Showing posts with label Poverty and Wealth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Poverty and Wealth. Show all posts

Monday, April 28, 2014

Ta-Nehisi Coates On the Virulent And Bipartisan Ideological Endorsement of White Supremacy in both Major American Political Parties

Ta-Nehisi Coates
(b. 1975)


The Secret Lives of Inner-City Black Males

Senator Paul Ryan's explanation for urban poverty isn't much different from Barack Obama's. Why did it make liberals so angry?

by TA-NEHISI COATES
March 18 2014
The Atlantic


On Sunday, I took my son to see two movies at a French film festival that was in town. The local train was out. We walked over to Amsterdam to flag down a cab. The cab rolled right past us and picked up two young-ish white women. It's sort of amazing how often that happens. It's sort of amazing how often you think you are going to be permitted to act as Americans do and instead receive the reminder—"Oh that's right, we are just some niggers. I almost forgot."

Getting angry at the individual cabbie is like getting angry at the wind or raging against the rain. In America, the notion that black people are lacking in virtue is ambient. We see this in our vocabulary of politics and racism, which has no room for the decline in the out-of-wedlock birthrate and invokes Chicago with no regard for Chicago at all, but to deflect all eyes from the body of Trayvon Martin.

The culture was a collection of the best practices for making our socially engineered inner cities habitable. I now live in a different environment. I now have different practices.

But I was angry, and very much wanted to approach the cabbie, idling there at a red light, in ill disposition. I was also with my son. And more, I am a 6-foot-4 black dude who tries to avoid the police. I think, 15 years ago, with nothing to lose, I would have made a different decision, if only because the culture of my young years made a virtue of meeting disrespect with aggression. This culture was not wrong—the price of ignoring disrespect, in the old town, was more disrespect. The culture was a collection of the best practices for making our socially engineered inner cities habitable. I now live in a different environment. I now have different practices.

Last week, Senator Paul Ryan went on the radio to address the lack of virtue prevalent among men who grew up like me, my father, my brothers, my best friends, and a large number of my people:


"We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with."

A number of liberals reacted harshly to Ryan. I'm not sure why. What Ryan said here is not very far from what Bill Cosby, Michael Nutter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama said before him. The idea that poor people living in the inner city, and particularly black men, are "not holding up their end of the deal" as Cosby put it, is not terribly original or even, these days, right-wing. From the president on down there is an accepted belief in America—black and white—that African-American people, and African-American men, in particular, are lacking in the virtues in family, hard work, and citizenship:


"If Cousin Pookie would vote, if Uncle Jethro would get off the couch and stop watching SportsCenter and go register some folks and go to the polls, we might have a different kind of politics."

Cousin Pookie and Uncle Jethro voted at higher rates than any other ethnic group in the country. They voted for Barack Obama. Our politics have not changed. Neither has Barack Obama's rhetoric. Facts can only get in the way of a good story. It was sort of stunning to see the president give a speech on the fate of young black boys and not mention the word racism once. It was sort of stunning to see the president salute the father of Trayvon Martin and the father of Jordan Davis and then claim, "Nothing keeps a young man out of trouble like a father who takes an active role in his son’s life."

From what I can tell, the major substantive difference between Ryan and Obama is that Obama's actual policy agenda regarding black America is serious, and Ryan's isn't. But Ryan's point—that the a pathological culture has taken root among an alarming portion of black people—is basically accepted by many progressives today. And it's been accepted for a long time.

Only if black people are somehow undeserving can a just society tolerate a yawning wealth gap, a two-tiered job market, and persistent housing discrimination.

Certainly there are cultural differences as you scale the income ladder. Living in abundance, not fearing for your children's safety, and having decent food around will have its effect. But is the culture of West Baltimore actually less virtuous than the culture of Wall Street? I've seen no such evidence. Yet that is the implicit message accepted by Paul Ryan, and the message is bipartisan.

That is because it is a message that makes all our uncomfortable truths tolerable. Only if black people are somehow undeserving can a just society tolerate a yawning wealth gap, a two-tiered job market, and persistent housing discrimination.

I think of that cab driver passing me by on Amsterdam. We are not on the block anymore. We are in America, where our absence of virtue is presumed, and we must eat disrespect in sight of our sons. And who can be mad in America?   Racism is just the wind, here.   Racism is but the rain.

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

President Obama's "Brother's Keeper" Program And the Shallow Politics of Condescension and Evasion

All,

Some people have actually asked me to provide a "nuanced" response to what Obama is doing with his new "Brother's Keeper" program so I took a deep breath, grunted loudly more than a few times and finally decided to "respond". So here it goes: OMG! This is a VERY BAD JOKE...at best. Is the President kidding us with this transparently feeble political gesture? It's frankly absurd to even PRETEND that this so-called "initiative" is a remotely serious strategy or actual provisional proposal for addressing what is a massive structural and institutional catastrophe facing Black America in general and black male (and female) youth in particular. What is being "offered" here is complete and utter BULLSHIT and is in the final analysis an embarrasing political INSULT to black people nationally. It's also FAR TOO LITTLE FAR TOO LATE. You mean to tell me that the demographic electorate most responsible for electing and reelecting this President (never forget folks that Obama received merely 43% of the white vote in 2008 and a woeful 39% of the national white vote in 2012 while receiving a huge 95% of the black vote in 2008 and 94% in 2012) is being treated at this late date in his Presidency with still more empty self aggrandizing rhetoric about how he personally went through what these boys and young men are going through and an even emptier economic commitment by the private sector yet of a mere 200 million dollars over five years by a slew of private foundations and corporations? This would be absolutely laughable if it wasn't so tragic. A mere 200 million dollars over five years for ANY major social and economic policy program is too ridiculous to even take seriously on ANY level let alone one in response to one of the largest and most severe social, economic, and cultural crises in US history like that facing Black america. Is the President and these foundations and corporations trying to hold us up to public ridicule with this nonsensical proposal? 200 million is chickenfeed money. CHUMP CHANGE.  Under these truly dire social, economic, and political circumstances facing us nationally (not to mention the ever escalating and relentless national expressions and dominance of the doctrine of white supremacy in the larger civil society as well as in our everyday lives) even 200 BILLION dollars over a five year period would be far short of cutting the mustard.

So instead of any truly well funded, generally progressive, and strongly supported government sponsored programs in the public sphere that would seriously address these problems in a systemic, independent, and systematic manner we are told that the President is simply hamstrung and paralyzed by the obviously ferocious and equally racist/reactionary antics and vicious attacks orchestrated by the Republican and Tea party rightwing in Congress. But as absolutely appalling and damaging as that fierce opposition has been and continues to be the larger truth is that the White House's domestic and economic policy agenda, the general Democratic Party in Congress, and the President himself could have and should have done FAR MORE than they have since 2009. This was especially true in the crucial two year period beginning with his inauguration in January 2009 up until the disastrous midterm elections of November, 2010. The necessary political capital and many strategic and tactical opportunities were there when the President and the Democratic Party had 58 senators (16 more than the Republicans) as well as a clear majority in the House. There is NO EXCUSE why the President, his administration, and the DP in Congress generally failed to unite and openly advocate and engage in a fierce PARTISAN fight against the openly contemptuous, reactionary, and racist Republicans and their demented Tea Party caucus. But both the White House and the DP leadership chose to follow the President's rather insipid and defensively passive leadership that vainly and rather self destructively BEGGED the Republicans and the emerging Tea Party gangsters for a clearly delusional bipartisan consensus that NEVER existed and had absolutely no chance of ever becoming a reality since it was a clear and decisive strategy of the right to oppose whatever the President and his supporters in the DP and most importantly in the general society wanted, needed, and deserved. Meanwhile the "official" national unemployment rate of African Americans remains at a staggering depression level of a whopping 12% (which in reality is two times larger nationally than white Americans and when one accounts for the millions who have in fact stopped looking for work in this stagnant economy the national black UE rate is actually closer to a horrific level of 17%). since these levels are much worse than the national figures for 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000, it seems that serious political questions should and must be raised about not only the Republication right's venal performance but the general economic ineptitude in Obama's social and domestic policy agenda regarding African American's structural and institutional problems of stark racial disparities and general inequality in everything from employment to education, housing, wages, and even healthcare despite the real and necessary--yet clearly limited--reforms of the Affordable Care Act (misnamed in a typical fit of racist dismissal as 'Obamacare' by the cynical white supremacists who run and control both the Republican and Tea party right) a national struggle which should have been waged as a pitched political and ideological battle by the President and the DP generally for a single payer system and real universal coverage or at the very least a national fight for a comprehensive public option program.

In addition there was another highly egregious and rather disturbing aspect of the President's bizarre and frankly condescending media rollout of his new program at his press conference on thursday. It has to do with the brazenly false and patronizing suggestion/implication that the reason he decided upon launching this program was the racist murder of Trayvon Martin in 2012. What's utterly FALSE and so insulting on a number of levels about what the President actually said is the clearly illogical and perverse notion that somehow 17 year old Trayvon was racially profiled, stalked, and murdered because he was somehow an (now get this) "at risk" black boy (which is to say poor, fatherless, illiterate, prone to the use and abuse of drugs and even violence). However this ludicrous and again FALSE suggestion is not only a cowardly evasion and even dismissal of the real reasons why Trayvon (and Jordan Davis and Oscar Grant III, and Sean Bell and Amadou Diallo and a very large, growing, and endless national list of innocent black boys and young men who have been also racially profiled, stalked, and killed by both ordinary citizens and by the police especially over the past decade. What's missing from the President's strange and self serving remarks (which happen to be both sexist and racially biased--more on this in a moment) are some very important and salient facts about the real issues of poverty, fatherlessness, educational literacy, drugs, and violence that the President has obviously forgotten or is trying for some opportunist and self serving political reason to get the rest of us (i.e. the national black community as well as all other American citizens--especially white Americans--to swallow and pretend is real).

Let's be clear folks: Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis were not viciously profiled, stalked, and murdered by maniacal racists because they were "at risk" youth or because they didn't have fathers or because they were poor, illiterate or badly educated or because they "got high" from smoking joints or snorted cocaine. No, NONE of that is even remotely true. The simple, obvious TRUTH is that both Martin and Davis were two solidly middle to upper middle class black kids with TWO LOVING PARENTS EACH whose relationships with their intelligent, gainfully employed fathers were as essential and central a part of their lives as that with their equally intelligent, well educated and gainfully employed mothers. Furthermore it's incredibly sexist and finally BOGUS to suggest that the reason why some black male youth are "at risk" is simply because they come from a single mother run household or because their father (or some other adult male figure) is missing from their daily lives. That's a LIE. For starters look at the personal history of the President himself. Obama has the temerity to claim-- with a straight face yet-- that his life without a father and under the tutelage of a single mother is somehow analagous to that of impoverished "at risk" black male youth from around the country who suffer from educational problems and severe social alienation. But here again the President is indulgently and rather cynically manipulating our understanding of his own history to the benefit of his present agenda. after all the President came from a modest lower middle class home in Hawaii who with his sister who despite not having his African father in his home because of his parents' divorce nevertheless thrived in school enough to be accepted into and attend one of the most academically acclaimed and prominent private high schools in the entire country (the decidely posh and upwardly mobile Punahou school in Honolulu) and later matriculated at both Columbia University and Harvard Law School which culminated in him becoming the first African American to become President of the Harvard Law Review. Ultimately the rest of his now legendary/storied 20 year history following graduation led him to becoming President of the United States! This is hardly the "normal" or "typical" profile of ANY "at risk" child in this country--or any other child for that matter-- regardless of what their color, gender, or class origins were and it certainly is not an accurate picture of what fundamentally severe structural and institutional problems and obstacles actually face black youth, students, and adults generally in this society whether they are poor, from single parent households or poorly educated OR NOT. White Supremacy is an equal opportunity menace in this country and in the end no one who subscribes to, upholds, defends, or perpetuates this lethal doctrine at any level of this society--and especially in our major social, economic, political, and cultural institutions-- is ultimately concerned with or even remotely interested in where a black person may or may not have gone to school, who his/her parents are or what class they happen to be an economic member of. For example among the many horrific and very revealing statistics documenting just how pervasive and deeply rooted institutional and structural racism really is (and yes folks it's getting worse--especially over the past two decades) is this one: black COLLEGE graduates can generally expect to make LESS in both income and the attainment of social status in their lifetime than white HIGH SCHOOL graduates in the United States. That's a FACT Jack, and no amount of phony melodramatic rhetoric about "not having fathers in the home" or "too many single mothers" or personal illiteracy struggles or even (gasp) unemployment can or will change these realities--only a very broad based, united, and massive struggle for political, economic, and cultural democracy that focuses on the domination of extremely wealthy and privileged elites in every area of American life could possibly do that. After all every single major political, economic, social, or cultural reform in this society was the direct result of such intense concentrated mass organization, education, and mobilization from the grassroots UP--and this of course includes everything from civil and human rights for blacks and other people of color as well as conscious and committed white Americans, women, labor which includes the poor, working, and middle classes in genera. Unless and until we collectively make the kinds of serious, mature, and emphatic demands on this President and Congress as well as the obscenely wealthy, oppressive, and exploitive economic elites in this country WE ARE ALL "AT RISK"--and that's no joke. And I assure you that far more than merely being or becoming "our brother's keeper" (What? no "sisters" allowed?) in a woefully inadequate and spurious social program that turns real substantive public policy into a silly, idiotic con game of finding poor young black male kids who are "at risk" because they're somehow fundamentally "different" from the rest of us who according to this absurd logic are presumably not at risk or less so because (dig this!) we have fathers, don't lack a living wage, and are "educated" in a pathologically test driven educational environment that primarily rewards and privileges grades, private schools, and the status that results from having attended Ivy league institutions or something like them.  In any event at this late date there's no point in simply getting mad at or pointing fingers at me or any other honest and/or generally supportive critics of this administration and their/our many enemies in government, the corporate sector, Wall Street, the Supreme Court, and in much of the general white population. It's not our fault.

After all when your main public surrogate representing the White House's position on the 'Brother's Keeper' program is none other than that perennial political ambulance chaser and cynical self serving gliberal opportunist better known as the Reverend Al Sharpton--who is--let's face it!-- nothing more than a servile bombastic SHILL for Obama and the White House under any and all circumstances (regardless of any objective merit or even common sense) then it's painfully clear that hubris, defensive reactions, and rhetorical posturing take precedent over genuinely progressive political advocacy and courageous, steadfast commitment no matter what obstacles exist.

Trust me: even President Obama and his corny self promoting surrogates like that not-so-slick jackleg preacher Rev. Al Sharpton surely "know better"--at least intellectually-- even if they won't acknowledge it in public for fear that they will be labeled and attacked as "radicals." Yeah...right. FAT CHANCE...Spare me the bullshit...Stay tuned...

Kofi



POLITICS

Obama Starts Initiative for Young Black Men, Noting His Own Experience

By MICHAEL D. SHEAR
February 27, 2014
New York Times

 
Obama on Initiative to Help Minority Men

http://nyti.ms/1kqFSQq

VIDEO|3:17


President Obama spoke about the “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative to help young minority men and shared his own story about past drug use.

WASHINGTON — President Obama spoke in unusually personal terms at the White House on Thursday about how he got high as a teenager and was at times indifferent to school as he deplored what he called America’s numbness to the plight of young black men.

Drawing on the power of his own racial identity in a way he seldom does as president, Mr. Obama sought to connect his personal narrative about growing up without a father to that of a generation of black youth in the United States who he said faced higher odds of failure than their peers.

“I didn’t have a dad in the house,” Mr. Obama said as he announced a $200 million, five-year initiative, My Brother’s Keeper, to help black youth. “And I was angry about it, even though I didn’t necessarily realize it at the time. I made bad choices. I got high without always thinking about the harm that it could do. I didn’t always take school as seriously as I should have. I made excuses. Sometimes I sold myself short.”

Mr. Obama said the idea for My Brother’s Keeper occurred to him in the aftermath of the killing of Trayvon Martin, the Florida teenager whose death two years ago sparked a roiling national debate about race and class. He called the challenge of ensuring success for young men of color a “moral issue for our country” as he ticked off the statistics: black boys who are more likely to be suspended from school, less likely to be able to read, and almost certain to encounter the criminal justice system as either a perpetrator or a victim.

Reaching Out to a New Generation Introducing an initiative to address the challenges facing young black men, President Obama on Thursday spoke in uncharacteristically personal terms about missteps in his youth.
CreditGabriella Demczuk/The New York Times

“We just assume this is an inevitable part of American life, instead of the outrage that it is,” Mr. Obama told an audience of business leaders, politicians, philanthropists, young black men from a Chicago support program, and Mr. Martin’s parents. “It’s like a cultural backdrop for us in movies, in television. We just assume, of course it’s going to be like that.”

“These statistics should break our hearts,” he added. “And they should compel us to act.”

Mr. Obama’s remarks come as the end of his time in office is in sight, with the president mindful of the legacy that his administration will leave behind on race and other civil rights issues like same-sex marriage and immigration. Mr. Obama has embraced the right of gay men and lesbians to marry, and Eric H. Holder Jr., his attorney general, has aggressively sought to ensure that all eligible Americans have access to the ballot box.

Although Mr. Obama nods on occasion to his history-making status as the nation’s first black president, he has sought to avoid being defined entirely by his race. He most often emphasizes that he is the leader of all Americans. But in recent years, the president has spoken more about the black experience in the United States — most strikingly after the death of Mr. Martin, when Mr. Obama said, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

On Thursday, the president combined his personal remarks on race with a broader call to focus on “the larger agenda”: economic insecurity and stalled mobility for Americans of any color.

“The plain fact is there are some Americans who, in the aggregate, are consistently doing worse in our society,” Mr. Obama said, “groups that have had the odds stacked against them in unique ways that require unique solutions, groups who’ve seen fewer opportunities that have spanned generations.”

The president also called for action from business leaders, members of religious groups, actors, athletes and anyone who can intervene in the lives of black men before they veer off course. He said a White House task force would examine ways the federal government can help, too.

“It doesn’t take that much, but it takes more than we are doing now,” Mr. Obama said. “We will beat the odds. We need to give every child — no matter what they look like, no matter where they live — the ability to meet their full potential.”

He also challenged black men to do better themselves, and said they must not make excuses for their failures or blame society for the poor decisions they have already made.

“You will have to reject the cynicism that says the circumstances of your birth or society’s lingering injustices necessarily define you and your future,” Mr. Obama said.

“It will take courage, but you will have to tune out the naysayers who say if the deck is stacked against you, you might as well just give up or settle into the stereotype.”

“Nothing will be given to you,” he said.

Thursday’s announcement is unlikely to satisfy Mr. Obama’s most vocal critics in the black population, who have accused him of forgetting his roots.

Mark Anthony Neal, a professor of African and African-American studies at Duke, said the president’s initiative did not focus enough on the more systemic forms of racism in America.

“These young men weren’t killed because of structural situations that didn’t give them opportunities,” Mr. Neal said.

“It’s other kinds of racism and violence that those boys were dealing with. The initiative is not addressing those things.”

The initiative is the latest example of Mr. Obama’s efforts to bypass Congress, which has stymied him on many of the economic policies he considers central to the lives of blacks.

In a show of support, leaders from more than a dozen nonprofit foundations and executives from some of the nation’s largest companies joined the president, along with Magic Johnson, the retired basketball superstar, and Gen. Colin L. Powell, the former secretary of state.

White House officials said the foundations had pledged to spend at least $200 million over the next five years in a search for solutions to the problems black men face with early-childhood development, school readiness, educational opportunity, discipline, parenting and the criminal justice system.

“This is not a one-year proposition,” Mr. Obama said. “It’s not a two-year proposition. It’s going to take time. We’re dealing with complicated issues that run deep in our history, run deep in our society and are entrenched in our minds.”

Gail C. Christopher, vice president for program strategy for the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, which has committed $750,000 to My Brother’s Keeper, said the initial money would be used for hiring staff, consultants and firms “to get something established that has legs.”

But more money will be needed for the initiative to have an impact, Ms. Christopher said. “As far as I’m concerned, it’s a drop in the ocean of money that will be needed to transform the opportunity structures in our society,” she said.

Mr. Obama acknowledged the limits of an approach that relies little on the government. But he offered hope in the power of his office to bring together people as diverse as the Rev. Al Sharpton, the television host and civil rights campaigner, and Bill O’Reilly, the conservative host on Fox News and best-selling novelist. Both attended the event at the White House.

“If I can persuade, you know, Sharpton and O’Reilly to be in the same meeting,” the president said, “then it means that there are people of good faith who want to get some stuff done.”

Obama launches program to help minority youth
by Aamer Madhani
USA TODAY
February 27, 2014

President Obama launched a new government partnership with businesses and philanthropic groups on Thursday aimed at keeping high-risk young men of color on the right path.

Obama called it a "moral issue" for the country to help minority youth gain the education and skills they need to succeed as adults and to stay out of jail.

"It doesn't take that much, but it takes more than we are doing now," Obama said. "And that's what My Brother's Keeper is about."

As part of the program, Obama wants to adopt best practices from communities throughout the country where businesses and foundations are already working together to mentor young minority men.

In support of the program, the Obama administration recruited several philanthropic groups — including the Annie E. Casey Foundation, The Ford Foundation and The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation — to pledge at least $200 million over the next five years to develop programs on early childhood development, parenting, school discipline reform and other critical areas.

Obama noted that in the first three years of life a child born into a low-income family typically hears 30 million fewer words than a child of a well-off family.

He also cited statistics that show a student who can't read at grade level by third grade is four times less likely to graduate by age 19 than a child who does read proficiently by that time. Children living in poverty are 13 times less likely to graduate on time than their wealthier peers.

The president took aim at zero-tolerance policies, the practice of automatically suspending students for certain infractions. The administration last month recommended that schools discontinue the practice.

Schools are twice as likely to suspend a Hispanic student and four times more likely to suspend an African-American student than they are white students. Students that are suspended even once before the ninth grade are twice as likely to drop out.

"There are ways to modify bad behavior that leads to good behavior," Obama said. "We can make classrooms good places for learning for everybody without jeopardizing a child's future."

The foundations have agreed to work with Obama's Cabinet secretary, Broderick Johnson, over the next 90 days to assess the effectiveness of existing public and private efforts and determine how the federal government can change its policies to support those efforts.

The announcement comes in the same week as the two-year anniversary of the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed teenager whose 2012 slaying in Florida spurred Obama to speak in personal terms about race.

Trayvon's parents, as well as the parents of 17-year-old Jordan Davis, an unarmed black teen who was killed in 2012 in Jacksonville, were among those invited to the White House for the announcement.

Obama also invited young men from a Chicago-based group called Becoming a Man, which he held up as group that his administration can learn from as it develops the initiative.

He recalled telling them about the bad choices he made, including "getting high" and sometimes taking school less seriously than he should have.

"I could see myself in these young men," Obama said. "The only difference was I grew up in an environment that was a little more forgiving."

Obama has faced periodic criticism during his presidency from prominent African Americans — including scholar Cornel West and radio host Tavis Smiley — who have charged that he has spent little political capital or energy focusing on the plight of poor minority communities.

But in recent weeks, the Obama administration won praise for focusing on some issues that are of great concern in minority communities.

Attorney General Eric Holder called on states this month to repeal laws that strip felons of the right to vote, a penalty imposed on nearly one in 13 African Americans.

Holder is also pushing Congress to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenders and has sued Texas and North Carolina to overturn voter-identification laws that opponents say are more likely to keep minorities and the poor from voting.

On Thursday, Obama received praised from African-American lawmakers and activists for launching the initiative.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said the program could "give our young black men a fighting chance."

Motoko Rich and Tanzina Vega contributed reporting from New York.

Boys from a Chicago youth program listened at the White House on Thursday as Mr. Obama announced an initiative called My Brother’s Keeper.CreditGabriella Demczuk/The New York Times

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Robert Reich On The Real Stakes of the 2012 National Elections, The Wall Street Debacle, And the Collapse of the U.S. Economy

(Photo: Andrew Bossi / Flickr)

http://www.truth-out.org/washington-pre-occupied/1320501362

"The disconnect between Washington and the rest of the nation hasn’t been this wide since the late 1960s.

The two worlds are on a collision course: Americans who are losing their jobs or their pay and can’t pay their bills are growing increasingly desperate. Washington insiders, deficit hawks, regressive Republicans, diffident Democrats, well-coiffed lobbyists, and the lobbyists’ wealthy patrons on Wall Street and in corporate suites haven’t a clue or couldn’t care less.

I can’t tell you when the collision will occur but I’d guess 2012.

Look elsewhere around the world and you see a similar collision unfolding. The details differ but the larger forces are similar. You see it in Spain, Greece, and Italy, whose citizens are being squeezed by bankers insisting on austerity. You see it in Chile and Israel, whose young people are in revolt. In the Middle East, whose “Arab spring” is becoming a complex Arab fall and winter. Even in China, whose young and hourly workers are demanding more – and whose surge toward inequality in recent years has been as breathtaking as is its surge toward modern capitalism.

Will 2012 go down in history like other years that shook the foundations of the world’s political economy – 1968 and 1989?

I spent part of yesterday in Oakland, California. The Occupier movement is still in its infancy in the United States, but it cannot be stopped. Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game – an economy that won’t respond, a democracy that won’t listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards.

Here, as elsewhere, the people are rising."

--Robert Reich

All,

Robert Reich says it all here and then some. This is just the beginning of a massive social movement that will-- if intelligently sustained and expanded --serve as the very foundation in the short and longterm for any real concrete social, economic, and political change in this society. So while it's just a (brilliant) beginning the important thing to remember is that it is a very POWERFUL beginning and for the first time in a very long time we, the People are in the forefront of actually making or at least demanding these changes. That is an inspiring reality in itself that will continue to serve as a major incentive for mass participation and elevating the very principle of grassroots struggle and mobilization that animates all genuine radical change in society and culture. This is our major opportunity to ACT on our own collective behalf for once without crippling ourselves with the eternal copouts and lazy equivocations of cynicism, solipsism, fatalism, nihilism, and despair. We dare not blow, take for granted, or smugly dismiss this great opportunity for creating real change. If we do so it will only be at our own peril as citizens and human beings...

Kofi


3 November 2011
by Robert Reich
Robert Reich's Blog | Op-Ed

The biggest question in America these days is how to revive the economy.

The biggest question among activists now occupying Wall Street and dozens of other cities is how to strike back against the nation’s almost unprecedented concentration of income, wealth, and political power in the top 1 percent.

The two questions are related. With so much income and wealth concentrated at the top, the vast middle class no longer has the purchasing power to buy what the economy is capable of producing. (People could pretend otherwise as long as they could treat their homes as ATMs, but those days are now gone.) The result is prolonged stagnation and high unemployment as far as the eye can see.

Until we reverse the trend toward inequality, the economy can’t be revived.

But the biggest question in our nation’s capital right now has nothing to do with any of this. It’s whether Congress’s so-called “Supercommittee” – six Democrats and six Republicans charged with coming up with $1.2 trillion in budget savings — will reach agreement in time for the Congressional Budget Office to score its proposal, which must then be approved by Congress before Christmas recess in order to avoid an automatic $1.5 trillion in budget savings requiring major across-the-board cuts starting in 2013.

Have your eyes already glazed over?

Diffident Democrats on the Supercommittee have already signaled a willingness to cut Medicare, Social Security, and much else that Americans depend on. The deal is being held up by Regressive Republicans who won’t raise taxes on the rich – not even a tiny bit.

President Obama, meanwhile, is out on the stump trying to sell his “jobs bill” – which would, by the White House’s own estimate, create fewer than 2 million jobs. Yet 14 million people are out of work, and another 10 million are working part-time who’d rather have full-time jobs.

Republicans have already voted down his jobs bill anyway.

The disconnect between Washington and the rest of the nation hasn’t been this wide since the late 1960s.

The two worlds are on a collision course: Americans who are losing their jobs or their pay and can’t pay their bills are growing increasingly desperate. Washington insiders, deficit hawks, regressive Republicans, diffident Democrats, well-coiffed lobbyists, and the lobbyists’ wealthy patrons on Wall Street and in corporate suites haven’t a clue or couldn’t care less.

I can’t tell you when the collision will occur but I’d guess 2012.

Look elsewhere around the world and you see a similar collision unfolding. The details differ but the larger forces are similar. You see it in Spain, Greece, and Italy, whose citizens are being squeezed by bankers insisting on austerity. You see it in Chile and Israel, whose young people are in revolt. In the Middle East, whose “Arab spring” is becoming a complex Arab fall and winter. Even in China, whose young and hourly workers are demanding more – and whose surge toward inequality in recent years has been as breathtaking as is its surge toward modern capitalism.

Will 2012 go down in history like other years that shook the foundations of the world’s political economy – 1968 and 1989?

I spent part of yesterday in Oakland, California. The Occupier movement is still in its infancy in the United States, but it cannot be stopped. Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game – an economy that won’t respond, a democracy that won’t listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards.

Here, as elsewhere, the people are rising.


Links:

[1] http://www.truth-out.org/print/8617
[2] http://www.truth-out.org/printmail/8617
[3] http://robertreich.org/post/12303771388
[4] http://www.flickr.com/photos/thisisbossi/4393355562/in/photostream/
[5] http://www.truth-out.org/printmail
[6] http://www.truth-out.org/content/robert-reich
[7] http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6694/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=2160
[8] https://members.truth-out.org/donate
[9] http://www.truth-out.org/?q=occupied-what-now/1318825916
[10] http://www.truth-out.org/?q=food-system-pays-dearly-wall-street-occupies-washington/1319462814

Sunday, October 30, 2011

The Massive Increase in Economic Inequality in the United States Since 1979




Protestors participate in an Occupy Oakland rally Monday, Oct. 10, 2011, in Oakland, Calif. (AP Photo)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-20125589/cbo-top-1-getting-exponentially-richer/

October 25, 2011

(CBS News) The Occupy Wall Street movement has, for the most part, been formed around the idea that wealth distribution in America is unfair, and that the economic system is skewed to reward the already wealthy with the highest gains. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office appears to have confirmed that.

Specifically, it has confirmed that the rich really are getting richer.

Between 1979 and 2007, the top 1 percent of Americans with the highest incomes have seen their incomes grow by an average of 275 percent, according to the CBO study (PDF).

In comparison, the 60 percent of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their incomes increase by just 40 percent during the same time period, according to the study, which was based on a combination of IRS and Census data.

To put the growing disparity of income distribution in a slightly different perspective: Between 2005 and 2007, the top one-fifth of earners in America earned more money than the bottom fourth-fifths.

The report declines to offer exact reasons for the growing income disparity, but acknowledges they are likely to include: Growing "superstar" salaries for actors, athletes and musicians; Changes in executive compensation; and the growth of firms in general.

Reports from the non-partisan CBO tend to get trumpeted by politicians who are supported by their conclusions, and dismissed by those who aren't, in a trend that crosses party lines.

The most relevant part of the report to the ongoing debt battle in Washington will surely by the argument, pointed out by The New York Times, that the government has done less and less to involve itself in redistributing the nation's wealth since 1979. That said, the report was careful not to draw a direct line between the growing income disparity and the lower rate of government wealth distribution.

"The equalizing effect of federal taxes was smaller" in 2007 than in 1979, as "the composition of federal revenues shifted away from progressive income taxes to less-progressive payroll taxes," according to an excerpt from the CBO report in the Times.


http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485

SUMMARY

AFTER-TAX INCOME GREW MORE FOR HIGHEST-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS

After-tax income for the highest-income households grew more than it did for any other group. (After-tax income is income after federal taxes have been deducted and government transfers—which are payments to people through such programs as Social Security and Unemployment Insurance—have been added.)

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

The share of income going to higher-income households rose, while the share going to lower-income households fell.

The top fifth of the population saw a 10-percentage-point increase in their share of after-tax income.

Most of that growth went to the top 1 percent of the population.

All other groups saw their shares decline by 2 to 3 percentage points.

MARKET INCOME SHIFTED TOWARD HIGHER-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS

Shifts in the distribution of market income underlie most of the changes in the distribution of after-tax income. (Market income—or income before taxes and transfers—includes labor income, business income, capital income, capital gains, and income from other sources such as pensions.)

Each source of market income was less evenly distributed in 2007 than in 1979.
More concentrated sources of income (such as business income and capital gains) grew faster than less concentrated sources (such as labor income).

GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS AND FEDERAL TAXES BECAME LESS REDISTRIBUTIVE

Government transfers and federal taxes both help to even out the income distribution. Transfers boost income the most for lower-income households, while taxes claim a larger share of income as people's income rises.

In 2007, federal taxes and transfers reduced the dispersion of income by 20 percent, but that equalizing effect was larger in 1979.

The share of transfer payments to the lowest-income households declined.
The overall average federal tax rate fell.


http://bloggingblue.com/2011/10/25/new-cbo-report-reaffirms-the-growth-of-income-inequality-in-america/

New CBO Report Reaffirms the Growth of Income Inequality in America by PHIL SCARR
OCTOBER 25, 2011

We have become a class-based society

The Congressional Budget Office just released a report which shows yet again the growth of inequality in America. We have become a class-based society.

For the 1 percent of the population with the highest income, average real after-tax household income grew by 275 percent between 1979 and 2007 (see Summary Figure 1).

For others in the 20 percent of the population with the highest income (those in the 81st through 99th percentiles), average real after-tax household income grew by 65 percent over that period, much faster than it did for the remaining 80 percent of the population, but not nearly as fast as for the top 1 percent.

For the 60 percent of the population in the middle of the income scale (the 21st through 80th percentiles), the growth in average real after-tax household income was just under 40 percent.

For the 20 percent of the population with the lowest income, average real after-tax household income was about 18 percent higher in 2007 than it had been in 1979.

As a result of that uneven income growth, the distribution of after-tax household income in the United States was substantially more unequal in 2007 than in 1979: The share of income accruing to higher-income households increased, whereas the share accruing to other households declined. In fact, between 2005 and 2007, the after-tax income received by the 20 percent of the population with the highest income exceeded the aftertax income of the remaining 80 percent.

What’s really depressing about this is that American’s don’t understand how unequal America has become. A study by Michael Norton surveyed Americans on the question of what they think inequality is and what they think it should be. His results were startling.



Notice the variation between Ideal and Actual. And the startling line that shows how deluded Americans are as to the real distribution of wealth in the nation.

I challenge anyone to argue that this level of inequality is a good thing for America.


Saturday, October 29, 2011

The Pivotal Role of Race, Class, and the Corporate State in the Occupy Wall Street Movement

Occupy Wall Street: Day 14, September 30, 2011. (Photo: ©wendyannibell photos [4])


http://www.truth-out.org/occupiers-have-convince-other-99-percent/1319466407

All,

As usual the always politically insightful, morally courageous, and truly provocative Chris Hedges cuts through all the bullshit, lies, and cowardly equivocations to properly identify and talk about what really matters. This is another excellent and very necessary piece that deals directly and honestly with the eternally brutal contradictions of race and class in this society and culture--especially as they pertain to political mass struggle and grassroots organizing. The crucial issues he raises and discusses here can't be addressed too often...

Kofi


Occupiers Have to Convince the Other 99 Percent
by Chris Hedges
24 October 2011
Truthdig
News Analysis


The occupation movement’s greatest challenge will be overcoming the deep distrust of white liberals by the poor and the working class, especially people of color.

Marginalized people of color have been organizing, protesting and suffering for years with little help or even acknowledgment from the white liberal class. With some justification, those who live in these marginalized communities often view this movement as one dominated by white sons and daughters of the middle class who began to decry police abuse and the lack of economic opportunities only after they and their families were affected. This distrust is not the fault of the movement, which has instituted measures within its decision-making process to make sure marginalized voices are heard before white males. It is the fault of a bankrupt liberal class that for decades has abandoned the core issue of economic justice for the poor and the working class and busied itself with the vain and self-referential pursuits of multiculturalism and identity politics.

The civil rights movement, after all, achieved a legal victory, not an economic one. And for the bottom two-thirds of African-Americans, life is worse today than it was when Martin Luther King marched in Selma in 1965. King, like Malcolm X, understood that racial equality was impossible without economic justice. The steady impoverishment of those in these marginal communities, part of the Faustian deal worked out between the Democratic Party and its corporate sponsors, has been accompanied by draconian forms of police control, from stop-and-frisk to militarized police raids to the establishment of our vast complex of prison gulags. More African-American men, as Michelle Alexander [5] has pointed out, are in prison or jail or on probation or parole than were enslaved [6] in 1850, before the Civil War began. The corporate state keeps some two-thirds of poor people of color in the United States trapped in internal colonies—either in the impoverished inner city or behind bars. And the abject failure on the part of the white liberal establishment to stand up for the rights of the poor, as well as its decision to throw its support behind Democratic politicians such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, who abet this institutionalized and economic racism, has left many in these marginal communities disdainful of protesters from the newly dispossessed white middle class.

“The black community and the community of color have been dealing with these issues for decades,” the Rev. Raymond Blanchette, an African-American preacher from Queens, said in Zuccotti Park in Manhattan one day last week as we closed our jackets against a chilly wind whipping down the canyons of the financial district. “Now the white community around the country is beginning to see it and experience it firsthand. It’s pretty shocking to them. The African-American community and other communities of color are saying, ‘Welcome to the world I live in.’ That’s why you don’t see that many of those [nonwhite] faces here. It’s like, OK, now you decided you are going to speak up because now you’re the one that’s affected by it. One of the reasons I’m here is because I see the viability of this movement. I want to bring those communities together.”

The power elite have desperately tried to tar the movement with a series of calumnies, branding protesters as hippies, anti-Semites, drug addicts, leftists, anarchists and communists. They have so far been unable to blunt the fundamental truth the movement imparts: We have undergone a corporate coup. It has to be reversed. But this truth has yet to resonate among those who for decades have been betrayed and ignored by white liberals.

The decision by protesters from Occupy Wall Street to join Cornel West in Harlem last Saturday to protest the New York City Police Department’s stop-and-frisk policy was an important step in taking the message of the occupy movement to our impoverished internal colonies. West, who led the protest outside the 28th Precinct at West 123rd Street and Frederick Douglass Boulevard and who was arrested along with about 30 others, was part of a crowd that chanted: “Stop-and-frisk don’t stop the crime. Stop-and-frisk is the crime.”

The power elite are frantically searching for the ideological weapon that will discredit the movement. But the clarity of the protests, the painful personal stories of dislocation that are the heart of its message, and, most important, the self-discipline, despite police provocation, which has kept these protests nonviolent have advanced the movement and discredited the forces of control. The power elite, held together by the glue of force and fraud, are seeking ways to communicate in the only language they know they can master—unrestrained force. And as we enter the second month of demonstrations, the power elite fear that the core message and the calls for resistance, which resonate with a majority of Americans, will lead to a direct confrontation with the corporate state. If the movement starts to pull hundreds of thousands of people together, if it leaps across class lines, as I saw during the peaceful revolutions in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, then the corporate state is probably finished. Our corporate overlords know this. And they are doing everything in their power to make sure this does not come to pass.

The divisions between the poor and the working class on the one hand and the white, liberal middle class on the other reach back to the Vietnam anti-war movement. The New Left in the 1960s was infused with the same deadly doses of hedonism that corrupted earlier 20th century counterculture movements such as the bohemians and the beats. The antagonism between the New Left during the Vietnam War and the working class and the poor, whose sons were shipped to Vietnam while the sons of the white middle class were usually handed college deferments, was never bridged. Working-class high schools, including many high schools with large numbers of African-Americans, sent 20 to 30 percent of their graduates to Vietnam every year while college graduates made up only 2 percent of all troops sent to Vietnam in 1965 and 1966. Anti-war activists were seen by those locked out of the white middle class as spoiled children of the rich who advocated free love, drug use, communism and social anarchy.

The unions and the white working class remained virulently anti-communist. They spoke in the language of militarism and the Cold War and were unsympathetic to the anti-war movement as well as the civil rights movement. When student activists protested at the AFL-CIO’s 1965 convention, chanting “Get out of Vietnam!” the delegates taunted them by shouting “Get a haircut.” AFL-CIO leader George Meany ordered the security to “clear the Kookies out of the gallery.” United Automobile Workers President Walter Reuther, once the protesters were escorted out, announced that “protesters should be demonstrating against Hanoi and Peking … [who] are responsible for the war.” The convention passed a resolution that read: “The labor movement proclaim[s] to the world that the nation’s working men and women do support the Johnson administration in Vietnam.”

Those that constituted the hard-core New Left, groups like Students for a Democratic Society, found their inspiration in the liberation struggles in Vietnam and the Third World and figures such as Mao and Leon Trotsky rather than the labor movement, which they considered bought off by capitalism. They saw the working class as part of the problem. Many came to embrace the cult of violence. The Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam and the Weather Underground Organization became as poisoned by this lust for blood, quest for ideological purity, crippling paranoia and internal repression as the state system they defied.

The bulk of the white protesters in the 1960s found their ideological roots not in the moral imperatives of King or Malcolm X but the disengagement championed earlier by beats such by Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsburg and William Burroughs. It was a movement that, while it incorporated a healthy dose of disrespect for authority, focused on self-indulgent schemes for inner peace and fulfillment. The use of hallucinogenic drugs, advocated by Timothy Leary in books such as “The Politics of Ecstasy,” and the rise of occultism that popularized transcendental meditation, Theosophy, Hare Krishna, Zen and the I-Ching were trends that would have dismayed older radical movements such as the Wobblies [8] and the Communist Party. The counterculture of the 1960s, like the commodity culture, lured adherents inward. It set up the self as the primary center of concern. It offered affirmative, therapeutic remedies to social problems and embraced vague, undefined and utopian campaigns to remake society. There was no real political vision. Hermann Hesse’s novel “Siddhartha [9]” became emblematic of the moral hollowness of the New Left. These movements and the celebrities who led them, such as the Yippie leader Abbie Hoffman, catered to the stage set for them by television cameras. Protests and court trials became street theater. Dissent became another media spectacle. Anti-war protesters in Berkeley switched from singing “Solidarity Forever” to “We All Live in a Yellow Submarine.”

The power of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that it has not replicated the beliefs of the New Left. Rather, it is rooted in the moral imperatives of justice and self-sacrifice, what Dwight Macdonald [10] called nonhistorical values, values closer to King than Abbie Hoffman. It seeks to rebuild the bridges to labor, the poor and the working class. The movement eschews the hedonism of the New Left; indeed it does not permit drugs or alcohol in Zuccotti Park. It denounces the consumer culture and every evening shares its food with the homeless, who also often sleep in the park. But, most important, it eschews, through a nonhierarchical system of self-governance, the deadly leadership cults that plagued and ultimately destroyed the movements of the 1960s. The political and moral void within the New Left meant that, like the counterculture of the beats or the bohemians, it was seamlessly integrated into the commercial culture. At its core the New Left shared the same hedonism, entrancement with mass entertainment, love of spectacle and preoccupation with the self. And the degeneration of the New Left is personified by politicians such as Clinton, who mouthed the usual platitudes about the poor and working men and women while he and both major political parties, awash in corporate dollars, betrayed and impoverished them.

Murray Bookchin wrote [11]: “Radical politics in our time has come to mean the numbing quietude of the polling booth, the deadening platitudes of petition campaigns, carbumper sloganeering, the contradictory rhetoric of manipulative politicians, the spectator sports of public rallies and finally, the knee-bent, humble plea for small reforms—in short, the mere shadows of the direct action, embattled commitment, insurgent conflicts, and social idealism that marked every revolutionary project in history. … What is most terrifying about present-day ‘radicalism’ is that the piercing cry for ‘audacity’—‘L’audace! L’auduce! Encore l’auduce!’—that Danton voiced in 1793 on the high tide of the French revolution would simply be puzzling to the self-styled radicals who demurely carry attaché cases of memoranda and grant requests into their conference rooms … and bull horns to their rallies.”

Macdonald argued that those who wanted change had to base all actions on the nonhistorical and more esoteric values of truth, justice and love. They had to retain Danton’s call for audacity. Once any class bows to the practical dictates required by effective statecraft and legislation, as well as the call to protect the nation, it loses its moral authority and its voice. The naive belief in human progress through science, technology and mass production, which this movement understands is a lie, erodes these nonhistorical values by placing faith in state power and fantasy. The choice is between serving human beings or serving history, between thinking ethically or thinking strategically. Macdonald excoriated Marxists for the same reason he excoriated the liberal class: They subordinated ethics to another goal. They believed the ends justified the means. The liberal class, like the Marxists, by serving history and power capitulated to the state in the end. This capitulation by the liberal class, as Irving Howe noted, “bleached out all political tendencies.” Liberalism, he wrote, “becomes a loose shelter, a poncho rather than a program; to call oneself a liberal one doesn’t really have to believe in anything.”

In line with the occupy movement, we must not extol the power of the state as an agent of change or define progress by increased comfort, wealth, imperial expansion or consumption. The trust in the beneficence of the state—which led most liberal reformers to back the wars in Vietnam and Iraq at their inceptions, as well as place faith in electoral politics long after electoral politics had been hijacked by corporate power—ceded uncontested power to the corporate state. Liberals and liberal groups, such as MoveOn, which urge us to appeal to formal structures of power that no longer concern themselves with the needs or rights of citizens have become forces of disempowerment.

The only effective tool for change will come through movements such as those that stand in direct opposition to state power and seek through the sheer force of numbers and civil disobedience to discredit and weaken the corporate state. The corporate state cannot be the repository of our hopes and dreams. And the liberal establishment has, by making concession after concession, merged itself into the corporate apparatus and has nothing left to say to us. It is part of the elaborate and hollow political theater that has replaced genuine political participation. The dismantling of our radical social and political movements in the early and even middle part of the 20th century in the name of anti-communism left the liberal class, as well as the wider society, without a repository of new ideas. The utopian fantasies of globalism and naive acceptance that the dictates of the marketplace should be permitted to determine human behavior became not just the creed of the corporatists but finally the creed of liberal apologists such as Thomas Friedman and most professors in university economic departments. And the strength of the new movements is that they have exposed this lie.

What we are witnessing in parks and squares across the United States is not simply widespread revulsion over the greed and cruelty of corporate capitalism, but the articulation of a new and potent radicalism. This radicalism challenges the right of corporations to poison our ecosystem and turn greed and self-promotion into the highest good at the expense of human life. If this movement can cross class lines, if it can articulate its vision to those in marginalized communities, especially poor people of color, it can tap into a force and power that was never part of the New Left. It can make possible the shaking of the foundations and, let us hope, the toppling of the corporate state.




Links:


[1] http://www.truth-out.org/print/7945
[2] http://www.truth-out.org/printmail/7945
[3] http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/occupiers_have_to_convince_the_other_99_percent_20111024/
[4] http://www.flickr.com/photos/longislandrose/6201197721/
[5] http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty/bios.php?ID=2
[6] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/12/michelle-alexander-more-black-men-in-prison-slaves-1850_n_1007368.html
[7] https://members.truth-out.org/donate/monthly-recurring-donation
[8] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Wobblies
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhartha_%28novel%29
[10] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/books/review/16wolcott.html?pagewanted=all
[11] http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/bio1.html
[12] http://www.truth-out.org/printmail
[13] http://www.truth-out.org/content/chris-hedges
[14] http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6694/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=2160
[15] https://members.truth-out.org/donate