to it, they could still change their minds.
* The governor is not yet on board with the additional funding for education -- and even if the bill passes the legislature, he could veto it.
Don't get me wrong. I applaud what the Democrats have done in restoring $3.4 billion for schools to the budget, and I hope it gets approved and signed into law. But we must not get fooled into thinking that this solves the problem of education funding in this state. Even if the new funding is approved, Texas will still be near (or at) the bottom of all states in education funding. Much more needs to be done.
Fundies Aren't As Absolutist As They Claim
If one wishes to use the biblical injunction against homosexuality, then we have to wonder why they are willing to ignore other parts of that same book -- such as its support for slavery. How can they toss out the biblical acceptance of slavery, while declaring as absolute the biblical view on homosexuality? Since these are the same people who declare that every word in the Bible is absolutely true and the word of god, how can they pick the parts of that book they consider to no longer be relevant (the teaching on slavery) while demanding that other parts of that book remain relevant?
Some will probably argue that the biblical acceptance of slavery was just a recognition that slavery was widely accepted at that time, and the religious book was just trying to make slave owners realize they had a duty to treat slaves decently -- and that society has advanced now and no longer recognizes the validity of slavery. That is a specious argument, since the very institution of slavery is as wrong as anything humans have ever done -- no matter how well a slave master treated his/her slaves, and the Bible clearly supported the institution of slavery as not violating god's commandments (as long as slaves were treated correctly).
In addition, if it is recognized that society changes and therefore institutions like slavery (supported in the Bible) can now be considered unchristian, then can't it also be recognized that society can also change it's attitude on other things (like homosexuality and same-sex marriage) and that they could now be considered acceptable by christians? The very act of cherry-picking which parts of the Bible they support renders the fundamentalist argument against legalizing same-sex marriage to be meaningless.
Sharing The Pain ?
Monday, May 20, 2013
Proposed Shield Law Is A Fraudulent Fix
For years now, president's of both party's have been trying to infringe on the freedom of the press -- especially in the right of journalists to keep their sources secret. The right to keep a source secret from the government insures that people (especially government whistleblowers) will come forward when the government oversteps it legal or moral boundaries. But the recent actions of the Obama administration stepped over the line of what is proper between government and the press -- and could have a chilling effect on our free press.
In an effort to find government whistleblowers who exposed a government action in stopping the bombing of a plane heading for the U.S. from Yemen, the Department of Justice issued a secret subpoena and seized all phone records for a two month period from at least 20 lines at the AP offices in New York, Washington, and Hartford (lines that were used by at least 100 reporters). The government has conveniently claimed that "national security" was at stake. I doubt it. And personally, I believe the government actions endangered our free press and our democracy far more than the leak endangered our national security.
This is a very serious matter. The government should not have the right to secretly seize any records from a reporter or news organization. Reporters must be free to search out the truth without government interference or intimidation.
And it looks like President Obama knows this latest mis-step is not going to go down well with the press (or the public) -- so he is trying to get a little political cover. He has asked Senator Schumer to revive his press shield bill in the Senate, and try once again to get it passed. The bill had died in the last Congress without being approved.
The idea is to give the appearance that the Obama administration is sorry for its action, and now wants to take steps to protect reporters and their sources. I wish that was true, but sadly, it isn't. It is a very flawed bill, and if it had been in effect already, it would not have prevented the government from seizing the AP phone records secretly. That's because the bill contains a provision that allows the government to secretly seize information from reporters by just claiming it is in the interest of "national security" -- a claim the government can make at any time without having to prove it.
As long as that provision remains in the bill, it makes the bill worthless -- nothing more than a public relations lie to make the government look like they are following the restrictions imposed on them by the Constitution. Don't be fooled. This flawed bill solves nothing. Freedom of the press is too vital to our democracy to be played around with like this. Our Founding Fathers knew that there must be limits on the power of the government. Without limits on government power, freedom and democracy cease to exist in any meaningful way. That was why they passed the First Amendment -- and that is why we must now demand the federal government stop trying to intimidate or interfere with the press.
Murder Rate Lowest In A Century
The truth is that FBI statistics show that violent crime is dropping in this country, and has been dropping for many years now. And that is especially true of murder (which is a crime that statistics have been kept on for more than a hundred years now). And the murder rate is lower than it has been since around 1900 -- at around 4 murders per 100,000 people (see the chart above from Mother Jones). The red line on the chart shows how the murder rate has risen and fallen since around 1897.
Just as interesting though, is the black line -- which represents the levels of lead in paint and gas (in tons per 1000 people). Note how closely it corresponds to the murder rate.As the rate of lead rises, so does the murder rate -- and as it falls, so does the murder rate. While all violent crime is not caused by lead poisoning, a very good case can be made that lead poisoning definitely causes an increase in violence among those it affects. It's a compelling enough case to get rid of the remaining lead contamination in this country.
But while this significant drop in the murder rate is very good news, the truth is that even a low murder rate is too high. There are other things we could do to make the rate even lower -- and one of those is to control guns in a more reasonable (yet constitutional) way. If we closed the background check loopholes for gun purchases, increased the penalties for gun trafficking, and banned military-style assault weapons, we could drive the murder rate down further by keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them.
Prosperity Is In Women's Equality/Education
Dear Girls of the World,
There are more than 7 billion people in the world. Half of them are women and girls.
Just imagine the whole world rising, as it will, when all women and girls are empowered.
It has to start with education. All the number crunchers have it right on this one: education = empowerment, from here in the United States to Uruguay and Ulan Bator.
The United Nations, the World Bank and any organization you can think of say that an educated girl is a girl who can get a job, become a breadwinner and raise herself, her family, her village, her community and eventually her whole country. All the stories and statistics show that a healthy society is one whose women are healthy and productive.
Look at what women and girls are achieving for Rwanda, 19 years after the genocide there. The country leads the way in Africa in every way: education, health, the economy, the environment and in elected politics, powered by the force of its women. It is an amazing story. In contrast, the Arab world, which is so rich in natural resources such as oil and gas, is way behind in all development indicators, because half their populations, their women, are denied basic rights. It's why the Arab Spring must liberate and fully empower women, for the good of those countries.
Did you know that if female employment were to match male employment in the United States, gross domestic product would rise by 5%. And in developing countries that figure soars by double digits -- for instance, GDP would rise 34% in Egypt if women and men had equal employment opportunities.
And this is where education comes in. According to a 2004 report co-authored by Gene Sperling (now a senior economic aide to President Barack Obama), a woman can expect a 10% to 20% rise in earning power with every additional year of primary education beyond average. Another economist, Paul Schultz, found that number increased to 15% to 25% higher earning power with each additional year of secondary school.
So educate our girls if you want to reduce infant mortality, stabilize population growth and reduce cases of HIV/AIDS.
In rural areas, the United Nations says wages, agriculture income and productivity all improve when the female workers are educated.
It is time to end the discrimination against girls in education.According to the U.N., around 35 million girls are not enrolled in primary school and that has to end.
Almost 800 million people worldwide are illiterate; two-thirds of them are women and girls. Imagine a world where they could actually read and write and do basic math for accounting -- that is how the world will change. Women are much more likely than men to use their earnings for the good of the family, rather than spending it on alcohol or other things for themselves.
Just ask the great microfinance pioneer Muhammad Yunus of Bangladesh's Grameen Bank -- women are the best bet. You lend them a little, and they pay back in spades. He has known this for 30 years.
It's high time the rest of the world caught on. Go girls! Power the world! We can do it.
-- Christiane Amanpour
A Scary Checklist
Sunday, May 19, 2013
New Immigrants Have Fewer Christians
But there seems to be another thing that is adding to the nation becoming less christian. According to the Pew Research Center, in the last 10 years (from 1992 to 2012) the number of legal immigrants coming into the United States contains less christians (as a percentage), while the percentage of those following other religions has grown. The number of christian immigrants has dropped from 68% to 61% (a seven point drop). The biggest winners in this are the muslims (whose percentage grew from 5% to 10%) and the hindus (who grew from 3% to 7%). The percentage of immigrants without religion has stayed constant at about 14%.
The craziest part of all is that those christians who are most determined to turn this constitutional and secular country into a christian theism are fighting hard to keep out the most christian of all immigrants -- the undocumented immigrants. Those undocumented immigrants are at least 83% christian (while only 9% are non-religious and 7% follow other religions).
The religious fundamentalists and teabaggers, who claim to want this to be a christian nation, are trying to keep out and kick out the most christian of immigrant groups. I guess for them, the only christians who count are white christians. They claim to be motivated by religion, but it seems obvious that their religion is trumped by their racism. Given a choice between helping their christian brothers and sisters or upholding their racist and anti-immigrant views, they seem to have chosen bigotry. It makes me wonder if they have really read the words of their "savior" in the New Testament.
Reason For Growing Support For Legalizing Same-Sex Marriages
This brings up the question of just why this has happened (and happened in such a short period of time). Why are a majority of Americans now supporting the right of the LGBT community to marry the person they love? A recent Gallup Poll (conducted between May 2nd and 7th of a randomly-chosen nationwide survey of 1,535 adults -- with a margin of error of 3 points) may just have the answer.
For many years in this country most people just accepted the views of the religious right -- that homosexuality was either a choice or the result of the way a person was raised -- and not just because they were born that way (and really had no choice in the matter). Back in 1978, about 56% of the population agreed, while only 13% disagreed. This allowed much discrimination, because if the cause was choice or environment, then banning LGBT marriages or adoptions was justifiable. Even as late as 2011, a small majority agreed with this view (42% to 40%).
That is no longer true. Currently a clear and growing majority now believe gays/lesbians are born with a preference for same-sex partners -- and this new majority belief has caused a change in the view on equal rights for same-sex marriages. After all, if homosexuals are born with that proclivity and had no choice in the matter (any more than a person can choose their sex, race, color, or ethnicity), then discrimination can no longer have any justification under our constitutional law.
And this new understanding cuts across most demographic groups (age, sex, race, education, etc.). In fact, only three groups (conservatives, Republicans, and weekly church attendees) cling to the old view -- and even in those groups, more have changed their view. Here is that demographic breakdown, showing how views have changed from 2011 to 2013:
Plan B Should Be Available For Any Age
The White House has refused to completely follow the judge's order -- going only halfway. They decreed that Plan B would be available over-the-counter, but only to those 15 years-old or older. Those under 15 will still need their parents permission to buy the drug. This is nothing more than a lack of political courage, since the Plan B drug is very safe.
The judge's decision was not something out of left field -- not was it unreasonable. He simply did what most obstetricians and gynecologists have been recommending for quite a while now. And at the recent convention of the American Congress of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, the doctors once again called for the drug to be made available to everyone over-the-counter. Here are some of their comments:
– Owen Montgomery, MD: “I would much rather have a 13- to 14-year-old girl who needs emergency contraception have access to it than come to my office with an unwanted pregnancy… In our clinics in the university, we see lots and lots of teenagers. And many of these young ladies have no access to good parental role models, and they need access to emergency contraception when they need access. And they can’t wait for permission from a judge, or someone else of authority.”
– Alison Edelman, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University: “Emergency contraception is a really, really important part of our toolkit for contraception. It helps women who have emergencies, i.e., they aren’t using contraception at the time of sexual activity or they had a misstep with their contraception, like a condom break or slip.”
– Barbara S. Levy, MD, ACOG’s vice president for health policy: “There’s failure of other methods. There are rapes. There are other things that occur. Women need to be able to access emergency contraception and have the knowledge and understanding of how to use it, so we can prevent unwanted pregnancies and unintended pregnancies that happen, because life happens.”
– Laurie J. McKenzie, MD, of both the University of Texas and Baylor College of Medicine: “I find it very interesting that there are these concessions that are being made in terms of age limitation … There are more deaths associated with Tylenol overdose than there are with oral contraceptive overdoses or potential overdose with Plan B. There have never, to my knowledge, been any overdoses with hormonal contraception.”
– Eve Espey, MD, MPH, of the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque: “Plan B should be over the counter… All emergency contraceptives should be over the counter with no age restrictions.”
Religious Freedom
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Over Half Of U.S. Households Have An Inadequate Income
There are several causes for this drop in median income (and the fact that more than half of the population now lives on less than $50,000). Some of these factors are -- the loss of millions of jobs due to the Bush recession, the extremely low minimum wage (with less buying power than the minimum wage in the late 1960's), and the stagnation of worker wages (thanks to the weakening of unions, making them less able to bargain for a fair portion of the increase in productivity).
This brings up a serious question. How much income is required for a household to "get by" these days (i.e., having a minimally decent standard of living)? A recent Gallup Poll decided to find out what Americans thought was the income needed to "get by" in their communities (the survey being conducted between April 11th and 14th of a randomly chosen nationwide sample of 1,012 adults -- with a margin of error of 4 points).
It turns out that 57% of the general public believes that more than $50,000 is required to maintain a minimally decent standard of living these days -- and the mean average of all respondents was that $58,000 was needed. About 29% of respondents said households could get by on less than $50,000 (and 7% thought a household could get by making less than $30,000). This means more than half of all American households are trying to sustain themselves on less income than a significant majority of Americans believe is necessary. Here is a demographic breakdown of the average income believed needed (by income level, region, and community type):
If that doesn't make it more than obvious to you that the Republicans don't care about anyone but the rich, then you are not living in the real world. It is time for our government to act to help ordinary citizens to have a better life -- and the only way for that to happen is to vote the GOP out of power. Failure to do this will just cause the median wage to fall even further, and make a lot more Americans have to live on an insufficient income (as the middle class continues to shrink).
GOP Uses "Scandals" To Hide Obstruction
Much has been made of the supposed "scandals" of the Obama administration recently, especially by the Republicans in Congress. They are just happy to have the spotlight on something other than their own desire to impose a disastrous austerity on ordinary Americans, while providing more giveaways to the rich and corporate America -- and their continuing obstruction to everything the president proposes (an obstruction that is doing serious damage to this country).
Last Thursday, the New York Times Editorial Board printed an editorial about this. I thought it was excellent, and I re-post part of it here for your perusal (and recommend you read it all). They said:
When politicians want to turn scandals into metaphors, actual details of wrongdoing or incompetence no longer matter. In fact, the details of the troubles swirling around the White House this week are bluntly contradicting Republicans who want to combine them into a seamless narrative of tyrannical government on the rampage.
The Internal Revenue Service, according to an inspector general’s report, was not reacting to political pressure or ideology when it singled out conservative groups for special scrutiny in evaluating requests for tax exemptions. It acted inappropriately because employees couldn’t understand inadequate guidelines. The tragedy in Benghazi, Libya, never a scandal to begin with, has devolved into a turf-protection spat between government agencies, and the e-mail messages Republicans long demanded made clear that there was no White House cover-up.
The only example of true government overreach was the seizure of The Associated Press’s telephone records, the latest episode in the Obama administration’s Javert-like obsession with leakers in its midst.
Many of the Republicans who have added this action to their metaphor blender were also the ones clamoring the loudest for vigorous investigations of national security leaks. But reality simply isn’t solid enough to hold back the vast Republican opportunism on display this week. Whatever cranky point Republicans had been making against President Obama for the last five years — dishonesty, socialism, jackbooted tyranny — they somehow found that these incidents were exactly the proof they had been seeking, no matter how inflated or distorted. . .
But they do have one thing in common: when bound together and loudly denounced on cable television and in hearings, they serve to obscure the real damage that Republicans continue to do to the economy and the workings of government.
While Washington was arguing about e-mail messages about Benghazi, it wasn’t paying attention to the hundreds of thousands of defense furloughs announced this week because of the Republican-imposed sequester, which will become a significant drag on economic growth. It wasn’t focusing on the huge drop in the deficit, which has yet to silence the party’s demands for more austerity. And apparently it’s considered old news that Republicans are blocking several of the president’s cabinet nominees.
For those who are wondering whether this week’s political windstorms will hinder Mr. Obama’s second-term agenda, here’s a bulletin: That agenda was long ago imperiled by the obstruction of Republicans. (See Guns. Jobs. Education. And, very possibly, Immigration.)
This Is How Low The GOP Has Sunk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)