TANF vs. AFDC

I remember a lot of folk complaining about those “damned welfare mothers” as an undeserving drag upon society ~ AFDC [Aid to Families with Dependent Children] recipients. You still hear those complaints though AFDC has not existed since 1996 when it was replaced by TANF [Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.] Now TANF is going to expire if not renewed.

Both parties viewed TANF as a success but that can be debated. Before this welfare reform for every 100 families with children in poverty in the U.S. , 68 were able to access cash assistance; now that number is 27 and may be lower with the 2012 data comes in. Those who do get this assistance have less than 30% of the poverty line in most states – that is $5,400 annually for a family of three. In other words the program doesn’t do a whole lot.

Before TANF AFDC kept over 2.2 million poor children from falling into deep poverty (half the poverty line or less the $11,500 for a family of four today.) Thus, AFDC lifted 62% of poor children out of deep poverty, 650,000 kids. In 2005 TANF lifted 21 percent out of deep poverty. Or in other words, we are less effective than before in getting people out of deep poverty. In 1996 64% of single mothers with a high school education or less were working and in 2011 it was 62%.

As I understand it AFDC had programs that helped folk get education to get jobs, better jobs; a self-help program. That emphasis is no longer there with the idea of work first before getting education; they believed job training didn’t work and they sold the idea. And this was called success.

I really don’t have a real grasp of all this so I would suggest you go to http://billmoyers.com/2013/02/11/revealing-the-real-tanf/  where Bill Moyers works with The Nation to work on this issue. What I’ve shared is bits and pieces by an article by Greg Kaufman, This Week in Poverty.

It seems to me we not only don’t want what exists to expire but a better program.

A Corporate Pledge of Allegiance

Robert Reich in his book Beyond Outrage: What has gone wrong with our democracy, and how we can fix it, has a great bit at the end of his book related to the Citizens United  court decision. If we want citizens to voluntarily make the pledge of allegiance to our country and if corporations are people, then should they not voluntarily make a pledge of allegiance as well?

Here is his idea of how that pledge could look:

  Our corporation pledges allegiance to the United States of America. Top that end:

  We pledge to create more jobs in the United States than we create outside of the United States, either directly or in our foreign subsidiaries and subcontractors.

  We further pledge that no more than 20 percent of our total labor costs will be outsourced abroad. If we have to lay off American workers at a time when we’re profitable, we will give those workers severance payments equal to the weekly wage times the number of months they’ve worked for us.

  We pledge to keep a lid on executive pay so no executive is paid more than fifty times the median pay of American workers. We define “pay” to include salary, bonuses, health benefits, pension benefits, deferred salary, stock options, and every other form of compensation.

  We pledge to pay at least 30 percent of money earned in the United States. We won’t shift our money to offshore tax havens, and we won’t use accounting gimmicks to fake how much we earn.

  We pledge not to use our money to influence elections.

I think that is impressive and think how our country would improve if such a pledge were made and followed. It also seems reasonable that we should expect this type of commitment from our corporations.

Who Gets to Vote in the U.S.A. Elections?

The answer to the above question should be obvious; every American citizen. Well, there are those who lose the right to vote if they have committed a serious crime; and, even if they have paid for their crime they are still penalized. Then there are those who find it hard to vote because of long lines and hours that don’t fit around their work schedule. Then there are those who have not been properly registered by whatever local rules are in effect. And of course, some votes are worth more depending on where you live. Then there are the votes that are lost because some local poll worker screwed up or the software malfunctioned. Those are all matters that could be easily fixed.

But there is another group that I am thinking of that has a vote that I do not believe they are entitled to but get a vote anyway. For instance, how about Yang Yuanqing? Mr Yuanqing has been named “Asian Businessman of the Year” by Forbes Asia. He is the CEO and chairman of Lenovo. Lenovo is the company that now makes what used to be the IBM laptop. Mr Yuanqing I’m sure is a fine fellow but he is Chinese so it seems logical that he should not have a vote in American elections.

Now remember a little thing called “Citizens United” the declared that corporations are people. There are a lot of folk from foreign countries who own American businesses and those business can spend a lot of money helping folk get elected who will be favorable to their companies. So, technically they do not have a vote but I would suggest in really that have more influence on elections, a de facto vote, than many of our citizens.

I see this as just another piece of boneheaded fallout from a super stupid decision by our Supreme Court.

Just a thought to consider.

Antibiotics

This may seem a strange topic and it is. We are continually being warned by doctors to not take as many antibiotics as we do because they decrease in effectiveness and produce strains of viruses that become increasing more difficult to combat.

But how about your cow, pig, or dog? Are they overusing antibiotics and do we hear veterinarians’ warn Bossy the cow, Borus the pig or Fido the dog to watch their antibiotic intake?

Huh?

Here is a chart from the Pew Charitable Trust showing while humans consume 8 billion pounds of antibiotics to treat illness farmers use 29.9 billion pounds of antibiotics for their animals and that figure is increasing.

The FDA is addressing this issue with some guidelines. You know what guidelines are those things you ignore if it negatively affects your short term bottom line.

Here is some things they have learned according to the Pew study:

• Of the Salmonella on ground turkey, about 78% were resistant to at least one antibiotic and half of the bacteria were resistant to three or more. These figures are up compared to 2010. 

• Nearly three-quarters of the Salmonella found on retail chicken breast were resistant to at least one antibiotic. About 12% of retail chicken breast and ground turkey samples were contaminated with Salmonella.

• Resistance to tetracycline [an antibiotic] is up among Campylobacter on retail chicken. About 95% of chicken products were contaminated with Campylobacter, and nearly half of those bacteria were resistant to tetracyclines. This reflects an increase over last year and 2002.

Do you suppose that affects our health? Just another little ray of sunshine in our bleak winter. Now as to half of our farms now have Superweeds…well, I’ll save that for another day.

If You Think Federal Taxes Are Bad Consider State Taxes

David Brunori writing in the taxanalaysts  blog says he doesn’t like progressive taxes which he sees as a practice based on jealousy. His argument makes absolutely no sense to me in any way shape or form. Since 1913 when we passed the 16^th amendment allowing Congress to levy income taxes, the idea of those taxes were always progressive; folk who received the most should pay the most in taxes. It just seems sensible and fair. Scripture (2 Corinthians 9.7) says God loves a cheerful giver. Not too many every seem cheerful about giving today. The Old Testament (Deuteronomy 16.17) is also clear on the ability to give: “Everyone shall give as they are able, according to the blessing of the Lord your God which He has given you.” So like progressive taxes to me. Even in the early church they tried a tried a form of “socialism” where they put everything in a common pot and took from it according to their need. Of course, it didn’t work, folk were just as selfish then as now. [Acts 2. 44-45 “All that believed were together, and had all things in common; and sold their possession and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.” (Also see Acts 4. 34-37 [5.11])]

Now back to the subject; Brunori then goes on to point out that all states use regressive taxes; the poor pay more for the government than the rich, a greater percentage of their incomes. This is basically in the form of sales taxes but exempt purchases the wealthy make.

He points to a report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) titled Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax System in all Fifty States [http://www.itep.org/pdf/whopaysreport.pdf ] The study shows that 4 states do not have a personal income tax (Florida, South Dakota, Texas and Washington.] sounds good but is regressive but they are not the most regressive states. Well, you can read it for yourselves. On the other hand the least regressive states are Delaware, District of Columbia, New York, Oregon and Vermont.

There are enough charts in this report to choke a horse but I’ll just recommend two of them showing state comparisons found on pages 19 and 20 

Affirmative Action Revisited

A lot of folk seem to believe that affirmative action days have come and gone. Whereas they might have agreed that it was important to have affirmative action at one time, now that time is over and there should be a level playing field for everyone. The problem is that the playing field is still not level and over the past few decades has gotten worse.

I’m talking here about more the racial and gender issues, but the most important issue that has been behind those movements – socio-economic movements. In the early and mid 20^th century there were significant strides made towards socio-economic equality. It came out of Keynesian economics, the civil rights movement, the feminist movements and the like. And, the government played a crucial role in that progress. But at the end of the 20^th century and the beginning of the 21^st century we have seen much of the progress erode and the middle classes shrink and the poorer classes suffer. We seem to have understood it better in 1966 with the report Equality of Educational Opportunity and this year marks the 25^th anniversary of the book The Truly Disadvantaged.

Poverty is worsening in our country with students attending low-income schools from 34% in 1999 to 47% in 2008 according to a 2010 Brooking Institution report The Suburbanization of Poverty where it was found more poor people live in the suburbs than in the primary cities.

And what we hear is the need to reduce government spending, a good deal of that in education, which will just continue to drag down the economic at the expense of the middle and lower classes. Perhaps that helps explain the popularity of Downton Abbey of PBS as we see the rise of feudal type class systems and more of us belong downstairs; we identify with those characters.

The times of the haves and have-nots is returning big time. Jesus told us “you cannot serve God and mammon (wealth and greed).” It is the false god of the ultra wealthy and it is there worship of it that has far reaching implications on our society. Jesus was not against material well being, he encouraged it, but not for a few but for all.

Folk often think of Jesus being poor and even thinking being poor was good; balderdash. Remember when he was born he was given gold, frankincense and myrrh; that is wealth. Joseph could afford a donkey to travel and had a good trade. I find no evidence in scripture that Jesus was poor or that he saw being materially poor as a good thing. He just wanted us to be generous with the gifts God gave us.

¹⁹“Don’t hoard treasure down here where it gets eaten by moths and corroded by rust or—worse!—stolen by burglars. ²⁰Stockpile treasure in heaven, where it’s safe from moth and rust and burglars. ²¹It’s obvious, isn’t it? The place where your treasure is, is the place you will most want to be, and end up being.  ~ Matthew 6

¹⁷Tell those rich in this world’s wealth to quit being so full of themselves and so obsessed with money, which is here today and gone tomorrow. Tell them to go after God, who piles on all the riches we could ever manage— ¹⁸to do good, to be rich in helping others, to be extravagantly generous. ¹⁹If they do that, they’ll build a treasury that will last, gaining life that is truly life. ! 1 Timothy 6

Democracy gives us the opportunity to do what Jesus taught; to share the wealth. May God be with us in doing so.

The Language of Politics ~ Money

I must be by now on every progressive, moderate, and even some conservative list. Every day I get numerous requests from people who I largely respect and support their causes. Many times these are requests to sign petitions and I sign a great many of them. But likely in equal amounts are requests for money to help support these worthy efforts. And I believe it is important for us to support politicians and parties whose values we respect with our dollars. We don’t give a lot but we do give but not to many.

Historically the Republicans were known as the party of those of the higher economic levels; they were conservatives and wanted to keep things they way they were because they had done well. Democrats on the other hand were the party of the working class and eggheads; they were liberals looking for ways to change things for the better, for their own advantage and for the common good. Sometimes the conservatives won elections and sometimes the liberals won elections and usually there was a good mix of each. The golden age of this balance it seems to me was following the Great Depression and WWII when the country was united and sought to grow the American dream together with a mixture of conservative and liberal values. It was good. (I intentionally omitted frontier days and little government as no longer pertinent to our country despite the feelings of some.)

But things changed. Reagan entered the political area with promises that could not be kept but were popular and he sold them. His ideology led him to aggressive deregulation of corporate America believing in a very free enterprise system, one that went beyond the needs checks that even Adam Smith saw as necessary for a free market to remain free. And though I do not think he was intentional about this, I believe it brought in a whole new set of politics to the country that we had seen before during the “robber baron” days of an unregulated economy of the 19^th century and its roller coaster economies. But the rich were the brokers of power. We have returned to a similar era with a growing separation of economic classes.

Wealth, money is the name of game once more in politics, and those who have it get their way and the economic imbalances continue and grow worse. Money wins races in politics and now that has also spread to the court system. Citizens United upheld by the Supreme Court rejects of common sense of people who know better. Corporations are not people, but they can swing the political community with vast amounts of dollars.

Obama through a curveball into the system when he went to the people for small donations from lots of folk gave and he ended up with more money and with that money he won an election. Amazing. More importantly a number of people developed a taste for grassroots politics and a bit of a national voice.

It is still a stacked deck and I wonder if it can continue. Obama is not nearly as progressive as I think he should be in order for the middle class to grow again and safety nets become strong once more; but perhaps he is getting done as much as is possible in the money talks age.

While Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s,” and appeared more disengaged in the secular politics of his day he was heavily involved in the religious politics of his day. Invariably he sides with the common folk and their needs and challenges those in power who had used the power to oppress others. Jesus, in his counter-culture wisdom seeks to empower ordinary folk to be citizens of a great kingdom.

May more of than understanding be reflected in our culture and those values be implemented as only they can be in a democracy where all are supposedly entitled to equal voice, representation and of value.

May the language of politics become a more civil and equal means of communication.