Powered By Blogger

Publius Speaks

Publius Speaks
Become A Follower

11/25/2013

JFK and A New Vision

It is now Fifty years to the day that I stood outside St. John’s Episcopal Church in Ithaca, NY, and listened through the open door of a local taxi cab to the news on the cabbie’s radio.  I heard that President Kennedy had been shot in Dallas, but there was no confirmation of his condition.  After a time I proceeded, with some of the group with whom I had been in conference, to an Ithaca landmark where we heard of the death of our President. I was a young Episcopal clergyman - 25 years old -- married with one 4-month-old daughter.

I suppose the greatest single effect upon me personally of that event and its aftermath, was the fact that I went from being a Republican who had voted for Nixon in 1960 to being a confirmed and dedicated liberal progressive.  From that day forward, I have been a registered Democrat, a backer of liberal and progressive causes, and a man devoted to, what I consider, extremely important values.  I will not bore you further with personal reminiscences (unless they fit the narrative), but permit me to put forth some of those values for your consideration.

1)     I believe in government as the protector, defender and advocate for all of us, but mostly for those who are the most vulnerable in our society.  I believe that government embodies a political and social compact or contract that we are interconnected as people, and that we have a mutual responsibility to enable government (and the private sector) to act with “malice toward none and charity toward all.”

I have difficulty knowing how we got from this simple value to one that regards government as an enemy, as a usurper of power, as a denier of rights and liberty; as a great Satan.  But then, I remind myself that such viewpoints have been around since the pre-revolutionary days simply because distrust of the English government in the colonies was at fever pitch.  That fever has lasted and every once in awhile - as in the Civil War -- it breaks out into unhealthy modes that intend to destroy central government power once again.  We are living in the midst of one of those times.  We are engaged in another civil war, living in a country embattled on the political and social front, but not yet on the battlefield.  We, as a people, are being challenged by the negativity of the Far Right that wants to destroy most of the power of national government in favor of returning power to state governments and private enterprise, believing that will increase our freedom, our liberties, our prosperity and our strength as a nation.

However, the motives of humankind are never that pure.  At the base of this belief about government as the enemy is another belief that secretively holds that power must reside with those who are successful, meaning they own property, have a lot of money, the best education, and who are mainly white, Protestant and European in ancestry.  They are elitists who have little place in their value system for people of color, people of another language, or people who must depend on the rest of society for some support in life.  The elitists have no use for free-loaders or the irresponsible or those who do not control their own destinies.  The elitists call the “others” by various names, many of which we cannot use outright here: the “n” word, lazy, irresponsible, trash, free-loaders, undeserving, unwashed, uneducated. 

Their narrow view of the “worthy” of society mirrors their view of government for they see government as working to preserve what they believe and cherish and hold dear, not what anyone else values, because the “others” don’t count.  Indeed, that is why they have initiated the movement within so many states to deny the vote to some of these “other” constituencies, not just because the others tend to vote a Democratic ticket, but because the elite see those voters as being not worthy of the vote! 

On the other hand, the value that I have enunciated above, leads to a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”  Our form of “representative democracy” should embody those words in all that it does, but it often fails to do so.  And when it does fail, you can wager that the simple value at the foundation of “representative democracy” has been forgotten or denied -- that all the people must be protected, defended, and provided for, not just ones we choose over others.

What goes into making such a democracy? Well, let’s start with a new citizen, either born or naturalized.  What do we want for all of them, and what should they have a right to from the moment of their birth as citizens of this great country?

2)    The right to speak out and to vote must not be infringed, but protected and expanded.

All those rights in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution must be protected by a strong central government.  To take one of those rights (2nd amendment right to own guns, for example) and to place it in opposition (or in higher priority) to the others is, at its core, a denial of the Constitution.  For example, to encourage passage of “stand your ground laws” that result in denial of the right of someone to be in a particular spot at a particular time is fundamentally a denial of his or her first amendment rights.  To deny the will of 2/3s of people polled, and to block legislation they favor--  such as limiting the sales of guns to minors, to persons with mental illness, or to felons;  expanding background checks for gun sales; limiting the number of rounds in an ammo clip -- is to potentially deny other persons their voice and their right to life and happiness, and to deny them their right to petition their government and their right to be fairly represented.

The Supreme Court (and other district) rulings of late have done much to undermine this fundamental value.  They have allowed elections to be fully undermined or compromised by money from unknown corporations and individuals in unaccounted amounts.  They have upheld “stand your ground” laws, as well as laws that limit affirmative action or which gut the voting rights act.  It is well known that this Court jumps to the tune of the NRA, the Radical Right and big corporations, but it is not in favor of the rights of the “others.”  When was the last time that this Court found in favor of the little guy?  When they allowed the mandates of the Affordable Care Act?  Maybe so, but they upheld it on the basis of a tax and not on the basis of a mandate, or better yet, a universal right.

This conservative Court has begun to tear down, in conjunction with this Congress, the fundamental principal or value that government is a blind-folded (impartial) protector, defender and advocate for all who need help in making a meaningful life for themselves.

The fundamental issue for me is not about restriction but about expansion.  When will we see a reform of the electoral process so that big money does not tilt elections?  When will we have non-partisan commissions drawing new congressional (and other) district lines ?  When will we restrict lobbying activities and anonymous gifts to office-holders?  When will we allow people to register and to vote in less restrictive ways, such as voting in different designated places within a specific time-frame rather than on just one weekday?  Can we encrypt voting to such an extent that we will ever allow voting online?  How about the Immigration and Naturalization department being made responsible for helping new citizens to understand and take advantage of the voting process?  There is so much we could do to expand voting rights and voting itself that it boggles the mind that the concern of the Right-wing is to restrict that right (on the basis of voting ‘fraud’ which is unsubstantiated).

3)    That new child, and that new citizen through naturalization, should have given to them at their point of entry to that status, a number of special insurances reserved to the citizens of this great country.

    I want every new citizen to be given:
        Ø guaranteed health care for life; with government as the single payer
        Ø a guaranteed public education, including college or vocational school
        Ø guaranteed access to nutritious food every day of life
        Ø guaranteed access to adequate shelter during times of special need or times of crisis
        Ø available jobs and job training sponsored by the public and private sectors together
        Ø a guaranteed government-sponsored pension (Social Security) with built-in COLAs

I can hear the cries of outrage already!  Where is all the money coming from to support those wild (“socialistic, communist-inspired, foolish“) ideas?  It comes, first of all, from right where it should emanate -- the tax system.  But, as I have indicated, the private sector has to also be a partner in these endeavors.  It is only right that private corporations and businesses give back to citizens who are  consumers of their goods, and who continue to put money into the coffers of all for-profit entities. 

A balanced and fair tax system, with the rich paying their fair share, will be able to support this program of American values without a lot of strain, as long as three things hold true:  1) the rich must pay their fair share;  2)  tax loopholes (which have made our tax system the largest source of welfare spending for the rich!), and not merely deductions, must be closed along with tax giveaways for rich corporations and individuals, and 3) those receiving benefits (including the rich and the poor), insofar as they are able, should be giving back to their community in some manner, either through established work locations, worship centers or service organizations.

Someone is bound to bring up that old saw about leaving the rich alone because they earned their wealth and their success; “the others” of the lesser classes should not be encouraged to believe they are “entitled” to any of it.  I am immediately reminded that  England and most of our European neighbors at one time or another in their histories had similar class elitism (and some still do) holding them back from building a viable middle class which could improve the effectiveness and prosperity of their economic and social engines.  For a group so concerned about resources, it is amazing how the elitists miss one of the most important points about resource management: inventors, entrepreneurs, catalysts, leaders, change agents, etc. exist in all classes.  Holding back others while advancing one’s own elite class, overwhelmingly restricts the pool of talent and resources and does not benefit the society as a whole.  In fact, so many resources are lost by this attitude that an upper crust is created; but “crustiness” is not the sign of a vibrant society. 

But what about the “cheaters?”  Oh yes, those cheaters; they seem to be everywhere-- like in the financial firms and the banks and the big retail stores and government contractors, and other large corporations!  So I would say in answer: let’s get rid of the corporate cheaters and scam artists who waste billions of dollars of taxpayer money, and then let’s go after the penny-ante thieves on food stamps or Medicaid that make off with a few thousand.  Perspective is a wonderful thing!  However, in spite of my sarcasm, I do admit that we can do a better job of government oversight of all contracts and programs (something I have spoken of before) -- including the use of ordinary citizens to advise, evaluate and even audit, the use of taxpayer money in every entity of government, including the Supreme Court! 

4)    I want government that is looking toward the future, always seeking to better our concept of government for the people, and to envision hope for a better nation and a better world.

In other words, government cannot limit itself  just to solving and resolving current problems and crises.  We must have the kind of government JFK brought to bear: a government that looks to the future and says “let us land a man on the moon before the end of the decade.”  We need a government that can look at a vulnerable population and ask what can we do to advance their lives.  We need a government that has a vision of the future and begins to act upon that vision, not just for ourselves but for the world at large.  We need a vision of hope like the Peace Corps.

We tend to make terrible decisions when we only look backward rather than forward; when we emphasize keeping the status quo rather than expanding our horizons; when we say we don’t have the money to fix our infrastructure or to find a cure for auto-immune diseases. We have always found the money for advances in military weapons systems; can we not do the same for research into disease?  One of the terrible decisions we are now making is to ignore climate change.  Not only do the negative detractors say that science cannot show that carbon emissions are affecting the climate, they believe that we can increase our use of fossil fuels, believing that profit from oil and gas drilled off-shore and in federal reserve lands is the way to advance our economy. 

Climate change is all about the future, and the necessity of developing new technologies to find alternate sources of energy and to find efficient ways to deliver that energy to homes and businesses; innovation is what future orientation is all about.  It doesn’t really matter if you believe the science, although that’s risky.  It matters that we ask ourselves: what does the future demand?  It demands innovation, efficiency and progress in the area of energy and energy delivery.  Oil and water are two of the earth’s resources that are not expanding.  Just on economical grounds, we need to find an alternative method for extracting natural gas, for instance.  We need more electric cars.  We must innovate or we will fall behind the other developed countries and end up begging for resources from a country like China or Russia.

But finally, I want to come back to where I started.  JFK inspired me personally to change my political orientation and to accept what had been brewing in my life for awhile: a vision of the world seen through the prism of progressivism.  Without delving further into what that has involved, let me talk with you briefly about something that has meant a great deal to me in my work life, and that is the concept of community service. I have spent my whole working life dedicated to that value and concept and now my retirement has also moved in that direction. 

Overtime, the concept of the Peace Corps developed into a myriad of community and national service programs and activities under government sponsorship.  In 1972,  I went to work for a Community Action agency and became something of a community organizer along the lines followed by our current President.  The concept of community service to solve societal problems by paid and un-paid volunteers is something that is not supported by everyone, but it goes to the heart of who we are as a nation.  That’s what the Peace Corps concept was all about.  We as a nation place a value on helping others, on teaching others to help themselves, on helping others find in themselves qualities that had not been acknowledged or recognized.  We value the concepts of  support, companionship, building relationships and strengthening communities.  We respond positively to the idea of making some sacrifice in order to give something to others because we know what it means to enjoy so many of life’s benefits in this country.

So where are we today?  The Peace Corps is not the bright light it was back then.  AmeriCorps and VISTA and Points of Light have all faded in their brilliance and in their effect.  The Senior Corps is still active, but we don’t have a Nancy Reagan writing a book about one of them!  Yet here we are in the midst of a recession that has hurt so many people.  Here we are in a desperate situation that tries our patience because Congress will not act to address real problems of the present or the future. 

I have written to the White House encouraging the President and his staff to think about the importance of providing a Vision of Hope in a situation where austerity seems to be our only thought.  We need a new Vision, something like a call for a Domestic Action Corps, or maybe a new “Rebuilding America” Corps  (or call it something else like the ‘Hope Brigade,’ or ‘Americans In Action’  or even “Organizing for America’) and fold into it all those Corporation for National and Community Service programs, like AmericaCorps and the Senior Corps programs.  Its Mission could be simple: to provide a conduit for American citizens to give back to their country and communities some of their own talents, experience and hope in order to enhance and rebuild institutions, and to support community efforts to aid those (still) struggling with their economic and social problems. 

Or, going in another direction, how about establishing a Movement dedicated to expansion of certain fundamental rights - like voting rights, civil rights, health care, minimum wage, social security benefits, number of college graduations, number of members of minorities going to college, amount of electricity being delivered to homes and businesses from alternate energy sources, etc.  Call it the “New Age of Expansion” and tie-in many ideas for expanding the rights and resources available to ordinary Americans. What a vision that would make!

Can a Movement that captures the imagination of the American people again be done?  It can, and it should.  The nay-saying Republicans have captured headlines long enough.  Let us show them that American volunteers, old & young, paid and unpaid, can be utilized to do what they will never do - resolve problems, prepare for the future, provide opportunities for work that are meaningful because of the needs being addressed.   Let us once again call our people to ask that fundamental question: what can I do for my country?

11/19/2013

The Affordable Care Act: In Proper Perspective

I’m sorry, did I miss something?  Tell me again why ObamaCare should be repealed?


1)  Because the website wasn’t ready?  That doesn’t wash, as the website has nothing to do with the healthcare provisions of the Act.  It does, however reflect on everyone involved in terms of management and executive coordination and oversight.  In my opinion, the people surrounding the President did not do their best in terms of keeping him informed.   The head of CMS did not alert the president, and Secretary Sibelius evidently didn’t get word to him either, about the glitches in the first test run of the website. What are these people doing sitting on such crucial information?

This makes me wonder:  what is the Chief of Staff up to?  I asked a group of active Democrats the other day if they could even name the COS.  No one knew who he is!  That is a problem. (His name, by the way, is Denis McDonough).  Just how well is the President being served by his department secretaries, office heads and others responsible for overseeing this administration, like his Chief of Staff and White House advisors?  
Whatever the situation, my reading is that there may be a culture of keeping information in one’s own agency; an understanding perhaps that the President expects agencies to handle things on their own.  Or maybe, it’s an environment of protecting a President even though such protection has led to vulnerability.  And what about that Chief of Staff?  Is he following up with department heads and other bureaucratic leaders, or does he concentrate on legislative liaison duties?  What is his part in building this culture; this environment?  How does he see his responsibility for getting information of a sensitive nature to the ears of the President?  Why did he not say to the President about 8 months before the roll out, you need to look into this?

According to Wikipedia, “A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said McDonough has played a key role in all of Obama’s major national security decisions in recent years, including the end of the war in Iraq, winding down the war in Afghanistan, responses to natural disasters in Haiti and Japan and repeal of the military’s ban on openly gay service members.  Earlier, McDonough worked as a foreign policy specialist in Congress, including as a senior foreign policy adviser to former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., before moving to Obama’s Senate office.”  Perhaps this is part of the problem: domestic affairs may not be getting the attention they deserve.

There is something telling about the fact that in a crisis, the President seems to be advised constantly to go out to the people and to engage in campaign-like rallies.  It is telling that there is much use of social media to propel forward what looks like campaign rhetoric.  Has anyone told the White House staff, and the President for that matter, that the campaign is over?  We are now in a management phase and that demands personas quite different from campaigners.  It demands attention to detail; attention to nuance, an attention to how things work, and an attention to consequences of actions taken.  This is part of the problem with the roll-out, it seems to me: not enough attention to management detail  and possible consequences.  More attention was paid to the need to get the product - the website - up and running.  Where’s David Axelrod when you need him most?

I want to put one other sobering thought forward for consideration.  The holdover of appointed and career bureaucrats from the Bush administration has not been helpful.  Congress is in large part responsible for that fact because they have delayed or refused to confirm many of President Obama’s appointees in a timely fashion.  That one factor can lead to chaos in departments and offices of the federal government.  I know, because I’ve seen and experienced it up close and personal in a federal agency that oversaw a large federal grant for the State of New York.  You cannot expect a new administration to act in accord with its own principles and policies when holdovers are reluctantly administering such policies and directives, and thus more prone to withhold vital information and actions specifically because of their divided loyalty.  A President cannot be fully responsible for the operation of government when loyalties are divided in persons who hold key positions, or in career civil servants who don’t make easy transitions from one administration to another. 

In other words, some of what we are seeing in terms of government “fumbling” or “bumbling” or “dropping the ball” may be because Congress has refused, and still refuses, to approve hundreds of nominees to give the President the people he needs to oversee the policies he has set forth for his administration.  It’s another method of sabotage that has been practiced by this radical Republican Congress.  It is not an excuse; it is a reality.

2)  Because private insurance companies decided to send cancellation letters to consumers?
In most of the letters, it was clearly stated that the cancellation or termination was made necessary by the Affordable Care Act, the implication being that “ObamaCare” was responsible for the termination of each individual’s plan.   Neither the ACA nor the President are the culprits here.  They didn’t tell the insurance companies to do what they did; the companies made their own decisions to terminate plans, and offer new ones, some at higher prices.  The insurance companies thereby managed to blame Obama for cancellation instead of being truthful with consumers about the need to add certain essential benefits to all policies as required by the new law.  They made it sound like their old policies were simply being terminated, instead of being clear that they had to be ended because they simply did not comply with the improvements and benefits now being offered under ObamaCare.  Nor did they indicate that replacement plans would contain the newly mandated upgrades.  Nor did they indicate the full range of alternatives for the consumer, including the ability to buy affordable care through a state or the national exchange.  The letters were a sham.

Thus, the insurance companies blindsided the President, blaming his signature piece of legislation for the need to get rid of the very policies many consumers thought they could keep because “the President promised they could keep their old policies.“  Unmentioned was the fact that the “junk policies” that these companies had been offering were now illegal because they do not meet the vastly improved standards of benefits that are now required!  The insurance companies willingly misled their policy-holders into thinking that ObamaCare (and the President himself) was responsible for cancelling their policies.  And therein lies a conundrum.

The insurance companies are the ones responsible for the systemic mess that had to be addressed.  They blamed the President for the termination of the very inadequate policies that created the need for reform.  In my estimation, they meant to exact some  revenge for his ACA that put them in a bind, and made them conform to beneficial practices for consumers.  Now they have gotten back at the President for changing the status quo that previously enabled them to make enormous profits off junk policies that were not adequate in the first place.  This was not insurance companies simply complying with the ACA.  If it had been, they would have singled out the Act as the reason for having to meet new REQUIREMENTS for coverage with an explanation of what new coverages were required and what items the old policies did not cover. 

Recent events have mollified the companies to some extent because it may just be that they stand to make some considerable profit in the year that has now been given to extend the old inadequate policies.  In the rush to hang on to their old policies, uninformed consumers may have made a bad choice.  Keeping those old junk plans may cost them, not only in terms of raised premiums, but in terms of their health care not being adequately covered in this next year.  In other words, the choice made to keep those old inadequate plans, absent the newly required benefits, rather than exploring the possibility of obtaining new and better plans offered in the marketplace exchanges (along with subsidies that make most of those better plans affordable), may be a boon to the insurers and a disaster for many consumers.

Kaiser Health News reports that some consumer advocates are saying that cancellations raise concerns that insurance companies may be targeting their most costly enrollees with these cancellation notices.  This may be the opportunity they have been looking for to push the most expensive of their enrollees into the marketplaces, thus purging their rolls of policyholders they no longer want to cover because of the cost to them.  For instance, two companies in Pennsylvania are reported to be cancelling so-called “guaranteed issue” policies which had been sold to customers who had pre-existing conditions when they signed up.  Insurers, of course, deny this, saying they are encouraging existing customers to enroll in their new plans.  But will they be at lower rates? 

Consumers who choose to stay with their old plans are indicating by their action that they trust the health insurance companies more than they trust the federal government.  That is the key to what radical Republicans want to see happen.  They want to erode confidence in government generally so they can continue to convince the ordinary citizen that nothing that is administered by government (especially national government) is worthy of consideration.  On that premise, they will lead uninformed voters to the debacle of no more government-run social security, Medicare, Medicaid, food programs, housing help or jobs programs. 

The private health insurance conglomerates are the same ones who were doing the following to screw-over as many consumers as possible:

--denying coverage on basis of a pre-existing condition
--stopping coverage when an acute illness or disease made its appearance
--setting lifetime caps on coverage and denying insurance after one reached the cap
--selling junk policies to people at high risk (and to some who weren’t) under cover of being ‘economical plans’ (just wait until an expensive procedure or catastrophic illness hits ---not covered!)
--denying women basic coverage for contraception; treated them as pre-existing conditions; made them pay more for same coverage given a man
--staying away from offering free preventive care
--producing the “donut hole” concept which made millions for drug companies, especially because the law prevents groups from bargaining for lower prices
--raising premium prices without offering increases in benefits

This is what some people want to go back to -- a system where private insurance companies can rip you off on a whim and you can’t do a thing about it.  “What fools these mortals be”.

3)  Because the Act itself is harmful to all American consumers?
When we as a people lose sight of what we are doing, there is usually a catastrophe in the making.  That’s where we stand right now, thanks to the Republican party.  They have so misled the citizenry on the supposed malevolence  of the Affordable Care Act, that most of the population think it is about to affect them, and is taking something good from them.  It does not!

--Take Seniors for example: they are, as a group, the most unaffected by the ACA, yet some of them are the first to complain about the horrors of ObamaCare.  They are mostly covered by Medicare and Medicaid, and the marketplace policies are not needed or available in their situations.

--Take employees of large companies for another example.  They are not affected by most of the Act because they are already covered by employee or union policies that are not being terminated, but improved as needed.

--Take all those on Medicaid and those who can be added to it now that the ACA has raised the maximum eligibility limits.  They will not be concerned with plans in the marketplace exchanges.

--For the 85% of those who already have health care insurance, in one form or the other, almost all of ObamaCare’s changes are already in place and operating smoothly.

--Even those 21 new Taxes are not going to affect most of us because most of them are applicable to high-income earners, large businesses, and the healthcare industry itself.  Only 0.2% of businesses have over 50 FTE employees and don’t already offer insurance to their full-time employees.  Only the top 3% of small businesses will have to pay the additional ObamaCare Medicare tax increase.  Besides, ObamaCare provides for $20 billion in tax credits for as many as 4 million small businesses to offset the cost of purchasing insurance on the Exchanges!   That individual fee you have to pay if you don’t have coverage by Jan. 1, 2014?  Exemptions are available, as is assistance, for those who can’t afford health insurance.

So, once again, let us say to those who have missed it somehow:   the individual mandate and use of the insurance marketplace only affect uninsured Americans, not the 85% already insured!!  Thus, anything said about “Obamacare” by the radical Republicans is pure baloney if applied to (all) “the American people!”  It applies only to a small percentage of the American people in terms of its most important function which is to provide coverage for the uninsured!

So, who are we primarily talking about?  We are talking about the 15% of uninsured citizens who have to find health care where they can, and who often end up in hospital emergency rooms where they must be treated at government expense, which means ultimately at taxpayer expense since we all foot the bill for this over-use of the emergency healthcare system.  Uninsured Americans cost our healthcare system an additional $49 billion each year.   What’s more, only 12% of uninsured families can afford to pay their hospital bills in full, and this includes some families making over $88 thousand a year!  These costs affect the rising costs of insurance premiums, but ObamaCare helps to reduce this dramatically (according to obamacarefacts.com).

So every time that a politician says that everyone will have to pay a fine, or higher taxes, or get caught in a government-run system, you are being bamboozled --made a fool of; treated like a baboon!!  It’s all a bunch of distortions and lies; just like those non-existent “death panels” that never materialized and never existed.  The fact is that the ACA was primarily aimed at the 40-50 million people in this country who have no healthcare coverage at all. 

The mandate that everyone be covered by adequate health insurance is not a question of government takeover, but of the procuring of a right for all, rather than a perpetuation of a privilege for those who can pay.  The fact is that ObamaCare does not replace private insurance, Medicare or Medicaid.  The ACA actually expands the affordability, quality and availability of private and public health insurance through consumer protections, industry regulations, subsidies, taxes, insurance exchanges and other reforms.  ObamaCare doesn’t regulate your health care; it regulates for-profit health insurance companies and gets rid of some of the worst practices of the for-profit health care insurance industry.  The individual mandate affects only those who have no insurance and the employer mandate in 2015 means that few larger employers who don’t, must now cover their full-time employees or pay a fee per employee (see Facts below). 

Let’s look at some revealing statistics just to gain a better perspective on this Act (see www.obamacarefacts.com):

--the current population of the United States is around 317 million people based on the 2010 census and other factors used by the Bureau of the Census to calculate this figure
--about 15% of Americans are uninsured, which is a little less than 50 million men, women and children
--the 101.5 million people already enrolled in government health programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and CHIP won’t need to use the marketplace
--the 170.9 million already covered by employer insurance won’t need to use the marketplace

--poor working families are the most likely to be uninsured
--in 2010, 16% of the uninsured were full-time workers or their dependents; that’s about 8 million people
--the primary reasons for Americans being uninsured are cost and job loss; about 60% of all personal bankruptcies in the U.S. are related to medical bills.

--in 2010, only 53.8% of private sector firms offered health insurance
--the “employer mandate” means by 2015 larger employers will have to insure their full-time employees and their families or pay a fee per employee.
--over half of uninsured Americans are small business owners, employees or their families.
--in 2013, American employers with 25 or fewer employees may receive tax breaks of up to 35%; in 2014, it increases to 50%.
--the number of uninsured has dropped every year since the ACA was signed into law; the rate of the uninsured decreased from 16.3% in 2010 to 15.7% in 2011 -- the biggest percentage drop since 1999 due to the ACA

--over 100 million Americans have already benefited from the new health care law because many of the provisions of the ACA have already been enacted; the rest start in 2013 and 2014 and will continue to roll out through 2022.
--More than 105 million people have accessed preventive services for free that had previously been subject to out-of-pocket costs, including yearly check-ups, immunizations, counseling and screenings, including two most widely used forms of preventive care: colonoscopies and mammograms.  In 2011 alone, ObamaCare helped around 86 million Americans use free preventive services that had previously been subject to co-pays or deductibles
--billions of dollars have been saved on prescription drugs by seniors who fell into the “donut hole” of Part D but who received discounts on the brand name and generic drugs they still needed and had to pay out-of-pocket
--47 million women not only have access to preventive services, but now they can’t be charged different rates than men pay.
--Over 15 million more men, women and children will be eligible for Medicaid in States that participate in Medicaid Expansion.  States that do implement ObamaCare’s Medicaid Expansion will receive billions in additional federal dollars.  States who opt-out not only lose that federal cash, but also deny health coverage to a significant portion of their poorest citizens.  Texas is a prime example:  in 2010, 25% of Texans didn’t have health insurance, which included 1,247,300 children.

--of the 23 million estimated to use the exchanges, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that 19  million will receive Tax Credits
--Due to tax credits and up-front assistance, Americans making less than 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (roughly $90 thousand for family of four) could see up to a 60% reduction in the cost of health insurance premiums
--6 in 10 Americans without health insurance can get a plan for under $100 per month through their State’s Health Insurance Marketplace
--there are three ways to save money on insurance plans through your State’s marketplace: advance premium tax credits which lower monthly premium costs, cost sharing subsidies which lower out-of-pocket expenses like co-pays and deductibles, and Medicaid which does both.

The largest health care crisis in this country right now is not the inexcusable botched roll-out of the national website for enrolling in ObamaCare.  It is not even the matter of the promise by President Obama that if you like your current healthcare plan, you can keep it, and the “fix” that followed.  It is not the recent policy termination letters from insurers.  Nor is it that  Republican legislation in the House (Upton bill) that passed with the support of 39 Democrats,  or even the President’s “fix” that allows insurers to extend certain existing plans until the start of 2015 when all plans will have to comply with the ACA.

Those are simply “bumps in the road” that all new major programs experience in both the public and private sectors!  NO, the crisis is what uninsured, or under-insured, people have to endure in their lives when they are not adequately covered.

The healthcare crises are the catastrophes faced by people like the 47 year-old truck driver in Oregon whose problem is a tumor in his bowel that went untreated because he couldn’t afford private insurance after his employer no longer offered that as a benefit.  This is the second patient his doctor has seen this year who put off getting medical attention because of lack of health insurance and as a result now has advanced colon cancer.  “It was heartbreaking to see the pain on his face,” his doctor said.  “It got me very angry with people who insist that Obamacare is a train wreck, when the real train wreck is what people are experiencing every day because they can’t afford care.  “Website problems are a nuisance,” he said.  “Life and death is when you need care and can’t afford to get it.”  These stories of catastrophe under the old system are widespread and voluminous, but we hear too little about them.

An article in the Nov. 17th edition of the NY Times tells us about an international survey released last week by the research organization, the Commonwealth Fund.  It reminds us of the inadequacies of our current health care system and why the changes put forth by ObamaCare are so necessary.  The report found that by virtually all measures of cost, access to care, and ease of dealing with insurance problems, Americans fared poorly compared with people in other advanced nations.   The survey covered 20,000 adults in the U.S. and 10 other industrial nations (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Britain) that have what we don’t: universal or near universal health care coverage.  Yet the U.S. spends far more than any of these countries on a per capita basis and as a percent of the national economy.


Put it all in perspective -- don’t be bamboozled by the side shows. As the NY Times concludes:  “The Affordable Care Act is needed to bring the dysfunctional American Health Care system up to levels achieved in other advanced nations.”   What’s more -- it’s already doing much of the job it was meant to do, and a turn-around in citizen support is on its way! 

11/10/2013

The GOP: Stamping on Food Stamps

Republicans have hidden long enough from the questions that poverty raises.  As they have done with several important and devastating issues, they have placed the issue of poverty into the sole context of the deficit and the debt, which distracts from doing anything about the causes and the consequences of this lingering problem.  For them, addressing the issue of poverty is simply a matter of a budget expense that needs to be cut.  That approach to governance and to societal problem-solving is not only short-sighted, it is morally corrupt because it equates the needs of people with numbers, refusing to consider as relevant the lives of all those millions of real people affected by their draconian cuts. 

Food stamps are just one example of this.  FoxNews.com summarizes the story for us:
“Forty-eight million Americans will have their food stamps benefits slashed starting Friday (Nov. 1), when a recession-era boost in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program (SNAP) expires.  The move to cut back benefits will be the first wide-scale change to the program affecting nearly every single participant. The 13.6 percent cut comes out to about $36 a month less for a family of four getting government assistance or $420 a year, according to the Department of Agriculture.  Many anti-poverty groups have warned that cutting the program will leave millions of Americans vulnerable.  ‘People are living at the margins,’ Ellen Vollinger, legal director and SNAP advocate at the Food Research and Action Center, an anti-hunger organization, told Reuters. ‘It's not an abstract metric for people. It's actual dollars to keep food in the refrigerator.’  The slash in the program also means less money for discount grocers, dollar stores and gas stations that rely on low-income shoppers.  SNAP is the largest anti-hunger program in the country.”

The Center on Budget & Policy Priorities comments:
“These cuts will likely cause hardship for some SNAP participants, who will include 22 million children in 2014 (10 million of whom live in “deep poverty,” with family incomes below half of the poverty line) and 9 million people who are elderly or have a serious disability.  Cutting these households’ benefits will reduce their ability to purchase food.
This cut will be the equivalent of taking away 21 meals per month for a family of four, or 16 meals for a family of three, based on calculations using the $1.70 to $2 per meal provided for in the Thrifty Food Plan. 
USDA research has found that the Recovery Act’s benefit boost in 2009 cut the number of households in which one or more persons had to skip meals or otherwise eat less because they lacked money — what USDA calls “very low food security” — by about 500,000 households in 2009” (this is what has been allowed to end by recent legislation).

FoxNews also reminds us:
“Negotiations on a wide-ranging farm bill, including cuts to the SNAP program, began Wednesday (Oct. 30).  Five-year farm bills, (if) passed by both the House and the Senate would cut food stamps, reductions that would come on top of the cut that will go into effect (Nov. 1).  But the two chambers are far apart on the amounts.  Legislation passed by the GOP-controlled House would cut food stamps by an additional $4 billion annually and tighten eligibility requirements.  The Senate farm bill would cut a tenth of the House amount, with Democrats and President Barack Obama opposing major cuts.”

Let’s concentrate on some questions that need to be asked in light of what radical Republicans are attempting to do, i.e., to destroy programs that take money from the rich to be given to the “irresponsible poor” and to end what is seen as a “victim” attitude and a resultant “entitlement culture.”
1)    Q.  What specific problem will be solved by cutting the SNAP program?
    A.    None that we can pinpoint, except that Republicans believe (they never provide actual facts or figures, only anecdotes) this will be a way to cut back government spending and to fight “rampant” waste, fraud and abuse” (presumably on the part of “welfare queens” who, they believe, lurk around every corner.)  This is, of course, a simplistic answer that ignores the importance of the spending of government resources, such as food stamps, in local areas.  Take those resources away and all of a sudden there is a measurable effect upon farmers and local grocery stores.  In reality, the vast majority of SNAP recipients either work or are children, disabled or elderly.  The problem is people are hungry," says an advocate. "You can make the argument that they can go out and sustain themselves, and they should be able to find work. And in a perfect world, we would agree with that. But the world is imperfect, and if the jobs aren't there, the jobs aren't there."
 
2)   Q.  Who represents the interests of the poor in Congress?
    A.  Very few, and of those who do, some are not doing it as a constant.  The interests of the poor are represented mainly by advocates for the poor who do the best they can from a position of limited resources, to gain the attention and help of as many members as possible.  In these days of opposition to government welfare and entitlement programs, and with a fairly broad favoring of austerity measures, finding allies of the poor in Congress is not easy.

3)    Q.   And which Congresspersons are active advocates for their constituents who live in poverty?
A.
    A progressive think tank based in Washington, D.C., The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), issued a report in 2013 that ranked the voting records of members of Congress on issues of economic equality, showing who voted in 2011-2012 for policies that narrow the gap between rich and poor and who voted for policies that widen the divide.  The idea behind the report is that the gap between the rich and the other 99% of us didn’t happen by chance.  It happened because of conscious decisions on taxes, trade, or on regulations that constrain bad practices in business. The report titled “Inequality Report Card: Grading Congress On Inequality” looked at “40 specific legislative acts over the last two years, ranging from legislation to establish a ‘Buffett Rule’ minimum tax rate that all wealthy Americans must pay to a measure that would raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation.”
While Republicans “make up the entire list of the 48 representatives and 11 senators with an ‘F’ grade,” the report says, “not all Democrats distinguish themselves as champions of greater equality … Thirteen lawmakers who caucus with the Democrats rate only at the ‘C’ level.”
Several members of Congress from New England are notably distinguished in the report—on both sides of the issue. Not surprisingly, Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is included in the report’s list of eight senators dubbed the “Most 99 Percent-Friendly of Congress.” Joining him are not only Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), but also Republicans Olympia Snow and Susan Collins of Maine.
At the other end of the spectrum, the report deems 17 senators “Most One Percent-Friendly Members of Congress,” including Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), who caucused with the Democrats when he was a Senator.
Several Democrats are clearly recognizable as champions of the poor and middle class with a grade of A or A+ -- Raul Grijalva (AZ); Lyn Woolsey; Barbara Lee; Pete Stark; Hank Johnson; Sheila Jackson Lee; John Conyers; Jose Serrano; John Dingle; Keith Ellison; Elijah Cummings; Marcia Fudge; Jan Schakowsky; Yvette Clarke; Dennis Kucinich; Bernice Johnson; Ed Markey; Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
But equally recognizable are some of those (Republicans) with below average grades, including our own Richard Hanna; Eric Cantor; Steve King; Mike Simpson; Allen West; Darrell Issa; Jeff Denham; Dan Lungren; Spencer Bachus, Pete Sessions and Michelle Bachmann.

4)   Q.  Which Congresspersons receive campaign donations from traditional opponents of “welfare programs;” in what amounts? (their poverty support grades, if available, are included in bold )
A.     Finance/Credit companies spending over $1 million on lobbying so far in the 2013-14 election cycle.  Top recipients:  Hensarling, Jeb (R-TX) House (D-)   $48,200; Wagner, Ann L (R-MO) House (NA)  $26,000;  Capito, Shelley Moore (R-WV) House (C-)   $26,000; Peters, Gary (D-MI) House (B)   $24,500; Yoder, Kevin (R-KS) House (F)   $21,900
Securities/Investment spending almost $8 million on lobbying so far.  Leading recipients include: Booker, Cory (D-NJ) (NA)   $883,487; Gomez, Gabriel (R-MA) (NA)  $629,650; Cornyn, John (R-TX) Senate (D) $446,129; Boehner, John (R-OH) House $395,455; Markey, Ed (D-MA) Senate (A)  $377,327
Oil/Gas spending $4.5 million so far in this cycle on lobbying.  Leading recipients: Cornyn, John (R-TX) Senate (D) $334,609; Boehner, John (R-OH) House (Not Voting)   $236,689; Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA) Senate (B) $199,500; Cassidy, Bill (R-LA) House (D)   $134,750; Conaway, Mike (R-TX) House (F)   $121,900  (data from Opensecrets.org)

5)    Q.  Which Congresspersons receive federal subsidies from the farm bill?
A.
     As reported by CNS News: “According to data compiled by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), 11 House members (or their spouses) and four senators (or their spouses) received $237,921 in taxpayer-funded farm subsidy payments in 2012.  They include:

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Rep. Robert Aderholt's (R-Ala.) (D-) wife, Caroline Aderholt, is a 6.3 percent owner of McDonald Farms according to 2008 ownership records. McDonald Farms received $66,891 in direct payment farm subsidies in 2012.
Rep. Kristi Noem (R- S.D.) (D) received $1,400 in direct payments in 2012. The estimated amount of subsidies attributed to Rep. Noem from 1995-2012 is $503,751.
Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Calf.) (NA) and his wife Jill LaMalfa are each 16.67% partners (combined share totals 33.33%) of DSL Lamalfa Family Partnership, which received $188,570 in direct payments for 2012.  The estimated amount of subsidies from 1995-2012 from DSL LaMalfa Family Partnership total $1,710,385.
Rep. Frank Lucas' (R-Okla.) (D-) wife Lynda Lucas received $14,584 in disaster payments in 2012. Her total subsidy payments since 1999 are $40,613.
In 2008, Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.) (NA) and his wife Terra Valadao had a combined ownership share of 33.4% of Triple V Dairy.  The EWG estimate of the amount of subsidies to Rep Valadao from Triple V Dairy in 2012 is $7,484.  The estimated subsidy amount attributed to Rep. Valadao from Triple V Dairy and Valadao Dairy from 2005-2012 is $185,724.
Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.) (C-) and his wife Lynn Fincher are each 50 percent partners in Stephen & Lynn Fincher Farms.  They received a $70,574 direct payment farm subsidy in 2012. The Finchers have received $3,483,824 in farm subsidies since 1999.
Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.) (F)  A trust named Lowell and Viky Hartzler Family Revocable Trust is listed as a 98 percent owner of Hartzler Farms, which received $697 in direct payment/ACRE and $686 for the Conservation Reserve Program for a total of $1,383 in 2012.  The Hartzler’s estimated subsidies from 1995-2012 are $516,000.
Rep. John Kline's (R-Minn.) (D-) wife, Vicky Sheldon Kline, is listed as a 20 percent owner of Sheldon Family Farms LP, which received a $3,025 conservation reserve program payment in 2012. The estimated amount of subsidies received by Rep. Kline’s wife from 2000-2012 is $6,548.
Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) (D+) received a 2012 direct payment of $339. Rep Neugebauer has received $670 since 2011.  Rep. Neugebauer also had interests in two different farming businesses from 1998-2003.  His estimated subsidies using the percentage share from USDA for those two businesses are $3,651, which brings his total subsidies to $4,321.
Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) (D) received a 2012 direct payment of $6,654. Rep Stutzman has received $196,268 in farm subsidies since 1997.
Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) (D-) is a one-third owner of Thornberry Brothers, which received a $5,103 direct payment and $4,078 in disaster aid payments in 2012. EWG’s estimate of the farm subsidy benefits Thornberry received is $3,060 in 2012. His estimated total subsidies from 1995-2012 is $29,774.

U.S. SENATE
Sen. Michael Bennet's (D-Colo.) (C+) wife, Susan Daggett, is listed in his 2010 financial disclosure forms as 5.5 percent owner of Daggett Farms LP and LMD Farms LP. EWG’s estimate of farm subsidy benefits Daggett received, based on the percentage share, was $2,107 in 2012.  The total subsidy amount for Ms. Daggett is $22,789 from 1995-2012.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) (D) received $8,207 in direct payments and $1,728 in conservation reserve payments for a total of $9,935 in 2012. Senator Grassley has received $327,246 in farm subsidies since 1995.
Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) (C) personally received $2,982 in direct payments and $6,113 in conservation reserve program payments in 2012. Testers’ wife, Sharla, is listed as a 50 percent owner of T-Bone Farms – Tester is listed as owning the other 50 percent. T-Bone farms received $12,186 in direct payments in 2012. The Tester’s total subsidies for 2012 were $21,281.  Their total from 1995-2012 is $505,536
EWG’s estimate of the farm subsidies and conservation payments Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)  and his wife, Elaine Hatch, received is based on the share information provided in financial disclosure forms regarding Ms. Hatch’s share of Edries N Hansen Properties LLC which received $2,530 in direct payments and $50,000 in conservation reserve program payments in 2012 is $10,506.  The estimated amount of subsidies to Ms. Hatch from 1995-2012 is $49,722.

The point of all this is the hypocritical attitude of cutting food stamps for the poor – few of whom are cheaters or “welfare queens” – while feeding at the public trough of farm subsidies, and lobbyists’ largesse -- and not seeing the contradiction of the “welfare” that congressmen and Senators take (along with the farm conglomerates they support), even though they certainly ought to “be able to get along on their own without government help!”  

In light of what has already been presented, let’s take a look at some interesting statistics that point, not only to the extent of poverty, but to the distortions and myths that Republicans perpetuate.  The statistics were generated from data reported by the U.S. Census Bureau including their annual report on income and poverty released in September 2013, and from their New Census Report Measure of Poverty, November 8, 2013:

-- Overall the total population of the U.S. was 310.6 million in 2012 and 46.5 million Americans were in poverty.  Therefore the overall Poverty Rate for the year was 15%.  The U.S. Census Bureau said this week that the “number of poor people in this country is really higher than officials had thought—49.7 million, about 16 percent of the population.” Economists and others report that not only are the poor getting poorer and the rich richer, but that the American Dream is fading fast. More and more poor people say they can’t see or imagine how they will ever be better off. “
-- The US poverty line threshold is $23,050/Yr. for a family of four or about $110 a week per head!
-- 38% of Americans (120 million people) live "paycheck to paycheck", a far better measure of Poverty!
-- 1.6 million Americans earn the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr. About 2.0 million were reported as earning wages "below" the minimum wage!
-- More than 16% of the US population lives in poverty, including 20% of American children, up from 14.3% in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993!   Yes, 1 in 5 children live in poverty!
--Extreme poverty in the US, meaning households living on less than $2 per day before government benefits, is double 1996 levels at 1.5 million households, including 2.8 million children.
--Overall 16.7 million US children live in food insecure households now, about 35% more than 2007 levels.
--Of Households receiving food stamps, 43.7% are said to have one or more persons with a disability
--More shocking is that 48% of households receiving food stamps have at least one worker and 28.7% had 2 or more workers in the last 12 months
--where households are headed by a female with no husband present, 34% are at less than 100% of the poverty level

Our final question goes to the heart of the pragmatic nature of the cycle of poverty: 
Q.    What specifically do Republicans propose to do about solving problems that both cause and increase poverty, such as the lack of jobs, adequate schools, health is insurance, nutritious food, adequate and affordable day care, and adequate transportation; lowering school drop-out rates and increasing college graduation rates, to name a few?   More to the point, I suspect is the question of a systematic, planned approach to the cycle of poverty.  The War Against Poverty begun in 1964, at least attempted to take a stab at attacking that vicious cycle or circle.  It was successful in certain areas, like Medicare, but failed in others like Legal Aid and transportation services, although gains were made in both areas. In order to stay focused on the one area of nutritious food, what do Republicans propose to do about this one aspect of poverty?  Is adequate and nutritious food for those living in poverty even one of their goals? 
A.    It depends: if it helps them win elections, they’ll vote for a safety net of food, but they would rather have poor people get their food from food pantries and the largesse of other private entities, then to have government providing food stamps. 
    Here’s what one conservative group had to say:
    “The right's case against food stamps — formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP — goes like this, according to Henry Olsen at National Review. They "cost too much, have grown too quickly, encourage government dependency, and discourage work."  The Heritage Foundation is leading the charge. Rachel Sheffield, writing at the conservative think tank's The Foundry blog, says trimming the program is essential to keep it from pinching the struggling middle class. Republicans say that 4 million of those receiving food stamps each month are able-bodied adults with no dependents, and that many of them do little, if any, paid work. (To be sure, most food stamp recipients are single mothers, children, the elderly, and the disabled.)
    Sheffield argues that the House GOP's proposal would help "ensure that the food stamp program is focused on helping those truly in need" by closing loopholes that have let states loosen income requirements and asset tests for applicants. It also encourages optional programs to help able-bodied recipients find work. If anything, Sheffield argues, the bill should go further, and make such programs mandatory for any state that gets federal food stamp money.  A strong work requirement is vital to reform. Policymakers should look to the 1996 welfare reform as a model for encouraging work and self-sufficiency. [The Foundry]
    Conservatives say they ‘aren't merely trying to take away food stamps for the sick, cruel fun of it,’ as Erika Johnsen explains at Hot Air. ‘They are trying to enact healthier economic policies, and to address the root of the country's high unemployment and financial pain’. ”

So, if this is an adequate representation, Republicans believe that the cycle of poverty can be broken by improving the economy, yet they have done all in their power – as with austerity measures and shutting down the government – to sabotage the recovery!  They not only don’t have a plan for attacking the viciousness of poverty in America, they don’t even have a plan for improving the economy, or even for training those who need new skills!  This is the sign that they have not elected competent legislators and problem-solvers, but political ideologues who have nothing to offer but their boring rhetoric.
 
From the report card grades we have cited, to their voracious appetite for public funds, to their lack of creative legislation, to their lack of adequate standards and policies for re-vamping and reforming instead of just cutting government programs,  Republicans in Congress have demonstrated over and over again that they have no abiding interest in assisting poor children, persons with disabilities, the elderly poor, or veterans in poverty with any of their poverty-related issues. 

It is not just a question of “mean-spiritedness”, it is a question of indifference.   They simply do not wish to pay any attention to what people in poverty, or even census statistics, have to say.  Their quest to destroy central government, and its “welfare” programs, is paramount in their thinking.  They have proven it by their votes on critical economic legislation.  That is the key – their report cards on key legislation prove that they have cast votes that widen the income gap between the 1% and the 99% in favor of the already rich and getting richer!  Nowhere in their portfolio is there any room for asking if all our citizens have a right to adequate nutritious food every day of their lives! 

11/03/2013

WAR ON POVERTY Becomes WAR ON THE POOR

I attended something very recently that is called a “simulation.”  That word is briefly defined as an ‘imitation’ or ‘resemblance.’  A more complete definition: ‘to take on the external appearance of’; ‘to look or act like.’  Even taken together, the definitions do not quite do justice to what was attempted or achieved by the activity in which I participated.

This particular simulation was part of a symposium on poverty sponsored by a local area Community Action Agency.  The simulation was built around family circumstances that were actually drawn anonymously from an agency in the area.  They were families living on the edge, so to speak, even though most of the families contained a person who was working at a paying job!  Most were not below the poverty line, but were very close to it.  Each group in the simulation took on a family name and acted out individual roles within those family groupings.  For each group there was a packet of documents and information.  The main information sheet set up the scenario and the family member roles.  The other documents consisted of checks, cash, pictures of items that could be sold, like a TV set, as well as transportation, food stamp and other vouchers.  There were also some extra items such as Good News or Bad News cards that tended to change certain dynamics.  As necessary, family members had to proceed to certain tables or stations - where one dealt with various needs and concerns - including a school and college, a bank, grocery store, day care, (interfaith) social service agency, a quick pay, and a social service office, plus a few others.  15-20 minute segments were equal to a day’s worth of activity, which made it difficult to accomplish what one needed to do. 

I happened to have the role of a twenty-one year old community college student, who was also trying to care for a family of three children, ages 1 year, 13 and 16 because the mother was gone from the household and the father had been incarcerated.  We had a certain amount of money to live on, including a check that the father had earned at work before he was sent to jail, a $200 per week stipend from the community college, and that was it.  There was no breadwinner available, and the kids were expected to handle things on their own.  Needless to say, that turned into something of a disaster!  The 21 year-old had so much to do for the family that he couldn’t get to school for quite a few days, thereby jeopardizing his stipend.  The 16 year-old was a help but not being an adult was limited in what was acceptable for her to accomplish.  She did manage to take the baby with her once to get some food.  When the 13 -year old was enlisted to help, more problems occurred, including a visit by the police, and a child welfare staff person.  However, the more involvement by these agency people, the better for the family, as food stamps became a possibility, the sheriff took pity and gave some money for food from his own pocket, and we learned that some money for transportation might have been available from Social Services.  Getting the youngest to day care and the student to classes, continued to be a problem by the time the session ended.

What is difficult to explain, I suppose, is how the pressures of everyday life were exacerbated by being poor.  Everybody has pressures, but in this one family, the children had more put upon them than they could handle, or were allowed to handle.  There was an enormous pressure just finding the time to get done in a day what needed to be done.  Visits to agencies and stores and banks seemed to eat up time -- always a line; always a delay.  Then, there was the enormous question of adequate transportation and the constant need to think about how to get from one place to another as well as the cost of doing so.  There were also those extras that the poor have to deal with, while others of some affluence do not.  For instance, at the bank, just cashing a check led to questioning related to other payments -- the mortgage, a loan, a charge.  The check couldn’t be cashed until everything else was rectified.  And then, whatever extra charges there were had to be deducted from the check, before it could be cashed.  The amount received was not the amount of the check, and therefore caused a crisis with food shopping, since cut-backs were necessary.  Without food stamps, the family was not able to buy what it needed, and applying for the food stamps had been delayed because the 21-year-old head of household was called out from social services to attend to the 13-year old who had been detained at day care when she tried to pick up the baby and was told she could not; then Child Protective and the police were called.  The young family leader had to leave social services without getting the food stamps and without a transportation voucher and attend to the needs of his 13 year-old and 1 year-old siblings.  He also had to answer next day all the questions that arose with Child Protective and the police department. 

Although most of the role players in the agencies were quite helpful, some had evidently been instructed to be somewhat difficult or robotic, or both.  And perhaps, that is what poor people encounter much of the time,  a certain disinterest as well as a bias or prejudice against them, even against the working poor.  The whole thought that “the poor” are mainly lazy and shiftless and irresponsible is an overblown stereotype that is used by politicians and others to “stir the pot” and to bring others along to a point of reducing government’s role in the well-being of the poorest among us. 

What else did I learn?  I learned that we as the body politic, are placing on children living in poverty an enormous burden.  It is the equivalent of any child neglect that parents themselves might perpetrate.  Politicians are cutting programs that benefit children, and they are doing it without any regard to the short-term and long-term consequences.  Children are also being burdened by parents who are not living up to their responsibilities.  Often in such a case, a grandparent has to become involved in order to rescue children from an untenable situation or to provide day care, so the mother or father, or both, can simply go to work.  Placing responsibilities on children to go to school, run errands, do homework, etc. is not unusual for any child.  What bothers me from the simulation is that the burdens go beyond that: being responsible at an early age for shopping for the whole family, or advocating with an agency for the whole family, or taking care of a baby so others in the family can go about their chores and their work seems like an over-burden to me.  Certainly, in the simulation, Child Protective thought so! 

Then there is the burden of the cycle of poverty that we used to hear so much about, but rarely do so now.  For those living in poverty, one thing like lack of day care on a particular day, or lack of food stamps on many days, or lack enough transportation money has consequences that reach beyond the one incident of inadequacy or emergency. That’s certainly one type of cycle that I experienced in the simulation, but the cycle of poverty implies a larger and deeper occurrence. The larger cycle might start with jobs - no job, and you may be stuck in poverty.  No job affects health insurance – can’t afford it!  No job affects where you can go because transportation becomes more limited - no money to pay for it.  The food one can choose to eat becomes more limited.  Poor-paying jobs also lead to inadequate educational opportunities which again lead to poor jobs and limited resources.  And this burden gets even worse when we bring in the factor of geography and environment – that children in poverty are forced to live in circumstances and environments that threaten their very existence. 

Among my own ancestors in 18th century England, families remained in poverty through several generations.  Because of the disadvantages caused by their poverty, outside and inside forces worked together in a vicious cycle to make it virtually impossible to break the cycle and move into a better circumstance, because their lack of resources continuously worked together to keep them in poverty.  In our time, this pattern continues despite the myriad of changes in industry, geography, values, and politics.  We still define the cycle of poverty as a phenomenon by which families become trapped in poverty for several generations because they lack resources such as good jobs, education, nutritious food, good health, as well as connections to capital and property.  This pattern of disadvantages as a result of their poverty, leads to continuous and sometimes increased poverty.

The War on Poverty, under President Lyndon Johnson, was an attempt to break this cycle of poverty at various points in that vicious circle. There was little question at that time, that it was the central government that had the major responsibility for this attempt.  Talk of a ‘safety net’ was minimal (that was a Republican mantra under Nixon and Reagan).  The Johnson-era mantra was a War on Poverty.  There was an idealistic view in some quarters that we could actually eradicate poverty!  President Johnson's first ever public reference to just such a "Great Society" took place during a speech to students on May 7, 1964, at Ohio University:  "And with your courage and with your compassion and your desire, we will build a
Great Society. It is a Society where no child will go unfed, and no youngster will go unschooled."

Many programs emerged that were to be used to fight the break-through battles.  New major spending programs addressing education, medical care, urban problems, and transportation were launched during this period.  Included were Medicare, federal aid to education, high-speed mass transit, rental supplements, truth in packaging, environmental safety legislation, new provisions for mental health facilities, a teachers’ corps, manpower training, Operation Head Start, aid to urban mass transit, a demonstration cities program, a housing act that included rental subsidies, and an act for higher education. Underlying it all were some major civil rights acts including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that forbade job discrimination and the segregation of public accommodations. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 assured minority registration and voting. It suspended use of voter-qualification tests that had often served to keep African-Americans off voting lists while it also provided for federal court lawsuits to stop discriminatory poll taxes.

One of the interesting things that happened to spawn such legislation was Johnson’s use of task forces of educators and experts similar to those begun by President Kennedy to formulate his New Frontier legislation. Wikipedia sums up the process:
 
“The reliance on experts appealed to Johnson, in part because the task forces would work in secret and outside of the existing governmental bureaucracy and directly for the [White House] staff. Almost immediately after the Ann Arbor speech, 14 separate task forces began studying nearly all major aspects of United States society under the guidance of presidential assistants Bill Moyers and Richard N. Goodwin.
The average task force had nine members and generally was composed of governmental experts and academics. Only one of the task forces on the 1965 legislative program addressed foreign affairs and foreign economic policy; the rest were charged with domestic policy (agriculture, anti-recession policy, civil rights, education, efficiency and economy, health, income maintenance policy, intergovernmental fiscal cooperation, natural resources, pollution of the environment, preservation of natural beauty, transportation, and urban problems).
After task force reports were submitted to the White House, Moyers began a second round of review. The recommendations were circulated among the agencies concerned and were evaluated by new committees composed mostly of government officials. Experts on relations with Congress were also drawn into the deliberations to get the best advice on persuading the Congress to pass the legislation. In late 1964 Johnson reviewed these initial Great Society proposals at his ranch with Moyers and Budget Director Kermit Gordon. Many of them were included in Johnson’s State of the Union Address delivered on January 4, 1965.”

And so, the War on Poverty was launched.  Let’s be clear that this was not simply a bunch of social give-away programs meant to provide a safety net into which one could inevitably fall, but a well-thought out attempt to address the roots of a problem that has plagued this, and many other countries, some for centuries.  It was meant to help people break through a vicious cycle or circle of obstacles and hurdles that had grown like cancers on the body politic, choking the natural unalienable rights of all citizens.  It went to the core of who we are as a people and as a nation. 

“The centerpiece of the War on Poverty was the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, which created an Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to oversee a variety of community-based antipoverty programs.
Federal funds were provided for special education schemes in slum areas, including help in paying for books and transport, while financial aid was also provided for slum clearances and rebuilding city areas. In addition, the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 created jobs in one of the most impoverished regions of the country. The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 provided various schemes in which young people from poor homes could receive job training and higher education.
The OEO reflected a fragile consensus among policymakers that the best way to deal with poverty was not simply to raise the incomes of the poor but to help them better themselves through education, job training, and community development. Central to its mission was the idea of "community action", the participation of the poor in framing and administering the programs designed to help them.” (Wikipedia)

That latter point has been entirely missed by the radical right-wing that now wants to blame the victims of this vicious cycle and declare war on those who live in poverty.  The War on Poverty was originally meant to be a grassroots movement by the poor themselves and by their advocates.  This was not simply a give-away program; it was democracy in action.  It was not just a safety net, but a grass-roots attempt to challenge and change the conditions that produce and perpetuate poverty and its resultant consequences. Poor people were being called to do something about the conditions that kept them down and out, and many came forth to answer that call.

But we now know what happened. Starting with the candidacy of Barry Goldwater, and then the administrations of Nixon and Reagan, the Republican Party began the dismantling of this ‘great society’ concept and design because of their distaste for the poor themselves; because community action was threatening their power-base, and because their primary constituency – the wealthy – were being forced to support people and causes in which they had little or no involvement or investment.
 
The active dismantling of the welfare state began, pretty much, with Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” to use these government programs to turn the cumulative disgust for such programs in mainly southern states to his advantage.  The solid democratic South (and some of the West as well) became a solid Republican stronghold. I remember well, as a staff member in a Community Action agency, how anxious we all were as the budgets of several programs were challenged or cut by Republican-dominated congresses.  I remember well the disappearance of a program called Legal Aid.  Apparently giving poor people the legal means to fight against discrimination and racism could just not be tolerated.  It was quite evident from then on that conservatism was very uncomfortable with the idea of poor people actually doing what conservatives always demand of them: take responsibility, do something to change your status, get more education, and make good use of your resources. 

Today, the dismantling has turned into a War on the Poor (and some in the middle class). Every anti-poverty program is under attack. Labor is under attack. Reagan’s War on Drugs has been revealed as an attack on the young males of two minority groups, African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans.  Public Education is under attack. Universal healthcare reform is under attack.  Women of all groups are under attack.  Voting rights are under attack and voting is being restricted. And all of these battles are no more than skirmishes in the war on national government itself.  Sequestration and government shut-down are just the beginning.  Soon there will be no anti-poverty mechanisms left.  The War on Poverty will be completely lost, and the poor will be joined by many who currently hover just above the poverty line.  The many are being sacrificed to coddle the richest few. The poor are being re-assigned to the garbage dumps of history, as they once were in more ancient times. The crazies of the hard Right have lost all perspective as to what happens to a country that willfully neglects its poor and disabled and vulnerable.  It becomes an empty shell, and its worth in the eyes of the world is diminished.  We are at that point. 

Can we sink lower?  Yes, we can; and we will if we continue to elect a group of radical Republicans intent on destroying central government and the anti-poverty programs designed to give everyone an equal opportunity to break the patterns and cycles of poverty.  Holding back one group, or favoring one group over another, is not healthy for a truly democratic state. A War on the Poor, and destruction of our core government, is not the path to an open and inclusive society. It destroys incentive, causes the loss of potential resources and potential leaders.  But, it mainly eats away at the very core of values which make us a respected nation and a nation dedicated to the proposition that all are created equal and that we are all endowed with certain inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This subject will not go away anytime soon.  As of Nov. 1st, a temporary 13.6% supplemental increase in food stamps was allowed to run-out with no renewal.  This is on top of the $4 billion proposed cuts in the food stamp program (SNAP) in the Senate’s farm bill.  Taken together, this will have a deleterious effect on 47 million people who have to depend on SNAP to help feed their families.  There are those in Congress who have the audacity to blame the “unproductive, lazy poor” for needing help to feed their families. Their knowledge of the causes of poverty and the needs of the poor in order to escape that condition – that vicious cycle – is abysmal, to say the least.  We shall have more to say about this War on the Poor.  In the meantime, I wonder how many congressmen and senators have actually taken part in a poverty simulation, let alone even come in close contact with anyone who actually lives within the vicious cycle of poverty every day?  In spite of the fact that many living in poverty are actually in their districts, too many congressmen simply ignore their presence.  So, in our representative democracy, who is representing those who live in or near abject poverty?  Much more needs to be- and will be - said here on this topic; so stay tuned.....