RSS

Category Archives: African American Politics

Full text: President Obama’s 2013 State of the Union


Posted by CNN Political Unit

(CNN) - On Tuesday, President Barack Obama delivered his fourth State of the Union address, and his seventh address to a joint session of Congress. His remarks, as prepared, are after the jump.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, fellow citizens:

Fifty-one years ago, John F. Kennedy declared to this Chamber that “the Constitution makes us not rivals for power but partners for progress…It is my task,” he said, “to report the State of the Union – to improve it is the task of us all.”

Tonight, thanks to the grit and determination of the American people, there is much progress to report. After a decade of grinding war, our brave men and women in uniform are coming home. After years of grueling recession, our businesses have created over six million new jobs. We buy more American cars than we have in five years, and less foreign oil than we have in twenty. Our housing market is healing, our stock market is rebounding, and consumers, patients, and homeowners enjoy stronger protections than ever before.

Together, we have cleared away the rubble of crisis, and can say with renewed confidence that the state of our union is stronger.

But we gather here knowing that there are millions of Americans whose hard work and dedication have not yet been rewarded. Our economy is adding jobs – but too many people still can’t find full-time employment. Corporate profits have rocketed to all-time highs – but for more than a decade, wages and incomes have barely budged.

It is our generation’s task, then, to reignite the true engine of America’s economic growth – a rising, thriving middle class.

It is our unfinished task to restore the basic bargain that built this country – the idea that if you work hard and meet your responsibilities, you can get ahead, no matter where you come from, what you look like, or who you love.

It is our unfinished task to make sure that this government works on behalf of the many, and not just the few; that it encourages free enterprise, rewards individual initiative, and opens the doors of opportunity to every child across this great nation.

The American people don’t expect government to solve every problem. They don’t expect those of us in this chamber to agree on every issue. But they do expect us to put the nation’s interests before party. They do expect us to forge reasonable compromise where we can. For they know that America moves forward only when we do so together; and that the responsibility of improving this union remains the task of us all.

Our work must begin by making some basic decisions about our budget – decisions that will have a huge impact on the strength of our recovery.

Over the last few years, both parties have worked together to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion – mostly through spending cuts, but also by raising tax rates on the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. As a result, we are more than halfway towards the goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists say we need to stabilize our finances.

Now we need to finish the job. And the question is, how?

In 2011, Congress passed a law saying that if both parties couldn’t agree on a plan to reach our deficit goal, about a trillion dollars’ worth of budget cuts would automatically go into effect this year. These sudden, harsh, arbitrary cuts would jeopardize our military readiness. They’d devastate priorities like education, energy, and medical research. They would certainly slow our recovery, and cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. That’s why Democrats, Republicans, business leaders, and economists have already said that these cuts, known here in Washington as “the sequester,” are a really bad idea.

Now, some in this Congress have proposed preventing only the defense cuts by making even bigger cuts to things like education and job training; Medicare and Social Security benefits.

That idea is even worse. Yes, the biggest driver of our long-term debt is the rising cost of health care for an aging population. And those of us who care deeply about programs like Medicare must embrace the need for modest reforms – otherwise, our retirement programs will crowd out the investments we need for our children, and jeopardize the promise of a secure retirement for future generations.

But we can’t ask senior citizens and working families to shoulder the entire burden of deficit reduction while asking nothing more from the wealthiest and most powerful. We won’t grow the middle class simply by shifting the cost of health care or college onto families that are already struggling, or by forcing communities to lay off more teachers, cops, and firefighters. Most Americans – Democrats, Republicans, and Independents – understand that we can’t just cut our way to prosperity. They know that broad-based economic growth requires a balanced approach to deficit reduction, with spending cuts and revenue, and with everybody doing their fair share. And that’s the approach I offer tonight.

On Medicare, I’m prepared to enact reforms that will achieve the same amount of health care savings by the beginning of the next decade as the reforms proposed by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission. Already, the Affordable Care Act is helping to slow the growth of health care costs. The reforms I’m proposing go even further. We’ll reduce taxpayer subsidies to prescription drug companies and ask more from the wealthiest seniors. We’ll bring down costs by changing the way our government pays for Medicare, because our medical bills shouldn’t be based on the number of tests ordered or days spent in the hospital – they should be based on the quality of care that our seniors receive. And I am open to additional reforms from both parties, so long as they don’t violate the guarantee of a secure retirement. Our government shouldn’t make promises we cannot keep – but we must keep the promises we’ve already made.

To hit the rest of our deficit reduction target, we should do what leaders in both parties have already suggested, and save hundreds of billions of dollars by getting rid of tax loopholes and deductions for the well-off and well-connected. After all, why would we choose to make deeper cuts to education and Medicare just to protect special interest tax breaks? How is that fair? How does that promote growth?

Now is our best chance for bipartisan, comprehensive tax reform that encourages job creation and helps bring down the deficit. The American people deserve a tax code that helps small businesses spend less time filling out complicated forms, and more time expanding and hiring; a tax code that ensures billionaires with high-powered accountants can’t pay a lower rate than their hard-working secretaries; a tax code that lowers incentives to move jobs overseas, and lowers tax rates for businesses and manufacturers that create jobs right here in America. That’s what tax reform can deliver. That’s what we can do together.

I realize that tax reform and entitlement reform won’t be easy. The politics will be hard for both sides. None of us will get 100 percent of what we want. But the alternative will cost us jobs, hurt our economy, and visit hardship on millions of hardworking Americans. So let’s set party interests aside, and work to pass a budget that replaces reckless cuts with smart savings and wise investments in our future. And let’s do it without the brinksmanship that stresses consumers and scares off investors. The greatest nation on Earth cannot keep conducting its business by drifting from one manufactured crisis to the next. Let’s agree, right here, right now, to keep the people’s government open, pay our bills on time, and always uphold the full faith and credit of the United States of America. The American people have worked too hard, for too long, rebuilding from one crisis to see their elected officials cause another.

Now, most of us agree that a plan to reduce the deficit must be part of our agenda. But let’s be clear: deficit reduction alone is not an economic plan. A growing economy that creates good, middle-class jobs – that must be the North Star that guides our efforts. Every day, we should ask ourselves three questions as a nation: How do we attract more jobs to our shores? How do we equip our people with the skills needed to do those jobs? And how do we make sure that hard work leads to a decent living?

A year and a half ago, I put forward an American Jobs Act that independent economists said would create more than one million new jobs. I thank the last Congress for passing some of that agenda, and I urge this Congress to pass the rest. Tonight, I’ll lay out additional proposals that are fully paid for and fully consistent with the budget framework both parties agreed to just 18 months ago. Let me repeat – nothing I’m proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime. It’s not a bigger government we need, but a smarter government that sets priorities and invests in broad-based growth.

Our first priority is making America a magnet for new jobs and manufacturing.

After shedding jobs for more than 10 years, our manufacturers have added about 500,000 jobs over the past three. Caterpillar is bringing jobs back from Japan. Ford is bringing jobs back from Mexico. After locating plants in other countries like China, Intel is opening its most advanced plant right here at home. And this year, Apple will start making Macs in America again.

There are things we can do, right now, to accelerate this trend. Last year, we created our first manufacturing innovation institute in Youngstown, Ohio. A once-shuttered warehouse is now a state-of-the art lab where new workers are mastering the 3D printing that has the potential to revolutionize the way we make almost everything. There’s no reason this can’t happen in other towns. So tonight, I’m announcing the launch of three more of these manufacturing hubs, where businesses will partner with the Departments of Defense and Energy to turn regions left behind by globalization into global centers of high-tech jobs. And I ask this Congress to help create a network of fifteen of these hubs and guarantee that the next revolution in manufacturing is Made in America.

If we want to make the best products, we also have to invest in the best ideas. Every dollar we invested to map the human genome returned $140 to our economy. Today, our scientists are mapping the human brain to unlock the answers to Alzheimer’s; developing drugs to regenerate damaged organs; devising new material to make batteries ten times more powerful. Now is not the time to gut these job-creating investments in science and innovation. Now is the time to reach a level of research and development not seen since the height of the Space Race. And today, no area holds more promise than our investments in American energy.

After years of talking about it, we are finally poised to control our own energy future. We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years. We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas, and the amount of renewable energy we generate from sources like wind and solar – with tens of thousands of good, American jobs to show for it. We produce more natural gas than ever before – and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it. And over the last four years, our emissions of the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet have actually fallen.

But for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change. Yes, it’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods – all are now more frequent and intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science – and act before it’s too late.

The good news is, we can make meaningful progress on this issue while driving strong economic growth. I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.

Four years ago, other countries dominated the clean energy market and the jobs that came with it. We’ve begun to change that. Last year, wind energy added nearly half of all new power capacity in America. So let’s generate even more. Solar energy gets cheaper by the year – so let’s drive costs down even further. As long as countries like China keep going all-in on clean energy, so must we.

In the meantime, the natural gas boom has led to cleaner power and greater energy independence. That’s why my Administration will keep cutting red tape and speeding up new oil and gas permits. But I also want to work with this Congress to encourage the research and technology that helps natural gas burn even cleaner and protects our air and water.

Indeed, much of our new-found energy is drawn from lands and waters that we, the public, own together. So tonight, I propose we use some of our oil and gas revenues to fund an Energy Security Trust that will drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good. If a non-partisan coalition of CEOs and retired generals and admirals can get behind this idea, then so can we. Let’s take their advice and free our families and businesses from the painful spikes in gas prices we’ve put up with for far too long. I’m also issuing a new goal for America: let’s cut in half the energy wasted by our homes and businesses over the next twenty years. The states with the best ideas to create jobs and lower energy bills by constructing more efficient buildings will receive federal support to help make it happen.

America’s energy sector is just one part of an aging infrastructure badly in need of repair. Ask any CEO where they’d rather locate and hire: a country with deteriorating roads and bridges, or one with high-speed rail and internet; high-tech schools and self-healing power grids. The CEO of Siemens America – a company that brought hundreds of new jobs to North Carolina – has said that if we upgrade our infrastructure, they’ll bring even more jobs. And I know that you want these job-creating projects in your districts. I’ve seen you all at the ribbon-cuttings.

Tonight, I propose a “Fix-It-First” program to put people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent repairs, like the nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country. And to make sure taxpayers don’t shoulder the whole burden, I’m also proposing a Partnership to Rebuild America that attracts private capital to upgrade what our businesses need most: modern ports to move our goods; modern pipelines to withstand a storm; modern schools worthy of our children. Let’s prove that there is no better place to do business than the United States of America. And let’s start right away.

Part of our rebuilding effort must also involve our housing sector. Today, our housing market is finally healing from the collapse of 2007. Home prices are rising at the fastest pace in six years, home purchases are up nearly 50 percent, and construction is expanding again.

But even with mortgage rates near a 50-year low, too many families with solid credit who want to buy a home are being rejected. Too many families who have never missed a payment and want to refinance are being told no. That’s holding our entire economy back, and we need to fix it. Right now, there’s a bill in this Congress that would give every responsible homeowner in America the chance to save $3,000 a year by refinancing at today’s rates. Democrats and Republicans have supported it before. What are we waiting for? Take a vote, and send me that bill. Right now, overlapping regulations keep responsible young families from buying their first home. What’s holding us back? Let’s streamline the process, and help our economy grow.

These initiatives in manufacturing, energy, infrastructure, and housing will help entrepreneurs and small business owners expand and create new jobs. But none of it will matter unless we also equip our citizens with the skills and training to fill those jobs. And that has to start at the earliest possible age.

Study after study shows that the sooner a child begins learning, the better he or she does down the road. But today, fewer than 3 in 10 four year-olds are enrolled in a high-quality preschool program. Most middle-class parents can’t afford a few hundred bucks a week for private preschool. And for poor kids who need help the most, this lack of access to preschool education can shadow them for the rest of their lives.

Tonight, I propose working with states to make high-quality preschool available to every child in America. Every dollar we invest in high-quality early education can save more than seven dollars later on – by boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, even reducing violent crime. In states that make it a priority to educate our youngest children, like Georgia or Oklahoma, studies show students grow up more likely to read and do math at grade level, graduate high school, hold a job, and form more stable families of their own. So let’s do what works, and make sure none of our children start the race of life already behind. Let’s give our kids that chance.

Let’s also make sure that a high school diploma puts our kids on a path to a good job. Right now, countries like Germany focus on graduating their high school students with the equivalent of a technical degree from one of our community colleges, so that they’re ready for a job. At schools like P-Tech in Brooklyn, a collaboration between New York Public Schools, the City University of New York, and IBM, students will graduate with a high school diploma and an associate degree in computers or engineering.

We need to give every American student opportunities like this. Four years ago, we started Race to the Top – a competition that convinced almost every state to develop smarter curricula and higher standards, for about 1 percent of what we spend on education each year. Tonight, I’m announcing a new challenge to redesign America’s high schools so they better equip graduates for the demands of a high-tech economy. We’ll reward schools that develop new partnerships with colleges and employers, and create classes that focus on science, technology, engineering, and math – the skills today’s employers are looking for to fill jobs right now and in the future.

Now, even with better high schools, most young people will need some higher education. It’s a simple fact: the more education you have, the more likely you are to have a job and work your way into the middle class. But today, skyrocketing costs price way too many young people out of a higher education, or saddle them with unsustainable debt.

Through tax credits, grants, and better loans, we have made college more affordable for millions of students and families over the last few years. But taxpayers cannot continue to subsidize the soaring cost of higher education. Colleges must do their part to keep costs down, and it’s our job to make sure they do. Tonight, I ask Congress to change the Higher Education Act, so that affordability and value are included in determining which colleges receive certain types of federal aid. And tomorrow, my Administration will release a new “College Scorecard” that parents and students can use to compare schools based on a simple criteria: where you can get the most bang for your educational buck.

To grow our middle class, our citizens must have access to the education and training that today’s jobs require. But we also have to make sure that America remains a place where everyone who’s willing to work hard has the chance to get ahead.

Our economy is stronger when we harness the talents and ingenuity of striving, hopeful immigrants. And right now, leaders from the business, labor, law enforcement, and faith communities all agree that the time has come to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my Administration has already made – putting more boots on the southern border than at any time in our history, and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.

Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earned citizenship – a path that includes passing a background check, paying taxes and a meaningful penalty, learning English, and going to the back of the line behind the folks trying to come here legally.

And real reform means fixing the legal immigration system to cut waiting periods, reduce bureaucracy, and attract the highly-skilled entrepreneurs and engineers that will help create jobs and grow our economy.

In other words, we know what needs to be done. As we speak, bipartisan groups in both chambers are working diligently to draft a bill, and I applaud their efforts. Now let’s get this done. Send me a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the next few months, and I will sign it right away.

But we can’t stop there. We know our economy is stronger when our wives, mothers, and daughters can live their lives free from discrimination in the workplace, and free from the fear of domestic violence. Today, the Senate passed the Violence Against Women Act that Joe Biden originally wrote almost 20 years ago. I urge the House to do the same. And I ask this Congress to declare that women should earn a living equal to their efforts, and finally pass the Paycheck Fairness Act this year.

We know our economy is stronger when we reward an honest day’s work with honest wages. But today, a full-time worker making the minimum wage earns $14,500 a year. Even with the tax relief we’ve put in place, a family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line. That’s wrong. That’s why, since the last time this Congress raised the minimum wage, nineteen states have chosen to bump theirs even higher.

Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour. This single step would raise the incomes of millions of working families. It could mean the difference between groceries or the food bank; rent or eviction; scraping by or finally getting ahead. For businesses across the country, it would mean customers with more money in their pockets. In fact, working folks shouldn’t have to wait year after year for the minimum wage to go up while CEO pay has never been higher. So here’s an idea that Governor Romney and I actually agreed on last year: let’s tie the minimum wage to the cost of living, so that it finally becomes a wage you can live on.

Tonight, let’s also recognize that there are communities in this country where no matter how hard you work, it’s virtually impossible to get ahead. Factory towns decimated from years of plants packing up. Inescapable pockets of poverty, urban and rural, where young adults are still fighting for their first job. America is not a place where chance of birth or circumstance should decide our destiny. And that is why we need to build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class for all who are willing to climb them.

Let’s offer incentives to companies that hire Americans who’ve got what it takes to fill that job opening, but have been out of work so long that no one will give them a chance. Let’s put people back to work rebuilding vacant homes in run-down neighborhoods. And this year, my Administration will begin 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 at public safety, education, and housing. We’ll give new tax credits to businesses that hire and invest. And we’ll work to strengthen families by removing the financial deterrents to marriage for low-income couples, and doing more to encourage fatherhood – because what makes you a man isn’t the ability to conceive a child; it’s having the courage to raise one.

Stronger families. Stronger communities. A stronger America. It is this kind of prosperity – broad, shared, and built on a thriving middle class – that has always been the source of our progress at home. It is also the foundation of our power and influence throughout the world.

Tonight, we stand united in saluting the troops and civilians who sacrifice every day to protect us. Because of them, we can say with confidence that America will complete its mission in Afghanistan, and achieve our objective of defeating the core of al Qaeda. Already, we have brought home 33,000 of our brave servicemen and women. This spring, our forces will move into a support role, while Afghan security forces take the lead. Tonight, I can announce that over the next year, another 34,000 American troops will come home from Afghanistan. This drawdown will continue. And by the end of next year, our war in Afghanistan will be over.

Beyond 2014, America’s commitment to a unified and sovereign Afghanistan will endure, but the nature of our commitment will change. We are negotiating an agreement with the Afghan government that focuses on two missions: training and equipping Afghan forces so that the country does not again slip into chaos, and counter-terrorism efforts that allow us to pursue the remnants of al Qaeda and their affiliates.

Today, the organization that attacked us on 9/11 is a shadow of its former self. Different al Qaeda affiliates and extremist groups have emerged – from the Arabian Peninsula to Africa. The threat these groups pose is evolving. But to meet this threat, we don’t need to send tens of thousands of our sons and daughters abroad, or occupy other nations. Instead, we will need to help countries like Yemen, Libya, and Somalia provide for their own security, and help allies who take the fight to terrorists, as we have in Mali. And, where necessary, through a range of capabilities, we will continue to take direct action against those terrorists who pose the gravest threat to Americans.

As we do, we must enlist our values in the fight. That is why my Administration has worked tirelessly to forge a durable legal and policy framework to guide our counterterrorism operations. Throughout, we have kept Congress fully informed of our efforts. I recognize that in our democracy, no one should just take my word that we’re doing things the right way. So, in the months ahead, I will continue to engage with Congress to ensure not only that our targeting, detention, and prosecution of terrorists remains consistent with our laws and system of checks and balances, but that our efforts are even more transparent to the American people and to the world.

Of course, our challenges don’t end with al Qaeda. America will continue to lead the effort to prevent the spread of the world’s most dangerous weapons. The regime in North Korea must know that they will only achieve security and prosperity by meeting their international obligations. Provocations of the sort we saw last night will only isolate them further, as we stand by our allies, strengthen our own missile defense, and lead the world in taking firm action in response to these threats.

Likewise, the leaders of Iran must recognize that now is the time for a diplomatic solution, because a coalition stands united in demanding that they meet their obligations, and we will do what is necessary to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon. At the same time, we will engage Russia to seek further reductions in our nuclear arsenals, and continue leading the global effort to secure nuclear materials that could fall into the wrong hands – because our ability to influence others depends on our willingness to lead.

America must also face the rapidly growing threat from cyber-attacks. We know hackers steal people’s identities and infiltrate private e-mail. We know foreign countries and companies swipe our corporate secrets. Now our enemies are also seeking the ability to sabotage our power grid, our financial institutions, and our air traffic control systems. We cannot look back years from now and wonder why we did nothing in the face of real threats to our security and our economy.

That’s why, earlier today, I signed a new executive order that will strengthen our cyber defenses by increasing information sharing, and developing standards to protect our national security, our jobs, and our privacy. Now, Congress must act as well, by passing legislation to give our government a greater capacity to secure our networks and deter attacks.

Even as we protect our people, we should remember that today’s world presents not only dangers, but opportunities. To boost American exports, support American jobs, and level the playing field in the growing markets of Asia, we intend to complete negotiations on a Trans-Pacific Partnership. And tonight, I am announcing that we will launch talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union – because trade that is free and fair across the Atlantic supports millions of good-paying American jobs.

We also know that progress in the most impoverished parts of our world enriches us all. In many places, people live on little more than a dollar a day. So the United States will join with our allies to eradicate such extreme poverty in the next two decades: by connecting more people to the global economy and empowering women; by giving our young and brightest minds new opportunities to serve and helping communities to feed, power, and educate themselves; by saving the world’s children from preventable deaths; and by realizing the promise of an AIDS-free generation.

Above all, America must remain a beacon to all who seek freedom during this period of historic change. I saw the power of hope last year in Rangoon – when Aung San Suu Kyi welcomed an American President into the home where she had been imprisoned for years; when thousands of Burmese lined the streets, waving American flags, including a man who said, “There is justice and law in the United States. I want our country to be like that.”

In defense of freedom, we will remain the anchor of strong alliances from the Americas to Africa; from Europe to Asia. In the Middle East, we will stand with citizens as they demand their universal rights, and support stable transitions to democracy. The process will be messy, and we cannot presume to dictate the course of change in countries like Egypt; but we can – and will – insist on respect for the fundamental rights of all people. We will keep the pressure on a Syrian regime that has murdered its own people, and support opposition leaders that respect the rights of every Syrian. And we will stand steadfast with Israel in pursuit of security and a lasting peace. These are the messages I will deliver when I travel to the Middle East next month.

All this work depends on the courage and sacrifice of those who serve in dangerous places at great personal risk – our diplomats, our intelligence officers, and the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. As long as I’m Commander-in-Chief, we will do whatever we must to protect those who serve their country abroad, and we will maintain the best military in the world. We will invest in new capabilities, even as we reduce waste and wartime spending. We will ensure equal treatment for all service members, and equal benefits for their families – gay and straight. We will draw upon the courage and skills of our sisters and daughters, because women have proven under fire that they are ready for combat. We will keep faith with our veterans – investing in world-class care, including mental health care, for our wounded warriors; supporting our military families; and giving our veterans the benefits, education, and job opportunities they have earned. And I want to thank my wife Michelle and Dr. Jill Biden for their continued dedication to serving our military families as well as they serve us.

But defending our freedom is not the job of our military alone. We must all do our part to make sure our God-given rights are protected here at home. That includes our most fundamental right as citizens: the right to vote. When any Americans – no matter where they live or what their party – are denied that right simply because they can’t wait for five, six, seven hours just to cast their ballot, we are betraying our ideals. That’s why, tonight, I’m announcing a non-partisan commission to improve the voting experience in America. And I’m asking two long-time experts in the field, who’ve recently served as the top attorneys for my campaign and for Governor Romney’s campaign, to lead it. We can fix this, and we will. The American people demand it. And so does our democracy.

Of course, what I’ve said tonight matters little if we don’t come together to protect our most precious resource – our children.

It has been two months since Newtown. I know this is not the first time this country has debated how to reduce gun violence. But this time is different. Overwhelming majorities of Americans – Americans who believe in the 2nd Amendment – have come together around commonsense reform – like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun. Senators of both parties are working together on tough new laws to prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals. Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets, because they are tired of being outgunned.

Each of these proposals deserves a vote in Congress. If you want to vote no, that’s your choice. But these proposals deserve a vote. Because in the two months since Newtown, more than a thousand birthdays, graduations, and anniversaries have been stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun.

One of those we lost was a young girl named Hadiya Pendleton. She was 15 years old. She loved Fig Newtons and lip gloss. She was a majorette. She was so good to her friends, they all thought they were her best friend. Just three weeks ago, she was here, in Washington, with her classmates, performing for her country at my inauguration. And a week later, she was shot and killed in a Chicago park after school, just a mile away from my house.

Hadiya’s parents, Nate and Cleo, are in this chamber tonight, along with more than two dozen Americans whose lives have been torn apart by gun violence. They deserve a vote.

Gabby Giffords deserves a vote.

The families of Newtown deserve a vote.

The families of Aurora deserve a vote.

The families of Oak Creek, and Tucson, and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence – they deserve a simple vote.

Our actions will not prevent every senseless act of violence in this country. Indeed, no laws, no initiatives, no administrative acts will perfectly solve all the challenges I’ve outlined tonight. But we were never sent here to be perfect. We were sent here to make what difference we can, to secure this nation, expand opportunity, and uphold our ideals through the hard, often frustrating, but absolutely necessary work of self-government.

We were sent here to look out for our fellow Americans the same way they look out for one another, every single day, usually without fanfare, all across this country. We should follow their example.

We should follow the example of a New York City nurse named Menchu Sanchez. When Hurricane Sandy plunged her hospital into darkness, her thoughts were not with how her own home was faring – they were with the twenty precious newborns in her care and the rescue plan she devised that kept them all safe.

We should follow the example of a North Miami woman named Desiline Victor. When she arrived at her polling place, she was told the wait to vote might be six hours. And as time ticked by, her concern was not with her tired body or aching feet, but whether folks like her would get to have their say. Hour after hour, a throng of people stayed in line in support of her. Because Desiline is 102 years old. And they erupted in cheers when she finally put on a sticker that read “I Voted.”

We should follow the example of a police officer named Brian Murphy. When a gunman opened fire on a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, and Brian was the first to arrive, he did not consider his own safety. He fought back until help arrived, and ordered his fellow officers to protect the safety of the Americans worshiping inside – even as he lay bleeding from twelve bullet wounds.

When asked how he did that, Brian said, “That’s just the way we’re made.”

That’s just the way we’re made.

We may do different jobs, and wear different uniforms, and hold different views than the person beside us. But as Americans, we all share the same proud title:

We are citizens. It’s a word that doesn’t just describe our nationality or legal status. It describes the way we’re made. It describes what we believe. It captures the enduring idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations; that our rights are wrapped up in the rights of others; and that well into our third century as a nation, it remains the task of us all, as citizens of these United States, to be the authors of the next great chapter in our American story.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

 
 

Tags: ,

Martin Luther King’s dream is alive

by Kevin Powell/CNN

(CNN) — The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would hardly recognize America in 2013, the 50th anniversary year of his world-famous “I Have a Dream” speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

The efforts of King and countless others have not only made it possible for Barack Obama to become the first black president of the United States, but also created unprecedented opportunities for the likes of Oprah Winfrey,

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and virtually anyone who had previously been given a check that has, as King put it, “come back marked ‘insufficient funds.’”

I personally cannot think of MLK Day without reflecting on my life as a product of post-civil rights America: I was conceived on the coattails of that movement to a single mother, absent father, horrific poverty, and despair and fear I would not wish upon anyone.

Yet here I am, a direct beneficiary of King’s legacy. I do not take the opportunities given to me lightly.

Especially since my mother, born in South Carolina in the Jim Crow-era, has sickening memories of the racial oppression back in those days. Her family had no electricity, no indoor running water and no television.

The day that King delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech, my mother turned 20.

“We knew there was colored folks marching in Washington,” my mother told me. “We just did not know what for exactly.”

The what for had everything to do with democracy, freedom, voting and citizenship rights, for a group longed blocked from the doors of the American dream.

It means the only way we could ever come to “a beautiful symphony of brotherhood” that King spoke of is for each of us, no matter our background, to honor and recognize who we are, including very uncomfortable parts of our history, like slavery, which was depicted in recent films like Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln” and Quentin Tarantino’s “Django Unchained.” We cannot sit at the table of diversity and multiculturalism if we are not even clear what we are bringing to share.

In King’s speeches and writings in the last years of his life, he wanted people, including black people, to embrace and appreciate their culture and heritage.

But it was never an either or for him. King worked for and loved Black America, and he worked for and loved America.

From 1963 to the present, the United States has changed dramatically.

When I attended integrated schools, I remember sitting elbow to elbow with children of different races, something my mother could not have fathomed in her childhood dominated by “Whites Only” and “Coloreds Only” signs everywhere.

But the work is far from over.

I think King would be saddened that the poverty and economic disparities he fought against at the end of his life are still here.

He would be outraged by the kind of racism that routinely profiles young black and Latino males and fills our nation’s prison system with black and brown bodies.

He would be awestruck and angered by the visionless black leadership that has come to dominate black communities nationwide, more concerned with media moments and money than solutions.

He would wonder how black culture has deteriorated from Harry Belafonte, Motown and Nina Simone to Nicki Minaj, Lil Wayne, and reality TV shows that present utterly destructive black images.

I think he would be disheartened by the numerous wars that have occurred since Vietnam and by the fact that more than one million Americans have died by gun violence since he himself was shot and murdered in Memphis on April 4, 1968.

And moreover, he would be very outspoken about how some Americans treat immigrants, and our inability to see their plights as great civil rights issues of our time.

But, King would smile broadly, in that way he did, as we witnessed the stunning rainbow coalition of Americans who voted Barack Obama into office in 2008, as a direct extension of King’s prophetic dream.

Despite the historical significance of electing Barack Obama into the Oval Office twice, and the great victories we accomplished together as a nation in the past 50 years, King would urge us to continue his work since a lot more needs to be done.

The harsh reality is that Martin Luther King Jr. is never coming back. We have a federal holiday dedicated to him, we have the moral authority of his spoken and written words, and we have his mighty spirit hovering over our nation like an uninterrupted sheet of light.

But I sincerely believe that if we are going to live up to the extraordinary vision of King, then we must open our hearts more to each other, as sisters and brothers, as part of the human family.

We know, as he knew, that love must be a living and breathing thing. In celebration of his legacy, let’s keep in mind that service to others must become as natural to us as breathing, for the good of America and for the good of all of us.

 
 

Tags:

Bending the Arc Toward Reproductive Justice

Pro-choice rally

SOURCE: AP/Rogelio V. Solis

As we pause to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade this week, let us remember that the path we share leads to justice for all.

There has been much discussion recently regarding the usefulness of the two labels most commonly employed in the abortion debate: pro-choice and pro-life. In all of the back and forth, however, there has been little mention of a term that has become increasingly popular among a younger and more diverse generation of activists—reproductive justice—which merges social justice concerns with a traditional reproductive-rights agenda; emphasizes the right to be a parent, as well as the right not to be; and places those most marginalized in our society at the center of its analysis.

Polls have shown time and again that the pro-choice and pro-life labels do not resonate with most Americans. While a majority of Americans support legal abortion and agree with the ruling in the Supreme Court’s 40-year-old groundbreaking privacy-rights case Roe v. Wade—which recognized women’s constitutional right to abortion—many people do not identify with either label, and some others claim that both descriptors simultaneously apply to them.

As we argued when we released our report, “More than a Choice: A Progressive Vision for Reproductive Health and Rights,” in 2006, the term “choice” falls short in a number of ways—most importantly because many women do not truly have meaningful reproductive choices in our society. When a woman would rather have a child but chooses abortion because she feels she cannot afford to raise that child, is that really a choice? And when she is forced to bring a pregnancy to term against her better judgment because she has no access to an abortion provider or cannot afford an abortion, what then of her constitutional right to “choose?”

That is why we laid out a vision in our report for a holistic policy agenda that, if carried out, would result in truly meaningful reproductive choices for all Americans. A group of primarily young, grassroots, and women-of-color reproductive justice leaders helped us shape this vision, and we grounded it in basic constitutional and human-rights principles and in a broad range of progressive values: fairness, opportunity, individual liberty, and dignity.

Our report set forth four cornerstones, all of which are critical to a fully developed reproductive-rights agenda, as well as to a progressive agenda overall:

  • The ability to become a parent and to parent with dignity
  • The ability to determine whether or when to have children
  • The ability to have a healthy pregnancy
  • The ability to have healthy and safe families and relationships

This is an ambitious and sweeping agenda to be sure, yet striking progress has been made in all of these areas in the more than six years since our report was first issued. Under the Affordable Care Act, for example, maternity coverage will be guaranteed in qualified health plans starting in 2014—something that is obviously a critical component of having a healthy pregnancy and becoming a parent. In addition, the Affordable Care Actalready requires no-cost coverage of preventive services, including contraception—an incredible step forward in ensuring that everyone has the tools needed to determine whether to become a parent and when.

Indeed, passage of health reform was one of the biggest policy items that we called for in the report. That one accomplishment alone brings us much closer to realizing each of the four cornerstones.

Other recent advances include state laws that guarantee paid sick days to workers, and campaigns and business initiatives to remove the chemical Bisphenol A, more commonly known as BPA, from plastics in order to protect fertility and children’s health. Add to that the marriage equality laws that have passed in several states and the cultural shifts that enabled President Barack Obama to call for respect for gay, lesbian, and bisexual families and relationships in his second Inaugural Address earlier this week, and we have made significant progress toward a world of safer and healthier families and relationships.

This is not to overlook the serious setbacks that have also emerged in the past few years, including a terrible recession that has thrown even more families into poverty and further exacerbated economic disparities in our country—especially for women of color, who already suffer from stark economic and health disparities; new restrictions on abortion coverage in the private insurance market under the Affordable Care Act, as well as anunprecedented number of attacks on abortion at the state level, from 20-week bans to ultrasound bills; multiple challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage requirement; and increased rates of detention and deportation of undocumented immigrants, which literally tear families apart. Finally, let’s not forget Congress’s failure to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act simply because the bill sought to extend protections of the law to gay, Native American, and immigrant survivors of abuse.

President Obama could not have made the connections between social-justice movements—and the fates of all our rights—more clear than when, during his second inaugural speech, given on the day of observance of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday, he said: “Through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall.” We would add the Roedecision to that list of milestones in what Rev. King called the “arc of the moral universe [that] bends toward justice.”

The fights for women’s rights, civil rights, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender rights, and reproductive rights are integrally related, and they are interwoven throughout the reproductive-justice movement. If we must reduce our cause to a label, then we should choose one that is truly inclusive. As we pause to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade this week, let us remember that the path we share leads to justice for all.

Jessica Arons is the Director and Shira Saperstein is a Senior Fellow with the Women’s Health and Rights program at the Center for American Progress.

 
 

Tags:

President Barack Obama takes oath in a position of strength

 

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden participate in a wreath-laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier January 20, 2013 in Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, Virginia. Both Obama and Biden will be sworn in today for a second term in office. (Photo by Michael Reynolds-Pool/Getty Images)

by Steven R. Hurst, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Battered yet still popular after a bruising first term as president, Barack Obama raises his right hand Sunday to be sworn in for another four years as the leader of an America that is, perhaps, as divided politically and socially as at any time since the U.S. Civil War more than 150 years ago.

When Obama first took office as the 44th U.S. president, many Americans hoped the symbolism of the first black man in the White House was a turning point in the country’s deeply troubled racial history. Obama vowed to moderate the partisanship that was engulfing the country, but, four years later, the nation is only more divided. While Obama convincingly won a second term, the jubilation that surrounded him four years ago is subdued this time around.

Obama guided the country through many crushing challenges after taking office in 2009: ending the Iraq war, putting the Afghan war on a course toward U.S. withdrawal and saving the collapsing economy. He won approval for a sweeping health care overhaul. Yet onerous problems remain, and his success in resolving them will define his place in history.

He faces fights with opposition Republicans over gun control, avoiding a default on the nation’s debts, cutting the spiraling federal deficit and preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon.

Obama begins his second term at noon (1700 GMT) on Jan. 20, the date and time specified by law. He will take his oath in a simple White House ceremony. On Monday, he will repeat the oath and give his inaugural speech on the steps of the U.S. Capitol before hundreds of thousands of people. He then makes the traditional journey, part of it on foot, down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House. Fancy dress balls, fewer than in 2009, consume the evening hours. Monday is also the holiday marking the birth of Martin Luther King, the revered civil right leader who was assassinated in 1968.

Joe Biden was sworn in for his second term as vice president shortly after 8 a.m. (1300GMT) on Sunday, taking the oath from Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor at his official residence at the U.S. Naval Observatory.

Before taking the oath himself, Obama and his family attended church services at the historic Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church. Earlier, Obama and Biden laid a wreath at Arlington National Cemetery.

Americans increasingly see Obama as a strong leader, someone who stands up for his beliefs and is able to get things done, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. The survey shows him with a 52 percent job approval rating, among the highest rankings since early in his presidency. His personal favorability, 59 percent, has rebounded from a low of 50 percent in the 2012 campaign against Republican Mitt Romney.

Domestic issues, notably the economy and health care, dominated Obama’s first term, but there were also critical international issues that could define his next four years. Obama may have to decide whether to launch a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, something he is loath to do. Washington and its allies believe Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. Iran says its program is intended for producing electricity. Obama has vowed to keep Iran from crossing the line to nuclear-armed status, but insists there is still time for diplomacy. But Israel is pressuring him to take military action sooner rather than later.

Obama will also have to deal with the civil war in Syria, Israel-Palestinian tensions, a chill in relations with Russia and a series of maritime disputes in Asia. The administration has long talked of making a “pivot” toward Asia after the U.S. has directed much of its energy to the Middle East in the past decade.

Yet the political battles at home continue to dominate Obama’s attention. He faces tough opposition from Republicans, especially from among its tea party wing — lawmakers determined to shrink government and reduce the taxes. Republicans are themselves divided between tea party loyalists adamantly opposed to compromises on taxes and spending and mainstream Republicans more open to negotiations.

A confrontation is brewing on the need for Congress to raise the limit on U.S. borrowing. Republicans now plan to avoid a fight in the short term, but they will raise the issue again before summer and will again demand steep spending cuts to reduce the government’s debt. Obama has said he won’t allow them to hold the nation’s economy hostage and will not negotiate, as he did in 2011. A failure to reach an agreement could leave the government without money to pay its debts and lead to the first-ever U.S. default or a government shutdown.

Beyond the debt-ceiling debate are other big budget fights. Looming in the coming weeks are automatic cuts to defense and domestic programs, originally scheduled for Jan. 1, unless Congress and the president act. And the U.S. budget runs dry in March, leading again to a potential shutdown unless both sides agree on new legislation.

Obama is also seeking new restrictions on guns and ammunition, a move opposed by most Republicans and the National Rifle Association, a powerful lobbying group which believes any limits would violate constitutional protections for gun owners. Obama was spurred to action by the massacre last month of 20 children and six adults at their school in Newtown, Connecticut. He has pledged to use “whatever weight this office holds” to fight for his proposals.

Among the second term’s other top-tier issues, immigration may be the one in which Obama enjoys the most leverage. That’s a dramatic change from his first term, when it was relegated to the background.

The White House is hinting at a comprehensive bill this year that would include a path toward citizenship for millions of immigrants now in the country illegally. Republicans, stung by heavy losses among Hispanic voters in the last two presidential elections, say they also want to revamp immigration laws.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.

 
 

Tags:

BET Founder Pressures President to Act on Black Job Gap

Business leader says Fiscal Cliff Still Exists for Blacks
by Barry Cooper, The NorthStar News & Analysis
Last-minute legislation by Congress at year’s end helped the United States avoid a so-called “fiscal cliff,” but African-Americans remain in financial peril, according to Robert L. Johnson, chairman of The RLJ Companies and founder of Black Entertainment Television.  Johnson, in a news release intended to put pressure on President Barack Obama, cited a Dec. 14, 2012, article in the Washington Post that noted that the black unemployment rate is twice the rate of whites.

Johnson wants Obama to pass what Johnson calls “The RLJ Rule”  to accelerate the hiring of African-Americans. In his press release, Johnson wrote:

“The RLJ Rule (1) encourages companies to voluntarily implement a plan to interview a minimum of two qualified minority candidates for every job opening at the vice president level and above; and, (2) companies would interview at least two qualified minority-owned firms for vendor supplier/services contracts before awarding a new company contract to a vendor. The RLJ Rule is an adaptation of the National Football League’s (NFL) Rooney Rule , which afforded minority candidates seeking head-coaching or general manager positions within the League to be considered before a final hiring decision.”

Johnson said he met with President Obama a year ago to discuss his concerns about black unemployment. The meeting took place at the White House, Johnson said, and was attended by a number of black business owners and members of the Congressional Black Caucus. It was part of an effort to encourage Obama, as the nation’s first African-American president, to create a program that would appeal directly to black men and women.
“We as Black Americans are facing a fiscal cliff of our own in the disparity of unemployment,” Johnson said. “In my lifetime, Black unemployment has always been twice that of White Americans. This is an unjustified disparity that must not be allowed to continue unless we are willing to accept once again a nation that is economically separate and unequal.”

In his press release, Johnson cited several passages from the Washington Post story:

•   The African American jobless rate is about twice that of whites, a disparity that has barely budged since the government began tracking the data in 1972. In last week’s jobs report, the black unemployment rate was 13.2 percent, while the white rate stood at 6.8 percent.
•   Discrimination has long been seen as the primary reason for this disparity, which is evident among workers from engineers to laborers. But fresh research has led scholars to conclude that African Americans also suffer in the labor market because they have weaker social networks than other groups.
•   The racial gap in the unemployment rate defies educational attainment and occupational endeavor. African Americans with at least a bachelor’s degree had a 7.1 percent jobless rate in 2011, while the white rate was 3.9 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
•   Similarly, black workers with only a high school education had a jobless rate of 15.5 percent, while similarly educated white workers had an unemployment rate of 8.4 percent.
•   Black workers in computer and mathematical occupations — which job-training officials say are hard to fill — had an 8.1 percent jobless rate last year, while for whites the rate was 4.1 percent.
•   Among construction workers, who were hard hit by the recession, the black jobless rate was 30.4 percent, compared with 15.3 percent for whites.

Johnson’s push for an RLJ rule has been endorsed, Johnson says, by the Congressional Black Caucus; the National Urban League led by Marc Morial, and the U.S. Black Chamber, Inc. led by Ron Busby. Whether President Obama will act on the suggestion or support similar legislation is debatable. Since taking office, the president has adopted a “rising tide lifts all boats” approach, meaning he feels that as the country improves overall, then so will the lives of African-Americans. But Johnson and others say they will continue to press Obama to address the needs of African-Americans directly, especially on unemployment.

The end — or temporary end — of the fiscal crisis did help some blacks by keeping unemployment benefits in place for more than 2 million Americans. However, Johnson points out that permanent, well-paying jobs are more important for blacks than are unemployment benefits, which are temporary.

Johnson said in his news release: “The RLJ Rule, if embraced by all U.S. companies large and small, can point the way as President Obama noted in his 2011 remarks at Osawatomie, Kansas, that ‘In America we are greater together – when everyone engages in fair play and everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does their fair share… everyone in America gets a fair shot at success.’”

“If companies voluntarily implement the RLJ Rule they can further their commitment to reduce the employment disparity among African Americans, and in doing so, we can demonstrate the fact that talented African-Americans, if given the opportunity, can succeed at the highest levels, and we will close the employment gap between Black and White Americans.”

 

Tags: , ,

12 Reproductive Justice and Faith Victories of 2012

Nancy PelosiSOURCE: AP/J. Scott Applewhite

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) reflects on the Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, Thursday, June 28, 2012. By allowing women to make decisions based on their conscience on key matters of family and health, the act was a monumental victory for both women’s health and religious liberty.

Rhetorical and legislative attacks this year on women’s health and reproductive rights—known as the war on women—have had real and dire effects on women and their families. These attacks have been waged across the country, whether through attempts to restrict women’s access to contraception or cut off funding for Planned Parenthood, through numerous state restrictions on abortion such as state-mandated, medically unnecessary ultrasounds and abortion waiting periods, or through prohibiting insurance companies from including abortion coverage in their policies. Despite these challenges and setbacks, women and health advocates have made their voices heard, fighting hard to protect their health and their rights. Here are 12 victories faith leaders have helped win in the fight for reproductive justice for all.

1. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, women have access to contraception at no cost, enabling them to make important decisions about becoming a parent according to their conscience. On August 1 a provision of the Affordable Care Act went into effect that requires women to have access to a range of preventive health services at no cost. All health care plans are now required to include annual well-woman visits; screenings for gestational diabetes and HIV; testing for the human papillomavirus, or HPV; and breastfeeding support, among other services. The new law also requires coverage for all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods and family planning counseling for women. It includes a religious exemption for houses of worship and related institutions that morally object to contraception, and it makes provisions for religiously affiliated institutions with similar objections by offering contraceptive coverage directly from the insurer. By allowing women to make decisions based on their conscience on key matters of family and health, the Affordable Care Act was a monumental victory for both women’s health and religious liberty.

2. Religious leaders and denominations defend their support for family planning. Although religious women and men have long supported and used contraceptive services in the United States, the onslaught of attacks from conservative politicians and leaders spurred many religious leaders to stand up and defend contraception as a moral choice. Leaders of national Christian, Jewish, and Muslim organizations released a public statement that affirmed the importance of access to contraception and their support for the Affordable Care Act provision. A coalition of evangelicals also voiced their support for contraception in a 15-page document that defended family planning on religious grounds and as important to the health of mothers and children. Polls show that almost all of America’s major religious denominations support contraception. Additionally, anoverwhelming majority of sexually active religious women who do not want to become pregnant are using a contraceptive method. Eighty-eight percent of evangelicals support contraception, as do 82 percent of Catholics.

3. Several states have moved away from abstinence-only programs toward more comprehensive sex education. As Mississippi struggles with the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the nation, nearly half of the state’s school districts are taking advantage of a measure that went into effect this year. The measure allows districts to adopt “abstinence-plus” education that will add mention of some forms of contraception to the curriculum. In Utah, Gov. Gary Herbert (R) vetoed an abstinence-only bill that would have made all sex education classes “opt-in” instead of “opt-out” and that would have prohibited any discussions of contraception or homosexuality. Passing such a law would have made Utah the first state to specifically ban instruction about contraception. More than 40,000 individuals signed a petition urging Gov. Herbert’s veto of the bill, and 58 percent of poll respondents supported the teaching of contraception.

4. The Unitarian Universalist Association made reproductive justice a denominational priority. At this year’s national conference, the Unitarian Universalist Association voted to make reproductive justice their next issue for congregational action and study. Over the next four years, Unitarian Universalist congregations across the country will study, reflect on, and act on issues of reproductive justice. The church has already produced in-depth study and reflection materials on the issue.

5. The global United Methodist Church voted to support maternal health in the United States and around the world. At their convention this year, the denomination’s representatives voted to support a petition outlining the church’s role in reducing maternal and infant mortality and lowering health and cultural barriers to health services for women. The petition also called on congregations to support international and local health initiatives that provide information and services for women’s health and to urge policymakers to increase access to maternal health and family planning services.

6. Faith Aloud, a religious counseling organization, organized a prayer campaign to support women. In response to the barrage of verbal and legislative attacks against women, Faith Aloud created a 40 Days of Prayer to Stop the War on Women campaign, which called for women to be treated with respect and dignity and for compassionate religious voices to be advocates for women. Faith Aloud provides spiritual support to persons making reproductive decisions.

7. Congress worked to ensure that women in uniform receive the same insurance coverage as the civilians they protect. This year the Senate unanimously passed a National Defense authorization bill, including the Shaheen Amendment, which would allow the military’s health insurance plan to cover the cost of abortion for servicewomen and military dependents who are survivors of rape and incest. Women’s health advocates, faith communities, and dozens of military leaders, including former Secretary of State and retired Gen. Colin Powell, urged Congress to support abortion coverage for servicewomen in these cases and put the Department of Defense rules in line with other federal policies.

Reproductive health also achieved a number of victories in the 2012 elections:

8. Attempts to pass so-called personhood laws failed in all 11 states in which these laws were proposed. Health professionals, women, religious communities, and reproductive justice advocates stood up tooppose radical laws that would define personhood from the moment of fertilization and ban abortions in all circumstances. If they had passed, these laws could have also banned in-vitro fertilization and certain methods of birth control. Efforts to enact personhood laws through state legislatures or ballot initiatives failed in Arkansas,ColoradoCaliforniaFloridaKansasMontanaNevadaOhioOklahomaOregon, and Virginia. The legislation in Kansas didn’t even make it out of committee, and signature drives in states with ballot initiatives sometimes received fewer than half the signatures required.

9. Faith leaders publicly condemned politicians’ extremist views on rape. From Rep. Todd Akin’s (R-MO) suggestion that women could not get pregnant from “legitimate rape” to Rep. Richard Mourdock’s (R-IN) statement that children conceived in rape were what “God intended,” candidates’ extremist views on abortion gained attention during the election season. Faith leaders spoke out against these inaccurate and cruel views, calling for compassion, care, and understanding for women facing difficult decisions—especially when they are victims of sexual assault. Ultimately, voters decided that Rep. Akin, Rep. Mourdock, and other like-minded candidates who voiced their radical theology on rape were simply too extreme, and they were defeated at the polls.

10. Voters in Florida rejected an extreme ballot measure that would have restricted a woman’s access to health care. Amendment 6 would have denied insurance coverage for abortion services and removed from the state constitution a woman’s right to reproductive “privacy,” thus weakening the state court’s ability to block potential abortion restrictions such as mandatory ultrasound laws or gestational bans on abortion. This would have paved the way for a full ban on abortion if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned in the future. More than 100 clergy joined women’s health professionals and advocates in opposition to the “unnecessary and dangerous” amendment and instead called for laws that ensure access to health care and respect women’s decision making about their own health. Amendment 6 failed to receive 60 percent of the vote.

11. Women made their voices heard in the 2012 elections regarding health and reproductive issues.Women constituted a majority of voters in this year’s elections, and 55 percent of them voted for President Barack Obama, who openly campaigned as a pro-choice and health care reform leader. According to official 2012 exit polls, President Obama had a 10-point lead among women voters. Additionally, a Planned Parenthood postelection survey found strong support for the organization’s work, with 66 percent of voters disagreeing with candidate Romney’s proposal to end funding for Planned Parenthood.

12. The voices of faith-based groups were stronger than ever in speaking out for women’s reproductive health. The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice worked nationally and in several states to connect faith, family, and reproductive rights. Catholics for Choice continued to be a strong defender of women’s reproductive health and rights, setting forth pro-Catholic and pro-women’s health arguments and pushing back against conservative Catholic leaders who claimed to be speaking for the entire church. The Religious Institute worked to educate clergy and the public about faith and sexuality, offering strong religious and moral arguments in its public campaigns around family planning, gay and transgender inclusion, domestic violence, and more. And the National Council of Jewish Women was a strong defender of women’s reproductive rights and was a co-founder—with Catholics for Choice—of the Coalition for Liberty and Justice, a group that defends religious liberty and reproductive health.

The Faith and Reproductive Justice Leadership Institute at the Center for American Progress has strengthened and raised the visibility of faith voices for reproductive justice. From testifying before state legislators to writing, speaking, and collaborating with others, our leaders are providing an alternative narrative to reproductive rights that emphasizes justice, conscience, and faith.

These leaders will continue to work with other people of faith in the new year to ensure that reproductive justice victories are championed and that we continue to advocate for women’s reproductive health and justice in 2013 and beyond.

Eleni Towns is a Research Assistant with the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress. For more on this initiative, please see its project page.

 

Tags: ,

African-American Children and Families conference set

CEDAR FALLS, Iowa — The second annual Conference on African-American Children and Families is set for 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Feb. 22 in the Schindler Education Center on the University of Northern Iowa campus.

The conference is designed for educators, administrators, child-care providers, law enforcement, social workers, health professionals and business leaders.

Keynote speaker for the event is Marvin Lynn, associate dean in the College of Education and Human Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. Lynn will present “The Social and Political Context of Education for African American Students in the United States.”

A pre-conference will be held from 5 to 9 p.m. Feb. 21 in UNI’s Maucker Union Elm Room.

To register or for a complete list of speakers, check www.vpaf.uni.edu/aac.

 

Tags:

African-American Leaders Deliver Agenda For Obama’s Second Term

National Urban League President Marc Morial (R) speaks as Rev. Al Sharpton looks on after leaders of civic organizations met with President Barack Obama at the White House, Nov. 16, 2012. National Urban League President Marc Morial (R) speaks as Rev. Al Sharpton looks on after leaders of civic organizations met with President Barack Obama at the White House, Nov. 16, 2012.

Following a four-hour closed door meeting Monday, the leaders of four African-American advocacy groups emerged looking pleased to announce a collective wish list they plan to deliver to President Barack Obama for his second term.

The “black agenda,” as the groups have called their wish list on Twitter, starts with ensuring the fiscal cliff doesn’t disproportionately hurt black Americans. That’s something Marc Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League, has worried about before. But Morial also listed five new priorities that came out of what he called Monday’s “historic gathering.” Those include: working for parity for blacks in education, health care and the economy; reforming the criminal justice system; and protecting and defending voting rights.

The White House did not immediately respond to request for comment about whether the president would make these priorities a focus during his second term.

But according to Morial, the voting rights priority is key. “When our community was challenged by voter suppression…they reacted with power, with dignity and with force,” he said.

Despite allegations by liberal advocacy groups that voter suppression tactics by the right hindered minority voting, blacks represented 13 percent of the electorate in 2012, a percentage about equivalent with 2008.

But Al Sharpton, the founder and president of the National Action Network and a liberal commentator for MSNBC, warned Monday that “the voter suppression tactics we saw this year are still in front of us.”

Sharpton also compared the new black agenda with the Civil Rights March on Washington, a major demonstration by African-American civil rights groups in 1963 that led to two major pieces of legislation: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

“It is in that spirit a half a century later we say that we’ll work together, that we’ll come together, to try to set an agenda,” Sharpton said. While the new wish list is unlikely to lead to such historic legislation, unity by various African-American advocacy groups may prove important.

An October study from Washington University in St. Louis found that some black American groups, namely conservative and religious blacks, felt deeply disillusioned with the president. These groups said they felt less free when it came to political participation than they had under previous administrations, because of ideological differences they had with the president.

Morial acknowledged the importance of unity, though none of the four main advocacy groups involved in Monday’s talks are headed up by religious or conservative leaders. “Against the backdrop of… a great deal of hope and promise that we have in our president’s second term,” he said. “We felt it was important for us to come together.”

 

 
 

Tags: , , , , , ,

What Is at Stake for Communities of Color in the Fiscal Showdown Debate?

Nancy Pelosi, Sander Levin, Steve IsraelSOURCE: AP/J. Scott ApplewhiteHouse Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), flanked by Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI), left, and Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY), right, speaks to reporters just after meeting with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the fiscal showdown negotiations at the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, November 29, 2012.

As Congress continues to negotiate to resolve the fiscal showdown that threatens to unravel our fragile economic recovery, much is at stake for Americans of every race and income level—particularly those who are trying to regain their economic foothold after the Great Recession of 2007–2009.

Thanks to congressional Republicans holding the economy hostage during the debt ceiling debate in 2011, a package of automatic across-the-board spending cuts called sequestration is set to go into effect in early 2013. At the same time, the Bush tax cuts and a number of other tax breaks will expire, meaning that a massive fiscal cutback will occur if Congress and President Barack Obama are unable to reach an agreement to forestall the looming spending cuts and tax hikes. The president has proposed a balanced approach to resolve this crisis, asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share, but congressional Republicans are risking massive and harmful spending cuts and across-the-board tax increases in order to protect tax cuts for the richest 2 percent.

It is unconscionable to think that given the number of Americans who suffered the devastation of the Great Recession, combined with our long-term needs to prepare a workforce fit for a 21st century global economy, Republican members of Congress continue to threaten key educational and safety net programs for the sake of protecting the pocketbooks of millionaires and billionaires.

President Obama has been clear—he wants to extend the tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 per year and end it for those that make more than $250,000. By doing so we would prevent a tax hike for 98 percent of Americans while asking the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans to a pay a little more.

Additionally, by ending the tax cut for those making $250,000 or more, we would create significant revenue without threatening our economic recovery. The potential revenue—$850 billion over 10 years—would help reduce the deficit and would be a significant boost to financing programs that drive the economy.

If Republicans prevent a deal to protect the already well off, it would mean taking about $800 billion out of the economy next year alone. Such a severe shock could send the economy back into a recession, driving unemployment back up and erasing the gains families have made over the last four years. What’s more, the long-term impact of cuts to education, health, and training programs will be felt for generations to come, particularly in communities that are disproportionately younger, since less access to academic programs, fewer resources for financial aid, and diminished job-training opportunities will have a lasting negative impact on their economic success. This is particularly true for people of color who suffered first and worst during the Great Recession, are disproportionately younger than the rest of the population, and continue to struggle to regain their economic foothold.

Communities of color are paying close attention to the debate on the fiscal showdown. Latinos, African Americans, and Asian Americans—along with the rest of the American electorate that supported the president—identified jobs and the economy as the top issues of concern in this election. In re-electing President Obama, they resoundingly voted in support of the notion that our economy should work for everyone—not just for the wealthy few. Here is how the expiration of tax cuts and the potential spending cuts across the board would impact key programs that are essential for all Americans, including people of color.

Taxes

If the Bush tax cuts expire, it would result in the average household paying $2,000 to $3,000 more in taxes each year. Blacks and Latinos have a median household net worth of $4,995 and $7,424, respectively, compared to$110,729 for whites. Based on this and other economic indicators, it is plain to see that Latinos and African Americans cannot afford a tax increase.

Below are three tax credits set to expire at the end of year that are essential for people of color:

  • Child tax credit: The child tax credit is a tax reimbursement that households can claim for each offspring. Right now the credit is $1,000 per child, but if Congress fails to compromise, this credit will drop to $500. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in 2010 the child tax credit lifted 1.3 million children out of poverty. In 2011, 34 percent of Hispanic children and 39 percent of black children lived in poverty. Given these high numbers and the proven benefit of the child tax credit, Latinos and African Americans can ill afford to lose this credit that provides needed resources for their families.
  • Earned income tax credit: The earned income tax credit is a federal tax credit for low- and moderate-income working families and individuals—it is designed to encourage and reward work, as well as to offset federal payroll and income taxes. This credit is the largest cash or near cash assistance program targeted at low-income families and refunds an average of $2,240 per family.
  • American Opportunity Tax Credit: Set forth in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the American Opportunity Tax Credit gives working families and students a $2,500 per year tax credit for students attending college. This tax credit helps provide relief for those pursuing their first four years of college and affects 11 million families. More than 70 percent of black students receive need-based financial aid to attend college, compared with 40 percent of white students, meaning that black Americans are more likely to benefit from financial incentives to spur college attendance, making credits like this particularly crucial.

Unemployment benefits

The possibility of deep cuts to the unemployment provision is deeply troubling for communities of color because they are still facing many obstacles in regaining the job losses from the Great Recession. As of October 2012 the unemployment rate for Latinos is 10 percent, and a staggering 14.3 percent for African Americans. Although blacks and Latinos are less likely to receive unemployment benefits—23.8 percent and 29.2 percent, respectively, compared to 33.2 percent for whites, due to low levels of education, concentration in occupations or industries where workers are less likely to be covered, and short tenure on jobs—unemployment benefits remain a lifeline  for far too many low-income households.

According to the National Employment Law Project, an estimated 2 million people stand to lose their benefits in January if Congress doesn’t extend the deadline to file for extended benefits.

Federal nutrition programs

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children—a federal nutrition-assistance program for poor pregnant and breastfeeding mothers and their very young children—is among the programs that would face automatic cuts if an agreement is not reached. This program, which would be cut by $543 million, has had a significant impact on all communities, but particularly among Latinos, who make up a large share of the program participants. In 2008 more than 4 million Latino women and children received assistance from the program, representing 42.1 percent all women, infants, and children in the program, according to the National Council of La Raza. Nutrition-assistance programs are also crucial for African Americans, who make up about19.6 percent of WIC program participants.

longitudinal study of the program’s participants found that accessing services reduced acute hunger and household food insecurity among pregnant women and children.

Job-training programs

Job-training programs across the board will be deeply affected by the cuts triggered by sequestration. Among them, the Workforce Investment Act, Job Corps, and the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service will see their funding significantly cut.

According to Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis:

In terms of job-training programs, we are looking at a hit of about $500 million to our workforce system, and also the inability … of being able to reach 1.7 additional participants. And, of course, you and I know … in a time of high unemployment, that is not a good sign. With respect to veterans, which I know this subcommittee is very focused on as well, we are looking at a reduction of about $13 million overall in the efforts to try to find employment services and provide that for veterans.

The Workforce Investment Act state grants provide employment and training services to underemployed adults as well as youth who have dropped out of high school and want to go back to school or enter the labor market. According to a report by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), 413,500 fewer people would receive services across the country if the sequestered cuts would take effect. Job Corps is an education and training program that helps young people learn a career, earn a high school diploma or GED, and find and keep a good job. Similarly, more than 4,300 fewer youth would receive training from the program under the proposed cuts.

Unemployment rates among youth of color (ages 16 to 24) are staggering. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of July 2012, 28.6 percent of black youth and 18.5 percent of Hispanic youth were unemployed, compared to 14.9 percent of their white peers. The youth participants in these programs are the nation’s future workforce and it’s crucial that we invest in these growing communities now, instead of gutting the programs that are preparing them to be contributing members of the workforce.

The Veterans’ Employment and Training Service, or VETS, offers employment and training services to eligible veterans through funds allocated to state workforce agencies to assist veterans seeking employment within their state. According to a March 2012 Census report, the unemployment rate in 2011 for veterans who served on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces at any time since September 2001 was 12.1 percent. Yet, and most troubling, young male veterans (ages 18 to 24) who served during the Gulf War II era had an unemployment rate of 29.1 percent in 2011, higher than that of young male nonveterans. Under the sequestration cuts more than51,400 veterans would lose access to the program. According to the National Center for Veteran Analysis and Statistics, there are 2.5 million black veterans, more than 1.3 million Hispanic veterans, and 298,000 Asian veterans.

Cuts to vital job-training programs like the Workforce Investment Act, Job Corps, and VETS, coupled with thehigh rates of unemployment in communities of color, will have a damaging long-term effect in these communities.

Education programs

Based on information from the Congressional Budget Office, the National Education Association has calculated that 9.3 million students would be directly affected by almost $5 billion in sequestration cuts. The cuts include Title I funding aid, special education programs, Head Start, and financial aid programs for higher education, among many others.

Title I funding provides education funding to states and school districts with high concentrations of low-income and disadvantaged students. According to the National Association of Secondary School Principals, Title I funding would be cut by $1.2 billion and would affect almost 1.8 million students and eliminate 16,100 jobs. In addition, special education programs serving 476,000 students would be gutted by nearly $1 billion, and support for rural school districts with 437,000 students would also collapse.

If the sequestration cuts are allowed to take effect, the Department of Health and Human Services estimates that up to 100,000 low-income children will lose access to Head Start and Early Head Start Services. Head Start provides comprehensive education, health, nutrition, and parent-involvement services to low-income children and their families.

The sequestration cuts would also result in an approximate 8 percent cut in federal student aid, which would reduce financial aid for more than 2 million college students, slamming the door of opportunity shut for many. The federal Pell Grant program would be cut by $94 million, in part by reducing the maximum grant for the 2013-14 academic year from $5,635 to the current $5,550. Reducing federal student aid would have a disproportionate impact on students of color since they constitute more than half of all Pell Grant recipients.

All Americans should be deeply concerned about these educational cuts because these kinds of disinvestments ripple across generations and only add to the hurdles K-12 students and young people already face in completing a solid education and earning a college degree, all of which have implications for our future workforce and economic outlook.

Conclusion

Letting tax cuts that benefit only the richest 2 percent expire would save nearly $1 trillion in revenue over the next 10 years. By letting the tax cut expire for millionaires and billionaires, we would be simply asking that they pay their fair share of taxes since they have benefited disproportionately from the tax reductions enacted since 2001. Since 2004 millionaires have gained more than $1 million each on average from these tax cuts. We cannot afford to continue giving tax cuts to those who need them least.

What we need is a balanced approach of cuts and revenue, but when contemplating cuts we must focus on what is needed to protect the middle class and those aspiring to become part of it. We must also continue making needed investments for our collective economic future. Even more importantly, by ensuring that the safety net is not damaged further and that educational and training opportunities continue to be available to those who need them most, we’ll ensure that the ladder of opportunity and the American Dream remain strong for the next generation of Americans.

Vanessa Cárdenas is Director of Progress 2050 at the Center for American Progress.

 
 

Tags: , ,

The Top 10 Reasons Why People of Color Should Care About the Fiscal Showdown

Speaker of the House John BoehnerSOURCE: AP/J. Scott ApplewhiteHouse Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, November 29, 2012, after private talks with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner regarding the fiscal showdown.

Thanks to congressional Republicans holding the economy hostage during the debt ceiling debacle in the summer of 2011, a package of automatic, across-the-board spending cuts known as sequestration is set to go into effect on January 2, 2013. At the same time, the Bush-era tax cuts and a number of other tax breaks will expire, meaning that a massive fiscal retrenchment will occur unless Congress and President Barack Obama reach an agreement to forestall the spending cuts and tax hikes. The president has proposed a balanced approach to resolve this crisis, asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share, but congressional Republicans are again playing the hostage game, risking massive and harmful spending cuts and across-the-board tax increases in order to protect tax cuts for the rich.

Sequestration will impact all Americans, particularly communities of color. Many Americans are still recovering from the Great Recession of 2007–2009, and economically we are at a time when investment in growing communities is necessary and preserving middle-class tax cuts is crucial. The majority of Americans agree that higher taxes on the wealthy are necessary to pay for programs that benefit the most vulnerable Americans.

Our demographics are changing and communities of color are the fastest-growing group of Americans. It’s important that we invest now in these communities as they are our nation’s future workforce.

Below are the top 10 reasons why it’s important that communities of color pay attention to the fiscal showdown and the impact that it will have in these communities:

1. Deep cuts to the unemployment provision will disproportionately impact people of color. More than 2 million Americans could lose their unemployment benefits unless Congress reauthorizes federal emergency unemployment help before the end of the year. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of October 2012 the unemployment rate is steady at 7.9 percent. But people of color face higher levels of unemployment, with 10 percent of Latinos and a staggering 14.3 percent of blacks unemployed.

2. An average tax increase of $3,500 per household will adversely impact low-income and middle-class families of color. According to the Tax Policy Center, low-income families will be hit the hardest, with a couple making between $20,000 to $30,000 annually seeing a tax increase of $1,408. This tax hike will be particularly hard for the 16.7 percent of African Americans living in poverty and the 27.8 percent of Latinos who are near poor. Middle-class families of color will also experience a tax increase. The average tax increase for middle-class families is $2,000 each year. This is particularly devastating for the middle-income blacks and Latinos who are still recovering from the housing crisis.

3. Workforce-development programs that are vital to communities of color, like YouthBuild, face significant cuts. YouthBuild, a program connecting low-income youth to education and training, could be cut by about 8 percent. Coupled with previous cuts, the program could see about one-third of federal funding cut between fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2013. In 2010, 54 percent of YouthBuild participants were African American and 20 percent were Hispanic.

4. Federal budget cuts under sequestration would quickly mean cuts to federal, state, and local public-sector jobs, which disproportionately employ women and African Americans. In 2011 employed African Americans were 20 percent of the federal, state, and local public-sector workforce, and women were nearly 50 percent more likely to work in the public sector.

5. Early child care funding could be cut by more than $900 million, impacting the thousands of children of color who benefit from these programs. Such cuts will mean 96,000 fewer children in Head Start, a federal program that promotes the school readiness of children from low-income families from birth through 5 years old, and where 60 percent of program participants are children of color.

6. Programs that directly help the most vulnerable families and children are on the chopping block in the fiscal showdown negotiations. Child nutrition programs such as the Women, Infants, and Children Supplemental Nutrition Program, commonly known as WIC, serves as a supplemental food and nutrition program for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and postpartum women and for children under age 5. The program could be cut by $543 million—a devastating loss to the more than 450,000 people of color who utilize its services.

7. Education funding cuts will hurt the 66 percent of students who borrow to pay for college. Students of color, who have higher rates of borrowing, would be particularly impacted. Pell Grants, which provide need-based grants to low-income students to offset the cost of college, face severe cuts. In 2011 the Pell Grant program provided financial aid to more than 9 million students, many of whom are students of color. The lack of access to financial aid for people of color will further exacerbate the student debt rates in these communities. From 2007 through 2008, 81 percent of African Americans and 67 percent of Latinos with a bachelor’s degree graduated with student debt, compared to 64 percent of their white peers. Cutting access to these vital financial aid programs will curtail the higher education aspirations of tens of thousands of students of color.

8. Cuts to vital health services such as Medicaid will hurt the 60 million people who depend on it for health insurance coverage. People of color will be hit particularly hard by cuts to Medicaid, with Latinos accounting for approximately 29 percent of program enrollees and African Americans accounting for 20 percent. In 2010, 57 percent of people on Medicaid were people of color.

9. Since 2010, funding for housing has been cut by $2.5 billion, meaning any additional cuts would significantly hurt low-income families and communities. Many housing programs, such as Section 8 Housing Assistance, provide vouchers to low-income families for affordable housing in the private market. In 2011 the program aided more than 2 million low-income families across the country. Data from 2008 indicated that 44 percent and 23 percent of public housing recipients are African American and Hispanic, respectively.

10. As we move into the season of colder weather, programs such as the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, which helps bring down the cost of heating for low-income households, are crucial. The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helped about 23 millionlow-income people pay for winter heating bills, is in jeopardy of being cut in FY 2011. Low-income communities, who disproportionately tend to be people of color, depend on such programs to make ends meet during these tough economic times.

In order to avoid significant damage to the U.S. economy and particularly to communities of color across the country, President Obama and Congress must come to a budget agreement and protect the interests of all Americans.

Sophia Kerby is the Special Assistant for Progress 2050 at the Center for American Progress. 

 
 

Tags:

Will Obama Push a ‘Black Agenda’ Now?

BY KELI GOFF, THE ROOT

(The Root) — President Barack Obama has been a target of endless criticism since taking office, most notably from conservative corners, as well as from some blatant racists. But despite the nearly universal support he enjoyed among African Americans in both the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, some of his most impassioned critics have come from within the black community, and some of their most passionate criticism has focused on the concern that the first black president has not focused on addressing issues of particular importance to the black community or on successfully tackling a black agenda. The Congressional Black Caucus was especially critical of the Obama administration’s silence on black unemployment, for instance.

The question now emerging since the president’s decisive re-election is whether we’ll see greater focus on issues of particular importance to the black community in the second Obama term, and if so, which issues.

Frustration in Some Corners

After the 2012 election Yvette Carnell wrote in the Black Agenda Report, “Now we are all left hoping and wishing that, for the sake of his legacy, President Obama doesn’t forget about us during his second term. The smart thing to do would’ve been to secure something, such as legislation to reduce black unemployment or mass incarceration, before the election, but we weren’t smart. We were tribal.”

In a piece for the L.A. Progressive titled “Black America Calling for a ‘Black Agenda,’ ” Anthony Asadullah Samad wrote, “Of course, we know he’s President of all the people. We got that, but what is the real significance of laying claim to the first African American president if a core constituency cannot ask for anything?”

He then continued, “What are ‘black issues’? Historically, they are jobs, education, health care, prison re-entry and economic development of deprived communities — all issues listed in Smiley’s covenant.” Samad was referring to PBS host Tavis Smiley, whose relentless criticism of the president’s leadership on poverty and issues important to the black community has made him a target of criticism.

For instance, during one of his shows Smiley pointedly challenged Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee on whether President Obama would ever get away with exhorting other communities to “stop complaining, stop grumbling, stop crying,” as he said to the Congressional Black Caucus during a speech last year. “Would the president ever say to an audience of our Jewish brothers and sisters, concerned about the crisis in the Middle East, ‘stop complaining, stop grumbling, stop crying’?” Smiley posed to Jackson Lee. “[Would he say] to our Hispanic brothers and sisters on immigration and their concerns, ‘stop grumbling, stop complaining, stop crying’? Did he say to gays and lesbians, ‘stop grumbling, stop complaining, stop crying’? How does he get away with saying this to black folk when he would never, ever form his lips to say that to any other constituency?”

Hopefulness in Other Quarters

Among those who have disagreed with Smiley’s criticisms of the president is civil rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton. The host of MSNBC’s PoliticsNation has previously criticized those who have condemned President Obama’s commitment to issues central to black Americans, while celebrating white presidents who have done less.

In a BET town hall debate Sharpton noted that many black Americans referred to Bill Clinton as “the first black president” while some of his policies were harmful to the black community, yet these same black Americans criticize President Obama with abandon. In an emailed statement to The Root, Sharpton cited unemployment among people of color, the education achievement gap between black and white students, racial profiling and judicial inequities as issues of hyper-importance to black Americans that he hopes will make even greater progress in a second Obama term.

“President Obama has provided 72 straight months of increased [numbers of] private sector jobs,” Sharpton wrote, “and now the Obama administration must fight the Republicans to increase public sector jobs, where blacks and Latinos work disproportionately. The administration must also force private companies to hire more blacks and Latinos.” He also cited the Trayvon Martin tragedy as a reminder of why the president must make equal protection under the law and inequity in the criminal justice system for black Americans an ongoing priority.

Progressive radio host Mark Thompson of SIRIUS XM’s “Make It Plain” show is among those who expect to see more vocal commitment from President Obama for a black agenda in a second term. Thompson, who is African American, recently moderated the State of the Black World Conference town hall at Howard University, which focused specifically on the presidential election’s impact on black America.

Speaking to The Root, Thompson said, “The Obama administration, in its second term, has a duty to specifically address the Democratic Party’s most loyal constituency, the African-American base.” When asked if some black criticism of the president regarding a so-called black agenda has been unfair, Thompson replied, “Some have gone too far, and the criticism has gone from political to personal. But we need to solve the riddle of how African Americans support Democrats and not have Democrats take us for granted, knowing we have nowhere else to go.”

Thompson argued that vocal black critics of the president seem to have forgotten that he is not treating black Americans any worse than white Democrats before him. But when asked if it is fair for black Americans to expect more of President Obama because he is black, Thompson replied yes.

Imagining the Possibilities

Thompson’s vision is thus: “Because he’s an extraordinary transformative figure, President Obama should be able to unapologetically address the specific concerns of his own community and set a precedent for African Americans no longer being taken for granted by Democratic party politicians.” Elaborating on the transformative impact the president could have were he to make the black community a focal point of his second term, Thompson pointed out that black civil rights groups and a number of black Americans followed President Obama’s lead on same-sex marriage once he specifically affirmed his support for it.

This is an example of the “transformative influence of this president,” Thompson added. “Imagine if he used it directly for our community.”

Thompson emphasized the word “directly,” explaining that while the administration has implemented policies that have helped African Americans, the black community has not received nearly as much as direct acknowledgment as other communities comprising the Democratic base, such as Latinos and the LGBT community. Though Obama is not the first Democratic president to do this, he said, Thompson is hopeful that the precedent will end should Obama embrace black causes more directly in a second term.

One challenge the president faces was mentioned by Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, in a September 2012 interview with The Root. “I think this administration feels far more comfortable in dealing with LGBT or Latino issues because they will never be accused of embracing those issues more than others of the American public. But the moment the president says ‘black,’ they will begin to call him H. Rapp Brown and Eldridge Cleaver and [say], ‘he’s a member of the Black Panther Party,’ ” observed Cleaver. “The next African-American president will not be encumbered with that kind of weight on his or her shoulders.”

Mark Thompson shared an anecdote to illustrate the paralyzing impact this kind of thinking among black Americans who break barriers can have on the community. He recalled that John Thompson, the first black coach to lead a major college team to a national basketball championship, told him that while he worked hard to increase the diversity of referees, he worried that black referees would feel pressured to prove they were not biased in his favor and as a result his team may face unfair calls.

Mark Thompson speculated that whether it’s Obama or a black manager in the workplace, this fear ends up clouding what African Americans expect of each other. Sometimes the fear is founded. Sometimes it is not.

In an interview with The Root, Elinor Tatum, publisher and editor-in-chief of the Amsterdam News, the oldest black newspaper in New York, expressed hope that she will see the president press more of a black agenda in this term than he did in the last. “I really don’t believe there was a black agenda in the first term,” she said. “There was an agenda focused on poor people but not specific to black people, although [the policies] impacted black people in poor communities.”

Tatum cited education, jobs and addressing health care disparities beyond the scope of Obamacare as parts of the black agenda she would like to see addressed, now that Obama has secured another four years. “What I want to see in a second term,” she said, “is the president taking hold of who he is and translating that into action for people of color in this country. He has more of a luxury of being a black president now than he did in the first term. So now I want to see him be more of a black president than a president who happens to be black.”

 
2 Comments

Posted by on November 27, 2012 in African American Politics

 

Tags: ,

5 Fast Facts About 2012 Asian American Voters

Hanabusa and Gabbard

SOURCE: AP/Marco Garcia

Democrat Colleen Hanabusa, right, congratulates candidate Tulsi Gabbard after both women won their Hawaii Congressional district seats at the Japanese Cultural Center in Honolulu, Tuesday, November 6, 2012. Gabbard, 31, is the first Hindu to win an election for Congress, where she will also be the first member born in the U.S. territory of American Samoa.

It’s been three weeks since this year’s presidential election, and while most pundits are still talking about the fact that President Barack Obama overwhelmingly won the Latino vote, another big story from Election Day is the Asian American community’s overwhelming support for the president. Asian Americans delivered 73 percentof their votes to re-elect President Obama—the highest-ever percentage for any single candidate. Only 26 percent of Asian American voters indicated that they voted for Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. As part of the “Obama Coalition,” Asian Americans—together with African Americans, Latinos, young people, single women, the highly educated, and the middle class—secured a Democratic victory.

Here are five fast facts about Asian Americans in this election:

1. Asian Americans are the fastest-growing electorate in the United States. Asian Americans are a diverse and multiethnic minority group, and a fast-growing one at that. While they comprised only 3 percent of U.S. voters in 2012, that number increased 128 percent from 1996 to 2008. Composed of many distinct ethnicities, languages, and countries of origin, the plurality of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders makes up about 4.8 percent of the U.S. population and much more than that in geographic areas such as the coasts, major cities, and Hawaii.

2. Asian Americans’ support for President Obama doesn’t reflect their party affiliation. Although Asian Americans overwhelmingly voted for the president, 49 percent of those polled identified as Democrats, 34 percent identified as Republican, and 17 percent identified as independent.

3. By a 47 percent to 26 percent margin, Asian American voters believed that President Obama cared about their community and its issues. Conversely, only 14 percent felt that Gov. Romney cared about the Asian American community, while 45 percent felt that he did not.

4. Like most voters, 58 percent of Asian Americans cited the economy as their top issue in the election.This is no surprise since in 2010 Asian Americans had the highest share of long-term unemployment. Unemployment is defined as being out of a job for 27 weeks or more. Health care and education were the next most important issues for the community. Still, Asian American voters supported immigration reform (with a path to citizenship) 57 percent to 26 percent, and not surprisingly supported the candidate—President Obama—thatpledged his commitment to passing comprehensive immigration reform.

5. It was a night for firsts in the Asian American electorate:

The 2012 election results illustrate that the diverse Asian American voting bloc is increasingly raising a strong and unified voice. In addition to re-electing the president, Asian Americans supported Democratic candidates 73 percent to 27 percent in congressional races, and every Asian American candidate elected to federal office in this election was a Democrat. As the Asian American community continues to grow in size, its voters will continue to have an increasing impact on elections. Both parties would be wise to take into account their perspectives and their voices.

Anh Phan is the Anti-Hate Table Manager at the Center for American Progress.

 
 

Tags:

The 93 Percent: Will Black Obama Supporters Demand A Black Agenda?

by Associated Press

Washington (AP) — When black voters gave President Barack Obama 93 percent support on Election Day in defiance of predictions that they might sit it out this year, black leaders breathed a collective sigh of relief.

That encouraged those leaders to try to leverage more attention from both Obama and Congress. Although they waver over how much to demand from the president – particularly in light of defeated GOP challenger Mitt Romney’s assertion that Obama gave “gifts” to minorities in exchange for their votes – they are delivering postelection wish lists to the president anyway.

“I think the president heard us loud and clear. The collective message was, `Let’s build on where we already are,’” the Rev. Al Sharpton told reporters after a White House meeting last week with a collection of advocates representing largely Democratic constituencies.

Specifically, Sharpton said, that means keeping the brunt of the looming “fiscal cliff” of tax increases and spending cuts off the backs of the middle and working class.

NAACP President Benjamin Jealous aimed that same message at Congress, especially on where tax relief is extended.

“We need Republicans to think hard and to pull back from the cliff 98 percent of our families, who make up the bulk of this nation, from seeing our taxes being raised,” Jealous said.

Blacks made up 13 percent of the electorate this year, about the same as 2008, while participation among whites shrank slightly to 72 percent and Hispanics increased to 10 percent, national exit polls showed. Black leaders point to that minority participation as they sharpen their calls for initiatives to address black unemployment, which was 12.7 percent when Obama took office, peaked at 16.5 percent roughly a year later, and stood at 14.3 percent in October. The overall unemployment rate is 7.9 percent.

National Urban League President Marc Morial acknowledged in an interview that “we sweated turnout all the way to the end,” because the country’s underlying economic conditions made it tougher to mobilize black voters. Within days of the election, Morial sent to Obama, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., an “urgent petition” asking that Obama’s second term focus on economic opportunity and income inequality.

A jobs program should emphasize infrastructure and public works, broadband technology and energy “with a special focus on those communities where unemployment is and remains stubbornly and persistently high,” Morial’s letter said.

“We who represent the nation’s urban communities will demand a seat at the table in these discussions,” he wrote.

African-American voter samples in national exit polls are not useful for providing turnout measurements. Census surveys and other analyses eventually will provide turnout numbers for specific racial groups. But exit polls can be used to examine different groups as shares of the overall vote. And there, experts say, is where the evidence can be found of how much black voters delivered for Obama.

Nationally, Obama’s share of the black vote was down slightly from four years ago. But in some key states, turnout was higher and had an impact, said David Bositis, an expert on black politics and voting at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

Blacks made up 15 percent of the electorate in Ohio, up from 11 percent in 2008. And 97 percent of those votes went for Obama, leading Bositis to say Obama’s margin of victory in the state came from black voters.

In Michigan, the black share of the vote grew from 12 percent in 2008 to 16 percent in 2012, according to exit polls.

“Michigan was one of the states the two parties jostled around, and eventually Republicans decided they were not going to win, and one of the reasons was the big increase in the black vote,” Bositis said.

In Missouri, a state Obama lost in both elections, the black vote went from 13 percent to 16 percent of all voters.

Bositis said the black share of the vote remained roughly the same at 23 percent in North Carolina, which Obama narrowly won in 2008 but lost in 2012, and 13 percent in Florida, which Obama won both times. In Virginia, which Obama won in both elections, black voters were 20 percent of all voters, he said.

Women and people from ages 18 to 29 had the strongest participation levels in the black community.

In 2008, black women had the highest turnout rate, 69 percent, of all groups. Their 2008 record created a sense of obligation among some black female leaders to take an active role against new state voting laws they said threatened to curb black voter participation. Black women made up 60 percent of the black vote this year and voted 95 percent for Obama.

The enthusiasm of black women was demonstrated in Florida when more than 250 churches marched their congregations to the polls as part of the “Souls To the Polls” early voting campaign, said Melanie Campbell, president and CEO of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation. A large percentage of the marchers were women, Campbell said.

“Countless women stood in line for hours to vote early so they could volunteer to work at the polls to help in the fight against voter suppression,” Campbell said.

Black voters ages 18-29 made up 26 percent of the black vote nationally, a turnout close to what it was in 2008, according to the national exit poll. They voted 91 percent for Obama.

Republicans had reached out to black voters in 2004 and saw their share of the black vote increase in that election, Bositis said. But he said that in 2012, the outreach was nonexistent.

Michael Steele, former Republican National Committee chairman, said the GOP had an opportunity this election to connect with black voters on unemployment, health disparities, incarceration and other issues.

“How the heck do you win if you don’t engage in the conversation?” Steele said.

 
 

Tags:

5 Facts About New L.A. County District Attorney Jackie Lacey

Jackie Lacey made history on Election Day 2012 after becoming L.A.’s first female and first black district attorney.

 

Jackie Lacey made history on Nov. 6, 2012, when she became the first African American and first woman to be elected Los Angeles County district attorney. The Democrat defeated Republican rival Alan Jackson by a margin of 55 percent to 45 percent. “I think the significance [of my election] is that it may inspire other women and certainly African Americans and other minorities to seek a career in law enforcement,” Lacey told the Los Angeles Times. She will officially enter the history books on Dec. 3, 2012, when she’s sworn in as D.A. The following facts about her life and career detail how Lacey made history on Election Day.

Lacey, 55 when elected D.A., grew up in Los Angeles’ Crenshaw District. She’s a graduate of Dorsey High School and the University of California, Irvine. She’s the first member of her family to graduate from college. Given her humble beginnings, Chris Strudwick Turner of the Urban League, said that her election revealed that “you don’t have to come from wealth or privilege to begin with, that you can work your way through.”

Lacey sailed to victory by drawing on her experience as a prosecutor as well as her dozen years of management experience in the D.A.’s office. Lacey prosecuted L.A. County’s first race-based hate crime, a case in which three gang-affiliated white supremacists beat an elderly black man to death. Upon her election to D.A., Lacey had served in the capacity of chief deputy district attorney.

The position of district attorney is nonpartisan. Democrat Lacey gained credibility among voters by securing the endorsement of her supervisor, three-term Republican D.A. Steve Cooley. “She…is probably the most qualified person to be district attorney in recent history,” Cooley said of Lacey. Cooley lost his race for California attorney general in 2010 to Kamala Harris, the first woman of black and South Asian descent to serve in the role. Lacey has been compared to Harris, who served as district attorney of San Francisco before becoming A.G.

As D.A., Lacey plans to focus on identity theft, environmental crimes, public corruption prosecutions and alternative sentencing programs, which could reduce overcrowding in county jails.

Lacey is married to husband, David, an investigative auditor in the L.A. County District Attorney’s Office. They have two grown children.

 
 

Tags: ,

National Gender Gap in 2012 Tied to Safety Net

By Samantha Kimmey

WeNews correspondent

Friday, November 9, 2012

Many pro-choice women won their Senate races Tuesday and pro-choice PACs say women punished anti-choice rhetoric. A leading gender-gap analyst says exit polling data suggests it’s still about the role of government.

Lady Gaga performs in Vancouver, Canada
A young woman turns in her ballot on Election Day 2012

 

Credit: Jason Pramas for Open Media Boston, under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0).

(WOMENSENEWS)–The failed U.S. Senate candidacies of Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock and Missouri Rep. Todd Akin are widely seen as payback for the GOP-led “war on women.”

Both politicians became notorious for comments about rape and pregnancy that turned them into symbols of an extremist anti-choice agenda that in the past year began extending to the formerly safe subject of birth control.

“I think that directly affected their candidacies,” said Susan Carroll, senior scholar at the Center for American Women in Politics at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J.

In Indiana, Mourdock won only 42 percent of female voters, a large gap from Mitt Romney at the top of the ticket, who won 52 percent of women in the state, reported the Christian Science Monitor. That data suggested that some Republican voters split their ticket to lodge a protest.

In Missouri, the percentage of women voting for incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill, Akin’s opponent, increased on Tuesday compared to 2006, reported the Associated Press. Younger women and African American women supported McCaskill in large numbers.

But while abortion, contraception, pay equity and even Romney’s debate-night reference to “binders full of women” were significant in swaying female voters, Carroll said those issues do not form the primary national basis of the gender gap.

The real basis, she said, was differing outlooks between men and women on the role of government, with women more inclined to support social safety nets.

On Election Day, CNN exit polling found 55 percent of women and 45 percent of men voted for Obama, producing a 10-point gender gap; the second-largest ever, according to Carroll.

Yet in 2008, Obama won 56 percent of the women’s vote and 49 percent of the men’s vote, meaning that although the gap widened this year, Obama’s share of women essentially remained stable and he slipped among men.

Carroll said that data might suggest the women’s vote was unchanged this year. But she also noted that one could conclude Romney’s economic arguments swayed men, while “women weren’t buying into it.”

More Women in Congress

The election will bolster women’s numbers in Congress.

In January, the Senate will move from 17 to 20 women, as five new women go to D.C. while two–longtime Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Kay Bailey Hutchison in Texas–retire.

Five Democratic women and one Republican woman–incumbent McCaskill and first-timers Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Baldwin, Mazie Hirono, Heidi Heitkamp and Deb Fischer–won their races.

In the House, there will be at least 77 women in 2013, up from 73, giving them 17.7 percent representation in the lower chamber.

While some women’s rights activists are celebrating the gains, Siobhan “Sam” Bennett, president and CEO of the Washington-based Women’s Campaign Fund, which supports pro-choice female candidates, curbed her enthusiasm, calling it “pathetic to be excited about 17 to 18 percent.”

After the “year of woman” in 1992, Bennett said it was widely assumed that the problem of too few women would “organically fix itself.” Since that didn’t happen, she stressed that it remained incumbent upon the women who won to encourage far more women to run for office.

“Research shows that you need to have at least 30 percent of women in the room in order for them to be able to collectively make a difference,” she said.

Pro-choice activists could also take satisfaction in the outcome of some races for the U.S. House of Representatives.

In New York, longtime anti-abortion rights activist Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle lost to Dan Maffei.

In Illinois, Rep. Joe Walsh–who said during his campaign that he opposed abortion even in the case of the mother’s life because “you can’t find once instance” when that happens – lost to military veteran Tammy Duckworth.

The Women’s Campaign Fund’s Bennett said that anti-choice rhetoric has been growing since Ronald Reagan’s presidency, “which made legislators feel pretty safe coming out in the way they did in this election cycle.” Bennett expects the fallout of the elections to curb anti-choice rhetoric. Whether the GOP will back off anti-choice legislation at the state and federal level is another matter, she says, that “remains to be seen.”

‘Thrilled About Election’

“MomsRising was thrilled about the election,” said Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, president of MomsRising, a nonprofit advocacy group focusing on issues like paid sick leave, parental leave and health care. “Our issues — health care, access to health care, access to reproductive health care — were heard. Fifty-six percent of voting moms cast ballot for Obama,” she said, citing Fox News exit polls.

“I think that this election cycle, more than any I’ve seen in my 20-plus years in politics, truly defined how extreme the anti-choice side has become,” said Beth Shipp, political director of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Women “rejected Republican backwards looking agenda,” said Jess McIntosh, spokesperson for EMILY’s List, the Washington PAC that works to elect pro-choice Democratic women.

But those groups didn’t just rely on the zeitgeist during the campaign; they also spent plenty of money for each of their victories.

“We had our largest independent expenditures in organizational history,” McIntosh said.

Independent expenditures rose significantly due to the impact of super PACs. EMILY’s List super PAC arm, Women VOTE! spent over $7 million.

The PAC itself spent over $30 million this election cycle–more than the roughly $27 million it spent in 2010 but less than the $35 million spent in 2008.

NARAL Pro-Choice America’s independent expenditure arm spent $1.5 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, compared to $525,000 in 2010. The organization told Women’s eNews that it spent about $3.3 million in all.

The group also identified potential female pro-choice Obama “defectors,” or those who voted Obama in 2008 but were no longer strong supporters, in 25 battleground counties. The organization then worked to persuade these women to vote for the president through a mixture of phone and email outreach, online advertising and cable advertising.

Married Prefer Romney

Broken down by marital status, a small national majority–53 percent — of married women favored Romney, while 67 percent of non-married women favored Obama, according to Washington Post exit polling.

Non-married women came out this election in larger numbers; 23 percent in 2012 compared to 20 percent in 2008.

Democrats picked up about seven House seats –far below the 25 they needed to gain a majority, reportedThe Hill, meaning that the Republican Party maintains control of the House.

NARAL Pro-Choice America’s Shipp said of the House elections and pro-choice candidates, “We knew it was not going to be a watershed election,” but that gains were made, arguing, “We did make some significant gains with pro-choice candidates.”

In fact, some of them defeated pro-choice Republicans on Tuesday. Moderate Rep. Judy Biggert, representing Chicago’s southwest suburbs, lost after serving in the House since 1999 to NARAL-endorsed Bill Foster. In New Hampshire, Ann McLane Kuster beat Rep. Charlie Bass–a rematch from 2010, when Kuster lost.

“We are devastated at the loss of Scott Brown in the Senate and our good friends Judy Biggert and Mary Bono, Charles Bass and Robert Dold and Nan Hayworth . . . they were all stalwarts for our cause,” Ann Stone, founder and chair of Republicans for Choice, said in an email interview.

Stone added that, “Several of these pro-choice warriors were wrongly portrayed as not being pro-choice or not pro-choice enough . . . that is disgraceful . . . For them to stand up for this principle in a party which is hostile to them takes a hell of a lot more courage than a Democrat doing so in their party.”

Samantha Kimmey is a writer focusing on women and politics this election season.

 

 

 
 

Tags: , ,

For many blacks, Obama’s reelection cements his legacy

By  and DeNeen Brown, Wednesday, November 7

 

President Obama’s reelection — in a ferocious campaign dotted by charges of racial anger and minority-voter suppression — has provided what many blacks say will surely deepen his legacy: irrefutable evidence that his presidency is hardly a historical fluke as he has now won two national campaigns with overwhelming white support.

Obama, the nation’s first black president, was already soaked in history, a figure seen in the aftermath of his 2008 victory as the culmination of a decades-long civil rights crusade that suffered the assassination of beloved figures who fought and marched for the right to vote and freely pursue the American dream.

But Obama’s first term as president also saw him pelted with racially charged denunciations — some from politicians — that reopened festering wounds and even fears in the African American community for his safety. At times it felt as if the W.E.B. Du Bois prophecy — the problem of the 20th century would be the color line, he famously opined — had leapt right into the 21st century.

“In many ways,” said Lonnie G. Bunch III, founding director of the National Museum of African American History and Culture, “Obama’s reelection can be seen as resilience on the part of the African American community.”

But Bunch admitted that he felt, as did many blacks in the waning weeks of the campaign, that Obama — despite accomplishments in the war on al-Qaeda, a strengthening economy and passage of a universal-health-care law — had been mercilessly castigated.

“You want to hope it’s a smaller minority with that real racial hatred,” he said. “You see the vitriolic comments, and you realize the first election of Obama didn’t change the pain and hatred. In some ways that election magnified some of it.”

He added: “It is not a post-racial world, but a world that would make us believe in the possibility of bringing people together.”

Throughout the important swing state of Ohio, black ministers had rallied their flocks Sunday from pulpits, linking the president’s name with biblical figures who had fought unflinchingly against long, hard odds. Then those ministers led their flocks to waiting buses, which took them to early-voting sites.

Mayor Michael V. Coleman of Columbus, Ohio — one of the first big-city mayors to support Obama’s daring 2008 campaign — said the reelection was crucial for the psyche of black America. “I think, in some ways, it was more important than the first election,” he said. “There may be some in the country who might have said the first race he won was because of timing — that Obama was in the right place and the country was in such a bad place after Bush. So if he had lost, some would just say the first time was a mirage.”

Coleman, echoing the sentiments of many blacks, said he was stung by the racially tinged attacks against the president during the campaign. On the eve of the election, Coleman presided over a voter rally at the King Arts Complex in Columbus. “Someone there said, ‘I am tired of them disrespecting my president!’ The roof almost came down.”

Coleman — the first black elected mayor in the Ohio capital — also sensed a new start for the nation with the Obama win. “I think this represents the beginning of a new era in America,” he said. “It will be focused on merit, truth-telling and having a moral center. All those were things that Mitt Romney never quite got.”

At Obama’s inauguration, Elizabeth Alexander recited the poem “Praise Song for the Day,” which she had written especially for the occasion. She was keenly aware of the tenseness of the presidential campaign. “In a funny way, this election is even more powerful than the first one,” said Alexander, chairman of the Department of African American Studies at Yale University. “It proves again that the country cannot only elect a black man — but reelect the best person for the job.”

Alexander said she thinks that a second Obama term will provide the president with more flexibility. “We will all be wondering: Will the obstruction he faced be different?”

Obama’s victory meant a great deal to veterans of the civil rights movement. “I am completely exhilarated,” said Margaret Burnham, a law professor at Northeastern University. “This victory gives us an opportunity to fulfill the promises of democracy all across the country. It will be a more inclusive country. We have a president who has made it clear he’s on the side of working people.”

Saying she remembers the long hot days of working for civil rights in Mississippi, Burnham said the Obama victory was special, as it was in 2008.

“People saw through all the money the Republicans spent,” she said. “It was a party that didn’t sound like America. This is such a compelling and dramatic moment for people all over.”

There was jubilation on the streets of the District with Obama’s reelection. Janice Brown, 30, a staffing consultant who lives in Suitland, stood in a corner of Busboys and Poets on 14th Street NW in a teal sweater, excited and relieved. “It’s awesome for America. Not only is he a great leader, but he is inspiring. His impact is more than on politics — it’s on the social fabric.”

 
 

Tags:

Obama’s re-election celebrated around world

Associated Press/Bullit Marquez – Muslim students pose before a throng of photographers shortly after “voting” in the mock U.S. election at a shopping mall at suburban Quezon city, northeast of Manila, Philippines Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2012. Filipinos participated in a mock U.S. elections between President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney which was organized by the U.S. Embassy in Manila. (AP Photo/Bullit Marquez)

by Gregory Katz and Margie Mason, Associated Press

London (AP) — From his old school in Indonesia to a Japanese beach town that happens to share his name, many around the world cheered President Barack Obama’s re-election Wednesday while others said stubborn conflicts and deepening economic and environmental woes will not be helped by his success.

Perhaps nowhere was the joy so simply expressed as at Jakarta’s Menteng 01 Elementary School, where a statue of the young Obama stands outside the school in tribute to its most famous alumni.

Jubiliant students happily marched with a poster of the president from one classroom to another after hearing that he had won a second term: “Obama wins … Obama wins again,” they shouted. “I want to be like him, the president,” said student Alexander Ananta.

The reaction elsewhere was much more reflective. The second Obama administration faces a troubling crisis in Syria, deepening tensions with Israel over how to cope with Iran’s nuclear program, a difficult military pullback from Afghanistan, and daunting economic challenges as Pacific power rises.

Mohammad Qassim, a carpet seller in the Afghan capital Kabul, said Obama’s first four years saw a substantial worsening of the bloodshed there.

“Obama hasn’t done anything good for Afghanistan,” he said. “He didn’t bring pressure on Pakistan. The centers of terrorists are still active across the border. He must make sure that fighting ends before the troops leave in 2014.”

Mohammad Wali, a paramilitary policeman, was more blunt: “We don’t care if he won or not,” he said.

Governments and regions pleased with the direction of recent U.S. policy were reassured by the clear election results, but those in conflict zones — or those wanting more U.S. leadership on issues like global warming — worry that more of the same may not be enough.

European leaders were generally happy to see Obama victorious, even though some complain that Europe is no longer considered a top priority by a U.S. leaders seen by many as the first “Pacific president” who sees Asia, with the rising economic superpower China in the lead, as more of a strategic focus.

Christian Lammert, a U.S. expert in the political science department at Berlin’s Free University, said Europe must move beyond its economic crisis to develop a stronger foreign policy stance if it is to have more impact with the Americans.

“Europe must make an effort to regain the Americans’ attention,” he said. “The Pacific region has the new markets, not least China, America’s biggest creditor. Europe will only be perceived as a strong player if it acts.”

He said the diverse views of European leaders have not strengthened its standing with Obama.

“Europe is still extremely important as a market and an economic player, but it lacks a political voice,” he said. “From an American point of view, the world’s most pressing problems are now somewhere else. Europe is a partner who does not cause problems, but who doesn’t help much either.”

Though Iranian media have long said the country saw little difference between Obama and Romney on tensions over Tehran’s nuclear program, that did not stop the semiofficial Fars news agency for rolling out the vivid headline, “Republican’s elephant crushed by Democrat’s donkey.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has had a strained relationship with the American president over his policies on Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, congratulated the president in a text message to reporters. “I will continue to work with President Obama to preserve the strategic interests of Israel’s citizens,” he said.

The Western-backed Palestinian Authority has been disappointed that Obama did not pressure Israel to make greater efforts to make peace with the Palestinians, including a freeze on all settlement construction. In the absence of negotiations, senior Palestinian official Saeb Erekat urged the U.S. president to reverse course and support Palestinian efforts to seek U.N. General Assembly recognition of an independent state of Palestine.

“We have decided to take our cause to the United Nations this month, and we hope that Obama will stand by us,” Erekat told Wafa, the official Palestinian news agency.

In China, Obama’s re-election was good news for people concerned about Romney’s vow to label China a currency manipulator if elected. Some feared that would ignite a trade war between the world’s two biggest economies.

“His re-election is in line with what the Chinese people want,” said Hong Zihan, a graduate student who monitored the results at a U.S. Embassy event in Beijing.

In Russia, Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, said Obama’s second term should not bring any substantial change to Russian-American relations. He said he doesn’t expect Washington to reverse a plan to roll out a missile defense system in Europe, which has irritated Moscow for years.

“I don’t expect any breakthroughs,” he said. “That’s just not possible.”

In Myanmar, which is pushing political reforms forward after five decades of military rule kept it isolated from much of the rest of the world, some said they were relieved Obama was re-elected because he chosen to engage rather than sanction their country.

“It is good that President Obama is re-elected. President Obama is very flexible and international relations have improved during his term,” said Thit Oo, a 42-year-old car mechanic.

A spokesman for the main Syrian opposition bloc, the Syrian National Council, expressed hope that the election victory would prompt Obama to do more to support those trying to oust Syrian President Bashar Assad.

“We hope this victory for President Obama will make him free more to make the right decision to help freedom and dignity in Syria and all over the world,” SNC spokesman George Sabra said on the sidelines of an opposition conference on the Qatari capital of Doha.

Sabra renewed the opposition’s appeal to the international community to supply rebel fighters with weapons, but the Obama administration and its Western allies have been cool to opposition rebels’ demands for weapons such as anti-aircraft missiles, out of concern that they could fall into the wrong hands.

____

Mason reported from Jakarta, Indonesia.

Associated Press writers Jim Gomez in Manila, Philippines, Didi Tang in Beijing, Yuri Kageyama in Tokyo, Amy Teibel in Jerusalem, Karin Laub in Doha, Qatar, Niniek Karmini in Jakarta, Indonesia in Jakarta, Indonesia, Heidi Vogt in Kabul, Afghanistan, Juergen Baetz in Berlin, Nataliya Vasilyeva in Moscow, and Aye Aye Win in Yangon, Myanmar, contributed to this report.

 
 

Tags:

Obama victory spells trouble for Israel’s Netanyahu

Reuters/Reuters – U.S. President Barack Obama shakes hands with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during their meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, March 5, 2012. REUTERS/Jason Reed

by Jeffrey Heller, Reuters

Jerusalem (Reuters) – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces an even more awkward time with Washington and re-energized critics at home who accused him on Wednesday of backing the loser in the U.S. presidential election.

With Iran topping his conservative agenda, Netanyahu will have to contend with a strengthened second-term Democratic president after four years of frosty dealings with Barack Obama and a rift over how to curb Tehran’s nuclear program.

Facing his own re-election battle in January, polls give Netanyahu little chance of losing but perceptions that he has mishandled Israel’s main ally have been seized on by opponents.

“I will continue to work with President Obama to ensure the interests that are vital for the security of Israel’s citizens,” Netanyahu said in a short, congratulatory statement hailing what he called strong strategic relations with Washington.

But in remarks underscoring a rift with the United States over possible Israeli military action against Iran, Netanyahu said in an interview broadcast on Israel’s Channel 2 this week: “If there is no other way to stop Iran, Israel is ready to act.”

Relations between Netanyahu and Obama hit a new low two months ago after the Israeli leader said nations which failed to set “red lines” for Iran – which denies seeking atomic arms – did not have the “moral right” to stop Israel from attacking.

Such comments, along with financial backing for Republican candidate Mitt Romney from a U.S. casino magnate who is also one of Netanyahu’s biggest supporters, were seized upon by critics as evidence the Israeli leader was trying to undermine Obama.

Netanyahu denied he was interfering in U.S. politics.

But former Israeli ambassador to Washington, Sallai Meridor, suggested that Obama would not easily forget that Netanyahu had created a perception that Israel wanted Romney to defeat him.

Obama is “very strategic, very disciplined”, Meridor said during a panel discussion on the U.S. election at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv.

“But I don’t think we can just assume that what happened between them over past four years will have just evaporated,” he said. “When people fight for their political life and have the perception that their partner is trying to undermine their chances, it’s not going to disappear.”

One of the Israeli prime minister’s own leading coalition allies, Eli Yishai of the religious Shas party, said simply: “It’s not a very good morning for Netanyahu.”

PEACE TALKS

For the Palestinians, Obama’s win over Romney – who offended them by suggesting during a visit to Israel in July that cultural differences accounted for the weakness of their economy compared with Israel’s – stirred little emotion.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said in a statement he hopes Obama “continues his efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East”. U.S.-backed peace talks with Israel collapsed in 2010 over Israeli settlement building.

At the forum in Tel Aviv, Dan Shapiro, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, said it would be unrealistic to think Obama would choose to ignore the Palestinian issue in his second term.

“It always finds its way back onto the agenda. You can’t expect this to go away or remain on the back-burner,” he said, without offering a prediction of what Obama might do.

In the West Bank city of Ramallah, unemployed Narmeen Taha, 37, voiced hope that freedom from re-election pressure might make Obama readier to take the Palestinians’ side: “Maybe Obama, now that he doesn’t have to worry about re-election, will exert more pressure on Israel than during his first term.

“But I also don’t think we’ll see a sudden turnaround.”

Obama’s victory could complicate Netanyahu’s run in Israel’s January 22 national ballot, which opinion polls show he will win.

Former premier Ehud Olmert, who accuses Netanyahu of harming Israel’s “most vital interests”, was more likely to announce his candidacy now that Obama was returned to office, analysts said.

Olmert unsuccessfully pursued peace with the Palestinians before resigning in 2008 over corruption allegations. Should he run, Olmert is widely expected to seek to unite centrist and left-wing parties into a new bloc trumpeting slogans warning of four more years of acrimony between Netanyahu and Obama.

“Netanyahu bet on the wrong president and got us into hot water with Obama,” the opposition Kadima party said on Facebook.

In his message to Obama, however, Netanyahu adopted a phrase used lately by the president’s own supporters to describe strategic relations with Washington as “stronger than ever”.

(Additional reporting by Douglas Hamilton in Tel Aviv and Ali Sawafta, Noah Browning and Jihan Abdalla in Ramallah; Editing by Alastair Macdonald)

 
 

Tags: , ,

10 Ways Proposition 32 Would Hurt California

 

 

By: Matthew Fleischer

California Yard Sign

California’s Proposition 32 proposes outlawing the use of automatic payroll deductions from union members and corporations for political purposes. Backed by such labor-hating billionaires as the Koch Brothers, Charles Munger Jr., and by anti-marriage equality crusaders like Howard Ahmanson and Larry T. Smith, the measure will decimate unions’ ability to participate in the political process—stripping them of their considerable clout in the state. But that doesn’t mean Prop. 32 is purely about union-busting. Instead, the measure provides its wealthy backers with a means to an end — to eliminate organized labor as the most significant obstacle to imposing a corporate and fundamentalist religious agenda on an otherwise stalwart progressive state.

Prop. 32 isn’t an end game. It’s the beginning of a much larger conservative agenda for California. The only way to truly understand the potential impact of Prop. 32’s passage is to analyze the agenda of its backers.

Here are the 10 most dire issues California can look forward to if Prop. 32 is to pass this week.

1. Toxic Sludge – The Koch Brothers’ $4 million donation to support Prop. 32 is often portrayed as purely ideological. But the Kochs are not disinterested players in the state of California. They own the pulp paper processing company Georgia-Pacific, which has 11 facilities in California and has spent much of the past few years lobbying to gut provisions of California’s Green Chemistry Initiative–a 2008 law protecting California citizens from exposure to toxic industrial chemicals.

2. Global Warming, Here We Come – Prop. 32 backers despise California’s landmark climate change prevention statute, AB 32. The Koch brothers’ most conspicuous foray into California politics — prior to their Prop. 32 support – came in 2010, when the Koch Industries subsidiary, Flint Hills Resources, donated $1 million to support Proposition 23. Had voters ratified it, Prop. 23 would have overturned AB 32. Flint Hills didn’t chip in out of climate-change denial. The company has a substantial investment in Canadian tar sands oil, whose extraction and consumption creates a Sasquatch-sized carbon footprint. Robust clean emissions standards, Koch Industries complained on its website, “would cripple refiners that rely on heavy crude feedstocks.”

 

3. Offshore Drilling – With lessons of the BP spill two years in hindsight, the idea of offshore drilling in California has resurfaced. Koch Industries recently donated $5,000 to the Congressional campaign of Santa Barbara Republican Tony Strickland—who, in various campaigns over the years, has routinely advocated opening up waters off the coast of California to drilling.

Though they don’t yet appear to have their feet in the door financially, there’s no reason to doubt that, with their army of lobbyists at the ready and history of campaign contributions in the state, the Kochs wouldn’t maneuver to profit off of California’s offshore oil.

4. Bye-Bye Minimum Wage – Not only have Prop. 32 backers been deeply involved in efforts to obliterate living wage efforts in California, they even want to roll back the state’s modest minimum wage requirements. In 2006, Prop. 32 author Thomas Hiltachk and his law firm authored and pushed for the Fair Pay Workplace Flexibility Act. This progressive-sounding bit of legislation would have increased California’s minimum wage by a pittance – while eliminating overtime pay for many workers and freezing all future minimum wage raises without the consent of two-thirds of both houses of the California legislature.

5. School Vouchers – If there’s a unifying issue animating Prop. 32’s backers, it’s that nearly all want to shift public school money to private educational entities. By far the most radical is third-generation venture capitalist and “viral marketing” guru Timothy C. Draper–who thus far has given $100,000 to push Prop. 32. In 2000 Draper was the brains and the piggy bank behind Proposition 38–arguably the most extreme school voucher effort in recent American history.

6. Gay Conversion Therapy – Religious-right Prop. 32 billionaire backers Howard Ahmanson and Larry T. Smith are among the fiercest advocates in the country for gay conversion therapy for minors. Smith’s Family Action PAC helped lobby against SB 1172—the California legislative effort to ban gay-to-straight conversion therapy for minors — which passed in September. Smith fundamentally rejects the notion that parents forcing their underage children to endure conversion therapy could be psychologically harmful. On the contrary, he feels it’s a “parental right.”

Gut labor support for progressive candidates, and the Smiths of the world may have the resources they need to reverse SB 1172.

7. Will Make Prop 8 Will Look Like A Tea Party – California unions have been reliable supporters of marriage equality and LGBT rights. Unions donated nearly $3 million to fight Prop. 8 back in 2008. Should Prop. 32 pass, that support will be lost, and Prop. 8 backers Larry Smith, Howard Ahmanson and their compatriots will undoubtedly continue pushing their conservative religious, anti-gay agenda on the state of California and beyond.

“This is not just about California,” Courage Campaign founder Rick Jacobs told Frying Pan News. “Labor communities have been very supportive of LGBT rights in the workplace and in the political space. They are reliable allies. If 32 passes, California’s 2.5 million unionized workers won’t be able to contribute their money for political purposes out of state either. The next time there’s a fight in Washington over the Defense of Marriage Act, for instance, labor has less capacity to join us. California is a donor state. The whole chain is interrupted.”

8. Friends of the Minutemen – Prop. 32 backers have plenty of money to go around. This election cycle they’ve been funneling cash to the State Assembly campaign of Orange County Republican Allan Mansoor. Well before Arizona passed its anti-immigrant law SB 1070, then-mayor Mansoor authorized Costa Mesa police to run immigration checks on individuals suspected of crimes, as well as on unlicensed drivers. He even proposed authorizing local police to investigate federal immigration crimes. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, Mansoor has close ties to the xenophobic Minutemen.

Mansoor isn’t the only California politician with Minutemen connections receiving support from Prop. 32 backers. San Bernardino Republican State Assemblyman Tim Donnelly is the founder of his town’s Minutemen chapter. He also is leading the charge to repeal the Dream Act, which would allow high-achieving undocumented immigrants to access state scholarships for college.

9. The Poison Pill – Prop. 32 claims it will restrict union and corporate donations to individual candidates. But this provision of the bill seems to conflict with the recent Supreme Court Citizens United ruling. The Republican operative who authored the bill,Thomas Hiltachk, is no sloppy legal mind. One has to assume this conspicuous hole is intentional. Could it be that Prop. 32 was designed so that only a part of it could stand up to a constitutional challenge? Say, for instance, the one thing backers of Prop. 32 have historically been interested in—the end of union workers’ automatic payroll deductions?

“Prop. 32 has a separability clause,” says Alan Crowley, a labor lawyer with the legal firmWeinberg, Roger and Rosenfeld. “In theory, if a law is challenged, the parts that aren’t ruled illegal could go forward. Hypothetically that might be enforced.”

10. A Trojan Horse Onslaught – Prop. 32 is simply not what it says it is. It is a union-busting “paycheck protection” measure masquerading as campaign finance reform. This deception is intentional. In fact, it is the calling card of the political consulting outfit behind Prop. 32, the Dolphin Group. The firm has a history of launching “Trojan Horse” political campaigns in favor of Republicans and corporate interests, including starting Californians for Statewide Smoking Restrictions while working for Big Tobacco, and Coalition for a Sustainable Delta while working for farming interests trying to drain the Sacramento Delta dry. These Trojan Horse measures don’t have a very high success rate, as voters eventually catch on to the subterfuge. Should Prop. 32 pass, however, it will only embolden political consultants like the Dolphin Group to continue with their attempts to fool voters into voting against their interests.

(Hear Matthew Fleischer discuss Prop. 32 on the L.A. Redux podcast.)

Matthew Fleischer is an award-winning investigative journalist, a former LA Weekly staff writer, and an editor at FishbowlLA. This article is cross-posted from Frying Pan News‘ special investigative series on Proposition 32.

Photo by Quinn Dombrowski under a Creative Commons license on Flickr.

 
 

Tags:

Millennial Voters Refuse to Be Left Out of This Election

Aubrey Marks, left, helps a University of Central Florida student to register to vote in Orlando, Florida

SOURCE: AP/ John Raoux

Aubrey Marks, left, helps a University of Central Florida student to register to vote in Orlando, Florida

The Millennial generation is the largest (95 million compared to 78 million Baby Boomers), most diverse, andmost progressive in American history.

In 2008 many in this generation of 12- to 29-year-olds played a key role in deciding who would be the next president through support at the polls and mobilizing other voters to build support. This year, with 46 million potential voters, not only are Millennials now a full quarter of the voting-age American public, but they alsosurpass the 39-million-strong bloc of voters older than age 65.

While the Millennials may have gotten older over the past four years, they haven’t lost their passion for all the issues that brought them to the polls in 2008—and could again play a significant role this year.

As this generation continues to play a larger role in determining who is elected to lead our country and the issues on which our leaders focus, journalists and pundits are dedicating more column inches and air time to this group of Americans—but who they are and what motivates them can get lost in the noise.

For all the effort by the media to paint this generation with a single—and often unflattering—brush, one of the features that defines the generation more than anything else is how incredibly diverse it is—and how that informs so many of the decisions it makes and the issues it fights for. 2020 will be the first presidential election in which all Millennials will be of voting age. They will total about 90 million eligible voters, will comprise nearly 40 percent of the electorate, and nearly half (44 percent) will be people of color.

This paper will discuss the makeup of the Millennial generation, the issues it cares about, the challenges it faces, and the role it will play in leading the country in the decades ahead.

Millennial demographics

In addition to being the largest generation in American history, the Millennial generation is also the most racially and ethnically diverse. As more minorities enter the electorate, policymakers will be challenged to deliver progressive and inclusive policies to satisfy the needs of all their constituents—some of whom have felt the brunt of marginalization in the past.

In terms of race and ethnicity, the share of Millennials who are people of color is greater than any previous generation. A 2010 Pew report found that minorities made up nearly 40 percent of Millennials—a similar share to Generation Xers (ages 30 to 47)—but a higher percentage when compared to the 27 percent of people of color Baby Boomers (ages 48 to 66) and 20 percent of people of color Silents (ages 67 to 87). In 2012, 43 percent of voting-age Millennials are people of color (including 19 percent Hispanic, 14 percent black, and 5 percent Asian), while 60 percent are white. Further, by 2020—the first presidential election where all Millennials will have reached voting age—44 percent of voting-age Millennials will be people of color.

Perhaps one of the most significant projections about the demographics of the electorate, the Millennial generation, and the direction of our country in the decades ahead is that by 2050 those ages 65 and older are expected to have just reached the 40-percent-minority threshold that Millennials have already reached. Seniors have historically had higher voter-turnout rates than any other age group and accordingly have consistently been a group of voters with which candidates prioritize engaging (as seen by the time spent discussing Medicare). With Millennials now outnumbering seniors, however, the younger generation now has the potential to play a larger role at the polls.

According to research from the Center for Information and Research On Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University, Millennial voters are diverse in many more ways than race—a growing number of young people of color are identifying as gay* and transgender, and the majority of Millennials support expanding rights and equality for the gay and transgender community. Additionally, though more Millennials are unaffiliated with a religious tradition compared to previous generations, most still consider themselves religious and are finding new ways to define what that means for them as they embrace more progressive positions than previous generations.

Another key aspect of this age group is its social interaction, which plays a central role in the way it participates in politics. Millennials spend more time online than any other age group, and this colors their activism and the way that candidates and advocacy organizations engage them in discussion and debate. A full 75 percent of Millennials have created a profile on social networking sites, while only 50 percent of Generation Xers, 30 percent of Baby Boomers, and 6 percent of Silents have done the same. This is why both advertisers and political campaigns are increasingly turning to social media to reach Millennials.

Education

Higher education is becoming crucial for competing in today’s job market, and a growing number of Millennials understand the lifelong benefits of a college degree.More of them are earning college degrees, and nearly 80 percent still believe they can achieve the American Dream—but many of them know that it’s only possible through hard work and education.

While the cost of attaining a college degree has increasedsubstantially over the past three decades, Millennials remain the most educated generation in the country’s history. Pew recently reported that more than half (54 percent) of Millennials—when they were ages 18 to 28—had attained at least some college education. Each previous generation had lower levels of higher education, with 49 percent of Gen Xers, 36 percent of Boomers, 24 percent of the Silent generation obtaining at least some college education when they were those ages. Additionally, Millennials are also more likely to have completed high school and—similar to the generation before them—are continuing the trend of women outpacing men in graduating from or attending college.

But just as important as race, sexual orientation, education level, and social interaction are the beliefs and attitudes that Millenials hold about the major issues our country faces and the best ways to address them. We details these positions held by many Millennials below.

Attitudes and values

Social issues

The majority of Millennial voters hold progressive views on social issues. From supporting hard-working undocumented immigrants to touting equality for young gay and transgender Americans, this generation embraces a brand of politics that is inclusive and supportive—one that unifies and believes America is better when people work together.

Of the 21 core values and beliefs that a majority of young Americans said they support, only four were classified as conservative, according to research conducted by the Center for American Progress. Some of the key findings about Millennials’ values and beliefs include:

  • 64 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds say they support the DREAM Act, a bill to provide a pathway to legal status for eligible young people who were brought here as children and who complete high school and some college or military service
  • 84 percent agree that “We should do everything we can to make sure that people who want to use prescription birth control have affordable access to it and that cost is not an obstacle”
  • 62 percent of young people favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to get married

With the media so often portraying religion and progressivism as opposites, it’s important to note that for Millennials, this couldn’t be further from the truth. While fewer young Americans view their faith as the single path to salvation than do older generations, Millennials are more open to multiple ways of interpreting their religion. Three-quarters of young people said there’s more than one true way to interpret the teachings of their faith, according to aPew survey, compared with 67 percent of affiliated adults (ages 30 and older). For those who are young and religiously affiliated, for example, almost twice as many (65 percent) say that society should accept the gay and transgender community, compared to those in the Baby Boomer generation and older (35 percent).

These numbers reaffirm the widely held belief that young people are more progressive than older generations, especially when compared to the larger population. How much impact this has on public policy and the future of the country depends entirely upon how politically active and engaged Millennials are and how much political candidates and elected leaders engage with and respond to Millennials.

The core values shared by Millennials undoubtedly impacts the way they view government, particularly on issues such as abortion, contraceptives, same-sex marriage, and immigration—often considered wedge or “hot” button issues. But these progressive values don’t mean a strict allegiance to one party. Though Millennials have more confidence in the government’s ability to solve both social and economic issues, it also wants to see a more efficient and effective government that helps bring the solutions our country needs.

Economy and support for government

When compared to older generations, Millennials place more faith in the government to deal with the issues it cares about most, including the economy, higher-education reform, and income inequality. Research by the Center for American Progress, in a report titled “The Generation Gap on Government,” shows that Millennials are the generation most likely to reverse the trend of distrust in government—they actually want a strong government to handle the economy. More than 60 percent of Millennials, compared to just 46 percent of older voters, believe “we need a strong government to handle today’s complex economic problems.” Fifty percent of Millennials say government should do more to solve problems, while only one-third of non-Millennials share that view. And 44 percent of Millennials voice confidence in the federal government’s ability to solve problems—14 percent more than do older generations.

While it’s true that government can’t solve every problem, Millennials believe the government would be most effective at intervening in economic issues such as closing the wealth gap, bolstering the workforce, investing in education, and addressing soaring college costs:

  • 80 percent agree that “government investments in education, infrastructure, and science are necessary to ensure America’s long-term economic growth,” compared to 6 percent who disagree
  • 73 percent of college-age Millennials ages 18 to 24 agree that “the economic system in this country unfairly favors the wealthy”
  • 72 percent favor “increasing the tax rate on Americans earning more than $1 million a year”
  • 69 percent agree that “the government should do more to reduce the gap between rich and poor”
  • 75 percent of Millennials are more likely to call for increased government involvement in improving public schools, compared to 54 percent on non-Millennials.
  • 73 percent of Millennials are more supportive of governmental involvement in making college more affordable, in contrast to 56 percent of other segments of the population

A major part of why Millennials are more in favor of government than their older counterparts can be attributed to the shift in demographics—particularly a jump in young Hispanics, who typically favor government intervention. Since the current administration announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy—which will delay the deportation of DREAM Act-eligible youth and permit them to work legally in the United States—many mixed-status families have first-hand experience with the positive impact the government can have on a community. Elected officials, however, shouldn’t take Millennials’ progovernment stance for granted. Instead they should see Millennials’ view of government—as having a place in broadening people’s access to opportunity—as a chance to not only engage and mobilize but also to demonstrate that when young people make an investment in democracy, they get returns.

Engagement and activism

The ability of a generation to change the country and the policies it enacts is rooted in its political engagement and activism. As previously noted, one of the defining characteristics of Millennials is their diversity, with nearly one in two being people of color. It is because of this diversity that this generation will likely be the one to take up the torch of fighting for greater equality—for themselves and for other communities that have been historically marginalized and unable to pursue the opportunities that make the American Dream possible. Millennials will take up these fights using new forms of activism and organizing tools, with more and more of everyday life moves online, as we detail below.
Additionally, as seen above, Millennials are especially progressive on social issues and are particularly engaged and vocal on these issues. A recent study of first-year college students by the University of California, Los Angeles, found that:

  • 71.3 percent said they supported gay and lesbian couples’ right to get married. That’s a stark contrast with a poll from last fall of the general public that only showed 46 percent support for marriage equality.
  • 57 percent of students do not believe undocumented immigrants should be denied access to public education. Compared to a 2010 Gallup poll that showed support for the DREAM Act among voters older than age 34 as just more than half of those polled and still firmly divided along partisan lines, this result show increasing recognition and support for undocumented peers.
  • 60.7 percent of freshmen think abortion should be kept legal. This is an even clearer example of the difference between young people and general public, which has grown less supportive of a woman’s right to choose in recent years.

More than just highlighting the electoral potential of this demographic, the 2008 election showed how engaged young people are with their communities on issues that impact them. Nearly one in five Millennials are highly engaged in “service, community-change, and political activities,” according to a study by the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. The study, which looks at Millennials’ political and civic participation in 2008 and 2010, also found that 17.9 percent of Millennials were actively focused on the election and candidates, and were discussing politics frequently and voting on Election Day.

While Millennials are taking active roles in organizing and advocacy on a number of issues, there remains much untapped potential among these young Americans. But the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement study found that when you directly engage young people and ask them to participate, they do. In each new election cycle, more politicians are recognizing and acting on this fact. With 46 million young people ages 18 to 29 years old eligible to vote (compared to the 39 million seniors who are eligible to vote), it comes as no surprise that more politicians are pivoting toward this undermobilized demographic.

Aside from sheer volume—18- to 29-year-olds now make up 24 percent of the voting eligible population—much of the past four decades of presidential cycles has shown a tepid rise in youth turnout. From 1972 to 2000 the youth turnout rate declined by 16 percentage points, but the 2004 election marked the beginning of a comeback for youth participation, with turnout soaring by 11 percentage points. The trajectory has been ticking upward ever since.

  • 40 percent of young people ages 18 to 29 turned out in 2000, compared to 65 percent of those 30 and older
  • 49 percent of young people, compared to 68 percent of those 30 and older, turned out in 2004
  • 51 percent of young people turned out in 2008, marking the third-highest youth turnout rate since the voting age was lowered to 18

While youth turnout has nudged up, turnout among older voters has relatively flatlined.

Each of the past three presidential election cycles, more young people are casting votes, with 15 million casting their ballots in the 2000 general election and 20 million in the 2004 presidential election, a surge of more than 5 million. But it was the 2008 presidential election that really marked the turning point in youth participation: Out of 41 million eligible voters, 22.4 million showed up at the polls. While this was an increase of 2 million votes cast compared to 2004 and more than 6.5 million from 2000, the real impact was even larger, with so many—some too young to vote—playing an active role in get-out-the-vote efforts across the country. Additionally, each election cycle, Millennials have also made up more of the electorate: Approximately 14 percent of votes cast 2000 were by young people, and that number continued to climb in 2004 (16 percent) and 2008 (17 percent).

Even during midterm election season, when expectations are lowest for overall turnout, the trend for youth voter turnout actually remained relatively stable in the past three cycles, according to data from the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement:

  • 22 percent of young people turned out in 2002
  • 25 percent of young people voted 2006
  • 24 percent of Millennials (ages 18 to 29) turned out in 2010

One interesting figure that highlights the diversity of Millennials—specifically in the context of political participation—is that in 2010, as in 2008, young African Americans led the way in youth voter turnout. During the 2010 midterm elections, when turnout is typically far lower, young African Americans voted at a rate of 27.5 percent, compared to 24.9 percent of young whites, 17.7 percent of, and 17.6 of young Latinos. Turnout among white youth actually declined more than that of any other race or ethnicity between 2006 and 2010.

For all the pundits who would write off this generation and the role it will play in elections and the political process, Millennials are engaged in varied and sometime nontraditional ways. In fact, as many as three-quarters of young people cling on to various rungs of political engagement:

  • 21 percent of young people voted and were broadly engaged in the political process
  • 18 percent focused narrowly on political activism and voting
  • 14 percent registered to vote in 2010 but weren’t mobilized to hit the polls and led to other ladders of engagement
  • 13 percent intensely followed and commented on politics online but missed opportunities to vote or take direct action

The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement study found, however, that the remaining 23 percent of Millennials were not engaged at all, which presents a clear example of untapped potential for elected officials. This diversified approach to civic action demonstrates that young people are engaged but are in many ways undermobilized and just starting to appreciate their influence in political participation; many have simply been politically marginalized due to lack of education or privilege. The majority of young people who were alienated from politics only held a high school diploma, and notable majorities were people of color.

Diversity, consistent turnout, and growing voter eligibility mean Millennials are the best chance to make progress on the issues that will keep our country moving forward. But an investment in mobilizing the potential of this powerful voting bloc is key. The Millennial generation can be a powerful contender for the electorate if politicians seize opportunities to reaffirm young people’s belief in bigger and better government; work to close gaps in income, racial, and education disparities; and consistently engage in mobilizing around issues that matter most to young people. But politicians won’t succeed at driving young people to the polls if they fail to recognize one crucial element when it comes to civic engagement: Millennials do things differently.

For all the pessimistic predictions and dismissing of Millennials’ impact in this election, nearly 70 percent say it is extremely or very likely they will personally vote—up from about 60 percent in July. What’s more, 72.6 percent of young people believe they have the power to change things in this country. There should be no mistake: Millennials will play a critical role in deciding the outcome on November 6.

Conclusion

Plenty has been said and written in the weeks leading up to the election about whether Millennials will turn out to vote and which candidate they’ll be supporting. But little of that coverage takes a deeper look at what is motivating this generation and the many ways beyond voting that the generation is making a difference in its communities. Millennials face real challenges and understand that the future is uncertain, but as the most diverse and best-educated generation the country has ever seen, they are driven, confident, and ready to work for better policies and a more progressive society.

Anne Johnson is the Director of Campus Progress at the Center for American Progress.

*In this column, we use gay as an umbrella term for those who identify as gay, lesbian, and bisexual.

 
 

Tags: ,

Faith as Politics: The Religious Justification of Neglect

by Charles Gourgey, Ph.D.

It is not unusual today to find the language of religion mixed up with the language of politics. The Republican Party’s platform mentions God no less than 12 times, and Republicans have condemned Democrats for not mentioning God in theirs. Many Republican politicians do not hesitate to proclaim their Christian faith as a great motivator of their policies. So we have a right to expect that those policies will reflect godly values and honor the founder of the religion its adherents proclaim.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan insist that their tax proposals would not burden the middle class. However, the figures do not support this claim. According to the nonpartisan Urban–Brookings Tax Policy Center (Aug. 1, 2012), “A revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Gov. Romney has proposed … would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers.”

The great transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, resulting from our recent financial crisis, will continue.

In addition to more tax advantages for the wealthy at the expense of others, the Republican plan will further shred the social safety net by virtually dismantling Medicaid. It will shrink the program drastically, replacing the current system with block grants to the states. To make up for the shortfall, families who are already struggling will be charged part of the cost of their elderly loved ones’ care.

Medicare, too, would change beyond recognition. People would receive a fixed amount from the government to purchase their own plan. Called “premium support,” this is really a euphemism for “voucher.” These Medicare vouchers will not keep pace with rising health care costs, which traditionally outrun inflation. Medicare as we know it will come to an end. And once again, the burden will fall on the poor and middle class.

How do they justify this? Paul Ryan actually refers to his faith. In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network (April 10, 2012) Ryan stated: “A person’s faith is central to how they conduct themselves in public and in private. … To me, the principle of subsidiarity, which is really federalism, meaning government closest to the people governs best.”

Ryan found a nice word to theologize his economics. The principle of “subsidiarity” was formalized in 1891 by Pope Leo XIII, who in all likelihood never intended it to supersede the Gospel, or to justify a reverse-Robin Hood economics of taking from the poor to give to the rich. But Ryan sees dismantling the safety net for disadvantaged people as actually helping them, by teaching them “independence.” His “preferential option for the poor” means, in practice, cutting their benefits.

These positions are gaining popular support largely because they play on people’s fears and resentment. “If I am doing poorly in this economy,” one may be tempted to think, “it’s because there are so many lazy people who consume my tax dollars without giving anything back.”

But many of those who would suffer under Romney/Ryan economics are hard-working and do have jobs. I think of my friend who works long hours at a simple retail job that does not pay what her efforts deserve, and that gives her no health coverage. There are many like her. They work much harder than many who would judge them, including people who live off their investment income and don’t work at all. Yet under Romney/Ryan the latter would pay even lower taxes, while the rest would suffer more.

And many others, including older people on fixed incomes; people with severe disabilities (mental, physical, or both) who need government assistance; people who are homeless not by choice but due to mental illness; and people with dementia whose family members may give up their own lives and livelihoods to support them, cannot simply go out and get a job. Many are unskilled and unemployable. Age and disability discrimination are rampant, even though we deny it. Yet in spite of this we seem to have a new Republican Gospel: when Jesus said (Matthew 25:36) “I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me” he was encouraging dependence. Better he should have said, “I was naked, I was sick, and you told me to get a job.”

This is the politics of resentment, of stigmatizing the poor as parasites who deserve to lose their benefits. In an offhand moment, Romney said it all: These are people “who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.” This resentment is self-justifying: “I have mine, and if you don’t have yours, it’s your own fault. So lower my taxes.”

Those who practice this resentment seem not to mind that in the richest nation on Earth, millions of people go without health care. “Are there no emergency rooms?” they ask, much as old Scrooge asked “Are there no workhouses?” But emergency rooms only stabilize you until you can receive some other form of care – which you won’t if you lack insurance. If you have a chronic, degenerative disease, you are on your own. This inequality is criminal, but it is so easy to justify by playing on resentment.

This is the opposite of what Jesus stood for. So those who try to turn him into their political partisan may find themselves in for a shock. When we focus on what Jesus actually taught, we may be quite surprised that he does not share our party affiliation.

Charles Gourgey is a licensed creative arts therapist and author of Judeochristianity: The Meaning and Discovery of Faith (available at Amazon.com), which explores what faith can mean if we restore Jesus’s teachings to their rightful place of central importance.

 

Tags: ,

Mobilizing the Black Female Vote in 2012

Sisters are organizing, although the candidates may be taking them for granted

 

“It’s time for us to lead the way, because we voted in greater numbers than any other gender and race group last election, and we’ve got to do the same this year,” said Elsie Scott, president and CEO of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation at last month’s Annual Legislative Conference. The audience, mostly women of color, applauded and nodded in agreement. With the election about a month away, voters across the country, especially black women, are paying more attention than ever to the issues that matter to them.

During the 2008 election, 69 percent of black women who were qualified to vote went to the polls, which was a 5.1-point increase from the 2004 presidential election, according to a study of census data on 2008 voters by the Pew Hispanic Center. Although both candidates have released several ads, none have spoken directly to black women.

“I remember when President Obama campaigned last time, and I really felt like he was talking to me,” says Monica Jones, a Democrat. “I was really happy when he made his speech about black fathers, and as a single mother I could really relate. However, this time it doesn’t feel like he’s reaching out to me directly, but I do care about the same issues he does, such as healthcare and financial aid. I would love if the message were a bit more personal though. Perhaps it’s because he knows or thinks black women are going to vote for him no matter what.”

While both campaigns are focusing on issues for all Americans, the majority of outreach has been targeted to white male and Latino voters.

“I think the presidential and congressional candidates care about the issues important to black women as far as they are important to people in the nation as a whole,” said BET producer Angel Elliott, who runs the blogBlack & Political.  “There hasn’t been any targeted effort to court the black woman vote, no. We’re obviously not the vote to get in 2012. Candidates are focused on the Latino vote, because of its growing presence and power, and the independent vote, because it swings an election. But, even with that being said, it’s up to us to make sure that we vote for the candidate that most closely champions the rights and issues that are important to us, i.e. healthcare, early education, job creation, reformation of social programs, etc. Whoever that candidate is, vote for him.”

Although candidates may not be reaching out directly to black women, that hasn’t stopped many around the nation from canvassing and registering their peers to vote.

“I don’t think either Romney or Obama is speaking directly to me, but that still isn’t going to stop me from encouraging others to get out the word,” says Takiya Malocks. “It’s important that our votes as black women are protected. People died so that we could vote, I think we all forget the significance of that sometimes.”

Black women in Hollywood, including Keshia Knight Pulliam, Gabrielle Union and Alfre Woodard, are also spreading the message of the importance of black women voting. At the Annual Legislative Conference, actress Sheryl Lee Ralph said: “We’ve forgotten our mothers went to three jobs. They picked us up from school, put the macaroni and cheese on the table, got up and got somebody registered to vote.”

With the combination of Hollywood heavy hitters and everyday people who care about the issues, the importance of the black women vote will not go unnoticed in this year’s election.

“Black women should do what all concerned citizens should do: organize, organize, organize,” said Erica Williams, political analyst and social-impact entrepreneur. “Organizing isn’t just rallying folks to show up on November 6. It’s bringing people together to do what needs to be done, and win victories for themselves and their community. That means talking about the real issues facing our communities — not just jobs and the economy, and education, but also the topics no one wants to talk about: homelessness, HIV, and criminal justice. Contacting the campaigns — local and presidential — to get straight answers to the tough questions. Then, of course, registering our friends and families to vote. Make sure you’re aware of and spreading the word about voter ID laws and finally, showing up and showing out on Election Day. “

 
 

Tags: , ,

District Student Wins CBC Essay Contest

by drowley@washingtoninformer.com (WI Web Staff Report)
District Student Wins CBC Essay Contest

 

Sixteen-year-old Maya Wesby won the 2012 Congressional Black Caucus Spouses Essay Contest for her composition Defeating the Barriers of Physical Activity on childhood obesity. The Duke Ellington junior theater major was selected from a competitive field of more than two hundred submissions from across the country. This year’s theme focused on helping America’s youth move toward a healthier tomorrow.

An annual competition conducted by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Spouses, the CBC Essay Contest & Issues Forum is designed to encourage youth to share their opinions on important issues affecting society.

“We were delighted by the eloquence and passion that the students expressed on this important topic,” said CBC Spouses Chair Mereda Davis Johnson. “You make us proud to know that the future is bright.”

Maya’s essay is in keeping with first lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” initiative, which is dedicated to solving the problem of childhood obesity. In thinking through solutions to this problem, Maya posed several ideas to the CBC Issues Forum for consideration including: eliminating socioeconomic barriers to access to fitness facilities, reducing fees for sports camps, investing in parks and recreation centers, and establishing physical exercise as a habit during teen years.

“I was particularly impressed with Maya’s fresh ideas, expressed in her carefully researched and well-written essay on childhood obesity,” said D.C. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. “Maya is already showing she is fully ready to think through tough issues and even advise members of Congress on ways to grapple with them.”

Maya, an honor student at Duke Ellington School of the Arts and a native Washingtonian, lives with her parents in the District of Columbia.

 

Tags: ,

Speaking For The Race During The Presidential Race

Black pundits, personalities called upon to provide perspective in an industry still struggling for diversity

Of all the TV pundits spinning (or trashing) President Barack Obama’s debate performance Wednesday night, very few were African American.

That’s long been a problem for broadcast-journalism-diversity advocates, who not only want a more representative sample of media workers in front of (and behind) the camera, but also recently took issue with the Presidential Debate Commission’s decision not to select an African American moderator for any of the four election debates this month.

African American political junkies and debate watchers thus are left with a select few voices to deliver the perspective of an entire voting bloc.

Not all African Americans, however, are always impressed with the likes such voices as Roland Martin, Touré, or the Rev. Al Sharpton, on the left, or Crystal Wright or Juan Williams on the right.

“I doubt if anyone’s in front of their TV yelling, ‘Right on, Brother!’” said Damond Haynes, a veteran educator and instructor with New York City’s Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture.

Haynes has hosted events featuring some of the black faces regularly seen on cable TV news programs, and says most of them play it too safe to speak effectively to the issues of the African American community.

“I think it’s useful to have our issues singled out,” Haynes said. “All of these guys are cut from the same cloth, there’s really no alternative voice on expressing the many sides of our struggle.

“Touré is self-serving. Marc Lamont HIll is great, but very easy to digest. I don’t think America is interested in separating issues by race, so the pundits walk a thin line; always connecting our issues to the ‘bigger issue,’” Haynes said.

Whether or not such pundits speak for all African Americans, the National Association of Black Journalists has long cried foul with media executives, whom the group says have put less and less emphasis on diversity, even while naming high-profile blacks, like Sharpton, to anchor or host positions.

Earlier this year, NABJ released the results of its survey showing four consecutive years of declines in African American newsroom staffing. This decline results in less diversity in programming and exacerbates the likelihood that the same news producers will call the same faces of color, said NABJ vice president of broadcast Bob Butler.

“I think [the lack of diversity] is a combination of things,” said Butler, who noted how few African Americans were booked for coverage of the first presidential debate Wednesday. “When it comes to

finding the pundits or on air consultants, [producers] tend to call the same people. Groups like NABJ ask them to  increase their circle of consultants. You want to get a more diverse viewpoint.”

LIke every other pundit, African American voices took to Twitter to share their views on the first debate between Obama and GOP challenger Mitt Romney. Check out some of their tweets below and follow them yourself if you don’t already do so:

Please stop talking. RT @politico: Gore blames Obama debate performance on Denver’s altitude: politi.co/O7Ov5T

A number of folks coming up to me at this NY debate party, stating they are Obama supporters, NOT happy with his performance

History will vindicate Obama, as much of what Romney said tonight wasnt true. But make no mistake, Romney won this debate. Hands down.

@MittRomney shamed @BarackObamareminded us Obama spent more than all presidents combined+didn’t cut deficit in half blew it up by half.

Obama looks directly at the camera when delivering a pop to Romney that he wants people to pay attention to. 

 

 

Energized Obama tries to rebound after Wednesday’s debate

 

 

Ed Andrieski / AP

President Barack Obama waves as he arrives at a campaign rally in Denver, Thursday, Oct. 4, 2012.

By NBC’s Kristen Welker

DENVER — A fired-up President Barack Obama spoke to a crowd of more than 12,000 at a Denver campaign event Thursday and seemed to exude the energy and aggressiveness that many of his supporters felt was missing at last night’s presidential debate.

Trying to rebound from what many called a listless performance last night, Obama argued today that the Mitt Romney who appeared at the debate was not the “real Mitt Romney.
“When I got on stage, I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney,” he said. “But it couldn’t have been Mitt Romney, because the real Mitt Romney has been running around the country for the year, promising $5 trillion dollars in tax cuts that favor the wealthy. The fellow on stage last night didn’t seem to know anything about that.”

The president dedicated the first part of his speech to retroactively rebutting Romney’s debate talking points.

President Obama speaks to supporters in Denver, Colo., following the first debate of the 2012 presidential race.
Last night, Romney said his plans to trim the deficit wouldn’t mean teacher cuts: “I reject the idea that I don’t believe in great teachers or more teachers. Every school district, every state should make that decision on their own.”

Romney had the final word on the matter last night, but today Obama told his supporters: “The real Mitt Romney said we don’t need anymore teachers in our classrooms … But the fellow on stage last night, he loves teachers, can’t get enough of them.”

Last night, Obama also missed an opportunity to highlight his opponent’s personal tax records after Gov. Romney said, “I’ve been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you’re talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant … but the idea that you get a break for shipping jobs overseas is simply not the case.”

Today, Mr. Obama fired off this retort: “We know for sure it was not the real Mitt Romney because he seems to be doing just fine with his current accountant.”

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

President Barack Obama greets supporters during a campaign rally in Denver on Oct. 4, 2012.

And while Romney drew a lot of public criticism for suggesting his deficit reductions would include stripping federal funding for PBS — and by extension “Big Bird” — Obama did not challenge him on the point until today: “He said he’d eliminate funding for public television… I mean thank goodness someone is finally getting tough on ‘Big Bird.’ ”

The crowd responded to the president’s jabs with loud cheers, but for many the disappointment from the president’s debate performance had already set in.

Bruce Shaffer of Boulder told NBC News, “I wanted him to be more of a president and sound strong, sound confident and be more of the leader we need.”

 

Tags:

Electoral College Math: Does Your Vote Count?

By Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — When it comes to electing the president, not all votes are created equal. And chances are yours will count less than those of a select few.

For example, the vote of Dave Smith in Sheridan, Wyo., counts almost 3 1/2 times as much mathematically as those of his wife’s aunts in northeastern Ohio.

Why? Electoral College math.

A statistical analysis of the state-by-state voting-eligible population by The Associated Press shows that Wyoming has 139,000 eligible voters – those 18 and over, U.S. citizens and non-felons – for every presidential elector chosen in the state. In Ohio, it’s almost 476,000 per elector, and it’s nearly 478,000 in neighboring Pennsylvania.

But there’s mathematical weight and then there’s the reality of political power in a system where the president is decided not by the national popular vote but by an 18th century political compromise: the Electoral College.

Smith figures his vote in solid Republican Wyoming really doesn’t count that much because it’s a sure Mitt Romney state. The same could be said for ballots cast in solid Democratic states like New York or Vermont. In Ohio, one of the biggest battleground states, Smith’s relatives are bombarded with political ads. In Wyoming, Smith says, “the candidates don’t care about my vote because we only see election commercials from out-of-state TV stations.”

The nine battleground states where Romney and Barack Obama are spending a lot of time and money – Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina and Wisconsin – have 44.1 million people eligible to vote. That’s only 20.7 percent of the nation’s 212.6 million eligible voters. So nearly 4 of 5 eligible voters are pretty much being ignored by the two campaigns.

When you combine voter-to-elector comparisons and battleground state populations, there are clear winners and losers in the upcoming election.

More than half the nation’s eligible voters live in states that are losers in both categories. Their states are not closely contested and have above-average ratios of voters to electors. This is true for people in 14 states with 51 percent of the nation’s eligible voters: California, New York, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, Georgia, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Indiana, Tennessee, Missouri, Maryland, Louisiana and Kentucky. Their votes count the least.

The biggest winners in the system, those whose votes count the most, live in just four states: Colorado, New Hampshire, Iowa and Nevada. They have low voter-to-elector ratios and are in battleground states. Only 4 percent of the nation’s eligible voters – 1 in 25 – live in those states.

It’s all dictated by the U.S. Constitution, which set up the Electoral College. The number of electors each state gets depends on the size of its congressional delegation. Even the least populated states – like Wyoming – get a minimum of three, meaning more crowded states get less proportionally.

If the nation’s Electoral College votes were apportioned in a strict one-person, one-vote manner, each state would get one elector for every 395,000 eligible voters. Some 156 million voters live in the 20 states that have a larger ratio than that average: That’s 73 percent – nearly 3 out of 4.

And for most people, it’s even more unrepresentative. About 58 percent of the nation’s eligible voting population lives in states with voter-to-elector ratios three times as large as Wyoming’s. In other words, Dave Smith’s voting power is about equal to three of his wife’s aunts and uncles in Ohio, and most people in the nation are on the aunt-and-uncle side of that unbalanced equation.

“It’s a terrible system; it’s the most undemocratic way of electing a chief executive in the world, ” said Paul Finkelman, a law professor at Albany Law School who teaches this year at Duke University. “There’s no other electoral system in the world where the person with the most votes doesn’t win.”

The statistical analysis uses voter eligibility figures for 2010 calculated by political science professor Michael McDonald at George Mason University. McDonald is a leader in the field of voter turnout.

Former Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming defends the Electoral College system for protecting small states in elections, which otherwise might be overrun by big city campaigning: “Once you get rid of the Electoral College, the election will be conducted in New York and San Francisco.”

Sure it gives small states more power, but at what price? asks Douglas Amy, a political science professor at Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts: “This clearly violates that basic democratic principle of one person, one vote. Indeed, many constitutional scholars point out that this unfair arrangement would almost certainly be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on those grounds if it were not actually in the Constitution.”

Article 2 of the Constitution says presidents are voted on by electors (it doesn’t mention the word college) with each state having a number equal to its U.S. senators and representatives. While representatives are allocated among the states proportional by population, senators are not. Every state gets two. So Wyoming has 0.2 percent of the nation’s voting-eligible population but almost 0.6 percent of the Electoral College. And since the number of electors is limited to 538, some states get less proportionately.

Adding to this, most states have an all-or-nothing approach to the Electoral College. A candidate can win a state by just a handful of votes but get all the electors. That happened in 2000, when George W. Bush, after much dispute, won Florida by 537 votes out of about 6 million and got all 27 electoral votes. He won the presidential election but lost the national popular vote that year.

That election led some states to sign a compact promising to give their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. But that compact would go into effect only if and when states with the 270 majority of electoral votes signed on. So far nine states with 132 electoral votes have signed, all predominantly Democratic states.

Because of the 2000 election, conservatives and Republicans tend to feel that changing the Electoral College would hurt them, George Mason’s McDonald said, and after their big victories in 2010, the popular vote compact movement stalled. But that analysis may not necessarily be true, he added. McDonald said before recent opinion polls started to break for Obama there seemed to be a possibility that he could win the electoral vote and lose the popular vote because of weak turnout – but still enough to win – in traditionally Democratic states like New York and California.

Former Stanford University computer scientist John Koza, who heads National Popular Vote, which is behind the electoral reform compact, said Democrat John Kerry would have won the Electoral College in 2004 while Republican Bush won the popular vote, if only 60,000 Bush votes in Ohio had changed to Kerry votes.

History shows that candidates have won the presidency but not the popular vote four times, and in each case it was the Democrat who got the most votes but lost the presidency: 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000.

The Associated Press analysis suggests that in this year’s election, the current system seems to benefit Romney. The AP re-apportioned electoral votes based on voting-eligible population and not congressional delegations, so that, for example, Wyoming and the District of Columbia would have only one elector instead of three, and California would have 58 instead of 55.

Based on polling, states strongly in the Romney camp have 191 electoral votes in the current system but would have only 178 if the electoral votes were allocated based on voting-eligible population. Based on similar polling, Obama would benefit by about five electoral votes if electors were apportioned by that population. The nine battleground states would gain even more sway, jumping from 110 electoral votes to 118.

That would compound the perceived problem of a shrinking number of battleground states being all that mattered in the election, leaving the overwhelming majority of states standing around as “spectator states,” Koza said.

John McGinnis, a professor of constitutional law at Northwestern University, defends the current Electoral College, arguing that while the mathematics of electoral proportionate calculations is correct, the conclusion that it over-represents small states is not. Larger states still have more sway because they have more electoral votes, he said.

Further, the historical agreement to give each state two senators regardless of their population and to base electoral votes on congressional delegation rather than population “was an essential compromise” when framers were drafting the Constitution, McGinnis said. Without that compromise, there might not have been a Constitution or nation, he said.

But Finkelman said his reading of history is that the compromise wasn’t about power between small and large states as much as it was about power of slave-holding states. He said James Madison wanted direct popular election of the president, but because African-American slaves wouldn’t count, that would give more power to the North. So the framers came up with a compromise to count each slave as three-fifths of a person for representation in Congress and presidential elections, he said.

Electoral College supporter McGinnis said the emphasis on battleground states is actually good because they are representative of the country. But he acknowledges as an Illinois resident, “I realize when I vote here it’s completely irrelevant.”

 

Tags: , , ,

The Other Believers: Patricia Gore, a black Scientologist

By Erin Williams

What is it like to be an African American who doesn’t praise Jesus Christ or Allah? Or one who doesn’t ascribe to a denomination of Christianity, such as Baptist, Methodist or Pentecostal, that’s part of a historically black church?
Patricia Gore applies Scientology teachings to her daily life. (Marlon Correa – WASHINGTON POST)

2009 Pew Research analysisfound that 59 percent of African Americans were members of black Protestant churches, but there were others — many others — who fell into the category of “Other.” Five out of the 59 percent were grouped as an Other Historically Black Protestant. Two out of 15 percent of black Episcopalian Protestants fell into the category of Other. Then there are Buddhists, Scientologists and yes, atheists, who fall into their own realm of Other. They ascribe to a way of life or belief system that is outside the mainstream of religions often followed by African Americans.

What are the others like? How do they fit into a society that skews to mainstream Christians, and a culture in which so many black gatherings start or end with a gospel brunch, prayer breakfast or Christian church service?

In The Other Believers, we spoke with five African Americans about their lives outside of mainstream historically black religions. Here are their stories.

Patricia Gore, 63, is the director of community relations for the Washington Church of Scientology. She has been a member for nearly 30 years. Her story is below:

“I guess I consider myself a Christian Scientologist. A friend of mine introduced me to Scientology. I had been looking for answers that could help me in a more practical way. When he told me about Scientology, I thought, “Hmm.” I remember him telling me that the word [Scientology] meant “knowing how to know.” And I thought, ‘If you know how to know, instead of guessing at how to know, instead of thinking you might know and not know, but you know how to know, that could be pretty amazing.” I actually picked up the phone and called and said, “Where are you located? Could I come in and see what you guys do?” And they said, “Sure, come on in,” and I did.

I think, initially, just the reception was pretty nice, and I appreciated that the people were warm and they were friendly. I had been growing up in a Christian background, and I told them that, and I never heard them say anything negative about that or try to tell me I should be something else, which made me sort of put down some of my walls. They showed me some of their information, and they said, “You might want to do a course. What are you trying to figure out?” And at the time, I was very much the head of the family. My mother had some mental illnesses, and my dad was not there, so I ended up pretty much taking care of my mom and my four younger sisters, which was a big job for me. And I needed some help.

I wasn’t quite sure how to help my mom. I wasn’t quite sure how to help my sisters. I wasn’t quite sure how to keep the family going and everybody happy and the income in. I was trying to get some answers that I didn’t have, and I think someone suggested a course that might be beneficial, and I thought “Sure.”

Scientology is an applied religious philosophy, so it’s ‘How do you use this in your daily life?’ It’s not a belief system. There were things I could do, and after I started doing it, I could see the results. I think I was a little bit taken aback by the fact that there were so many white people, and so few black people, as I saw it. I still had my antennas up just to see how this could relate to me. I kept looking for [racism], and I kept expecting it … but I didn’t [experience it], and that was kind of weird ’cause I grew up with it, and here were these happy people that were treating me very, very nicely, and I was like ‘Okay, what do they want? They’re still being nice to me…’ So it was pretty cool…

I think it was maybe a year or two when I considered ‘Wow, this is really what I’ve been looking for, and I want to continue to study more and more and more of this, and maybe this is a religion I’ll hang out with for the rest of this lifetime.’ My mother has done some courses or services here. I have two kids, and they’ve done a lot of courses and services, one of my sisters. But they don’t consider that they are Scientologists. They’re Christians, and they use some of the tools that we have in their lives.

I don’t think they ever once asked me how come you’re not gonna be just only a Christian anymore, because I think that the bottom line was I was doing well, and they loved me, and they’re family, so they wanted that to happen. And I never once tried to tell them, ‘You should not be a Christian. You should be only a Scientologist.’ I believe that truth exists where it does, and has no owner, and you hear truth in Christianity and Buddhism and Islam and Scientology. You get it where you want it and where it works best for you.

Some [black people] go, ‘Ooh, tell me what that is!’ I had a very high-level official one time say, ‘Girl, I didn’t know they had blacks in Scientology. Come here and talk to me,’ or I have people go, ‘Why would you want to do that?’ We’re a very open organization. We want people to find out about us.

Get a book … find out for yourself. You can come and do a course. You can come to the information center, day in, day out. We are into helping people, and we do a very, very good job at it. We have very sophisticated tools and technology and we have a very caring group of people that work very hard to help people. Come see for yourself, and then decide.

 

Tags: , ,

Black women rally against voter ID laws

By SUZANNE GAMBOA
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) – Deidra Reese isn’t waiting for people to come to her to find out whether they are registered to vote.

With iPad in hand, Reese is going to community centers, homes and churches in nine Ohio cities, looking up registrations to make sure voters have proper ID and everything else they need to cast ballots on Election Day.

“We are not going to give back one single inch. We have fought too long and too hard,” said Reese, 45, coordinator of the Columbus-based Ohio Unity Coalition, an affiliate of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation.

Reese is part of a cadre of black women engaged in a revived wave of voting rights advocacy four years after the historic election of the nation’s first black president. Provoked by voting law changes in various states, they have decided to help voters navigate the system – a fitting role, they say, given that black women had the highest turnout of any group of voters in 2008.

“We’ve forgotten our mothers went to three jobs, picked us up from school, put the macaroni and cheese on the table, got up and got somebody registered to vote,” said actress Sheryl Lee Ralph, one of several women who participated in a strategy session this week during the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s annual legislative conference in the nation’s capital. Ralph is married to Pennsylvania state Sen. Vincent Hughes.

The political and financial power of black women is one of the themes of this year’s four-day event. It will culminate Saturday with a keynote speech from one of the most visible black women in America, first lady Michelle Obama.

“It’s time for us to lead the way because we voted in greater numbers than any other gender and race group last election, and we got to do the same this year,” said Elsie Scott, president and CEO of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation.

Turnout among women of all races is generally higher than for men. In 2008, about 69 percent of eligible black female voters went to the polls, an increase of 5.1 percentage points over 2004, according to a study of census data on 2008 voters by the Pew Hispanic Center. That compares with 66.1 percent of white women.

African-American women, who number about 20 million in the U.S., have long been the largest group of Democratic voters in the country, said David Bositis, senior research associate with the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

In a room at the Washington Convention Center on Wednesday, the sense of urgency among the women was palpable. They noted that voter registration deadlines in some states are as early as Oct. 6, the last of them on Oct. 16. Few attendees accepted the argument that the new voting laws were intended to fight fraud, as supporters of those laws maintain.

Judith Browne-Dianis, co-director of The Advancement Project, said black women showed in 2008 they can turn out in record numbers. But in 2010, “we sat home and while we were sitting at home, there were others that were plotting and what they decided to do was to change the rules of the game.”

The women invoke the name of abolitionist and women’s suffragist Sojourner Truth, and repeat civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer’s famous line – “I am sick and tired of being sick and tired” – as a rallying cry. They talk strategy about checking to see who’s been purged from voter rolls or locating documents that voters need to get photo identification. All along, they remind voters of the time, before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 became law, when black people were kept from voting.

Barbara Arnwine, executive director of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said a voter hotline set up by several groups already gets a thousand calls a day. Callers are typically people who don’t know if they can vote, whether their felony conviction keeps them from voting or what ID is required in their state, if at all.

Her organization has created a computer app that allows people to verify their registration status, get help registering online, learn about voting requirements in their state, find polling places and receive other assistance.

___

Online: National Coalition on Black Civic Participation: http://www.ncbcp.org

Election Protection: http://www.866ourvote.org

 
 

Tags: ,

Black Chamber of Commerce seeks to empower voters through debates

The Delmarva Black Chamber of Commerce wants African American voters in Delaware to make the most informed decisions possible when it comes to the General Election on Nov. 6.

If politics is about the allocation of resources, then the black community needs to be more selective in whom it selects as its representatives, Delmarva Black Chamber of Commerce President Clay Hammond said.

To that end, the chamber has scheduled it first debate for Wednesday night with candidates for Delaware’s open U.S. Senate seat this election, Hammond said.

Republican Kevin Wade, Independent Party of Delaware candidate Alex Pires and Green Party candidate Andrew Groff have confirmed their participation, but Democratic incumbent Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) cannot attend due to a scheduling conflict, he said.

Carper’s pending absence is disappointing, Hammond said. But that will not detract from the overall goal of the debates, he said.

“The African American community needs to understand that we don’t have permanent allies, just permanent issues,” Hammond said. “We’re having this to help people understand where the candidates stand on the issues that are important in our community — the tremendous disparities, whether they are health, economic or educational.

“Usually, when you have a debate you have to extrapolate what’s important to you out of the whole general message,” he said.

When asked if the Black Chamber was advocating for a shift away from traditional, Democratic voting patterns amongst blacks, Hammond said that was not the case.

“We just need to look at what their platforms are,” he said. “We’re not going in with any foregone conclusions about who’s better or who’s best. We’re just letting this be a forum in which people can make their own decisions.”

For instance, gone are the days when party-backed candidates had the edge in elections, Hammond said. Individual voters nowadays look at the issues important to them, not traditional, party machine politics.

“We just want to hear how they respond to issues that relate to us,” Hammond said. “We think that’s the most intelligent way to do it rather than campaign literature or asking questions only to have them give the scripted answers.”

Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority, Delta Sigma Theta sorority, Omega Psi Phi fraternity, the Alpha Psi Phi fraternity, the Delaware Disadvantaged Black Farmers and the NAACP are co-sponsors of the debates, Hammond and fellow organizer Bobby Wilson said. Co-sponsors were solicited to bring a wide-ranging view of the black community to the political debates, they said.

Hammond and Wilson, a Delmarva Black Chamber of Commerce board member, are unsure as to who will moderate Wednesday night’s debate, although they have a few candidates in mind.

In the future, the Black Chamber of Commerce plans to hold debates for the U.S. House of Representatives, governor and, possibly, lieutenant governor.

“Our community is in significant need of a lot of resources,” Hammond said. “Understand that the nature of government is to serve its constituents. What makes African Americans mad in this state? I mean, if your child receives a certificate of attendance after 12 years public school, wouldn’t you be mad?”

All are welcome to attend, particularly since economic woes tend to be more universal in nature these days, Hammond said.

 
 

Tags: ,

Romney Black Outreach: Thin, Hollow, Political Scholars Say

by Zenitha Prince
Special to the AFRO
  • Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla. (AP Photo/David Goldman)

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s outreach to African-American voters is half-hearted at best and, at worse, a ploy to appeal to White voters, Black political experts say.

“This is one of the least visible outreach efforts of any Republican campaign,” said Lorenzo Morris, chair of the political science department at Howard University.

Jason Johnson, a political analyst from Hiram College in Ohio, added that the Republican candidate’s efforts among the Black electorate is geared toward reducing the negative impact that significant Black turnout would have on his chances of winning the White House.

“Mitt Romney does not really have any interest in Black voters [nor is he] spending much time and money wooing [them] because he knows it’s not a winning proposition,” Johnson said.

The Romney campaign’s true focus is on “high turnout among Republican voters, getting moderates and Independents who are upset about the economy and African-American and Latino voters not turning out because of voter ID laws,” the African American analyst added.

In the lead-up to the party conventions in late August, an {NBC/Wall Street Journal} poll revealed that the Republican presidential candidate had zero support among Blacks. About one month before, he was booed while addressing the NAACP convention—though the campaign later released a video edited to make it seem that he received a warm welcome.

“This lack of support among African-American voters does not necessarily equal his not being committed to African Americans,” argued Linda Lee Tarver, who is Black and the ethnic vice chair of the Michigan Republican Party. “The lack of support is primarily because we have a Black president” who is a Democrat.

Still, in what may be an attempt to make inroads into this intractably-Democratic voting bloc, the campaign has since launched a group called the Black Leadership Council, which features Black Republican standouts such as former Rep. Artur Davis, an Alabama Democrat-turned-Republican, Utah congressional candidate Mia Love and Reps. Tim Scott (S.C.) and Allen West (Fla.).

The council provides an opportunity for Black leaders to offer feedback to the campaign on issues impacting African-American communities, officials said.

“I am proud to have the endorsements of so many leaders in the Black community,” said Romney in a statement. “They know all too well that the economic downturn that has continued to hammer our country has been even more devastating for Black Americans. Together, we will work to end that downturn, and we will not rest until all Americans have the jobs they need, the quality education they are owed, and the opportunities they deserve.”

Morris, the political analyst from Howard, said the move was designed to paint the campaign as inclusive in the eyes of White voters.

“You have to be able to show some degree of viability with the larger electorate, in that you have to show some evidence that you have the capability of attracting and maintaining minorities to your campaign,” Morris said.

Tarver, who sits on the Council, supported the measure as a “necessary” and “timely” tool that demonstrated Romney’s dedication to the Black community.

“Mitt Romney wants to give us his ear and a seat at the table to discuss the issues that affect our communities. And to be able to have a direct line to the campaign is great. It ensures we have a voice in this campaign,” she said.

Not only has the GOP candidate given Black leaders an ear, but he will do for the Black community what President Obama failed to do in the past four years, Tarver added.

“We need a leader at the national level who will put aside politics to do what’s right for African Americans. “The president is too polarizing and too far to the left to help the people who support him,” she said.

“There have been no (positive) changes in our condition since he’s been president,” Tarver added. “I have two college-age children who thought that hope and change was coming and it hasn’t…. He’s definitely failed us.”

 
 

Tags:

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 89 other followers

%d bloggers like this: