Personal Data in NSA hands is Bad Enough, but what about TARGET?

All of a sudden, I’m discovering inconsistences, ironies and contradictions of major proportions.  Well, to be more precise, I probably missed them before, but now they seem to be coming forth in ways I can’t ignore.

First, there’s the conundrum of data collection by intelligence agencies that tends to restrict individual rights and liberties. Second is the fact that Congress keeps cutting programs and then complains when the outcomes are unsavory when related to that stance.  For instance, there is the Ben Ghazi incident.  Congress says the State Department should have prevented that attack and the deaths that resulted.  Except that, Congress had previously cut appropriations for expansion of embassy guards.  Another example that occurs to me is the recent complaint from AARP about the untenable situation in regard to food, clothing and healthcare for many senior citizens. Yet, it is seniors as a group who vote the most and who tend to vote Republican even though Republicans are cutting the very programs that would be helpful to those seniors.  Then, in that same vein, there is the constant appeal to donate to a fund of one name or another that will give help to our returning “wounded warriors.”  Whatever happened to this country’s largesse in terms of supporting veterans of foreign wars?  Sounds like a pattern developing right in front of our noses.

The NSA story of collection of personal data about citizens, and heads of other states is where I intend to concentrate today.  A sad story, indeed, of how we can so easily get off the track as a nation when we end up in a war.  Attacks on the Homeland like Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are so disturbing to many in this country that we immediately go off balance in an attempt to “protect ourselves.”  We end up doing things like putting Japanese-Americans into concentration camps, or getting involved in a war in a nation where other major powers have crashed and burned; or, we pass laws like the Patriot Act which raise some very knotty issues about personal liberties versus national security.  Apparently, after finding that the NSA had been collecting information on us from phone calls and online messages, the public, as well as some in Congress, and no less than the President, have decided that we have over-stepped the line on what information government should be able to acquire about individuals in the midst of a war on terrorism.

CNN News covered developments online: “The top-secret federal court that oversees government surveillance... reauthorized the National Security Agency's program that collects data on nearly every phone call in the United States.  The telephone data program, covered under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, has been authorized 36 times over the past seven years, the nation's top intelligence official said on Friday.  The three-month renewal by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is the first since two conflicting court opinions last month on the legality of the program.

A federal judge in Washington last month called the program almost "Orwellian" and said it was likely unconstitutional. Days later another federal judge in New York, in a separate challenge to the program, said it was lawful.  The Justice Department has filed an appeal of the Washington ruling. The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the New York suit, is appealing that decision.  Split decisions will likely set the stage for legal wrangling over the course of the coming year that could ultimately result in a Supreme Court case.”  (Bill Mears contributed to this report for CNN).

While critics assert that the law violates privacy rights of Americans whose data is collected, even though there isn't any suspicion that they pose a security threat, NSA and its supporters say the bulk collection authority is crucial to uncovering potential terrorists who haven't yet come to the attention of national security officials. 
As we know, President Barack Obama has indicated that he wants to make modest changes following on an independent review of the initiative.  One change he proposed is to remove the bulk electronic surveillance effort from the NSA but to require telecommunications companies, or perhaps a new quasi-government agency, to collect the data.  He also wants to make sure that any intelligence gathering of personal data is approved by the FISA Court first before becoming operational.  At this point, even the “intelligence community continues to be open to modifications to this program that would provide additional privacy and civil liberty protections while still maintaining its operational benefits," Shawn Turner, spokesman for Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has said.

However, as we also know, this might not have gotten to this point if it hadn’t been for Edward Snowden, a techie for a government contractor, who stole classified information regarding the personal surveillance and then leaked it to the press.  Some polls find that he is accorded heroic status should not surprise, given the conflicts about this issue in other arenas.

So now the irony.  If we are so darned concerned about the government collecting personal information, how come we are, as a people, not so upset about private companies collecting and maintaining personal information, buying habits, personal traits and preferences on their customers every day, 24 hours a day?  How come we are so lackadaisical about everything we e-mail, everything we post on our blogs, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, etc. being available to unknown people, corporations, organizations and hackers?

Why does it make us cringe in fear and loathing when government uses personal information to essentially protect our citizens and our nation, but when private individuals and companies use much more personal information to exploit us, control our spending habits, watch our credit scores, manipulate our beliefs about practically everything, plus take our hard-earned money in profits, we too often acquiesce and ask no questions?  (OK, before going any further, I do acknowledge that we must restrict government surveillance of personal lives because government operatives can take it upon themselves to abuse that ability and become more intrusive than we want government to be!).  Who would have thought that TARGET would all of a sudden become the catalyst for at least some concern over private use of our personal information?  We are learning that the strips on credit cards and the swiping of the same are as out-moded technologically as we can possibly imagine and that the whole credit card industry needs a thorough examination, investigation and reform.  The possibility that we are essentially giving away credit information to unknown sources ought to raise a furor of criticism and concern.  But, we demure.

Luckily, Consumer Reports has not let us off the hook.  Here is a summary of what they published 4 years ago in a very important article, entitled:  “Big Brother is watching”
“Your personal information—everything from your shopping habits to your health history—can be available to creditors, employers, landlords, insurers, law enforcement agencies, and, of course, criminals. All they need to do is tap into the public and private databases that gather, buy, and sell your vital statistics.   Demand for your personal information has exploded in recent years. Its availability has also raised privacy concerns. When users buy and compile various pieces of information about you, “they can paint a very complete picture of your activities,” says Paul Stephens, director of policy and advocacy at the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group.
“Whether the data are accurate or not, misinterpretations can lead to higher costs for credit and insurance, or the denial of a job. They can also prevent you from renting an apartment or opening a checking account, and even from returning unwanted merchandise to stores.

Here’s what Big Brother has on you, how they use it, and why you should know.”
1.    Credit reports are compiled by the big three credit bureaus: Equifax, Experian, and Transunion. Each has some 200 million files, which help form the credit scores used to measure your creditworthiness.  Almost everything about your use of credit, including amounts borrowed, credit lines, opened and closed accounts, application inquiries, and how well you’ve honored your obligations on mortgages, credit cards, car loans, and other types of credit. Bankruptcies, foreclosures, liens, and collections are also here. Public record information like court judgments might also appear. Other basics include your Social Security number, date of birth, and past addresses.
The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) allows companies to buy your credit information if they are considering transactions with you related to credit, employment, insurance, investing, government licensing, or other “legitimate business need.” The purpose, in general, is to assess your past financial responsibility, but insurance companies have stretched that to include predicting the likelihood that you will file an insurance claim, based on confidential credit-based scoring models.  Federal regulations limit the time that negative information can stay on your report (seven to 10 years) and let you opt out of receiving preapproved credit offers.
2.    Your insurance claims. Reports offered by ChoicePoint, a data broker in Georgia, are based on claims information reported by insurers to the Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange. A-PLUS reports, are based on information reported by over 1,400 insurers to the Automobile- Property Loss Underwriting Service. Both companies’ reports reveal information about you and your automobile and homeowners insurance loss claims filed with reporting carriers over the past three to seven years.  Insurance companies use your claims history to assess how much of a risk you are, which can affect premiums or coverage eligibility. They can also use the claims history of a given property to determine how much of a risk that home presents.  Since ChoicePoint and ISO are “consumer reporting agencies,” as defined by FCRA, you’re entitled to one free report a year. In some reports, negative information will remain for up to seven years.

3.    Your health history.  The MIB consumer file database is maintained by the MIB Group, a consortium of 470 U.S. and Canadian companies that sell life, health, disability income, critical illness, and long-term-care insurance. Two other companies, Milliman and Ingenix, compile your prescription drug history from databases maintained by pharmacy chains and prescription benefit managers, and sell IntelliScript and MedPoint reports to insurers. Information significant to your health or longevity is reported to the MIB database in coded form. It includes medical conditions that you reported on insurance applications for individual (not group) coverage, and test results from medical underwriting exams. Potentially hazardous hobbies and driving records may also be there. Your actual medical records are not reported. The IntelliScript and Med Point reports contain information about the prescription drugs you’ve used over the last five years, including dosages, refills, and doctors. When you apply for individual life, health, and similar coverage, you may sign a waiver that lets a prospective insurer check these reports to see if you’ve omitted significant information. Insurers use the information to determine your risk class, set premiums, and decide whether or not to insure you.

4.    Your checking accounts. Chex Systems and TeleCheck collect information on mishandled checking accounts, such as overdrawn accounts closed by you or your bank. The reports can include your driver’s license number, unpaid amounts, and who was stiffed. The reporting company is not required to remove information unless it’s incorrect, but it does have to report any payback. Negative information can stay on your report for five years at Chex Systems and seven years at TeleCheck. Banks can check mishandling data to decide whether to open a new account for you. Retailers can use TeleCheck to assess the risk of accepting your checks.

5.    Your background.  ChoicePoint’s reports include a smorgasbord of dirt: auto and homeowner CLUE reports; pre-employment background checks; an “Esteem” report if you ever admitted to or were convicted of shoplifting; results of a national criminal records search; evictions; and public-records search results. Person Reports include nonpublic and publicly available information.  Employers, landlords, insurers, governments, and volunteer organizations use background checks to measure the reputation and character of applicants.

6.    Purchase returns.  The Retail Equation maintains information on merchandise returns made to an undisclosed number of national retailers. Before customers are allowed to return goods, participating stores ask to run their driver’s licenses through a reader to check their return history. It can include a record of your past returns at participating stores, the purchase prices, and whether or not you had receipts. Retailers are on the lookout for certain fraudulent and abusive practices, which include returning shoplifted merchandise, “renting” (buying, say, a video camera to use temporarily for a wedding before returning it), and “wardrobing” (buying a dress, then returning it after wearing it). If your pattern of returns at a particular store raises red flags, you might not be able to get your money back the next time you try.

7.    Your rental history.  First Advantage SafeRent maintains a landlord-tenant database of 34 million records and a subprime payment history database of 40 million records to screen prospective renters. A smaller company, RentBureau, includes nearly 6 million records nationwide. They keep Rent-payment history, references, credit ratings, criminal records, and scores designed to predict an applicant’s risk of defaulting on a lease. Landlords who operate multifamily apartment complexes use the information to screen tenants and reduce losses that result when tenants skip out without paying, write bad checks, require an eviction, or cause significant property damage.

8.    Mailing lists. This is the Wild West of databases. Two major players are USADATA, which has delivered more than a billion names to over 100,000 companies, and InfoUSA, whose databases contain 210 million consumers. The primary information sold is your name and address. But the real value for buyers comes from prescreening the names by certain characteristics—for example, people known to be affluent, homeowners, mail-order buyers, investors, people who have specific diseases or are disabled, new parents, older people, donors/contributors, and so on. Some companies develop lists of people who have fallen for get-rich-quick scams or investment frauds. The lists allow salespeople to focus on consumers who are more likely to buy their products.  

So, you thought it was the NSA that was the “Big Problem.”  Think again.  Are we being bamboozled once again by the “distortionists” – those politicians who love to divert our attention from the problems caused us by their real constituents, those corporate “power-brokers?”  These private sector vendors are already following your every move, and they probably have more data on you than the government ever thought of having.  So, not only do we need data collection restrictions on government spy agencies, we desperately need restrictions on what private companies are allowed to gather, to sell, or to distribute about each one of us.

To put it another way, we ought not to become too comfortable with private companies maintaining phone call data and email data about our private lives, in place of the federal government.  They are no more trustworthy than government and they have very few restrictions on how that data is managed.  Instead of wasting precious time playing a game of political chicken, and failing to represent their at-home constituents while cow-towing to their big donors, perhaps Congress should take a serious look at how our individual liberties are being abused every day by private entities intent on knowing about and defining our lives. 

REMNANTS of the WAR on POVERTY

What do such federal programs as Head Start, Volunteers in Service to America and Job Corps have in common?  They are remnants of the Great Society or the War on Poverty.  It was fifty years ago that President Lyndon Johnson announced the War on Poverty in his State of the Union speech on January 8, 1964.  Here’s something of what Johnson said in that fifty-year-old speech:

“This administration today here and now declares unconditional war on poverty in America. I urge this Congress and all Americans to join me in that effort....
"Poverty is a national problem, requiring improved national organization and support. But this attack, to be effective, must also be organized at the State and local level.
"For the war against poverty will not be won here in Washington. It must be won in the field, in every private home, in every public office, from the courthouse to the White House.
"Very often, a lack of jobs and money is not the cause of poverty, but the symptom.
"Our aim is not only to relieve the symptoms of poverty but to cure it–and above all, to prevent it.
"No single piece of legislation, however, is going to suffice."


As with all such sweeping programs, there was an important piece of legislation at its foundation.  The bill contained not only some of the programs it would spawn, but the mechanisms by which it would operate.  United States Public Law 88-452, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, authorized the formation of local Community Action Agencies as part of the War on Poverty. These agencies were directly funded and regulated by the federal government, but one of the provisions of the Act that is most often missed is that those CAAs were responsible for garnering support from local public and private entities.  The President referred to it poignantly in his speech and the Title of the Act tended to signal something of this approach: “An Act to mobilize the human and financial resources of the Nation to combat poverty in the United States.”

"The EOA established over a thousand Community Action Agencies (CAA's) at the local level to implement Great Society programs through the national Office of Economic Opportunity. CAAs varied greatly, with some being nonprofit groups, some being city agencies, and some community-controlled groups. By 1968 there were over 1,600 CAA's covering two-thirds of the nation's counties. The EOA was notable in administrative terms because Congress bypassed state and local governments to fund community groups directly.  This was one of the ways the federal government was able to bypass the southern states that often did not cooperate with federal law.”  (Source:  Wikipedia)

However, economic opportunity offices were also created at the level of state government as a means of involving the governors in Great Society poverty programs. Governors could veto inappropriate grants subject to override by OEO director Sargent Shriver, though the governors lacked the right of prior approval. It was not uncommon for southern governors to veto OEO grants only to be overridden by Shriver. In fact, Shriver overrode almost all vetoes.

The EOA required the poor to have "maximum feasible participation" in poverty program planning. CAAs sought participation by the poor by opening storefront and neighborhood centers. Such centers helped train a new generation of community activists and leaders. These individuals also were recruited into the ranks of federal poverty program administration. As this new power base developed, some mayors and other political leaders were threatened and successfully lobbied Congress to earmark new funds into "National Emphasis Programs" specified by Congress. The NEP requirements effectively undermined the discretion of CAA's to allocate funds.

The CAAs were also charged with developing local plans aimed at resolving local problems with local resources and community representatives, in addition to federal funding.  In each of the local CAAs there was a Board mandated, and some CAAs made sure their Board had as members at least 50% who  were living in poverty or representing those who were living in poverty.  These were concepts that had been ignored in the past, but Johnson’s architects of this plan were educators and professionals who had studied the causes and effects of poverty.  They knew the necessity of local involvement in funding, planning and implementation of the anti-poverty programs.

According to Wikipedia, the eleven major programs in the Act consisted of the following:
1. The Job Corps provided work, basic education, and training in separate residential centers for young men and young women, from ages sixteen to twenty-one.
2. Neighborhood Youth Corps provided work and training for young men and women, ages sixteen to twenty-one, from impoverished families and neighborhoods.
3. Work Study provided grants to colleges and universities for part-time employment of students from low-income families who need to earn money to pursue their education.
4. Urban and Rural Community Action provided financial and technical assistance to public and private nonprofit agencies for community action programs developed with "maximum feasible participation" of the poor and giving "promise of progress toward elimination of poverty."
5. Adult Basic Education provided grants to state educational agencies for programs of instruction for persons eighteen years and older whose inability to read and write English is an impediment to employment.
6. Voluntary Assistance for Needy Children established an information and coordination center to encourage voluntary assistance for deserving and needy children.
7. Loans to Rural Families provided loans not exceeding $2,500 that assisted low income rural families in permanently increasing their income.
8. Assistance for Migrant Agricultural Employees provided assistance to state and local governments, public and private nonprofit agencies or individuals in operating programs to assist migratory workers and their families with basic needs.
9. Employment and Investment Incentives provided loans and guarantees, not in excess of $25,000 to a single borrower, for the benefit of very small businesses.
10. Work Experience provided payments for experimental, pilot, and demonstration projects to expand opportunities for work experience and needed training of persons who were unable to support or care for themselves or their families, including persons receiving public assistance.
11. Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) recruited, selected, trained, and referred volunteers to state or local agencies or private nonprofit organizations to perform duties to combat poverty.
In addition, there were some other programs that became familiar to many: Family Planning; Community Health Centers; Congregate Meal Preparation; Economic Development; Foster Grandparents; Legal Services; Neighborhood Centers; Summer Youth Programs; Senior Centers; and others.

By 1966, the entire program was under scrutiny from Republicans. They pointed out waste and inefficiency in local programs and Nixon pledged to "take the profit out of poverty."  Notwithstanding, LBJ was proud of the progress he had made with the passage of his bill. Soon, however, funding that was for his poverty legislation got diverted to The Vietnam War. In 1967, Congress directed the Government Accountability Office (then General Accounting Office), to review anti-poverty programs. The conclusion reached was that programs such as Head Start were effective in providing for children, but the primary objective of parent participation was insufficient. Community Action Programs were behind administratively and underachieving given the amount of money designated.  But, overall, the GAO determined that the poverty programs were working at the time.

The Green Amendment of 1967 stipulated that local elected officials had the authority to designate the official CAA for their areas. Only after such official recognition could the OEO fund a CAA. Similarly, the Quie Amendment of 1967 stipulated that one-third of CAA boards be composed of elected officials and another one-third be composed of private sector representatives, thereby limiting representation of the poor to a minority position (one-third).  These two Amendments marked the dismantling of important concepts behind the CAAs.

Under the Nixon Administration, a number of OEO programs were transferred to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and to the Department of Labor. Later, after his 1972 re-election, Nixon's 1973 budget dropped funding for the Community Action Program of the OEO.  He gave his appointed OEO director instructions to dismantle the agency. Court suits, however, forced the president to expend funds appropriated by Congress.

Under the Ford administration, the Community Services Amendments of 1974 terminated the OEO and created a replacement agency, the Community Services Administration (CSA). Many OEO employees simply changed places in local organizational charts. CAA's continued to be funded until 1981. New program thrusts included housing rehabilitation, home insulation, and environmental projects like solar greenhouses and community gardening. Under the Carter administration there was a concerted effort to strengthen local leadership within the CSA and CAA's, but it didn’t prevail.

The Community Services Block Grant (CSBD) was passed in 1981, under Ronald Reagan, rescinding the Economic Opportunity Act as well as the Green Amendment. However, CAAs recognized by the CSA were made eligible for CSBD funding. Funding was reduced under the Reagan administration as a new system of eight block grants consolidated some 200+ federal programs. In September, 1981, the CSA was abolished and 1,000 CSA employees were fired. Nonetheless, CAA's continued and in fact increased as a percentage of counties covered by CAA's (now estimated at 70%-80% of all U. S. counties).   (Source: G. David Garson)

Some of the main features of the EOA still remained but were reconfigured and adjusted, such as Head Start, which is now under The Department of Education, and VISTA and other groups like the Older American Volunteer Programs that are now part of the Corporation for National Service.  After the EOA  was replaced by The Community Services Block Grant (CSBD), and direct funding changed to block grants, there were over 200 plus government agencies participating.
Unfortunately, the concept of local involvement and direct participation of those living in poverty went by the wayside, as did the concept of attempting to break the cycle of poverty.  Instead there grew the idea that a "safety net" was what was necessary to provide temporary support to those who had special needs or circumstances and who needed a helping hand for a short time.  More recently that has changed into a perverted sense that people who are poor or disabled must take full responsibility for their own lives and stop depending on government to provide for them because it creates dependency, a generation of takers, and a sense of privilege or entitlement.   Gone is any sense of a war on poverty, or of any attempt to attack the roots of poverty.  Instead, the radical Right-wing has been working overtime to eliminate the remnants of the Great Society programs altogether, and to blame the effects of poverty on the poor themselves.

As a former employee of a CAA from 1972-75, I believe there was a systematic elimination of certain anti-poverty concepts and programs that were crucial tools in the attack on the roots of Poverty.  Not only was a "safety net" substituted for a War, but abatement of poverty's symptoms substituted for an all-out effort to break the cycle of poverty and the roots of its development.  The de-funding and attempted elimination of the Legal Services Corporation as legal spokespersons for the poor in the early 1980s was an example.  Apparently, it really got under the skin of many conservative politicians that the poor were able to litigate some of the problems they encountered from institutional racism fomented by Jim Crow laws.  The lawyers in the Legal Services Corporation, sponsored by the federal government, began to be seen largely as subversives, socialists, and minimally as community organizers (like Saul Alinsky) because of their activism on behalf of poor people.  Conservative politicians, particularly from the South and other conservative states, wanted more than anything to shut down those Legal Aid "communist sympathizers."  And they succeeded, starting with the Nixon administration.

In the 1960s and 1970s, according to Wikipedia, demand rose for the right of individuals to legally enforce economic, social and cultural rights and the welfare provisions to which they as individuals were entitled. Mechanisms emerged through which citizens could legally enforce those rights, and welfare lawyers used legal aid to advise those on low income when dealing with state officials.
In 1974, Congress created the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) to provide federal funding for civil (non-criminal) legal aid services. LSC's funding has fluctuated dramatically over the past three decades depending upon which political party was in control of Congress and the White House. For example, LSC suffered staggering funding cuts under former President Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s (after he was unable to carry out his stated objective of abolishing LSC altogether).  LSC funding flourished during the early years of President Bill Clinton's administration, but was severely cut again in 1995 after the Republican Party retook control of Congress.

In the 1980s, the role of the classic welfare state was no longer regarded as positive, and welfare was increasingly provided by private entities. Likewise, legal aid was increasingly provided through private providers who remained focused on assistance in court cases, or through administrative complaint processes. Tensions began to emerge as states emphasized individual enforcement of economic, social and cultural rights, rather than collective enforcement through policies.  As a result, states reduced funding for legal aid.

Legal aid for civil cases is currently provided by a variety of public interest law firms and community legal clinics, which often have "legal aid" or "legal services" in their names. Such firms may impose income and resource ceilings as well as restrictions on the types of cases they will take, because there are always too many potential clients and not enough money to go around. Common types of cases include: denial or deprivation of government benefits, evictions, domestic violence, immigration status, and discrimination.  Funding usually comes from charities, private donors, the federal government and some local and state governments. Most typical legal aid work involves counseling, informal negotiation, and appearances in administrative hearings, as opposed to formal litigation in the courts.
However, the discovery of severe or recurring injustice with a large number of victims will sometimes justify the cost of large-scale impact litigation. Legal aid organizations that take LSC money tend to have more staff and services and can help more clients, but must also conform to strict government regulations that require careful timekeeping and prohibit lobbying and class actions. Many legal aid organizations refuse to take LSC money, and continue to file class actions and directly lobby legislatures on behalf of the poor. Many organizations that provide civil legal services are heavily dependent on Lawyer Trust Accounts for funding.

However, even with supplemental funding from LSC, the total amount of legal aid available for civil cases is still grossly inadequate. According to LSC's widely released 2005 report "Documenting the Justice Gap in America: The Current Unmet Civil Legal Needs of Low-Income Americans", all legal aid offices nationwide, LSC-funded or not, are together able to meet only about 20 percent of the estimated legal needs of low-income people in the United States.  Some commentators have suggested that mandatory pro bono obligations ought to be required of all lawyers.  However, most such proposals have been successfully fought off by bar associations. Even where mandatory pro bono exists, funding for legal aid remains severely insufficient to provide assistance to a majority of those in need.

We come now to the new initiative announced by President Obama:  Promise Zones.  As USA Today reports, “Under the proposed Promise Zones, the federal government plans to partner with local governments and businesses to provide tax incentives and grants to help combat poverty. The project is part of the President's effort to address income inequality.  In his State of the Union Address a year ago, President Obama said his administration planned 'to partner with 20 of the hardest-hit towns in America to get these communities back on their feet. We'll work with local leaders to target resources for public safety, and education, and housing'."

The “promise zone” plan aims to cut red tape and streamline federal funding from multiple government agencies to these specific zones. The Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Commerce Department, the Health and Human Services Department, the Justice Department, and the Department for Agriculture will all participate.
The administration is designating “promise zones” by looking for areas where local officials can make strategic, targeted investments. For instance, a “promise zone” may be interested in reducing violent crime with increased Justice Department funding for local law enforcement. Alternatively, a region may want to leverage Housing and Urban Development grants to attract private real estate investors to high-poverty neighborhoods. The president’s plan also includes tax credits for hiring workers and tax write-offs for capital investments within the “promise zones.” (CBS News)

Although this anti-poverty program was announced in connection with the 50-year anniversary of the War on Poverty unveiling by LBJ, it is not meant to be a War on Poverty, but it is, instead, an attempt to address the growing income inequality gap that shows its ugly visage in the chosen communities and areas.  It does incorporate some important concepts from the War on Poverty, probably related more to community organizing than to anti-poverty.  It will emphasize partnership with local level governments and businesses in order to leverage opportunities for those living in the communities.  It will target a few roots of poverty such as education, housing, and public safety, but a major thrust will be tax credits for businesses that hire workers and that make investments in the development of the community and its members.
Earlier, I identified two concepts that most conservatives attack: how do the poor (and possibly the disenfranchised) make their voices heard?  Where are the citizen councils?  Secondly, where is the legal aid to guide citizens through the labyrinth of local laws and regulations that may already be holding them back, or keeping them in “their place?”  How does each chosen community organize to speak forcefully about what it wants to happen in the Promise Zones?
I think I know part of the answer.  I think nothing will get done if the concepts that girded the War on Poverty are brought forward into this ideologically-flawed environment. Unfortunately, we may once again only nibble around the edges of the roots of poverty, but may hopefully make progress in bringing forth some hope and opportunity that does not now exist in these pockets of poverty and devastation.
 
That’s certainly more than we can expect from "Flex Funds," to be funded under block grants to the states, as Sen. Marco Rubio proposed.  Deliver us from such Right-wing concretized approaches to everything.  Block grants are nothing more than states rights’ grants meant to undermine the power and reach of federal government while serving to enhance the administrative costs of running states that are faltering under Republican welfare programs for the rich. 

In my estimation, if Promise Zone legislation does not address the mandatory participation of those actually living in poverty, we must expect that there will be reactions -- demonstrations perhaps -- from those who are left out, along with confrontations with those who administer the funds. If free legal aid is not available to the low-income people living in these zones, they will have no other means to make their voices heard than by such confrontation.    Promises made to help those in poverty, without the input of those living in poverty, are usually empty and ineffective.  Those living in poverty must speak to power so that their voices will be heard, their concerns given credence, and their hopes realized. 

Republicans are Deluded!

For some reason at this time of year, writers seem to feel a compulsion to look back at the highlights – good and bad – that occurred during the entire year.  Depending on their political bent, many will look at the year through a lens of how much was accomplished, or not accomplished by the Obama administration.  There’s nothing wrong with that enterprise, but I would rather take a look at what certain people (mostly politicians) said that did not come to pass, or was never true in the first place. The only look-back will be quotes from some of my earlier postings during 2013 (or late 2012).
1)    Socialism – in spite of what Republicans have proclaimed, we are no closer to being a socialist nation at the beginning of 2014 then we were in 2008, or in 1950 for that matter.   We have a thoroughly established capitalist economic system over which the private sector has an overwhelming amount of control.  Our corporations, business executives, boards of directors, big stock holders, and all of their lawyers and lobbyists have made sure that our laws and our regulations, our policies and our rules are all kept from being too restrictive and too confining.  For sure, they have also captured enough money and power and connections to keep the law and the judicial system from their door when they step over the line, as did the financiers of Wall Street.
As I have said in an earlier Blog:
     "To be a socialist government, the central government would have to be operating all sources of production and distribution.  This means that all manufacturers, all services, all industries, all modes of distribution - like trucking companies and railways - would have to be government-operated.  They aren’t, and they won’t be under this President (or any other most probably). 
    The real motive for this appellation (of "socialist") is the opposition of the rich toward a government that takes taxes from them and distributes what the rich consider their profits and resources to others with special challenges or needs.  It is a basic misunderstanding of the commonweal, i.e. the health of a society as a whole.  They simply don‘t want their hard-earned rewards going to people who are, in their estimate:  "irresponsible, uneducated, and unworthy."  
A so-called “welfare state” and a socialist country are not the same, no matter how badly the antagonist liar wants them to be.  A socialist state, founded either by the Right or the Left, is all about control of citizens, about power over their thinking and their lives, and all about using them as cogs in the mechanisms of the State.  Nazi Germany and Mao's Communist China controlled all aspects of the lives of their subjects, proclaiming citizen “welfare” while simultaneously taking away all individuality and individual rights.  The only right one possessed was the right to serve the State.
In a recent Forbes.com article , the author wants to term Obama a European-type socialist because the European welfare state takes one half of national output to provide state health care, pensions, extended unemployment benefits, income grants, and free higher education.  However, he also indicates that these countries leave enterprise in private hands but coerce it through taxation and regulation to contribute to what the state deems “social welfare.”  But a state with private enterprises is not a socialist state.  Social welfare is just that; it is not socialism.  Because 60% of Americans are perturbed by the word “socialist” or “socialism”, these purveyors of lies apply that term (wrongly) to any country that provides for “social welfare.”
Security for the elderly and disabled in the form of Social Security, or Medicare for the aged and sick, or the Veteran’s Administration health care system, or the saving of the American auto industry -- these are not signs of socialism.  The point is that government help for those in less fortunate circumstances than those who prosper is not socialism; it is a social contract that people enter into as citizens to enable society to enhance the lives of all its people.  Government aid is not socialism.  America is not on the road to anything like socialism, because we happen to know the difference between control of people by the state and empowerment of people through supports and opportunities."

We are not at the mercy of a socialist in the White House.  That lie is a cover-up for what we are actually facing which is the control of our democratic institutions by the rich and powerful.  The worst flaws of capitalism are being realized at a rate that is alarming.  Here are just a few that have affected us since 2000, and have irritated us for many years:

--big money is being used to affect the outcome of elections, legislation and policies assisted by a questionable decision by the SCOTUS in Citizens United
--attacks made on unions and labor, such as removal of bargaining rights and opposition to the raising of the minimum wage
--unfair tax laws and rules promulgated; a less than progressive system
--extraction of special rebates, tax breaks, loopholes and subsidies that re-distributes money from the lower echelon to the richest 1%
--refusal to use profits to pay fair taxes, create new jobs, expand domestic business
--expanding influence into healthcare, education, foreign policy, social policy, voting laws
--the outlandish income gap between executives and workers
If you have been bamboozled into believing that socialism is the problem, you have missed the boat.  Capitalism out-of-control is much worse for 99% of us, and we are paying the price for ignoring these flaws and distortions of our capitalist system in the last decade.  Rule by a small group of elite rich robber barons is not a smart choice.  A vote for conservative Republicans is a vote against one's own best interests because they do not represent your interests.  They represent those of the richest 1%.

2)    Deficit – have you heard?  The deficit is going to overwhelm us.  China is going to call in their loans and we will be under their control.  According to one blogger, “the second-ranking Republican in the House, Eric Kantor, declared on Fox News that we have a ‘growing deficit,’ while Senator Rand Paul told Bloomberg BusinessWeek that we’re running ‘a trillion-dollar deficit’ every year. People like Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, the co-chairmen of President Obama’s deficit commission, did a lot to feed public anxiety about the deficit when it was high. Have they changed their tune as the deficit has come down? No. So it’s no surprise that the narrative of runaway deficits remains, even though the budget reality has completely changed.

In the words of Paul Krugman, “The public has no idea that the deficit has been falling like a stone.  A solid majority of voters think it’s still going up, and hardly anyone knows that it’s going down.” In fact, recently, Hal Varian, the chief economist of Google, ran a consumer survey to ask whether the deficit has gone up or down since January 2010. “A majority of those who replied said the deficit has gone up, with more than 40 percent saying that it has gone up a lot. Only 12 percent answered correctly that it has gone down.” 
Republicans made a lot of political hay over a supposedly runaway deficit early in the Obama administration, and they have maintained the same rhetoric even as the deficit has plunged.  In fact,  there is a constant refrain from conservatives that President Obama has not laid out a plan to make cuts in spending to address the deficit, nearly constant on all media outlets.  With their bad memories, and reluctance to pressure politicians with facts, the media have done us all a disservice.  Not only is the deficit itself shrinking, but the President has again and again offered budget concessions and balanced budgets.  Above all, it seems at this point all have forgotten that President Obama offered a $4.1 trillion “grand bargain” during the last man-made debt-ceiling crisis.  Unfortunately, under a barrage of negative reaction from the out-of-control Tea Party, Speaker John Boehner walked away from any such bargain. 

As Ed Schultz said on MSNBC, “Republicans are saying that Obama is unwilling to cut spending, which is made up out of whole cloth and divorced from reality, but the media is all playing along.  Obama keeps saying he wants a balanced approach, and he keeps offering options, but Republicans won’t accept anything less than effectively dismantling the social safety net and zero taxes on the rich and corporations. Republicans hold up the Ryan budget as their offer to cut spending, as if it won’t explode the deficit. Once again, they are lying and nobody seems to want to point it out.
Just remember as we head into this next “crisis,” which is totally manufactured by right wing Republicans who helped create this huge debt problem through unpaid spending on two wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, Medicare part D and policies that created the worst economy since the Great Depression, you can tell when they are lying; their lips will be moving.”

In a recent blog, I suggested the following:
    "Instead of stimulating a dragging economy by repairing infrastructure and providing jobs, Republicans would rather cut the very programs that are enabling certain sectors of our society to continue to put money into the economy where it is desperately needed.  If we do what Republicans want, we will find that the Great Recession will deepen and the economy will take forever to recover. 
    " The Congress is the problem: they make the laws; they appropriate the money; they manipulate the tax code.  All the debt that we owe is because of legislation already passed by the Congress.  So, logically, that says to me that Congress is not serious about spending cuts or deficit reduction.  What they are serious about is the destruction of government programs that they do not support.  What they are most serious about is an ideology that proclaims the federal government as unwieldy, ineffective and cumbersome.  So, they portend, it must be reduced in size and gotten out of the way so that the States can oversee most programs and projects. 
Don’t believe anything Republicans say about the deficit.

3)   Obamacare – this is a subject on which there are so many distortions and lies coming forth from the Republican radicals that no one can keep up with them.  But, let us list some of them so we do not forget the lengths to which radical Republicans will go to destroy, not only healthcare for all, but to destroy major government programs so that they can ultimately weaken federal government itself.   So here’s what I have already pointed out in previous posts.
   
    "The facts are that about 15% of Americans are uninsured, which means that the ACA was primarily aimed at the 45-50 million people in this country who have no healthcare coverage at all. 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.  101.5 million people already enrolled in government health programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and CHIP won’t need to use the marketplace, and 170.9 million already covered by employer insurance won’t need to use the marketplace.  The most likely people to be under-insured or un-insured are poor working families where at least one or more members has one or more jobs.  Thus, it is of major importance to focus on the facts and the realities involved, and not on manufactured distortions like "death panels” and higher taxes for everyone, or technical difficulties with websites.
 
“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 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.   The real crisis is what uninsured, or under-insured, people have to endure in their lives when they are not adequately covered.”

4)    Social Security- Social Security remains one of the biggest Republican targets for lies and distortions.  They claim that Social Security is “in trouble”; that it poses a threat in the form of adding to the deficit, and that “it’s broken.”  But, the real reason they keep up their barrage of propaganda is because they see all of this money as an opportunity for their Wall Street buddies to capitalize on a huge money-making scheme.  If they can get even 50% of the money in the SS Trust Fund into personal accounts, they will be well on their way to realizing a profit bonanza.  In other words, they want to have their brokers and bankers manage your old age insurance funds!  They are willing to bet that their stream of lies can eventually convince enough people that personal accounts will “save” SS while also reducing our federal deficit.

According to Politics Plus, Social Security “remains one of the nation’s most successful, effective, and popular programs.  It has dramatically reduced elderly poverty — nearly half of seniors today would be in poverty without it — and it is the nation’s most effective tool at alleviating poverty among people with disabilities. It does all this while spending less than a penny per dollar on administrative costs. And despite conservatives’ fear mongering, Social Security is not going bankrupt any time soon.”

Even if we do nothing, and the trust fund runs out in 37 years, recipients would still receive 80% of their benefits, far more that they will after 37 years of (Big Bank) attention, if Republicans get their way.  But that would be foolish and unnecessary.  The shortfall can be fixed tomorrow by raising the income cap, and letting those who created the problem share in the burden of fixing it.  Also, remember the biggest Republican lie of all.  Social Security has never added a penny to the deficit, so controlling ‘government spending’ has nothing to do with this.”
As I’ve said before on a past posting, “Social Security is not a drag on the economy or the federal budget.  It has its own Trust Fund that will remain adequate for years and could be more so if the government paid back what it borrowed from that Fund, and if the cap on wages from which FICA is paid was raised to about $250,000!
Personal bank or “investment” accounts as alternatives to our present system hold little promise for the under 55 year-old generations.  This is a sham (similar to Part D of Medicare) to give private investment companies access to funds that are not presently under their purview.  What a boon such personal accounts would be to these financial companies.

The point is, now that 5 years (half a decade!) of an Obama administration are part of history, we should realize something about these charges and claims of concern.   None of the Republican dire predictions have come true.  The reason:  they were always made up.  The deficit is shrinking.    A move to socialism has no basis in fact, and is simply a distortion of social welfare under a social contract.  Obamacare is already meeting its main goal by signing up millions of uninsured and underinsured persons, and several bad practices of insurance companies are now illegal.  Social Security is not broken, is not negatively affecting a shrinking deficit, and is not going broke.  

Enough time has passed to be able to ask – where’s the evidence, the facts, the proof, and the alternatives?  The Republicans present no facts, have no plans, and even ignore the history of the last five years because it contradicts their dire predictions on all major issues.  They are wrong; what's worse, they are deluded!
The time has come to face reality.